Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 3 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, due to the gravity of the situation that has brought us back to the House, I would suggest that we move directly to the introduction of bills.

Mr. Speaker: Is it agreed that we do so move directly to the introduction of bills?

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, since the hon. House leader is suggesting that we forego question period, we in the Liberal caucus, recognizing the importance of the situation and the fact that we want to deal with the matter without further delay, are prepared to forego the question period today.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, you have our concurrence as well.

Mr. Speaker: I would therefore call the item of business introduction of bills.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION LABOUR DISPUTES SETTLEMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting Labour Disputes between the Toronto Transit Commission and Division 113, Amalgamated Transit Union, Lodge 235, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local No. 2.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the motion carry?

Mr. Lewis: No. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I may, can we have from the House leader or the Premier any indication of how the debate will move procedurally?

There has been an effort to give us some time between first and second reading, and we consider that rather important.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the way in which the opposition is assisting in dealing with this very difficult matter.

In discussions I think it was determined, Mr. Speaker, with the concurrence of the House, that after the bills are introduced, the Minister of Labour making a brief statement of explanation, the House leader would move adjournment of the House for one hour to give the various members an opportunity to assess the contents of the bill.

If you agree, Mr. Speaker, we would resume at approximately 4:10 or 4:12 and move then into second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: With this explanation, then, is it the pleasure of the House that the motion for first reading carry?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Those in favour of first reading of the bill will please say “aye.”

Those opposed to first reading of the bill will please say “aye” -- please say “nay.”

Mr. Lewis: You should try that again, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: I have been on vacation.

Those in favour of first reading of the bill will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the legislation which I have presented is designed to end the work stoppage of the Toronto Transit Commission employees and to establish machinery for resolving issues that are still in dispute.

Certainly, in the public interest, the time has arrived to restore transportation services for the more than two million citizens of Metropolitan Toronto and for the many others in other parts of the province who rely on the Gray Coach Lines.

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that this action must be taken only after anxious consideration. The employees affected by this bill are engaged in a legal strike. Only twice before in the last 14 years has the Legislature of this province met to terminate legal work stoppages.

Clearly this government believes that it is preferable for collective agreements to be arrived at through direct bargaining between the interested parties, assisted where necessary by professional conciliators and media- tors from the Ministry of Labour.

The ministry’s staff devoted countless hours and days, both before and after the strike, to trying to bring about a negotiated settlement. In that period some 135 issues in dispute were resolved, leaving -- I might say here Mr. Speaker, that my notes read “14 items to be finally determined;” I am now pleased to tell the House that nine items are to be finally determined. The senior staff of the ministry, including the minister, devoted major portions of their time to this matter in the last few days.

This week it became clear that a complete settlement was not in sight. Yesterday’s membership meeting confirmed this. I place no blame on either side for the present state of affairs. From my meetings with each side I have been impressed by the sincerity of opinions expressed and I’m satisfied --

Mr. Lewis: What sincerity on the part of Karl Mallette and company!

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

I must point out to the visitors in the gallery that they are here as our guests. We are pleased to have them here to observe the proceedings in the chambers, in particular in connection with this particular bill. I must point out to them, though, that they are our guests and they must observe the rules that apply to those people who are permitted to have seats in the chambers.

Those rules do not provide for any applause, any laughter, any noise, any interruptions or demonstrations of any kind. I’m sure the guests today are all reasonable people and will observe the rules that apply to every other visitor in this chamber. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have suggested that I have been satisfied with the sincerity of opinions expressed and believe each party has taken a position that is in the interests of the persons it represents; that is, the union members, the travelling public and the taxpayers.

But the time has come, regrettably, for this Legislature to intervene on behalf of all those affected by this dispute. The Premier, who has given many hours of his time toward trying to achieve settlement, spoke yesterday of the hardship to the elderly.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Why doesn’t the government pass the GAINS benefits on to them?

Mr. Lewis: Let the government do something about inflation if it is worried about the elderly.

Mr. Martel: It might pass the federal money on.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: On Tuesday, thousands of school children will require public transport in order to continue their studies. Some 8,000 separate school children rely on the Toronto Transit Commission to get to school. Many others, especially in the secondary schools, have those same requirements.

Members will recognize that many of the provisions of the bill are the same as those used on the two previous occasions that the Legislature has taken similar action.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): It’s getting easier all the time.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Why doesn’t the government pass an omnibus bill since it believes in this?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The bill provides for employees to return to work in accordance with established procedures. If the bill is passed promptly, employees can resume work tomorrow in accordance with the same schedules which were in force when the strike commenced.

This bill provides for a 12 per cent salary increase to all affected employees, retroactive to July 1, 1974, in the case of some 5,800 members of the Amalgamated Transit Union and retroactive to April 1, 1974, in the case of machinists and electricians represented by the International Association of Machinists and the Canadian Union of Public Employees respectively.

Mr. Speaker, now that this action has proved necessary, I urge the House to give this bill prompt consideration in order that the normal transit operations and the municipal and provincial economy affected by them can be restored as quickly as possible.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ACT

Mr. R. F. Nixon moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide for the calling of a by-election when the Legislature is in session but is not sitting. It removes from the present legislation the anachronism which has left the constituency of Stormont unrepresented since the resignation of the former Minister of Labour.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: We had one too.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes. I’ll bet the member which one is called first.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Be careful of that. He might lose the bet.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: I haven’t been paid my bet yet; my $10, by the Treasurer (Mr. White).

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We will have a look at it.

An hon. member: Do members want an explanation?

Mr. Lewis: Just give us the date.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, in explanation -- which explanation, I might say, is very similar to the one given by the Leader of the Opposition --

An hon. member: Same bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- I was aware, Mr. Speaker, that that bill was coming forward from the official opposition. Also, the official opposition was aware that we had a bill printed to bring forward.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: So that’s the explanation.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: So, inasmuch as he may have scooped me somewhat today, I must explain to the House that our bill will be called today; his could not be called until some months hence.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, perhaps he might scoop not only the House but the people of Stormont and tell us when the by-election would be held?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, that is not my prerogative.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is there anybody here who knows?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, perhaps on a point of order, I wonder if the House leader could tell us, if we were prepared to give unanimous consent, if this bill as well could get three readings today?

Mr. Speaker: I regret that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Singer: Well, it’s a good question anyway.

Mr. Speaker: Do I understand that there will be a motion to adjourn?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I move that the House do now adjourn until 4:18.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Can the House leader advise us if it is the intention of the government to proceed, pursuant to rule 45, with respect to the obtaining of unanimous consent for bills to be printed and on the order paper, or just what the procedure will otherwise be?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, when we return to the House, I think the hon, members’ fears will be quelled.

Mr. Breithaupt: I have no fear.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, well they will be here.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Mr. Speaker, speaking to that point of order, is it untoward to respond to the House leader of the Liberal Party?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Not at all.

Mr. Bullbrook: Well, through you, Mr. Speaker, would the House leader advise us, does he intend to ask for unanimous consent to approach second reading? That’s all the question was.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, we have that consent now and we will proceed when we return to the House.

Mr. Bullbrook: Do I assume the House leader, Mr. Speaker, is saying that he now has unanimous consent to proceed to second reading?

Mr. Breithaupt: Without asking for it.

Mr. Bullbrook: He has it already? When was it asked for? I must have been asleep at the time. When was it asked for, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Breithaupt: It wasn’t asked for.

Mr. Singer: It wasn’t asked for at all.

Mr. Bullbrook: How could he get it yesterday? We weren’t in session.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that I should inject my words into this crossfire. However, I am sure that the hon. members will know that unanimous consent was not given in this House.

Mr. Bullbrook: I guess not.

Mr. Speaker: I do believe that there have been some informal consents arranged.

An hon. member: We don’t need them.

Mr. Speaker: I’m not certain about it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

An hon. member: They don’t even know what the House leader is doing.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): The member should ask his leader.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I am informed that the hon. House leader had intimated to the House that we would proceed after we came back in one hour and that agreements had been given for that.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): What with?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the House doesn’t work by intimation.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the point of order. May I, on my own point of order, put it that the House leader of the Liberal Party truly, through you, put to the House leader for the government the question, “May I assume that we are going to proceed further and that you’re going to ask for unanimous consent?” This required a “yes” or “no,” that’s all. “Yes” I take it is yes.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That is absolutely correct.

Mr. Bullbrook: All right. Good. That is all we wanted to know.

An hon. member: Except we didn’t know.

Mr. Speaker: That is agreed then.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 3:20 o’clock, p.m.

The House met at 4:20 o’clock, p.m.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before we proceed with the business at hand I would like to call to your attention, sir, that since we adjourned just an hour ago, order paper 77 mysteriously disappeared and order paper 77(a) took its place. Now, this is the way that someone in the administration conceived of getting around the requirements of getting unanimous consent, because they can say, in fact, that they have an order paper on which second reading of the bill is listed.

I would simply like to express my objection in this regard. The opposition has little enough opportunity to have an input into the business of the House. We had indicated quite clearly and privately that we were going to give unanimous consent, and in my opinion if it had not been forthcoming it would have been good reason to adjourn the House and come back again another day to complete this bill.

I am just putting to you, sir, that this establishes a precedent which we in the opposition do not accept and we hope that you will give it your personal and immediate attention.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: If I may speak to that, I think I can understand very clearly what the hon. member is saying. We simply took this course because we thought it was proper in the light of the procedure for today, and there is no prohibition against it.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): It is definitely not proper.

Mr. Singer: May I address myself to the point of order?

Mr. Deans: In a moment.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve had a lot of difficulty over the last two or three years with this very matter. We had a debate in the House over the procedures of the House, relating to unanimous consent and the procedure of a bill through the House through a number of stages in the same sitting.

I don’t know where the government gets off producing two order papers for the same sitting of the same day. I am not at all sure that the government is in a position to bring forward two order papers for the same sitting.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Bullbrook: It didn’t have to do it anyway.

Mr. Deans: There was one order paper already provided today showing today’s business. What was required was that the House leader simply ask for the unanimous consent of the House in order to proceed with this legislation. I don’t think the government has the power to alter the order paper once the order paper is in the process of being dealt with.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): It is just ridiculous for the government to have this kind of procedure.

Mr. Bullbrook: It didn’t have to do it.

Mr. Renwick: It just caused itself immense trouble.

Mr. Singer: I think this manoeuvre -- and I call it deliberately a manoeuvre -- is an arrant abuse of the privileges of this House. I think, sir, it is too cute by half. I think someone is trying to play games with us. Even though there is nothing in the rule book that says this cannot be done, this kind of procedure, if accepted by you, sir, would allow the government to change the orders of the day at any time during any sitting of the House; to order anything it wants; to get around the rule that was deliberately and conscientiously and logically put there, which allows for delay in the event we do not have a bill before us. I think the people responsible for it should be highly condemned.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It should be withdrawn.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Withdraw it.

Mr. Singer: It is quite obvious from the remarks of the leader of the House that he was one of the connivers; and that this order paper should be withdrawn and that we should resort to the original order paper.

It is fascinating to note, Mr. Speaker, on the way by, that Bill 119 is listed on this new order paper and a second bill, shown as Bill 120, introduced by the House leader, is shown -- that’s the one to amend the Legislative Assembly Act -- but further, fascinatingly, it does not indicate any reference to the bill introduced by my leader in priority to the bill, which should be there.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It should have been there.

Mr. Singer: Yes, it should have been there. I say, sir, that is an arrant abuse of the procedures and privileges of this House --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Singer: You should order, sir, that this order paper so-called, the phoney 77(a), should be withdrawn now and we should revert to 77.

Mr. Bullbrook: Right. The minister has the wrong number on Bill 120. There is no 120.

Mr. Singer: Why he does it, I don’t know.

Mr. Lewis: I want to speak to the point of order --

Mr. Singer: The government can do anything it wants and get away with it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Downsview has had his opportunity. The hon. member for Scarborough West has the floor.

Mr. Lewis: I simply urge you, Mr. Speaker, to indicate your displeasure with this kind of process because this is what destroys the possibility of the orderly conduct of business in this House.

We went to considerable lengths to allow this debate to take place, given the immense differences of opinion. I think the Premier will acknowledge that when we discussed it with him yesterday, it was in the context of avoiding a hassle over unanimous con- sent that we asked for the hour interval. There was an effort to facilitate the House and to have the work done and I really think that using this kind of method again poisons the atmosphere of the Legislature totally unnecessarily. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that it has no favour with you and that you would wish that order paper be withdrawn.

Mr. Bullbrook: If I may, Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me to speak to the point of order -- the essential ingredient of putting before us 77(a) as a new order paper is a prejudgement and a predisposition on the part of the government House leader that unanimous consent would not be given. All he has to do, of course, is look at the rules, which he should be abundantly knowledgeable about as House leader. The sad trauma we fact is that he is not, and that’s the fact of the matter. The rule clearly says that except by unanimous consent of the House no bill shall be read the second time until it has been printed and distributed and so marked on the orders of the day thus printed.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Meanwhile, back to the business.

Mr. Bullbrook: Now the fact of the matter is my House leader attempted to elicit from him a yes or no, a simple answer, if he was moving under that particular section and we were going to go to second reading on the assumption the government would be given unanimous consent. He was given a gentlemen’s agreement. Mr. Speaker, by the House leaders and whips.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But he sat around and sat around.

Hon. Mr. Bullbrook: What he said in effect, Mr. Speaker, was, “I have been given your gentlemen’s agreement but I don’t trust you. So I am going to surreptitiously” -- because that’s the way it was done -- “take away 77 and I’m going to put in 77(a).”

I join the other members who have addressed you on this point in asking you not to permit this precedent. We have little enough control over our own destiny except for your good graces, and I ask you, sir, not to permit this type of subversion of the rules of the House.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Get on with the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak briefly to this point of order, and I am directing my remarks through you to the Premier, this of course is completely unnecessary. He knew he was going to get unanimous consent.

But what really disturbs me is that this is the fourth incident of this type this year and this has all happened since we’ve had this House leader. I suggest to you, sir, and through you to the Premier, for goodness sakes find some other use for his talents. He’s disturbing and destroying everything.

Mr. Cassidy: There is no use for his talents.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier could make him a commissioner of the TTC. He would fit right in.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I don’t think this should develop into a full-scale debate.

Mr. Singer: It is that important.

Mr. Bullbrook: It is important.

Mr. Singer: It is the most important discussion of the privileges of this House that has ever taken place.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is an interesting thing to me that we are attempting, in the midst of a programme that would hopefully resolve a labour-management dispute, to bring into the Legislature the rush hour that we haven’t seen in Toronto for these past several weeks. Certainly in the last hour the House leader or his minions have been rushing around opening all the order books, putting the order paper 77 in them and putting order paper 77(a) on our desks.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They are not his minions.

Mr. Breithaupt: I think it is rather interesting that in coming back to the House after the hour adjournment, we had this order paper before us. I think it was only by circumstance that we happened to note that there was a letter (a) behind 77. Then, of course, in opening the order paper we find that there was at least some presumption that in fact Bill 119 would receive the first reading that had been sought by the government.

Mr. Singer: Marvellous printers to work that fast.

Mr. Breithaupt: To go ahead then and print Bill 120-

Hon. Mr. Davis: If they hadn’t there wouldn’t be any order paper.

Mr. Breithaupt: There would be an order paper.

Mr. Singer: There was an order paper 77.

Mr. Breithaupt: We had an order paper, as the Premier is well aware.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Breithaupt: The interesting thing to us, further, is that we have --

Mr. Singer: A bunch of baloney.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- unfortunately, set out as item 17 on this order paper an incorrect reference, namely Bill 121, as it should be an Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act. I think, unfortunately, the matter is just --

Mr. Singer: Did the Premier know about that?

Mr. Breithaupt: -- a little bit too cute, as the member for Downsview has said. It is unfortunate, when we have the rule available to us and when we have an acknowledgement of unanimous consent to deal with this most serious problem, that the government has not chosen to accept that approach, but rather has gone a further step in order to attempt to subvert what are the intentions of the House.

Now I agree, Mr. Speaker, there is no rule that says it can’t be done. That is true. But surely the approach that has been taken within this Legislature has been not to attempt a foolish ploy like this, which simply embarrasses us all. Not only you, sir, especially, but those of us who have at least some minor responsibilities in the mechanics of the operation of the House.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He looks embarrassed.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is certainly not a happy way to go into this most serious debate that we are now going to enter. The problems are serious enough and difficult enough in their resolution. To have done it this way, I believe has been most unfortunate.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I think I must make some short reply, without accepting any of the criticism. Because of the fact that it was a bill that required Her Honour’s consent, we felt it was absolutely necessary to follow the course that I followed, and accordingly the officials --

Mr. Singer: Baloney!

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The member may think it’s baloney, but I say that it was necessary. He had his say. He should take his seat.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: In regard to the numbering of the bills, I might say I’m sure that the Leader of the Opposition knows it is a private member’s bill and I think maybe he would be a little grateful for the fact that we are bringing this forward the way we are despite the numbering sequence.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: We are not grateful to the minister. If the government would run the province according to the democratic process we would be grateful.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to make the proposal, despite the charade that has gone on, if the members of the opposition are prepared to give unanimous consent --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: If they are, Mr. Speaker, I am --

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: He can forget it. He is compounding his stupidity.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Shulman: My God, he is inept.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Singer: It is corrupt.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: It is the most corrupt thing that has been done in this Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The member for Downsview really should be made to withdraw those words.

Mr. Singer: When the minister withdraws his actions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The member for Downsview should really withdraw those words.

Mr. Singer: Let him withdraw his actions, and the word “charade”. I will withdraw then.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Well, I guess the word stands. I am willing to propose to the House, Mr. Speaker, that we withdraw order paper 77(a) if we have consent to proceed.

Some hon. members: No, never.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He can’t do anything right. He is hiding behind the skirts of Her Honour.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. members would let me attempt to resolve the situation. I can hardly wait to hear what I am going to say.

Mr. Shulman: There is a new order paper. Call the question period.

Mr. Speaker: First of all, our standing orders do indicate that the order paper must include the bill marked printed. Now the one distinction I find in this particular situation is that we did not recess, we adjourned.

Mr. Shulman: Right.

Mr. Speaker: We adjourned. Therefore, it seems to me there is no rule prohibiting the printing of an order paper for a reconvened session after an adjournment. In other words, I can find no prohibition in the rules on preparing this order paper. My other order paper has disappeared; it is the only one I have.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: You can start with the orders of the day.

Mr. Shulman: Orders of the day.

Mr. Speaker: This may or may not be so. Let me say that it was my feeling, my belief, rightly or wrongly, that by implication the hon. members had given their consent.

Mr. Singer: How can one give it until it is asked?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. members will just be quiet for a moment and I will try to explain. It seems to me that when the Premier --

Mr. Cassidy: Don’t line yourself up with that buffoon of a House leader.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When the Premier gave his few remarks after the introduction of the bill, by way of the procedural programme he had in mind, he did indicate that it was the intention to adjourn for an hour and that we would return after that time and proceed with second reading.

This is what my recollection is without having looked up my own copy of the instant Hansard. That being the case, I believe that is, by implication, agreement of the House to proceed with second reading.

Mr. Singer: No. You yourself said you would ask for unanimous consent of the House.

Mr. Speaker: All right; it’s implied. In the absence of any contradiction or any negation of the suggestion.

That’s all I can say. It seemed to me there was agreement that we would proceed with second reading. As far as I am concerned, again there’s no reason, nothing whatsoever in the rules, which says we can’t produce this order paper. Therefore, I have to accept the order paper as being proper.

I can find no reason whatever for rejecting the order paper as suggested by the hon. members who have spoken.

Mr. Shulman: Don’t you have to call the orders of the day?

Mr. Speaker: No, this was attended to earlier. This is my ruling in connection with this point of order. I so rule that the order paper is in order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted to respond on a point of order. The House leader indicated he was prepared to withdraw it. Unfortunately, he couldn’t even do that right; he said he would withdraw it if we were prepared to give unanimous consent. Surely he is going to arrange the affairs so that Mr. Speaker is not going to be put in the untenable position he finds himself in now? If he accepts order paper 77(a), if he accepts it without the House leader’s intervention, obviously it is going to have to be challenged because he is going to use this procedure again and again.

Obviously we want to get on with this bill, but we cannot allow this to hang over our heads. I am saying to the House leader he should withdraw and if he did so we could proceed.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, may I say to you sir, that I don’t want for one moment to have you infer that my comments take issue with your ruling. I want to say to you, that I have to challenge. May I say to you that I have to challenge because of this: If we are now to be bound by this rule that the government, at its whim, can substitute order papers, it means of course that the rules and our standing orders are for nought, because why do we have in our standing orders that we cannot proceed on the same day to the second order of business without unanimous consent. It makes a charade, a true charade, of that particular standing order.

The fact is, therefore, that I, as one member, am going to challenge the ruling and I implore, through the Speaker, the House leader to withdraw that order paper. He knows that he is going to get unanimous consent. Let us proceed in the proper order of business and let us not have a rule established by a Speaker in this Legislature that makes a true charade of the standing orders.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It’s up to the House leader now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, may I try to resolve this situation? I say with respect that we’re as interested in pursuing the rules as anyone and in that there is a feeling that the assent of Her Honour will be required, hopefully sometime today, it would be appropriate, I gather, to have an order paper to outline this. If the members opposite are concerned about it, I don’t say that it’s academic, we are quite prepared, as the House leader said, to have order paper -- I guess it’s 77 -- on the very distinct understanding, and I gathered from the question of the House leader opposite-

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): The Premier is putting the guillotine to our heads.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I listened very quietly to members opposite, perhaps they might give us the courtesy of listening over there.

I think it is fair to assume that the question on the point of order raised by the member for Sarnia could have cast some doubt as to whether or not there is unanimous consent. I indicated very clearly in my observations that I had had a discussion with the Leader of the Opposition and a discussion with the leader of the New Democratic Party where we had agreed upon the procedures. The member for Downsview and the member for Sarnia professed they knew nothing about it. I would say that this had been arrived at. The questions asked prior to this were totally unnecessary and irrelevant. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether this is possible or not, but we’re quite prepared to proceed on the basis of order paper 77 if I can have the understanding --

Mr. Singer: No understanding.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think, in fairness, Mr. Speaker --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me finish. It is understood, and very clearly understood, because this is an important issue, a very important issue, as it relates to 2% million people in this community, that this bill proceed. If I can feel confident, Mr. Speaker, as Premier, that my conversations with the two leaders of the opposition parties will be honoured by their colleagues -- and I tell you the questions prior indicated there maybe wasn’t an awareness of this; not from the NDP but from the official opposition -- that is the case, I am more than prepared to go with order paper 77 or 97 or what have you.

Mr. Breithaupt: Let’s try that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: My interest is getting this bill through so that the public of this province know that we’re here to protect them.

Mr. Renwick: That isn’t the Premier’s interest or he would never allow this to happen.

Mr. R. F, Nixon: We’re prepared to go on 77. Let’s do it.

Mr. Singer: As long as it’s not conditional.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What does the hon. member for Downsview mean? Doesn’t he want the strike to end?

Interjections by hon, members.

Mr. Speaker: If I understand the situation correctly, the Premier has indicated that he is prepared to proceed on the basis of order paper 77 and that --

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s right.

Mr. Speaker: -- at this moment it’s in order to call second reading of bill number whatever it is.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we cannot proceed without you asking for unanimous consent and you still haven’t done it.

Mr. Speaker: I believed that I had that consent.

Mr. Shulman: Well, we didn’t hear it then.

Mr. Singer: That was before adjournment was called.

An hon. member: This is still the same session.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. members if my understanding was accurate, that the hon. Premier said he would proceed on the basis of order paper 77 and that we would proceed with the second reading of the bill. The hon. members said “yes.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was agreed. Let’s do so.

Interjections by hon. members.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION LABOUR DISPUTES SETTLEMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moves second reading of Bill 119, The Toronto Transit Commission Labour Disputes Settlement Act, 1974.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Since the procedure of the House is to deal exclusively with this bill, unless the Premier (Mr. Davis) sees fit to proceed to second reading as well of the bill introduced by his colleague, an amendment to the Election Act, then it is certainly important that we do not delay in our deliberations.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth) and the Premier have both said that it is unfortunate that the bill is before the House; and it is unfortunate indeed, because once again the collective bargaining procedures are being circumvented. We in this party are prepared to support the principle of the bill for reasons that I will put to you, sir.

I do not agree with the Premier that the main reason is because of the unfortunate elderly and the ill who cannot travel around town. Certainly that is unfortunate. But he knows and I know the pressure for settlement comes from the hundreds of thousands of people who are right now stuck in the traffic jams --

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): On a point of order, I am sure the hon. member for Brant listened to and read what I said. I referred to a number of problems and I did highlight the problem of the senior citizens, but to suggest that is the only problem is just totally incorrect.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If I might respond to the hon. member for Peel, I find it typically Davis, pure Davis --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Peel North.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- when he weeps the tears for the halt and the sick and the blind. We are all concerned with him, because the real reason is that we have to get the transportation in this city going again and we have had just about all the crocodile tears from him that we can stand. There have been 600,000 people, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): It is hard to believe that they are both agreed --

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): This is going to be a very uncomfortable bed.

Mr. Lewis: I am glad they are voting together.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, get up on another point of order, if the member wants --

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): The Premier was priding himself on listening a little while ago. Why doesn’t he listen now?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Can we return to the principle of this bill, please?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, Mr. Speaker; and the principle of the bill is designed to serve the people in this city who have been denied access to a working transit system. We are here in the session this afternoon to accomplish something that is unpalatable to everybody here but which in fact in my view is in the interests of the citizens of the city.

The Premier refers to them as the millions, I refer to them specifically as the 600,000 who use the facility on a daily basis. They have been denied this for 19 days and we have been concerned that the negotiations have not been handled adequately by the Toronto Transit Commission. This is specifically what I wanted to talk about at the beginning of my remarks.

You know, for a person who is not involved in the negotiations -- and they must be extremely trying indeed -- certain impressions come forward.

Mr. Moynehan is not known to me personally. He has been effective indeed as the leader of this important group of workers in this city. But look at his position: that at the end of the line is not the necessity in fact to settle the strike but to realize that the imposition is not on him but on the members of this House, and I suppose the Premier and the cabinet of Ontario, to enforce a disposition of the negotiations finally.

Look at Mr. Mallette and the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, who have been probably the main spokesmen for the TTC. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, it is great politics for any one of them to say: “Yes sir, we are the custodians of the public purse. We will hold the line against these grasping labourers, we are not going to raise the rates for -- “

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is what he is saying.

They did not intend to settle from the very start. They knew very well they did not have to accept their responsibilities, that they could be dumped into this Legislature, and by the imposition of compulsory arbitration they could be dismissed of their responsibilities.

I resent this as a member of the Legislature: I resent that all of these decisions from across the province have to be put into this chamber.

Now look, we know the history and the traditions of these negotiations. The transit union put forward their demands -- and they were honest enough to call them that, 144 or 148 of them -- about April 23, well in advance of the end of the contract. Everybody knew the date, June 30.

There was, of course, some mediation, some conciliation; but in fact the officials of the TTC did not sit down with the union effectively. They did not offer a concrete alternative, they did not make an offer, until July 17; really just a few weeks, in fact a few days, before the negotiations had to be broken off and the strike was imposed upon this town.

Now we are concerned about good faith bargaining. It seems to be that the chairman of the TTC and the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto could assure us, if they had the right to speak in this chamber, of their good faith. They could assure us they were acting in the best interests of their constituents, the people who would have to pay the bills for any increase in the TTC costs. But what they failed to consider was the interests of the broader constituency, those people who were denied access to the transit system, because they were unable to reach any kind of an agreement -- and in fact did not intend to, in my opinion, from the very start -- and were prepared to put it in our laps.

Now you know, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, independent and powerful politician though he is, apparently has an open line to the Premier’s office. I don’t think he has to worry very much about “Uncle John” MacBeth, the Minister of Labour, when he can phone the Premier himself and keep in close tab with him.

What about compulsory arbitration? Will the coffers of the treasury of the province be opened up, as they were a few months ago to the tune of $33 million, if in fact the negotiations go this way? Is the government of the province prepared to bear this burden? We don’t know whether the questions were asked or if answers were given, but we do know there is this political connection; which concerns us very deeply here because it has to do --

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Well I am glad --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does the Provincial Secretary want to get up on that one? Go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am glad the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto has access to the Premier of this province, why shouldn’t he?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Paul Godfrey, working Tory, has access to his leader, who is also the Premier; and in my opinion this has led to negotiations which cannot be said to have been carried on in good faith, and that’s what we are talking about right now.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is no time to be placing blame on anyone.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, sure. All right, we will expect to hear these comments later, because in my view the members of the TTC did not conduct themselves in any way that would indicate they expected a negotiated settlement.

We have used the word charade in this House already. If there was ever a charade, that was it. They were going through the motions. There was a facade of discussions; and here it is in the Legislature for a long, warm afternoon and evening -- and perhaps even morning, although I do not intend, sir, to inflict my remarks unduly on you, but just perhaps for another hour and a half.

So I feel this strongly about this matter.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Then vote against the bill.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Vote both ways at once.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I don’t think, Mr. Speaker, that our vote here this afternoon is going to have anything to do with the conduct of the commissioners of the TTC. It is going to have everything to do with getting transit going again in this city, and that is why we are prepared to support the principle of the bill.

Now let me say this, Mr. Speaker, that I believe the Ministry of Labour, at the first opportunity, should investigate the course of these negotiations. Somehow we are going to have to develop a procedure whereby that famous phrase “good faith” is going to be determined, judicially as well as judiciously, so that in the future those on either sidle who cannot prove that they have undertaken the negotiations in good faith are going to be punished and it’s not going to be so easy to shirk responsibility.

The Minister of Labour introduced the bill. It is interesting to know his role in this, because his staff certainly have been praised by everyone I’ve heard of in connection with it -- Mr. Dickie, well known to everyone who has read the history of negotiations in this province; Mr. Speranzini, I have seen his picture in the paper, I haven’t met him, but apparently although the conciliation procedures and the procedures that he undertook -- not conciliation; mediation -- were certainly well received on all sides, they were unsuccessful. The name of George Markovich was mentioned; I happen to know the gentleman. As far as I know, they did their work abundantly well.

But we are here to criticize the Minister of Labour in this connection -- a man with whom we’ve had some differences of opinion in the past. I suppose it is easy for the opposition members to call on the minister to insert himself, his ability and his authority into the negotiations before they get to the point of acrimony, or the distance between the two sides is such that agreement becomes impossible.

I was interested to see in the news Sunday, Aug. 25, the Minister of Labour went down at 11:20, spoke to the two sides briefly, left because there was nothing he could do. I have the feeling that our Minister of Labour is not exactly the shirt-sleeved table pounder that was needed to make an impression on Messrs. Moynehan, Mallette and Godfrey. I have a feeling that there might have been a certain gentlemanly aspect, which is much respected in this House on occasion, but which for a Minister of Labour who stands on the boundaries between enforcing through his ability -- not necessarily power, but ability -- meaningful negotiations and allowing the thing to blow up so that it ends up in the Legislature, caused this minister to be found wanting.

I think it’s a serious thing indeed, because we face many of these circumstances in the future. Maybe we need John Munro, maybe we need our friend from Montreal --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- maybe we need Bryce Mackasey. Both of those guys, as the members know, were elected with heavy majorities. Maybe those are the people who know how to talk to the working man and to the managers so they make sense and so that in fact it’s going to be something other than just some sort of a fiasco leading to the imposition of these powers.

So I am concerned that we have not had bargaining in good faith, that I think there has been a waste of time in the weeks and months leading to this situation, and that it is unfortunate in the extreme that our labour laws, our regulations, the power of the minister himself and after that the power of the Premier, were not sufficient to achieve a reasonable understanding on the two sides that could have avoided the situation here in the House this afternoon and this evening -- the imposition of provincial power in this unfortunate way.

I suppose by the passage of this bill, we will -- and it is much to be hoped that there is no doubt about this -- we will get the transit running without delay. Of course we have read the reports from the spokesman of the union and some individuals saying that they’ll have to make up their mind whether they are going to obey this order or not.

Mr. Singer: Unanimous consent.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We have heard these responses in the past when the power of parliament and the power of the Legislature was used in this connection. I think it is unfortunate that there is even the possibility that it not be obeyed, because the alternative is anarchy, which simply is inadmissible.

But we have a tremendous responsibility in this regard, because the legislation has to be such that a moderate-thinking citizen can obey the law; that there is no way that legislation should be brought forward which is going to force whole classes of people into a rejection of a statute passed by a democratically constituted parliament. So there is a responsibility on both sides.

It is much too easy for us to say every citizen must obey the law and we will require that that be so. I don’t know whether we would have a sufficient police force to collect the fines or enforce a law that a whole class of people simply refused to obey. We’ve gotten close to this in other circumstances in the last few months; that’s why the bill must have been drawn carefully. The 12 per cent increase, retroactive to the end of the contract, at least was an indication that the government is more sensitive in these matters than the TTC, which kept saying to the workers: “Your raise will commence at the time you enter a new contract and not be retroactive.” Isn’t that right?

Mr. Lewis: That is absolutely right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well what’s the Premier shaking his head about and squinting? I thought that was correct. Isn’t he aware of those facts? I thought everybody was aware of those facts.

It seems, Mr. Speaker, that this bill, with its retroactive clause and the fact that the sections in the negotiations that have already been agreed upon are not going to be put before the arbitrator, should make for an acceptable package to the members of the union who are conscious of their duty as citizens.

What we are doing this afternoon is buying time. We are settling a strike in a way that does not appeal to anyone here, but it means that there is at least some time before the next one is thrown into our laps. I am told that on Sept. 2, 2,000 non-medical workers in 10 northern hospitals intend to strike. What are we going to do about that if, in fact, there is a protracted strike? I am told that on Sept. 5, the Kitchener transit system will come to a halt because of a strike very similar to the one that has struck the transit system here. It may be, with great respect to the hon. members from that area, that the impact on the government of Ontario will be somewhat less than the strike in Toronto.

Mr. Lewis: As in Hamilton.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Hamilton is another case. When it is right on your doorsteps you will respond, but when it is out in another city you seem to be able to stand it for a longer period of time. The thing that must concern us all is that the Civil Service Association of Ontario, which as we know is taking a very militant, a very proper stand in many respects, is going to come to the end of its contract with the Province of Ontario at the end of this year, Dec. 31. What are we going to do about that, just in case our friend, the House leader, is as successful as we would expect him to be with those negotiations? You see, it appears to many people here that the labour laws in this province, particularly those dealing with the public sector, are completely inadequate and that it is up to us, I suppose with all the partisan ingredients we can muster, to come up with some sort of an alternative.

I am not saying an alternative to collective bargaining. I don’t believe that in a democratic society there really is one. I am saying an alternative to affect the character of the bargaining in such a way that without goodwill it is meaningless. It is put for us here in the Legislature to use the power, the undoubted power, of the government.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now just what did he say? What is that formula?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All right, I don’t know and obviously the minister doesn’t because he is making such a mess of his responsibility at the present time.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): By the way, what are his responsibilities?

Mr. Singer: He is the minister in charge of order papers.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But I will tell him this, I doubt very much if the answer is going to spring fullblown from the brow of the Premier or the Minister of Labour or even the policy secretary, who attends every now and then and interjects.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We do have this, we do have a Legislature of democratically elected people who have a commitment to the betterment of the community and, so help me, to the improvement of the labour laws in this province; but why can’t we sit down in something other than in the shouting and hollering in this chamber, representatives from all parties, with representatives from those unions in the public sector who have been affected, as they are being affected today and will be affected in the future, and buy whatever peace time we have got until the next great big explosion and assess all of the alternatives in as effective and non-partisan way we can. I have argued this with my friend from Sarnia.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member hasn’t said a thing. A lot of words, but he hasn’t said a thing.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, yes, I have, my friend. Oh yes, I have.

Mr. Singer: The minister just doesn’t understand. That’s the problem.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Because there’s an alternative. Maybe we should look for a Justice Rand or somebody like that, and say: “Okay judge, you come up with the answers for us.” We don’t want to give the problem to an individual who is going to look forward to a lengthy series of negotiations or a lengthy series of deliberations and who will throw a weighty tome on our desks and we will have to respond to that, but we are elected for this purpose.

We had the responsibilities tumbled on us with short notice this afternoon. Let’s use what time we have before the next occasion to assess the alternatives which have been discussed by individuals in this House.

I think it is something we are going to have to come to grips with because the present situation is not good enough. Collective bargaining is the best but what happens, in the public interest, when it obviously is not working, or at least is not working well enough? That is surely what faces us and what we must work with as members of this House.

I say I do not reject for a moment the undoubted power of the Legislature and, at the judgement of individuals, the responsibility to act when it is necessary. But let us, as members, regulate and require honest negotiation between principals at a community level rather than having the decisions thoroughly and frequently centralized here at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I tell you we will support the principle of the bill. We feel it is an indication of the inefficiencies of bargaining in this instance, particularly by the TTC. We also feel it is an indication of the inadequacies of the present laws of this province. We can criticize the TTC, and there are those on the other side who may very well defend it, but we must accept collective responsibility for the inadequacy of our law.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): A poor, miserable, weak speech.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, the Treasurer’s back, is he?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you. I might never have mustered that support had the minister not interjected.

Hon. Mr. White: Both gutless and witless; that’s quite a combination.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: His chief function is to spend money. Is he $800 million over this year?

Hon. Mr. White: Witless -- like other Liberal policies.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: An $850 million deficit.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): What about the federal government? What about its economy? What has it done about it?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, using some arguments which are parallel to those advanced by the Leader of the Opposition and some additional arguments, I hope, it will interest the Premier to know that we are driven to a rather different and irresistible conclusion and that is that the principle of the bill is not supportable. He expects that of us but we are not opposing it in this instance in any traditional or ritual garb which he wants to put on the New Democratic Party.

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): Has the member found a new reason?

Mr. Lewis: We are opposing it, Mr. Speaker, for a series of arguments which I want to make, which all of us would like to make; first, about the collective bargaining process; second, about essential and non-essential services; and third about what might be called the Premier and public transit. On that basis --

Hon. Mr. White: I’ll be back.

Mr. Lewis: I am sure the minister will be back, for that if nothing else; and I invite him.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go further. I want to say we know the public is not particularly happy about opposition to a bill of this kind.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): That’s an understatement.

Mr. Lewis: It probably is an understatement; it probably is. We are probably not currying immediate favour but I want to tell the Minister of Labour, through you Mr. Speaker, that we are simply not going to be party to a piece of legislation which is so destructive of labour relations in the Province of Ontario. It just can’t be done.

As a matter of fact, I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): There was double-talk on CFRB yesterday by the hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: That this is the fourth time in something like 12 or 14 months that we have had the issue of compulsory arbitration raised in Queen’s Park. We had it with the elevator workers; we had it with the teachers; we have had it with the hospital workers; we now have it with the transit workers. Compulsory arbitration is becoming endemic to this government. The government is relying more and more upon compulsory arbitration and, Mr. Speaker, it is going to destroy the collective bargaining process.

As a matter of fact, this is one of the things which most concern us. I am going to make very specific suggestions. I don’t want to make comparisons which are invidious but if this government continues on the route which it has predetermined, it is going to reduce labour relations in Ontario to what is now being experienced in the Province of Quebec. That is absolutely unnecessary and if the Premier of Ontario is as purblind -- if I can use the phrase of my colleague, the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) -- as Robert Bourassa in the way he deals with working people, then the government is going to have in Ontario the consequences that they are now experiencing in the Province of Quebec and this bill is a long way down that road.

Mr. Speaker, you know, there has to be an alternative, which everyone is talking about and seeking in this House; there has to be an alternative. I want to say, as simplistic as it may sound, that there is no alternative to something called “good faith bargaining,” and it is the one thing in the Province of Ontario that we have not had for as many years as I can remember.

I may say that final offer selection is one of those gimmicks which are attractive from time to time but not widely applicable, as experience has shown. Compulsory arbitration never leads anywhere that is socially useful. But good faith bargaining is absolutely central to the collective bargaining process, and the refusal of this government to enforce the provision -- I think it is section 12 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act -- called “bargaining in good faith” is what is at the root of this labour dispute.

We had an alternative, you know; we have discussed some of them; we had so many alternatives in this instance that one can hardly enumerate them all. The government has chosen this course, the most perverse of all. Maybe it will help the Premier to rehabilitate his public presence in Metropolitan Toronto to be seen as strong and resourceful in the time of adversity, and maybe he decided on that course three weeks ago for political motives, I don’t know.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member has got to be kidding.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t know, I wonder about it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am telling the member -- no.

Mr. Lewis: Because I too was privy to the collective bargaining process and I cannot understand how it was allowed to disintegrate with good faith left on the ash heap.

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I guess it was only a couple of weeks ago, I was with the Leader of the Opposition at an annual meeting of the Federation of Women Teachers in Ontario. I may say, of course, the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) wasn’t there --

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Ah ha!

Mr. Lewis: -- not wishing to hazard political debate on that occasion. And after that meeting was over, which fortuitously was held in the Royal York Hotel, I went over to the union headquarters in the hotel and asked to meet with some of the members of the negotiating committee and the executive board to chat with them about the nature of the strike.

I must say that I didn’t know very much about the Amalgamated Transit Union at the time; I had had no more experience with them, I suppose, than most people in this House have had with them on previous occasions. I sat down with them that evening and I went over the progress of the negotiation in the previous three or four days, and I’m telling you, Mr. Speaker, as I stand here, that the TTC stalled those talks on trifles and irrelevancies that border on disbelief. They did it absolutely deliberately. And they did it on minute and inconsequential items.

Every time their industrial relations director, a fellow called King, was faced with some kind of decision, he had to run back downtown to get word from his superiors. They couldn’t even bring a duplicating machine into the Royal York in order to run off agreements that had been entered into in the course of the negotiating process, while the union had their entire apparatus with them in the hope that one item after another could be resolved.

I went immediately back to the office the next morning, phoned a member of the Metro council and said: “Surely Commissioner Godfrey wouldn’t put up with this if he knew it” -- oh, boy, was I naive -- “wouldn’t put up with it if he knew it and would you kindly call him and tell him that there is a deliberate attempt here to destroy the bargaining process?” I had the impression that the word got through, but I guess perhaps I was profoundly wrong.

I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that it took four months and three days of negotiation before the Toronto Transit Commission was willing to grant to 300 workers the right to have a pocket for a screwdriver in their uniform at a total cost of $15. Now, you ask me what I consider to be bad faith bargaining. In a symbolic way I consider it to be that; I consider that to be bad faith bargaining. And if the government thinks that it can have decent labour relations between a union of 5,700 employees and a Toronto Transit Commission that behaves in that fashion, then it is absurd.

I want to say something else, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the Minister of Labour knew and the Premier knew. Mr. Speranzini was the mediator of that dispute. I’ve not even met the man but everything I’ve heard from the union, everything I’ve heard from the journalists covering it, everything I’ve heard from some of those in management -- not all of them I may say -- suggests that Mr. Speranzini was as honourable an arbitrator, a mediator, as one could have found. If that is the case, as I believe it to be, word of what was happening was getting back to his superiors and through his superiors to the Minister of Labour; and those people over there who represent the government of Ontario, who pretend to defend the public interest, weren’t doing a blessed thing about it.

Those negotiations continued for several days on the 142 items in question. With the company moving reluctantly or not at all, stonewalling every step of the way, it was all Leonard Moynehan could do to hold his bargaining committee together because they quite likely wondered why they should be reduced to this kind of endless frustration and humiliation by a company that didn’t want to settle in the first place.

Then came the corker. I want to tell the House again what we consider to be a violation of good-faith bargaining. Last weekend, when the crunch period arrived, I phoned the negotiating group of the union and said: “You’ve allowed me to be privy to some of your conversations. I would like to sit in on the finale, if finale it’s going to be. Can I come and spend some time with you while the offers and the crunch issues are being discussed?” They said: “All right.”

I sat and I listened to them through the day on Sunday when the major issues were being discussed. I want to tell you something, Mr. Speaker. I’ve dealt with trade unions in a negotiating process before. They’re not all angelic. They can be dogmatic and inflexible, too. I understand that. But this was quite an unusual executive board. This was an executive board of a union that wanted a settlement. They wanted it badly.

They were ready to be flexible and everything that came their way was the most needless, thoughtless provocation it’s possible to put. At 2 o’clock on Sunday morning the company finally made the major contractual offer. If members want an example of what I consider to be -- what we in the New Democratic Party consider to be -- classic bad-faith bargaining let me give it to them. I hold the proposal from the commission before me.

This is what they offered on wages, Mr. Speaker. They offered three increases over 24 months. The first increase averages 12 per cent. I ask you to listen to the wording. Eight months later a second increase averaging five per cent, not compounded. Eight months later an increase averaging six per cent, not compounded.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier and to the Minister of Labour, not compounded is offensive enough because every trade unionist understands the ploy there; but fair enough, maybe that’s a negotiating point. But I wonder if the use of the word “averages” is fully appreciated? What the commission said to the union is: “After 4 1/2 months of bargaining you’ve been out on strike for two weeks. We’re making this wage offer to you but it’s an average wage offer. In other words, we, the management, will determine what we give to any particular category of workers.”

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Isn’t that wonderful?

Mr. Lewis: Moynehan said to the management: “You mean I go to a meeting of my workers for ratification of a settlement and I say to them: ‘You’ve got an average increase of 23 per cent over two years.’ Somebody in operator class 2 stands and says: ‘What does that mean to me?’ And I’m supposed to say to him: ‘I don’t know. The company hasn’t determined yet how much you will get’.”

Can members imagine a union being put in that position? Do the Tories over there know of any contract in Ontario which gives to management the right to divide a percentage increase among the various classifications of workers? Do they know of such a contract? Can they imagine the absurdity of management coming to a group of workers after they’ve been on strike for two weeks and been bargaining for more than four months and putting that kind of proposition to them?

The minister talks to me about good faith! Where was the Minister of Labour? Where was the Minister of Labour?

Mr. Martel: He was cutting wood.

Mr. Lewis: That’s such needless provocation. It is just saying to the workers we don’t intend to settle.

Let me tell you what else they did, Mr. Speaker. On the cost of living, which was central to the workers, they came to them and they said: “We’ll give you a cost of living increase of such and such a number of cents per increase in the cost of living, based on a unit increase of 190.”

That’s a little complicated, but the base is Toronto 1971 at 155 and it rises to 190. What the company was doing in the offer was saying: “We will set the levels so high that in the life of the contract it will not be possible for you, as workers, to receive an increase in the cost of living.”

Now, is the minister talking to me about good faith? I’ve never seen good faith violated in that fashion. You might make an offer to the workers which offers a little more or a little less above the cost of living, but you don’t offer them a cost of living allowance which you know will not be possible of incorporation in the lifetime of the agreement.

Then, if I may refresh the Premier’s memory, which lapsed momentarily when it was drawn to his attention by the leader of the Liberal Party, it says at the end of the offer, “from date of settlement for two years”. You see, everybody in the world knew, except the Toronto Transit Commission, that they were talking about a contract that had expired on June 30. This bill is retroactive to July 1. Everyone in his right mind knew that the contract would be retroactive until July 1.

Mr. Singer: Only 12 per cent though.

Mr. Lewis: But a combination of the commissioners and Mr. King, and sheer, unmitigated perversity at the 11th hour, had them make an offer to the union which was shot through with bad faith of a kind which only Tories can countenance.

Now, you see that doesn’t have to happen, Mr. Speaker. We can, within the Ontario Labour Relations Act, give to the Ontario Labour Relations Board or to the Minister of Labour, or I would even hazard giving it to mediators in a situation of this kind, the right to say to the parties: “This is not good faith bargaining, this is destructive bargaining. This is bargaining which asks for a breakdown, which invites chaos; and therefore, we are ordering you back to the bargaining table and we insist that you make an offer in good faith.”

If the government enforces the good-faith bargaining clause of the Ontario Labour Relations Act this would never happen. It would simply never happen.

Naturally, that kind of offer having been made on Sunday, nothing was left.

Again, I continue to be naive. I even phoned the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto directly on Sunday night, initially through an intermediary, and said to him -- I don’t think it is wrong to say it now; at the time it was an off the record discussion, but it’s all over now. I said to him: “This is a union that wants to settle; all you have to do is make some accommodation on one or two or three of the major issues. Why are you being absolutely inflexible about it? The whole thing is unnecessary. I sat with them, Chairman Godfrey, I think I know them, they are not unreasonable people?”

As a matter of fact, the chairman, to his credit, mentioned to me a couple of devices which sounded very intelligent on the phone. And I thought to myself, maybe it will lead to a settlement.

But the offers were never made. That Sunday night, the Minister of Labour appeared at the Royal York Hotel and negotiations were broken off. And from that day to this I can’t understand it. That’s why I say I believe that compulsory arbitration is a deliberate manufacture for reasons that -- well I suppose they are political; but they really are shortsighted, because you are predetermining very bad feeling in labour relations generally.

I don’t have to take swipes at Karl Mallette and company, the world is visiting enough on them already; and let me say they deserve it. But I do want to point out to you, that since the new chairman of the TTC assumed his post we’ve been going downhill week after week, and the relationships between the union and the management have never been worse. This bill isn’t going to help it at all, because if I may say, the government is not moving in to protect the public interest, it is moving in to protect the interest of the Toronto Transit Commission and the metropolitan chairman.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s silly.

Mr. Lewis: No, I don’t think it is silly, because if the government were interested in the public interest it would never have permitted this strike to take place at all. It would have moved a month ago. This isn’t a non-partisan bill in its sense; this is a bill which says: “We have supported the commission throughout and will continue to support them now, and we will embody what pleases them but displeases the workers in legislation.” And the government is very, very slow to feel for the public interest. It took it three weeks and four months before it felt for the public interest.

Now I don’t believe that government should intervene unduly in labour disputes, obviously not. I understand that proposition, but there is a point at which government makes non-intervention a curse rather than a principle, and its refusal to intervene at the point of explicit bad faith is where all of the members opposite went wrong. At that point it has a social obligation to intervene. It chose to neglect that obligation. So it comes in with its jackboots for compulsory arbitration.

Mr. Speaker, may I say something else? In the middle of the week the Premier made a proposal. As he said, it was a mechanism to achieve a settlement rather than a sweetening of the pot for either side. The Premier and I disagree on this fairly fundamentally. I don’t think that proposal ever had a chance. I know it never had a chance. But I do want to say to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, that if that proposal had been made one month ago, before the strike began, then even though I may irritate a number of the workers, let me say that I think that it might have been accepted.

What the government did was to allow the psychological feeling to move to the extent where it was impossible to get agreement to his kind of terms delivered in that kind of way. No matter what happened afterward, the unfortunate events or not, as one who would have wished privately that the proposal were accepted, because I don’t like compulsory arbitration as an alternative, I must say to the Premier that the proposal was simply too late.

I will tell you what wasn’t too late, Mr. Speaker. The resolution of the city of Toronto wasn’t too late. The resolution endorsed unanimously on the six-point programme of the city of Toronto wasn’t too late. If the Premier had said, “You fellows in the union, you meet over there at the Broom and Stone as you intend, and you wait there for a while, and you go back into negotiation in the morning [yesterday morning] on the basis of David Crombie’s proposal,” he would have had a settlement by yesterday afternoon. With a lot of good feeling it would have been ratified and the public transit system would be beginning to be moving even now as we are debating this legislation. Again he chose not to accept the basis for settlement and again he made a deliberate choice to go the compulsory arbitration route.

I want to say to the Premier and the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, that those of us in the New Democratic Party wish to sound a warning. The leader of the official opposition mentioned it to them; I will mention it to them too. They have got 19 hospitals right now up in arms over the nature of the collective bargaining process; they have got telegrams on their desks from the Sudbury region, from Stratford, from Georgetown and from Hamilton. They have the possibility that on Monday morning the hospital workers in Sudbury will walk out in defiance of the law and they have the very real possibility that on Tuesday or Wednesday the Hamilton workers will walk out in defiance of the law.

Can I remind them that before there was compulsory arbitration in the hospital sector there were virtually no strikes at all? It is only after compulsory arbitration in the hospital sector that we now have near chaos in certain areas of hospital jurisdiction in Ontario.

Mr. Martel: And in the civil service.

Mr. Lewis: May I remind the government as well that it managed to foist upon the teachers a degree of direct action which is unprecedented because of their reaction to its compulsory arbitration proposal? May I remind the government that it is doing the same with the transit workers? May I remind it of the extraordinary radicalization, if I can put it that way, of the civil service association in the last number of months, as they feel themselves trapped by the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act?

You see, in the name of what appears to be a momentary public favour, the government is wrecking collective bargaining in Ontario. It is just destroying it. Sure, it will curry favour with two million people today and) maybe it will curry favour with them at the polls in 1975; I don’t know, I am not a clairvoyant.

But the day is going to catch up with those people over there. They are inviting systematic breakdown. They are turning reasonable people into angry people who feel their rights are denied and their objects are frustrated; and for what? To satisfy some arbitrariness on the part of government rather than reinforcing the collective bargaining process?

The government had every alternative available to it. It isn’t as though this was the only alternative. Don’t face us with a bill which does such essential damage to collective bargaining.

We talk a lot about labour relations in the Province of Ontario. We talk about 95 or 96 per cent of the contracts being renegotiated without going to a strike but we have said before in this House and this is the time to say it again -- that the test of a government on labour relations lies in what it does with the other four per cent. The Minister of Labour should be haunted by what’s happening in the hospitals; by that pathetic piece of elementary injustice which is taking place in Fort Frances where a little union is being destroyed -- while the Minister of Labour sits back -- by a group of doctors who thumb their noses at the law and the Act with impunity. Ask my colleague from Wentworth about the Firestone strike in Hamilton which has been going on for months now.

Mr. Deans: Seven months.

Mr. Lewis: Let the government understand what it is doing to labour relations in Ontario. It is going to catch up with the Tories. They have gone too far and this bill goes too far because they are using a stratagem which is unnecessary, which serves a squalid political purpose in the short term and a highly destructive social purpose in the long term.

Mr. Speaker, the whole aspect of what is being done in this dispute also raises the question of essential services. I want to speak to that for a moment.

My colleague from Riverdale has been calling me and others of us in the caucus in the last couple of days and has been putting an argument so elementary but so compelling that I want to put it again in this House now. If these services are so bloody essential, why doesn’t the government pay the workers the best possible wages? How is it that in the non-essential services we pay such good wages but in the essential services we have lousy working conditions and not such good wages -- whether it is hospital workers or janitors attached to the outside workers’ union in the city of Toronto or, indeed, many of the transit union people themselves?

If the Tories have such feeling for essential services, if they feel so strongly about essential services that they take away the right to strike, that they bring the Legislature back at the end of August to force through compulsory arbitration, then remove it. Remove the necessity. Pay them decent wages. Pay them parity with Vancouver, Edmonton and Ottawa. Give them the kind of credibility in the public sector or the essential service sector that they deserve.

I know the Tories have difficulty with the public sector. I know they are all not very friendly to the public sector. That doesn’t mean they penalize civil servants. That doesn’t mean they penalize hospital workers. That doesn’t mean they penalize transit workers. If the essential services are so important to them, pay them more than the private sector.

Let me give members an analogy which touches the Premier’s view of the world, which I am going to come to in a moment, about the public transit system. A tool and die-maker at the General Motors plant at an average level of income -- a skilled job equivalent in rating to an operator in the transit commission with the game kind of social responsibility attached to it -- in September of this year will be making $7.27 an hour. In the public sector, transit workers at this point -- the wage group which was central to the bargaining, category 6 of the operators -- were making $5.63 an hour. After the 12 per cent retroactive increase it will be roughly $6.20 an hour, so they are earning $1 an hour less for what we regard as an essential service.

Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton): There is no comparison.

Mr. Lewis: There is a certain comparison.

Mr. Reilly: There is no comparison.

Mr. Lewis: Yes there is. I will tell the member why and I will come right to one of the final points I want to make, because this is the government which stopped Spadina in 1971. This is the government which talks such rhetoric and with such passion.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Rhetoric? Doesn’t the member know what that word means?

Mr. Lewis: I know what rhetoric means and I have listened to the Premier’s rhetoric as well. That’s right.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: No, I am not. I am giving it to him as we feel it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will listen.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier talked heavily over the last three years about public transit and he has talked about moving from the private automobile to the use of public transit. But he still makes sure that his employees, who are central to public transit in the life of this province, earn significantly less than those who work in the private automobile sector.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They are not our employees.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. And the government allowed the imbalance to continue. I think, and many of us in this caucus think, that one of the reasons why this strike went on is because of the government’s ambivalence about public transit. The Premier has captured the rhetoric of it. Sure, I understand that. He stopped Spadina, but what has he done in the interim?

Mr. Deans: Nothing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh what rot. What an imagination.

Mr. Lewis: And if he feels for public transit then why doesn’t he move in and allow for good-faith collective bargaining before a strike occurs which throttles a city of two million people?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Which cheek does the member have his tongue in this time?

Mr. Lewis: If the Premier really believes in public transit how does he sit back and watch it happen? But he doesn’t believe in public transit. All he believes in is something called Krauss-Maffei --

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member doesn’t really believe what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He is laughing at himself inside.

Mr. Lewis: -- for which he will pay $25 million or $26 million or $30 million; but to pay another $6 million or $7 million, which is all it would have taken to achieve a settlement, to the workers who allow his public transit system to function, that he would deny.

The strength of the Premier’s public transit system doesn’t live in some supernatural gimmick called Krauss-Maffei. It lives in the capacity of the present system to function well, and the Premier has allowed it to grind down.

And frankly. Chairman Godfrey and Chairman Mallette, suburban, automobile commuters, also don’t understand the meaning of public transit. Psychologically they don’t understand it either. Karl Mallette was a supporter of the Scarborough Expressway until not very many months ago.

And that’s another part of the government’s problem; while all of them are speaking of public transit, none of them are willing to do anything to assure that it is absolutely defended against the kind of perverse collective bargaining experience that the last four months and three weeks have indicated, none at all.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The government has given millions towards it.

Mr. Lewis: Sure, the government has given millions to hardware, to some of the capital costs, to the 50 per cent subsidy of operating costs; but when it means allowing a public transit system to serve two million people without breakdown then the government has no more money to give, and that for us is a measure of its commitment.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member must have information that I don’t have about what money there is or is not.

Mr. Lewis: I may say that the only information I have is in the inflationary increases that Krauss-Maffei have already cost the Province of Ontario and for that inflationary increase the government could have settled the strike.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There has been no discussion with this province about such --

Mr. Deans: But there should have been.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No.

Mr. Deans: That’s the problem; there should have been.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: Public transit is very much a provincial matter, and whether the government is going to face it in St. Catharines in a few weeks time, as I gather is the case, whether it is going to face it in Kitchener-Waterloo in a couple of weeks time, or less as I gather is the case, in a few days I guess, the government is simply going to have to do something about its commitment to public transit other than to see the system break down.

All we are saying, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill was necessary in the government’s mind because it would not allow bargaining in good faith or it wouldn’t enforce bargaining in good faith. The government has no feeling for what it describes as an essential service and when the chips are down it is still not sure about its commitment to public transit.

We oppose it, therefore, because the legislation isn’t necessary. We oppose it, therefore, because the government is inviting acrimony and disputes between the workers and the commission over the next two years. It is inviting it by this legislation and it should not have been.

We are opposing it because it destroys labour relations in Ontario. We are opposing it because it is politically motivated rather than socially desirable, had the government wished to use the alternatives. Sure there has been three weeks of staggering inconvenience to the people of Metropolitan Toronto, and for that reason we would have wished the strike had never taken place. This legislation is not the act of a government rescuing the public. This legislation is the act of government rescuing itself from several months of public negligence; the government can’t expect us to support that kind of legislation. It had every alternative at hand.

Mr. Speaker, to simply close it, let me say that as a party we have said to the transit workers before, and I say it now, that when the Act becomes law it should be obeyed, because it is a law -- a bad law, not a good law, but it is a law -- and I am not particularly interested in seeing or in encouraging civil disobedience in the Province of Ontario and I hope it won’t take place. I hope, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that the transit workers are sufficiently worked up about what the government is doing to them that they will provide it with reciprocity approximately one year from now in a fashion which is rather more effective, by bringing this government to an end --

Mr. O. F. Villeneuve (Glengarry): That is why the member is speaking very well.

Mr. Lewis: -- that they will join a great many others --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is a great way for the member to set out his position.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I understand; divine law; they rule forever over there. Nobody dares intrude.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Well, all things come to an end, good or bad, and this government is doing a remarkably artful job of undermining its own position. This bill aside, that is the case. This bill included, that case is emphasized.

l know the bill is going through; I know we will have to live with it; I hope it is observed; I know it will choke in the craw of many of the workers, but it strikes me that they will’ probably observe it. In that sense, Mr. Speaker, let me end by saying to the Premier, the workers involved, by observing the legislation, have a far greater commitment to public responsibility and to public transit than his government has shown for the past four months and three weeks.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, at the commencement of my remarks I did want to say a word about the shabby and stupid trick the government tried to use at the beginning of this debate, the playing about with the order paper --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member is out of order.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Grow up.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is out of order. I would ask him to stay with the principle of this bill.

Mr. Singer: This is within the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker; it is within the principle of the legislative privileges that we have, and it is --

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member always tries to --

Mr. Singer: Oh, I thought the member for Peel North was the listener and he didn’t heckle. He was objecting a little earlier to that. Now I want to tell the House that that shabby and inept trick is typical of the way the government stands aside from responsibility in matters such as this --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: -- particularly, Mr. Speaker, with regard to labour matters.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I am going to ask the hon. member to stay to the principle of this bill.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): It’s a massive principle that’s at stake here.

Mr. Singer: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I was just bringing it back to the principle. I was saying that what the government tried to do in avoiding their legislative responsibility is typical of the principle of this bill, and they are doing exactly the same thing when they bring this bill forward.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: You see, Mr. Speaker, when this attempt is made -- and I just don’t want anybody to miss it -- when this attempt is made it is an indication that the government holds the legislative process in absolute contempt when it tries to circumvent the rules that have been established in order to get its own way with a minimum of debate.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Get on with it.

Mr. Singer: It doesn’t want to hear the opinions of the people of Ontario and it doesn’t want to hear the opinions of the opposition, so rather than live up to the rules that are in this book, rather than live up to orderly bargaining in labour disputes, it tries shabby, mean and stupid tricks. That is why, Mr. Speaker, these facts have to be emphasized in the course of this debate.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Now talk about the bill.

Mr. Singer: All right, I will. I have got a cartoon here, Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is not talking about the bill.

Mr. Singer: I am going to talk about -- oh, I will be around to that, I will be ground to that.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Singer: I thought the Premier would like to hear about a cartoon that appeared in the Sun on Tuesday, Aug. 27, 1974. I went looking for the original but I understand the Premier beat me to it; he already has it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He is a constituent of mine.

Mr. Singer: That’s good. It was drawn by a fellow named Donald Owen. I don’t think there has been a better expression than this cartoon of what has gone on insofar as this strike is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, in case you haven’t seen it, let me tell you what is in this cartoon. There is a picture of a fellow who I guess is supposed to represent the hon. member for Peel North. He looks a little unshaven. I don’t recall that the hon. member for Peel North comes in here in need of a shave. He is ripping off his shirt and there is a great big “T” on a crest in the middle of his chest. And he is saying: “This looks like a job for Mr. Transportation Man.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: This is so typical of the Liberal Party. They have nothing to offer. Nothing.

Mr. Singer: I’m sorry if this is bothering the member for Peel North, but I am going to say it anyway, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are a lot of important things to do here.

Mr. Singer: I am glad he listens and he doesn’t heckle, I am glad he is so quiet.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Relax, it is a lot of sound and fury; he’ll support it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right.

Mr. Singer: And then, Mr. Speaker, at the bottom, is: “More powerful than a GO train. Faster than the speeding bus. Able to leap unfinished expressways with a single bound.” That describes the approach of the Premier to this particular labour dispute.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s the member’s reference to Spadina; there it is now.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, let me ask, where has “Mr. Transportation Man” been up to the last few days? Where has his Minister of Labour been up to the last three or four days? It’s fascinating to hear now the bleats from Mr. Godfrey and from Mr. Mallette; and from Mr. Crombie the suggestion that came forth a few days ago. But where have those people been for all the four months and 13 days, the period of time that the hon. leader of the NDP was talking about? Where have they been?

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Where has the member for Downsview been?

Mr. Singer: Was it reasonable, Mr. Speaker, to expect that this situation, being allowed to fester, being allowed to develop into a real abscess, was going to be solved by the last-minute intervention of “Mr. Transportation Man”? Of course it wasn’t. Surely when we have a Ministry of Labour and a brand new Minister of Labour -- and I have great respect for him personally -- with capable civil servants, Mr. Dickie, Mr. Speranzini and the others who work with them, surely an inkling must have leaked through to them somewhere along the line that there was trouble in the TTC maybe as early as last January, and somebody at Queen’s Park might have felt that there could be serious trouble unless this situation was resolved. Surely, “Mr. Transportation Man” or his new Minister of Labour could have had the initiative to say: “All right. We cannot possibly allow a strike of the transit workers in Metro.”

What is Metro? Metro is the core of the province. It has a third of the population, and anybody with a quarter of a brain must have realized the kind of inconvenience, the kind of harm, that a transportation strike would bring to this centre if it was allowed to go on.

Therein lies the fault, Mr. Speaker. Therein lies the negligence. Therein lies the ineptitude of this government. With all of its facilities, with all that it must have known, with unlimited funds and with unlimited ability to research, with unlimited ability to call people into session, they didn’t get into action until the last four or five days.

The Premier is the big transportation man. He plans, he stops, he builds. And this is what he has, in fact, created, because neither he nor any of his advisers had enough initiative to get into this thing when the first signs appeared. They just let it fester and they just let the disease spread until finally the boil rose to the top and it exploded and now we have what we have and we are called here to legislate 5,500 people back to work.

Let’s think about that for a minute, Mr. Speaker. I would hope -- and this view has been expressed earlier -- that the members of the union who are affected by this bill will, in fact, go back to work when Her Honour has given consent to this bill sometime later, perhaps today or even tomorrow.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If she can find it without looking at the order paper.

Mr. Singer: Yes, without looking at order paper 77(a) or (b) or (c), if we have another one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: She will have no trouble.

Mr. Singer: However, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, and I think this is the key question that has to be asked, how long can we create crises and expect that, by the dramatic move of calling the Legislature back to work on a Friday of a holiday weekend, we are going to pull the Premier’s chestnuts out of the fire? How long is it going to be that another compulsory arbitration statute is going to work in the Province of Ontario? What is the government going to do if it doesn’t work? Is it going to build concentration camps and put 1,000 people in this one and another 1,000 in that and another 1,000 in that until there are 5,500 people in jail? What is it going to do to enforce it if the union says: “We don’t think this is a fair bill and we won’t go back to work”? How long is it going to be before this union or another one says: “We are not going to listen to the sanctions”? This has been happening.

The hospital workers didn’t listen to the government’s sanctions. The teachers didn’t listen to its sanctions. One of these days, I hope it isn’t on Monday or Tuesday, a big union is going to say: “We are not going to pay attention to that piece of paper which the Legislature turned out at an emergency session.”

The remark of a cabinet minister from Quebec the other day when he was asked --

Hon. Mr. Davis: We’re hearing a very responsible, helpful approach!

Mr. Singer: I just want to draw this to the attention of the Premier and to make him realize the seriousness of the things he is doing.

Mr. MacDonald: Don’t support bills which are going to do that then. Don’t be so illogical.

Mr. W. Farrier (Cochrane South): Is the member for Downsview going to vote for it?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Downsview has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Don’t be such a hypocrite.

Mr. MacDonald: The Premier is right there.

Mr. Singer: The other day, Mr. Speaker, a cabinet minister in Quebec was asked by a member of the press whether or not it was likely they would pass a compulsory arbitration statute to solve one of their more current labour disputes. That cabinet minister stated: “What is the point? The people who are presently on strike are on strike against an existing statute which prohibits them from going on strike.” I hope we don’t get to that position in the Province of Ontario where the power and the sanctions of this Legislature in labour matters become meaningless.

Mr. MacDonald: Let the Liberals continue to support bills like this and we’ll get there.

Mr. Singer: This is the kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, which causes me very grave concern. I suggest this function today was absolutely unnecessary. Had the government from the beginning realized what was going on -- and it had a duty to realize and a responsibility to realize and an opportunity to realize -- this strike would never have taken place.

It has been asked by some of the members here on my left why, if I feel this strongly about it and I see all of these dangers, should I support this bill? I’ll tell them why I support this bill. I support this bill because as a representative of a riding in Metropolitan Toronto I know what is being done to this community.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for Downsview wants the expressway built.

Mr. Singer: Something has to be done -- and hopefully it will work -- to help the people in this community and not to hinder them any longer. That’s why I’m going to support this bill.

I find it a little difficult to follow some of the remarks of the leader of the NDP. He says there was bad faith. I agree with him on that. He says it never should have happened. I agree with him on that. But he says his party will vote not to order the people back to work. I don’t quite follow how he is going to solve the present dilemma in Metropolitan Toronto by voting against the bill. I hope the bill will work. I will vote to support it.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Tell the people to bargain in good faith.

Mr. Singer: I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a situation brought about by the Premier and his advisers; brought about by his cabinet ministers. He’s messed around with transportation in Metro. He’s produced no alternatives.

Mr. MacDonald: So the member is going to save it?

Mr. Singer: He has brought this about by his sins of omission and commission. In debating this bill it has to be brought to mind and kept clearly in front --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is the member for Downsview saying that if Spadina was built there wouldn’t be a strike?

Mr. Singer: -- that it is the responsibility --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The expressway would have solved all of it?

An hon. member: Think of the traffic jam.

Mr. Singer: -- of the government that this has happened. For goodness sake, let us hope that this bill will have its effect but never let it happen again. That is the responsibility of the people governing Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are no Oscars tonight.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I believe he has won a couple already.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor West.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill not because I’m not concerned about the resumption, as soon as possible, of public transportation in the city of Toronto, or indeed the restoration of the Gray Coach busline service to other centres in Ontario, but because it imposes yet again compulsory arbitration in a labour dispute.

The Minister of Labour earlier today, in his companion remarks upon the introduction of the bill, said there were only two other instances of bills of this type before the Legislature in 14 years, but in point of fact there have been four compulsory arbitration bills before us in the last 17 months. In March of 1973 there was the elevator constructors’ strike. We had two bills imposing and embodying the principle of compulsory arbitration on workers, involving teachers, one in December and one in February-March. Again now, in August, we have this bill dealing with compulsory arbitration to settle the transit workers’ strike.

This is indeed a sorry record. When speaking to the bill on the elevator constructors’ strike, I expressed my deep concern at that time on two points -- first, that it was the first time in a private dispute that compulsory arbitration had been imposed; but secondly, once you had imposed it, it didn’t matter whether it was a private dispute or a dispute involving public workers, it would become easier and easier and easier for the government to see this as the means of solution to labour disputes.

This is indeed what’s happened. We have had four now in 17 months; and it is a sorry record of this government that that is what collective bargaining in this province has now become. It gets easier for the government to do it, and each time it does it, it is helping to destroy collective bargaining in this province. It is helping to destroy good-faith bargaining in this province.

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Point of order.

Mr. Bullbrook: Do our standing orders provide that you call 6 of the clock?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Yes.

Mr. Bullbrook: The reason I put it to you is -- again the House leader isn’t here; we haven’t been asked. If the standing orders provide for you to call 6 of the clock, I suggest most respectfully to your high office that you call 6 of the clock or that the House leader advise what we are going to do. It just isn’t a one-way street. This is supposed to be a parliament.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has brought up a point. I am going to ask the member for Windsor West to continue his --

Hon. Mr. White: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue this debate through the supper hour.

Mr. Lewis: There was no such agreement.

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order, the rules of the House require --

Hon. Mr. White: I was informed by the House leader that he intended to proceed with this debate right through the supper hour.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That was announced earlier.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the rules of the House require the House to rise at 6 o’clock. The only way that can be changed is by unanimous consent. I do not intend to give unanimous consent. I ask you to enforce the rules of the House.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now we see who is blocking getting the transit running.

Some hon. members: Nobody’s blocking.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They have been talking about little rules and petty rules.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. House leader has the floor.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, if one will follow the rules very carefully -- I have forgotten the number of the rule -- but you will note that in order No. 3 the hours of the House are set Monday through Thursday and Friday. There is no prescription for hours after that and we expect that we will sit on.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They want to nitpick? There they go.

Mr. Speaker: I call on the hon. member for Windsor West to continue.

Mr. MacDonald: Talk about the House being manipulated by the executive. Members should all read the Camp Commission.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before the motion is put with respest to sitting through or whatever the ruling of the House leader has been, because it is not a ruling, there is a requirement in our rules which states that in all contingencies unprovided for -- and I suggest that this is a contingency unprovided for -- the question shall be decided by the Speaker. And in making his ruling, the Speaker shall base his decision on the usages and precedents of this Legislature and parliamentary tradition.

We have already today had one example of the rules being broken by the Speaker of the House interpreting the rules as saying that in contingencies not provided for he would do what he wanted to do.

Now, let’s be clear about it. This is an unprovided for contingency. The House is sitting today as a regular sitting day. The House doesn’t usually sit on Fridays. Precedent, usage and everything else require this House to rise at 6 o’clock.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could speak to this matter. By rule No. 3, if the business of the House is not finished during the week at 6 and there are evening sessions, then as you know, Mr. Speaker, the House does rise until 8. The only reference to Friday I’ve been able to find is under rule 2(d) which refers to the fact that when the House adjourns on Friday at 1 o’clock it stands adjourned until Monday. I would suggest that the matter should be resolved by the House leader making a motion that we do continue to sit and if that motion carries, of course, the matter can be attended to.

Mr. Lewis: The only way we can do it is by unanimous consent.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, to be governed by the rules, I think you will find also in the rules it says “unless otherwise ordered”. It has not been otherwise ordered and the House did sit at 3 o’clock. Despite what the member for Riverdale says there are no provisions for Friday and I anticipate that the House will sit through.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, you just --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, let the Speaker make his ruling.

Mr. Lewis: What does the minister mean: “Let the Speaker make the ruling”? The government can’t run ragged over the House like this; we’ve got to have some motion for God’s sake. Who the hell does the government think it is?

Mr. Bullbrook: The Speaker doesn’t need to make a ruling.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I invite the members on that side of the House to go back and read the Camp commission. It speaks in the most scandalized terms of the fashion in which the whole legislative branch is reduced to something that is a puppet in the hands of the executive. We’ve had today two or three examples of manipulating and playing games with the rules to do precisely that kind of thing. The government is destroying this Legislature; that’s what it’s doing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it is utter nonsense to suggest that. We came here and members were brought in from all over this province to engage in this very important debate on this very important piece of legislation and to suggest that we in the government --

Mr. Germa: It was important three weeks ago, too.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- or on this side of the House are attempting to destroy the legislative process when we have to take advantage of every moment we have to debate the bill --

Mr. Renwick: Of course they are.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s just bad judgement.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The opposition is nitpicking away at a very important hour and its members will have to take the responsibility for the terrible display of nitpicking in this fashion. That’s utter nonsense.

Mr. Renwick: Don’t talk nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Everybody came here, Mr. Speaker, on the understanding that we were going to be here as long as is necessary to get this legislation through.

Mr. Speaker: The time is now 6:07 p.m. I rule we are still in session. I call on the member for Windsor West to continue.

Mr. MacDonald: The speaker is just a puppet in the hands of the government.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, if I may Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: A point of order.

Mr. Foulds: A parliament is not run by understandings. A parliament is run by tradition. It is run by its rules. It is run by motions; and it is run, Mr. Speaker, on points of order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Speaker has made his ruling.

Mr. MacDonald: The Speaker is a puppet in the government’s hands.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Why didn’t the minister have the common courtesy to make it in advance?

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I urge you --

An hon. member: He’s spoiling for a fight.

Mr. MacDonald: I’ll invite the real fight. If he wants to fight on that issue I’ll get the whole Camp commission on my side.

Mr. Foulds: I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to make your rulings not on the basis of private understandings with the House leader or innuendos thrown across the floor but in the spirit of the rules of the House. The spirit of the rules of the House is very clear --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is exactly what I was talking about.

Mr. Foulds: -- that we adjourn at 6 unless unanimous consent has been given.

Mr. Breithaupt: Or on a motion.

Mr. Foulds: Or on a motion. If the House leader was not the buffoon that he is but was on top of his job and had --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I’m going to ask the hon. member to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Lawlor: There is nothing wrong with that remark. It is a good parliamentary remark.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the remark “buffoon” if the Speaker finds that objectionable.

An hon. member: It is very accurate and descriptive.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Doesn’t the member find it objectionable?

Mr. Lewis: Not at all; I find it temperate.

Mr. Foulds: If the House leader were not the incompetent oaf that he is, he would have --

Mr. Speaker: I am going to ask the member to withdraw that remark also.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The guy’s at least a buffoon.

Mr. Foulds: If the House leader were on top of his job --

An hon. member: Delete it. Expletive deleted.

Mr. Foulds: If the House leader were on top of his job he would have provided for this contingency. But as the member for Riverdale had pointed out, the contingency was not provided for. I ask you, I plead with you, to interpret the rules that we do adjourn.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why does the member want to adjourn?

Mr. Foulds: I may tell you, Mr. Speaker, that during our caucus discussions this very point came up. I was one of those who came out of the bush in northern Ontario, closing my holiday to get down here for this debate, and I argued, Mr. Speaker, against stopping the debate at 6 o’clock. I said: “Let’s give unanimous consent. Let’s agree to the motion.” But the way this Legislature has been treated this afternoon --

Mr. Speaker: I have listened to the member, but I have already made my ruling that we are still in session, and I am calling on the member for Windsor West to continue his remarks. Does the member for Windsor West wish to continue?

Mr. Bounsall: In the absence of a challenge to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will then continue. I was speaking on the fact --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Sounds like he is continuing regrettably.

Mr. Lewis: He is continuing regrettably.

Mr. Bounsall: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: You know, there is just no such thing as a non-partisan Speaker left in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, the way you are being used by the government --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, the member for Wentworth --

Mr. Lewis: -- you have made a mockery of the Chair. The minister should put a motion -- that’s his job as House leader -- and we vote on it and we decide.

The Speaker is no longer a non-partisan person in this House. They are turning the Speaker into a tool of the government. We can’t have that.

Mr. Foulds: The government is manipulating this House the way it manipulated the strike.

Mr. Germa: Resign. Resign.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, you should not allow yourself, sir, to be handled that way. The House leader moves a motion, it is voted on, it is passed or denied, and we have legitimate rules. You just can’t treat the House this way.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West has the floor.

Mr. Lewis: Sure the member for Windsor West has the floor, because the incumbent of the Speaker’s chair right now, the member for Beaches--Woodbine (Mr. Wardle) -- Tory member, partisan, with no respect for the Chair -- rules that way. I am tired of it. We sit through it week after week in this place.

Mr. MacDonald: A private deal with the government.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s nonsense.

Mr. MacDonald: It is a private deal with the government through which the Speaker’s chair has been demeaned in the process.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: It wouldn’t happen in Ottawa. At least in Ottawa the Speaker rules in a non-partisan way.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lawlor: I wonder if the people of Ontario know we have a partisan government.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, the government’s record in solving those few disputes, those three or four per cent a year which go to strike and which cause problems, is indeed a sorry one.

Four times in the last 17 months we have seen legislation coming forth embodying compulsory arbitration, compulsory binding arbitration, as the means of settling disputes. I warned at the time of the elevator constructors’ strike that this was a precedent in the private sector and I was very concerned about the development of the new style of compulsory arbitration in other disputes. Any time that the government or the editorial writers of our newspapers, or the public, got a little tired of a particular dispute they would call for compulsory arbitration to be imposed and then we would have it; and this appears to be the very regrettable way that labour relations have moved in this province. It destroys the collective bargaining process a little bit more each time it is done and it encourages the destruction of good-faith bargaining, as indeed I think happened in this dispute.

You had the Toronto Transportation Commission and commissioners feeling that if the strike lasted a few days it would be almost inevitable that the government would have to bring in some sort of legislation to end the dispute. And throughout, including the four months prior to the three weeks of the strike, they did not engage, as the record is clear, in good-faith bargaining to reach a solution to this particular labour dispute. The sorry point is that the imposition of compulsory arbitration, leaving aside for the moment the issues and the feelings of the workers involved, does not really solve anything, because the decision that is reached compulsorily by an arbitrator or a board of arbitration is one which neither side particularly has thought through or in essence been finally in agreement with, but it is a situation imposed upon them -- under which they must live, in this case for possibly up to two years for the workers involved -- and which by its very self, by that very fact has not been arrived at, however reluctantly, by a meeting of the minds of both parties in the bargaining situation.

There not being a meeting of this sort, of the minds, with some explanation capable to be given by both sides as to why they arrived at that particular situation and then going on to solve internally problems which arise from that agreement, they find themselves with a decision imposed upon them, with both sides in many cases living with the frustration of that type of agreement. This is what is so destructive about the imposition of compulsory arbitration, the result of the final decision on both parties that are involved.

Mr. Speaker, the record of opposition of the New Democratic Party over the years has been a good one and a strong one in this respect. Away back in 1960 in the dispute with Ontario Hydro, we opposed at that time the imposition of compulsory arbitration. Throughout the years we have opposed the general legislation imposing compulsory arbitration that this government has brought in as a means of settling disputes.

I refer to the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, on which we have argued, urged, appealed for repeal; and we are seeing the fruits of that very bad legislation in the hospital disputes that are arising around this province. My leader expressed it very well when he pointed out, again I might say, that there had never been strikes in the hospitals in Ontario until this odious Hospital Labour Disputes Act was brought in.

We opposed in this House not very long ago the Crown Employees Bargaining Act, which deprived the civil servants of Ontario of their right to strike, in imposing arbitration as the only means they could have, compulsorily, of settling disputes which they couldn’t settle themselves; and its companion bill on the teachers in our community colleges, which has now created so many problems throughout the Province of Ontario.

We opposed right from the start legislation doing the same to teachers in the Province of Ontario in those situations where they had not settled their contract by a certain date. Again, we opposed it with the York county board because of the destruction of labour relations which arise each time you impose it, and the encouragement, in essence, of bad-faith bargaining on the side of at least one of the parties to the dispute.

Indeed, in some sectors they can always count on the fact that they don’t have to settle, they don’t really have to strive for a meeting of the minds after long hours of bargaining and looking for ways in which a solution might be reached, because they know if they delay long enough the province will come in and impose compulsory arbitration upon them.

This is a sorry situation in the Province of Ontario. It is a sorry record now for this government to have, and I can see in the future, regretfully, an ever-increasing number of disputes in which there is not good-faith bargaining occurring because one side to that dispute can always count upon the government or might be thinking that the government will come in and impose compulsory arbitration for them.

It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I and my colleagues in this party will be opposing this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. Andrew--St. Patrick.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I hadn’t intended to engage in this debate because, quite frankly, I was of the opinion, as I’m sure most of the members of this House were, that because of the urgent nature of this; and because we have brought members in far distances at great inconvenience to some members who have perhaps taken this period of time for their vacation, at great expense brought them in on both sides --

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): It doesn’t look like many of them are interested.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All the minister’s buddies have left because they knew he was speaking.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- both sides, I think, by plane, to get them to engage in this debate; that we would come in here, make a decision for or against this bill, and as quickly and expeditiously as possible because the people outside this Legislature are waiting for a decision one way or the other.

Mr. Renwick: Does the minister mean he didn’t want to debate?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This Legislature is either going to put the transit --

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Renwick: The point of order is that the principle of the bill is under debate and the member for St. Andrew--St. Patrick should adhere to the principle of the bill and debate the bill.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Talk about nitpicking, Mr. Speaker. That’s the kind of nitpicking that’s delaying --

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s a pretty small nit. It’s okay for the minister to do it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am going to talk about the spirit of the rules of this House, the spirit of the rules of a democratic House. I will make sure that there will be as little interference as is possible with the free debate in this House; and because everyone knew why they were coming here, it’s the duty of everyone here to make sure that we do everything possible not to delay a decision --

Mr. Renwick: Debate the bill.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Everyone knew they were coming here for that purpose.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That had nothing to do with it. The hon. Leader of the Opposition makes some comment about my attendance in this House. I just want to say, any time he wants to compare his record of attendance in this House with mine, I would be very pleased to do so --

Mr. Lewis: Oh no, spare us.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I doubt if there is any member in this House who can compare --

Mr. Renwick: Does the minister support the TTC’s way of bargaining?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Actually my comment was that we haven’t heard from his recently. He’s here, but he doesn’t say anything and he doesn’t do anything. It is good to hear him in action.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Because, Mr. Speaker, I happen to be one of those who don’t speak unless they have something to say.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What portfolio has he got again? Is he still in the cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. members opposite haven’t anything to say either, but they are saying it.

Mr. Breithaupt: He’s the only member left on that side.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I did interject earlier, but I want to put it on the record so that it will be quite clear. I don’t know why the Leader of the Opposition seems to feel there’s something sinister about the chairman of a great municipality like Metropolitan Toronto having easy access to the Premier of this great province. I see nothing wrong with that at all. Indeed, I think it would be open to great criticism and condemnation if that were not the case.

As a matter of fact, as far as I can recall, that has been the case with every chairman of Metropolitan Toronto. That’s why those fellows are over there; because we pay attention to the people who represent their respective jurisdictions-

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now, there has been a lot of double-talk from the opposition on this particular subject.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The gist is something along these lines, Mr. Speaker: This sitting today would not have been necessary if one side or the other had bargained in good faith. Incidentally, all of the getting up here and trying to blame one of the two parties --

Mr. Renwick: That’s not the gist of it. The gist of it is very clear. It is the failure of the commission to bargain in good faith.

Mr. Lewis: Absolutely.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- for not having bargained in good faith is no way to send them to arbitration.

Mr. Lewis: Of course it is.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are in a position here where, because they haven’t been able to come to any responsible agreement --

Mr. Lewis: Because of this government’s negligence.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- because they haven’t been able to do that, that we have had to step in. As a matter of fact, the contradiction -- and the hon. leader of the NDP knows this perfectly well, because in his quiet moments he’s a reasonable man; he knows that what he’s saying in fact is that the minister should have intervened a long time ago --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- that when things weren’t going so well, he should have intervened. In other words, he says, on the one hand: “Leave the free collective bargaining procedure alone. Don’t start interfering with government interference -- ”

Mr. Renwick: No, he said to intervene to have the law --

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I said that the minister intervenes at the point at which his law, which he administers and which requires good-faith bargaining, is abused. That is the point at which he intervenes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, Mr. Speaker, at that point -- whichever point it would have been at -- if the Minister of Labour had intervened in the early stages, the leader of the NDP would have been one of the first --

Mr. Lewis: Not so. I deny that categorically. That’s the minister’s mythology, not mine. That’s his fantasy, not mine.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- to get up to say: “If you hadn’t put your sticky fingers into that thing, there would have been an agreement a long time ago.” That’s exactly what he would have done. He would have blamed the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Cassidy: Four months without real bargaining. Can the minister defend that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They would have blamed him and, therefore, this government for having what they would have called interjected the strong hand of government and precipitated the strike.

Mr. Lewis: The minister doesn’t understand. None of the ministers understand.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s exactly what they would have done.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Allow the hon. member to continue.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They don’t like to hear common sense, Mr. Speaker. It sort of makes them feel inadequate.

It’s been a complete contradiction all the way through the piece and that’s what makes their arguments so worthless. I’ll say the leader of the NDP certainly puts up a shrewd and beautiful piece of elocution. He really does. It sounds great until one dissects the argument and one sees he’s going around in circles.

Mr. Lewis: Can I use shrewd and beautiful in my election literature in 1975? Can I print that it was shrewd and beautiful?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don’t mind.

Mr. Lewis: Would the minister mind if it’s taken out of context?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I wish the member enjoyed my speeches half as much as I enjoy his.

Mr. Lewis: I do enjoy them.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They’re very entertaining.

Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House knows there are hundreds of thousands, millions of people outside this chamber who want this strike settled as quickly as possible.

Mr. Germa: They wanted it three weeks ago.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They are trying to play all sides. The NDP -- I’ll give it credit for that -- has taken its stand and presumably is going to stick with it and vote against compulsory arbitration. In this case I’ll give the members credit for it. They’re standing behind their principles. The Liberals, we don’t expect much more than what we’re getting today anyway.

Mr. Germa: It’s expedient for them, that’s all.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s right. They’re going to vote for this because they must know in their hearts, and I’m sure they know, and I’m sure most of the TTC workers are probably anxious to try to get this damn thing over with and make a settlement. Get it over with because they know, as responsible people, they have to keep the transportation system of this great metropolitan area going.

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister sounds like Barry Goldwater.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They know.

Mr. Bullbrook: In his heart he knows they are right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion let me just say they are not really fooling anybody at all and I want to repeat that particular point. On the one hand they say we’re interfering with free collective bargaining, and on the other hand they say we should have interfered with free collective bargaining a lot earlier.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s what they said.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is patent nonsense. They are trying to blow hot and cold at the same time and they can’t do it.

Incidentally, all of this talk about the horrible things which are going to ensue from this sort of bill -- of course, the Liberals, if the member for Downsview really speaks for them, if they really believe that, have no right voting for this bill. If they really believe that this bill is going to be another step towards complete violence in this field they shouldn’t be voting for it at all.

Hon. Mr. White: Every member in the caucus is on his own.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I believe the very suggestion of this is giving some encouragement toward violence by some of these people. That’s exactly what they’re doing.

Mr. Lewis: Right -- to the radicals, to the dissenters.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They’re making the people who listen or read get the idea that violence wouldn’t be such a terrible thing --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and it’s recognized by some people in this House as possibly a good means toward their ends. I think that’s a shabby way to deal with this very important problem that we have before us today.

Again, let me say if we really want to do what we’re here to do -- that is make a decision one way or the other -- if members want to vote against it, let them vote against it, but we should have the vote. Everything that needs to be said has been said, and repeated ad nauseam as a matter of fact.

Mr. Lewis: Let’s dispense with the debate.

Mr. Cassidy: Let’s dispense with the whole place.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Just phone it in.

Mr. Lewis: Why doesn’t the government do it by order-in-council?

Mr. Breithaupt: Do it by mail, if they like.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we should take the vote and take a stand one way or the other because the workers involved and the public involved are waiting for that decision to know where they stand.

Mr. Bullbrook: Tell me, is the minister taking a stand now?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York--Forest Hill.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York--Forest Hill): Mr. Speaker, judging from the --

Mr. Drea: Another Liberal Party member’s up.

Mr. Breithaupt: At least he is someone who was mayor of the city and who would know something about it.

Mr. Maeck: He solved all the problems when he was mayor.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor.

Mr. Givens: Judging from the debate which has taken place so far I think it’s clearly indicated the hon. members have been brought back from their vacations too soon. The members have been rather irascible and I hope that some of the transit union workers and any members on the negotiating team who are sitting in the galleries have not learned too many lessons today from the conduct of the hon. members in the Legislature as to how to conduct themselves in the negotiating proceedings in which they have been involved. Because if they have been conducting themselves the way we have today it is no wonder they have been stymied for 19 days.

Mr. Bullbrook: Make sure it’s the House leader.

Mr. Givens: I think, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps today the members have been sitting in the wrong place to judge the merits of this bill and as to whether or not they should vote for it. They shouldn’t have been sitting in this chamber. They should have been sitting on the front steps of this building to watch the tie-up of bumper-to-bumper traffic all the way up and down University Ave. and they would have been in a better frame of mind to determine whether to vote for this bill or not, and this is the way it has been for the past 19 days and 19 nights.

The atmosphere of this legislative chamber, looking at the galleries, is reminiscent of the way the council chamber used to be when I sat on city council when Locals 43 and 79 used to come down -- you will remember, Mr. Speaker -- which was a more democratic climate than we have here sometimes, for the simple reason that we were closer to the members of the union.

Local 43 represented the outside workers and 79 the inside workers, and when we were conducting negotiations they sat there and they breathed down our necks. We knew them. We used to go to their dances and we used to go to their picnics, and we knew that what we did for Local 43 we would have to do for Local 79; and what we did for 43 and 79 we would have to do for the police and fire people. Everybody else would demand parity, and if you gave somebody a 10 per cent increase you would have to follow the 10 per cent all the way down the line.

People, the workers and the members of the union, weren’t simply statistics on a sheet of paper but you could see them, you dealt with them, you were familiar with them, you were like Dutch uncles to them; and what you did for one you had to do for others.

Consequently, when we are dealing with the question of compulsory arbitration today, we have got to bear in mind that we are putting ourselves in the position that sooner or later we may risk defiance of the kind of obedience that we are trying to extract from any particular union that we are dealing with, and sooner or later we may run into that situation.

We have been indulging in this exercise of trying to ascribe blame on various people. Everybody is judging from newspaper reports or from private conversations that we have had with Karl Mallette or with Paul Godfrey, and the fact of the matter is that it is very difficult to determine how to ascribe blame on various people because these labour negotiations have been carried on in camera in air-conditioned rooms in the Royal York Hotel. These negotiations by their very nature are carried on under a veil and a cloud of secrecy and nobody knows what goes on in these negotiations. Labour doesn’t want any- body to know what they are saying and management doesn’t want anybody to know what they are saying. The essence of the good negotiator, or a good conciliator, or a good mediator, is that he tells nobody. Even when the press asks him questions, a successful mediator is a person who divulges very little. So how can you determine whether Mallette did a good job or whether Godfrey did a good job.

Mr. Lewis: The member’s leader determined it.

Mr. Givens: I agree with the hon. minister from St. Andrew--St. Patrick that it would indeed be a very poor chairman of the metropolitan council who didn’t have the ear of the Premier, because without the ear of the Premier he couldn’t be a good chairman of the metropolitan council. I think Paul Godfrey on the whole -- I say this in public tribute to him -- has done a good job. Maybe he has failed in this respect, but in other respects he has done a pretty good job.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: There is a sensible man.

Mr. Drea: How does the Leader of the Opposition’s back feel?

Mr. Givens: And I want to tell members this, those who are over there who think they are writing themselves a ticket to freedom by sort of bailing themselves out of this tight situation in this particular strike, there was once upon a time when the Toronto Transportation Commission had to live out of the fare box. It existed and had to be self-sufficient out of the fare box and then it had the absolute responsibility of living out of the fare box and it had to negotiate and it had the complete responsibility. But now, when the government has decided that cities are for people and they are going to get back public transit, this doesn’t simply mean that the government can wait until it has its Krauss-Maffei choo-choo trains running in 1990 or the year 2000. The government has bought that now. It has now become the Santa Claus, and that means it has got to back it up now. So the people who are running the TTC say: “We don’t have to face that responsibility now. If the TTC workers want a 20 per cent a year raise, which may be inflationary, we will wait to see what the Province of Ontario, Santa Claus, is going to do.” This is what the government is facing with the hospitals, this is what it is facing with the teachers, this is what it is facing with transit, this is what it is going to be facing with these 19 hospitals in another few weeks; and it is going to be facing this periodically, week in and week out, month in and month out.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Did we not give them the money?

Mr. Givens: The government is going to be giving them more money. It is going to be giving them more money and it is going to be doing this habitually. So this is going to be this government’s responsibility from now on and its members are going to have to face up to it.

Mr. Bullbrook: Did the minister say: “Of course it is a problem”?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Sure.

Mr. Givens: He is acknowledging it? All right.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s really indescribable.

An hon. member: Well, he’s a policy secretary.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is indescribable that you have to describe a problem like that.

An hon. member: That’s policy?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Givens: Many of us stand up here and we render lip service to the principle and concept of collective bargaining. Like motherhood, the concept or the process of collective bargaining is regarded as sacrosanct. We say that this is an economic struggle between labour and management, that a strike is a final recourse of labour to get what it wants, and that this is an economic struggle which is supposed to hurt because there is no other way that it could be treated. But we realize the democracy of this concept.

We’ve had a strike now for 19 days and 19 nights -- and I mention the nights because the nights have been a factor, because people have been sitting up all hours of the night negotiating in this strike. This collective bargaining process and the TTC, in this TTC strike, have been suffering from arterio sclerosis and the city is having coronary thrombosis right now, suffering for 19 days.

On one hand you have some 5,700 transit workers and their wives and their families and everything that that implies, and you have a handful of management. On the other hand you have the victims -- and who speaks for them, the victims in this strike? Hundreds of thousands of people have been inconvenienced; and I’m not just talking about inconvenience which means that they have had to hitch a ride or drive their car or take their bicycle out of the garage or send Johnny down in the neighbour’s car or something like that. Millions of dollars have been wasted, millions of dollars have been lost in wages -- and here again I’m not talking about the big stores like Eaton’s or Simpsons or the plazas or the downtown stores, but the small people with small wages.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The small merchants.

Mr. Givens: People who are charwomen, who are domestics, who are nurses; people who have been trapped in hospitals and haven’t been able to come home because they haven’t been able to get domestic help or housekeeping help to come into their houses, people who come with public transit. People have been trapped in this way.

For people with small jobs, who is going to replace their salaries and their wages that they’ve lost? Who is going to make their pay retroactive that they’ve lost over the past three weeks? Offices and factories have been stymied and disrupted. I know in our factory we had people who have been unable to report for their jobs both in the office and the factory, and production is completely down. This will never be replaced and this will never be replenished and this will never be fixed up. It has just been awlul.

It has just been a paralysis. If Toronto had been attacked by an enemy force, the paralysis couldn’t be any worse than it is right now. During the day, both in the morning and at night there has been this bumper-to-bumper traffic where it has taken an hour and three-quarters or two hours to travel to work in the morning -- and these have been the lucky people who have been inconvenienced. Medical and dental appointments have been cancelled. Mr. Speaker, nobody has mentioned this yet, on Tuesday, the day after Labour Day --

Mr. Cassidy: I have been away for 19 days and the city is still here.

An hon. member: Don’t forget the Exhibition.

Mr. Givens: The Exhibition has been busted by this strike.

Mr. Lewis: It has like the devil, come on.

Mr. Givens: Well, it has not been the great success it could have been. I didn’t even mention it, but since the member for Scarborough West brings it up, I mentioned it.

Mr. Lewis: I brought it up?

Mr. Givens: On Tuesday the kids go back to school --

An hon. member: Aw, mother will provide.

Mr. Lewis: A little violin music.

An hon. member: We’ll be shedding real tears.

Mr. Givens: -- and thousands of the little ones will be pushed out into the streets.

Mr. Lewis: A little schmaltzy right now.

Mr. Givens: Well, Mr. Speaker, havoc and pandemonium will reign supreme.

Mr. Lewis: “Havoc and pandemonium”?

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the member for York--Forest Hill has the floor and I know he is trying to get to the principle of the bill at this moment.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He is doing a good job too.

Mr. Givens: Mr. Speaker, in light of these circumstances -- which may be facetious to some, funny to other people -- under these circumstances I really don’t think that for those who are responsible and who are representative of the public who have suffered in Toronto, regardless of where the merits of the case may lie, that this strike can continue along its present course. It has to be ended.

As far as the two main issues are concerned, the union has asked for a 40 per cent increase over two years. Of course, this would be clearly inflationary if we speak in terms of a 20 per cent increase every year for everybody -- which means transit workers and all other workers, because parity will be demanded by all the workers in the public sector in every field.

An hon. member: What’s wrong with that?

Mr. Givens: It would be clearly inflationary and it would mean runaway inflation in the entire country. Obviously the increase will not be 20 per cent. Some compromise will have to be reached there.

Mr. Cassidy: Doesn’t the member understand the bargaining process?

Mr. Givens: So far as the split shift is concerned, here again it will require compromise. One of the characteristics for years in the transportation business has been that there is this split shift business; there is a peak in the morning and there is a peak at night. It is like being a bartender. If you are a bartender you work at night and if you are a dance band musician you work at night. And if you don’t work a split shift, there will have to be some compromise. But surely members are not suggesting that the strike can go on another 19 days until a compromise is worked out, which is going to satisfy everybody?

Mr. Lewis: No.

Mr. Cassidy: We are suggesting there should have been some bargaining about this.

Mr. Lewis: We are suggesting a negotiated settlement.

Mr. Cassidy: There has been no effort by the TTC to bargain.

Mr. Givens: But they have been negotiating for 19 days and it has failed’.

Let me say one more thing in closing, Mr. Speaker. It is automatically accepted, particularly by the hon. members on the left, that compulsory arbitration is always ipso facto -- they facto on everything else and ab initio -- anti-labour.

Mr. Lewis: Usually.

Mr. Givens: I have read many settlements where compulsory arbitration settlements have been very pro-labour.

Mr. Lewis: If the member means the findings of the arbitrator, sure, I agree.

Mr. Givens: I remember a garbage collectors’ settlement in Metropolitan Toronto where the garbage collectors were given a hell of a lot more by the arbitrator, Judge Reville, than they even asked for, which is highly inflationary.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right, but why take the chance?

Mr. Givens: It may be that the arbitrator in this case will give the workers’ much more, so that the government is taking as much of a risk and we will be paying for it here in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Young: The principle is wrong.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The principle is wrong, but how would it be resolved?

Mr. Lewis: For that reason, he sends everything to compulsory arbitration.

Mr. Givens: No, I am not saying send everything. The fact of the matter is that you had the strike, there have been the 19 days of negotiation. For whatever the reason or whatever the blame or whatever the recriminations, it has failed. It has not achieved anything in 19 days.

Mr. Lewis: But you have to make it work and this isn’t the way.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for Scarborough West always says that.

Mr. Givens: Well, it hasn’t worked. All right, I am not going to argue with the hon. member. I am satisfied that the people who have been involved in the negotiations did the best, to the best of their ability; and if they didn’t the truth will come out, it always does. We will see what compulsory arbitration will result in.

I’ll tell you this, Mr. Speaker, if we were to leave here tonight and not vote for this bill as it is presented in every respect -- maybe we could amend it in a couple of little details; I have in mind a couple of things, I think some other members of my caucus have a couple of details in mind -- but if we were to leave here tonight without passing this bill I think the public would have every right to excoriate and curse us if we didn’t end the strike this evening.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak just briefly on the principle of the bill. There is no need for me to repeat the arguments that have been made by the leader of this party with respect to the reasons why this party is opposed to the bill. He stated it in a way that the record has made perfectly clear and it doesn’t need the misinterpretations of the member for St. Andrew--St. Patrick --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: How would the member misinterpret it?

Mr. Renwick: -- to restate it in his particular myopic and misunderstood view of the collective bargaining process.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I must have struck a chord there.

Mr. Renwick: I think there are two or three things that do need to be emphasized and there is one commitment that I believe that the government has to make to this House for the people of the Metropolitan Toronto area -- that the passage of this bill will not result in fare increases on the public transit system in the city of Toronto during the time of this collective bargaining.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That has nothing to do with the principle of this bill.

Mr. Renwick: During the time when the collective agreements which will result from the arbitrator’s award are in force, the city is entitled and the people who use the public transit system, of which I happen to be one, are entitled as a result of the difficulties of the last 19 days, to have that assurance and to have it categorically.

I don’t pretend to understand all of the financial methods that are used in order to finance the public transit system, but as I understand the programmes enunciated by the Treasurer in his pamphlet setting out the assistance that’s granted to various municipalities by the provincial government with respect to their programmes, it is clear that the government of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the government of the Province of Ontario each bear 50 per cent of the operating deficit of the transit system.

I also understood, when the additional $33 million was made available to the Toronto Transit system a short time ago, that there was a commitment made that during the year 1974 there would be no increase in fares.

I certainly think that in addition to returning the transit system to operation, the government must give the assurance to those who use it that as a result of these negotiations, the Province of Ontario and the metropolitan government will bear the cost and not the persons who use the rapid transit system. I ask for that commitment on behalf of the people in my riding and, I am quite certain, on behalf of the people in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto who are dependent upon that service.

Nobody needs to tell us about the hardship, the inconvenience and the difficulties that this particular strike has caused to the public. It has been visible. It doesn’t need any articulation and emotional aura of words in this Legislature to make it understood.

What we have to understand is what was clear at the very beginning of this strike -- and I happen to have stated it at that time; it turned out to be perfectly true -- that if a strike occurs in the transit system in Metropolitan Toronto when there are 142 outstanding items unsettled, then here is no way in which the collective bargaining process is going to result in anything other than the intransigent view which the Toronto Transit Commission has taken throughout the bargaining process and us being in this chamber to pass this bill now.

The reason we are in this chamber is that the minister knew what was happening in that bargaining process. The minister knew, as everybody else knew, that there was something seriously wrong when the transit system was shut down in the metropolitan area with 142 items outstanding. The public will never for- get that. The Globe and Mail published the list of outstanding matters so that everybody in the city is quite aware of them.

I think the public might have been able to give some credibility to the Toronto Transit Commission if, when they had gone on strike, they had settled all but seven or eight or nine of the major outstanding issues and those matters were matters which were going to be dealt with throughout the collective bargaining process.

What does that mean? It means that for practical purposes the metropolitan government, charged under the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, and the Toronto Transit Commission, have failed in the management of the Toronto transit system in a way that will require in due course of time the replacement of every one of the Toronto transit commissioners, including the chairman, because they have shown a kind of misunderstanding, a lack of comprehension, a lack of sympathy and a lack of realization of what they were doing. And I happen to be one who believed that there was never any intention on the part of the Toronto Transit Commission to settle this strike in any other way than the way in which it is now being settled in this Legislature.

We are opposing the bill for the same reason that we opposed the bill on other instances which dealt with compulsory arbitration, whether they were the general bills dealing with Crown employees’ collective bargaining, whether they were the teachers’ bill which was introduced here a year ago, whether it was the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission dispute of many years ago now, and all for the same reason. In each of those instances, including the passage of the Hospital Disputes Compulsory Arbitration bill, the reason was perfectly clear. The intransigence of the employer at the bargaining table in those services, which were deemed to be essential services but for which we in the Province of Ontario are not prepared to pay the kind of wages which will recognize the essentiality of those services; and will recognize that in order for those services to continue to be provided at the level of efficiency and competence which the Province of Ontario requires in this complex time those wages have to be over and above -- at least equal to and in most instances over and above -- the wages which will be paid under the collective bargaining system in what could be called the non-essential services. That’s where the failure lies. If we start to talk about essential services we’ve got to recognize that they are essential.

For many months now, I have read in the newspaper the ads calling for applicants to drive the buses and to operate the subway trains and the streetcars of the transit system of the city of Toronto. I have said to myself, “You will never get people to apply for those jobs. You will never get the adequate force you need to make it operate until there is a substantial improvement in wages and a substantial improvement in working conditions.”

That argument has been put the other way. The chairman of the Toronto Transit Commission indicates that his answer to the problem of the split shift, his answer to overtime for those who don’t choose to work overtime, his answer to the question of wages is, “We can’t get enough people to work for the transit system to make it operate.”

The reason the TTC doesn’t get them is because it doesn’t pay enough. The reason the hospitals are in difficulty and the government is in difficulty over that compulsory arbitration bill is because it doesn’t pay enough. The equation is perfectly clear; essential services, substandard wages in relation to other services which we categorize as non-essential. It’s ridiculous.

Until we recognize that the services provided in the public sector require at least parity with the going rates of wages in other industries in the Province of Ontario -- and in most cases superior wages -- we will never have the standard of competence, the standard of ability we need in the Province of Ontario for those services to be provided in the public sector.

My leader is perfectly right. The government of the Province of Ontario doesn’t really like the public sector. If it could automate it out of existence, I’m sure it would. It’s conception of how to deal with rapid transit is to create this toy of Krauss-Maffei, to spend our money on some technological toy which may be necessary at some future time but is at the expense of the current operation of the transit system in the city of Toronto.

Until the perspective of the government is substantially altered on this vexed question, we are going to have continuing problems in the service industries in the public sector. It is handwritten on the wall, everybody knows it.

I don’t pretend to be an economist but we certainly are not going to allow ourselves in this party -- and we have put ourselves on record many times -- now that prices have gone up, now that corporate profits are swollen, now that the return on equity of shareholders is very substantial, now that the funds available for --

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): The stock market is at an all-time low.

Mr. Renwick: The stock market is at an all-time low but not the pay-out of dividends. That isn’t at an all-time low and the member knows that.

Mr. Deacon: Maybe inflation is at an all- time high.

Mr. Renwick: Maybe inflation is at an all-time high and we all know that’s trite. That’s exactly the point I’m saying. The last people in the business cycle to have to respond are those who are dependent on wages. The cycle is perfectly clear. The Wharton School of Business has illustrated it year in and year out in a very carefully controlled operation and we are now getting to the position in the cycle which is taking place that the inflation will be equated with wage demands, and that is not the fact. The wage demands are created because of the inflation which has pre-dated them. And I’m not prepared over this next year to slip into that strange jargon which now says wage demands and inflation are synonymous, because the wage demands aren’t.

Everybody knows about that little squib in the paper this morning that the government of Ontario’s food basket is $13.50, I believe, over and above what it was a year ago and $3.40 over and above what it was a month ago; and the member is suggesting that those persons in the essential services in the low-paying sector of our economy don’t have a legitimate claim to increased wages. To have the member for York--Forest Hill start to talk about wage inflation is just so absurd in the situation with which we’re faced at the present time. We are going to have to be certain that in the public sector we’re not faced continually with this crunch.

I read, quite recently, the article by a labour writer whom I happen to admire, Ed Finn, with respect to the Hospital Disputes Arbitration Act. There are no matters under arbitration under that Act. Those who are acting for the unions in the hospital sector of the province and are subject to that bill are not interested in that bill. There are no arbitrations.

Last year, I forget the figure but it was a very substantial number, it was at least in the two figures; I don’t want to speculate whether it was 29 or some such number. But there are none now, and the problem is that you can’t pay low wages in essential services. It’s just that simple.

The minister has got to understand it and the government has got to understand it. The reason we are opposed to the bill is the very simple reason that the ritual minuet or tribal dance which has taken place over the past week was inexorable. Nothing was going to change and nothing was going to happen.

The Minister of Labour went through his part of the ritual. The Premier went through his part of the ritual. They followed upon the metro chairman, having gone through his part of the ritual. They followed upon the chairman of the Toronto Transit Commission, having gone through his part of the ritual. And what was it? We all ground down slowly to the point where the dance was over, the Cinderella had disappeared and something had to be done about about a situation in which the government of the Province of Ontario, the government of Metropolitan Toronto and the Toronto Transit Commission had all failed in their responsibility with respect to public transit.

I think this is a fair statement. Until the city council of the city of Toronto took part recently in the latter stages of his operation, as their part of this dance ritual that everybody was participating in, I don’t recall seeing in the press -- and I think the press and the media covered this strike fully and completely -- anything with respect to the other boroughs in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and what their position was on this strike. I didn’t hear anybody taking a firm stand in most of those municipal councils. Everybody seemed to think, in this interregnum between the transition from the private automobile to the public transit system, that somehow or other it can be a doldrum period.

The men in the transit union got caught in that doldrum. That’s exactly what happened, and will continue to happen; until people are clear that the commitment to public transit is an important commitment of this government, backed by the dollars of the government, backed by the recognition that the fares must not be increased throughout the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto on the transit system; until that is recognized, and until they also recognize that to attract into the transit system the kind of operators with the kind of skills which are required for the safe and continuing efficient operation of that system, you have got to pay proper wages. Those wages are over and above the wages which are presently paid, over and above the wages, in my judgement, which are demanded and over and above a settlement which might have been made on the basis of what could have been negotiated had there been an element of good faith -- and I’m talking about what my leader tried to signal to the government, that the settlement could have been made at around 29 or 30 per cent. It’s perfectly clear that it could have been made at around that point.

I can’t guess what the arbitrator is going to do, but if he has any brains he will recognize the fundamental question that there has to be a substantial increase in wages, not only to benefit the members of the transit union but to benefit the public by providing the kind of service, with the efficiency, the competence and the skills that the skills that the metropolitan area and the people who live in it demand.

It is a wonderful phrase, that people move into cities for their protection; but they stay in the cities because it is a civilized place to live, and part of the civilization is a good public transit system which people can use conveniently and get around. That’s the kind of quality of service which we have got to understand the public sector must provide if the city is to be and continue to be the kind of civilized place which it has been over the years.

I know the member for St. Andrew--St. Patrick. I guess his version of how this Legislature should have operated was we should all arrive here, and had there been no debate the bill would have been passed and we all would then disappear; that, I gather, is what he said as he objected to the debate.

Mr. Lawlor: All he wants is for him to arrive here and nobody else. Anyway, he disappeared himself.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right. We could turn it into a corporate entity and have our meetings by telephone, the way the boards of directors of companies are now allowed to have their meetings, and we would never have to meet.

Maybe you could use that old trick: The House leader could call the Leader of the Opposition and say that the leader of the New Democratic Party has agreed, will he go along with this, and then call the leader of the New Democratic Party and ask him, because the Leader of the Opposition has agreed, would he go along with this, and we wouldn’t have to meet at all.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s the member’s suggestion, not mine.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): It is the way the minister operates.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, and I am now going to say something to my good friend the member for -- the House leader --

An hon. member: For Grey South.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you, for Grey South. I wanted to do him the courtesy of not mistaking him for the member for Grey North.

Mr. Deacon: We don’t have a Grey North.

Mr. Renwick: Or whatever it was.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I know what the member means.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, I know he knows. I think that if the House leader will take these words in the way in which I express them -- the system of the rules of the Legislature can only operate if there is courtesy to make them operate.

I think gestures were made by the Liberal Party and by this party to try to facilitate the debate. If there had been any sense the minister would have told us what his proposal was and asked for the House to agree and not get involved in playing around with the rules. It’s been very serious today and we’ll talk about it another day, because the principle of the bill has to do with compulsory arbitration, but we’ve got to have a return --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: There was no playing around with the rules.

Mr. Renwick: -- of courtesy in the House or we are not going to be able to function at all.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: On a point of order, I think I should make it very clear that, today being the day it is, there was no playing around with the rules, none.

Mr. Cassidy: Very definitely there was. The House leader should retract that remark.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: There definitely was not.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I’ve got across to the House leader and I’ll try again at some other period.

Mr. Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to speak to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Renwick: I want to conclude my remarks to the government by simply stating to them that they must give the commitment with which I opened my remarks. That is, a commitment to the transit riders in the Metropolitan Toronto area that during the life of the collective agreements which will result from the working out of this arbitration procedure which is outlined in this bill, there will not be an increase in the transit fares on the transit system in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I rise obviously in support of this bill. Like a number of other speakers --

Mr. Foulds: The hon. member was not brought here simply because he was able to rise.

Mr. Drea: Look, the hon. member had his problems earlier today; now let him just sit there.

Mr. Lewis: That’s exactly what we are doing.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Talk about courtesy --

Mr. Drea: If he has problems, let him go out and consult with somebody; but he should just stay out of this.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I rise very obviously to support this bill. Like a number of other speakers I do so with considerable regret; not the regret that at this particular juncture we have to use a very severe restriction upon collective bargaining, which is compulsory arbitration. I regret that. But I regret even more the fact that we have had to introduce this device into a record of labour-management relations that goes back to 1952; and certainly within the time of Metropolitan Toronto, when the old Toronto Transportation Commission changed to the Toronto Transit Commission and went out into the suburbs, this is the first time that there has been a breakdown of service, that there has been an impasse in the collective bargaining procedure and, in fact, in the industrial relations procedures of that com- mission and its employees.

Mr. Speaker, it bothers me a great deal that we have a transit system -- not just in Metropolitan Toronto, because nobody today has mentioned the subsidiary. Gray Coach -- which, by the cessation of its operations, has had just as profound an impact upon many of the smaller communities in this province which are entirely dependent upon it for any type of transportation. But we have had this in the Toronto Transit Commission.

It grieves me that we have had this excellent record of labour relations, and then all of a sudden we have an impasse. We are at the point where very willing, and perhaps sometimes gifted, amateurs have tried to assist the professionals in the settlement of this dispute. We have had controversies over details of proposals by the Premier, when they became public, as to who provided those details. I don’t think those controversies matter any more. I think, as one speaker said today, a lot of the things that go on don’t really matter because they are behind us.

But it is the men -- and I suppose there are a few women, but basically the men -- who work for this commission, in the provision of bus, subway and streetcar service within Metropolitan Toronto and of interurban buses outside, who are the people who have made rapid transit and surface transit in this city the attractions that they are.

It is all very well for people to say that the government of Ontario is totally committed to an urban transportation system that will replace the car. That is true. But were it not for the dedication, the efficiency, the courtesy, the ability to put up with a split shift, the ability to deal with heavy traffic and customers all of the time, then I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there would not be a very efficient transit system.

It bothers me that the men who have made this system work have now come to such an impasse with their employers that they felt it necessary that they had to withdraw that service. They know who their customers are. They know very well that the people who pay a quarter are going to work every day because it is the only way that they can get to work. It may be very fashionable for those in Forest Hill once in a while to take a flyer on the bus or the streetcar as their duty to ending the pollution business, but the people who ride the subway -- and I suggest some of the country boys over there who have been so sarcastic today should try the subway some time; they might like to come face to face or seat to seat with some working people -- these people depend upon this, and the people who operate those vehicles know this.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that from the time the TTC evolved into the Metro-wide system that it is until now, there was a substantial difference in the makeup of the commission. I suggest to you that even though we’re going to end the strike tonight or tomorrow, and the buses, streetcars and the subway are going to roll again, I think we’d be very remiss, Mr. Speaker, because surely we’re not asking that the employees of this system -- the 5,700 people from those who operate the vehicles down to those who maintain the tracks and do a lot of other dirty jobs in weather around the clock that you and I don’t want to be involved in -- surely this Legislature is not asking them, at their cost of living, their standard of living, that they have to subsidize Metropolitan Toronto so that we can go around and say that one of the great benefits of living here is that we have a transit system, I frankly do not believe it should fall on the backs of the workers to do all of this.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what we are doing. That’s exactly what we are doing.

Mr. Drea: I suggest to you that over the years the reason this has now developed into an impasse is that with the growth and expansion of the commission from the three members to the five members, a very essential ingredient was dropped, and that was the labour member.

Mr. Lewis: Right, compassion.

Mr. Drea: There was no strike when Bill Russell represented labour as one of the three men on that commission. There was no strike, there was no cessation of service when Ford Brand represented the working people of Toronto on that three-man commission. There was no strike when Douglas Hamilton represented the working people of Toronto on that commission, both on the three-man and I think at one time he was on the five-man commission. Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the things this government has got to make abundantly clear to the Toronto Transit Commission, the present five commissioners, is that one has to go.

Mr. Lewis: That’s because they are all Tories, every single one of them.

Mr. Drea: No, no, take it easy.

Mr. Lewis: They’re all Tories, every single one of them. That’s the basic problem.

Mr. Drea: No, it’s not the basic problem.

Mr. Lewis: They’re all identifiable Tories.

Mr. Drea: We can find a couple of Tory labour leaders if that’s the kind of patronage the member is suggesting. But I wasn’t doing that, the member for Scarborough West was doing it.

Mr. Lewis: I’m sure the member for Scarborough Centre was.

Mr. Foulds: The member for Scarborough Centre will have to resign his seat.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, what I’m suggesting is that the government, because we pay 50 per cent of the deficit, has a very large stake in it, and I’m one of the people who believes in local autonomy as much as anybody else. I notice local autonomy, in words from the champions of it, was going down the drain today. The Minister of Labour was supposed to intervene when people even thought about striking even before they had their legal rights, but I suppose that’s traditional with them.

I think the time has come when the government has to say: “Look, we are putting in this amount of money because a transit system is very essential to the order, the stability and the right of people to enjoy the right and the opportunity to go to work, or to go to the hospital or to go wherever they want to go; and the cost should not be borne [and I’m not just talking about wages] the cost should not be borne by the people who have to drive those vehicles.” Out of those 148 things, the Minister of Labour can correct me later if I’m wrong, the actual amount of cash involved for wages may be involved in two or three of those 148 things that were in dispute.

Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come when we should take a long look at the system. There is something wrong with a system that operates a transit authority when there are not just minutes but there are literally hours devoted to whether the man gets a pocket sewn on his uniform to put in a screwdriver.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, compulsory arbitration may decide -- I rather suspect that that issue is still in dispute, and I really hope it isn’t -- but if that issue is still in dispute I think this will be the least of what the arbitrator will have to consider. I think it will take him about a tenth of a second.

Mr. Renwick: It is one of the nine.

Mr. Drea: The point I’m raising is, there is something fundamentally wrong with a system when men have to go in and get into --

Mr. Lewis: It’s not a system, it’s a commission. It is not a system, it is people.

Mr. Drea: -- a prolonged debate when 600,000 people are having to walk -- they don’t even know if they can get to work, they can’t get to a hospital -- and this sort of thing is considered important.

Mr. Lewis: But it is not a system. It is five intractable human beings.

Mr. Drea: It seems to me that 20-some years have gone completely down the drain.

Mr. Lewis: It is five intransigent people.

Mr. Drea: Oh, nonsense.

Mr. Lewis: Certainly it is.

Mr. Drea: It is a system. You know, this is a very interesting debate. The member wants to seize the company. As usual, they want to seize the union. We go through this every single time.

Mr. Lewis: I have no wish to seize that company.

Mr. Drea: Of course not, it’s publicly owned. That would kind of destroy a bit of the propaganda, wouldn’t it?

Mr. Speaker, what I’m suggesting is that while we cannot do it in this bill there should be a very clear intent that one of those commissioners is going to go. I think personally the Metro chairman should go. I think he has enough duties without running the transit system as well.

Mr. Lewis: I think the chairman of the commission would be a good target.

Mr. Drea: No, I am not making him a target. I think that in view of his other duties he probably is the least essential. I think we should replace him with a labour man immediately.

I think the time has come when we are not going to have a cessation of service in the future, and we are not going to do that by telling the people who operate the service that they must put up with intolerable conditions or they must put up with frustrations because it is their duty to keep everything going in Toronto. I think that’s patently unfair. I think it’s about time we got a representative on that commission who represented not just the unions --

An hon. member: Like Hydro?

Mr. Drea: -- but all of the working people who depend upon the TTC to get them to and from where they are going. I suggest to members we already have somebody in this province who could do that job, albeit may be on an interim basis. I think one of the things we should do is approach David Archer, who is the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. While it may have nothing to do with the compulsory arbitration, we don’t want to be back here in two years doing it again.

We say: “Look, we would like you to go on the Toronto Transit Commission. We want to have a labour voice on there.” We don’t want to be in the position in this Legislature again of reading that before the union and the company came down to the last two days of negotiations there were so many items on the table that it couldn’t possibly be settled. We want to head off in advance those things which can be settled through an orderly use of the industrial relations procedure and I think that that is very important.

Mr. Lewis: What about other minority groups?

Mr. Drea: One of the things that fascinates me is that every time somebody makes a suggestion which those people not on this side should have made, they immediately start to nit-pick the whole thing.

Mr. Lewis: We would check the entire commission. We might even put a woman on the commission.

Mr. Drea: Fine; if the member can find one, go ahead.

Mr. Deans: What does he mean; “If the member can find one”?

Mr. Drea: Find one who wants to serve on the commission and can be appointed. I don’t appoint people to that commission and neither does the member except in his fantasies. If he wants to promote one, let him go out and find the person he wants to promote and do it the logical way.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I think the point I have raised has considerable significance in this debate as to the principle of the bill. I don’t think that compulsory arbitration -- I think we have to do it now; there’s no question but I don’t think we want to be in a repeat situation.

My friend from Riverdale in his remarks talked about the ritual dance and I would like to extend his remarks on that ritual dance a little bit. It seems to me we are in the same position the federal House was in in the late 1950s and all through the 1960s with the non-operating railway workers. All the way through there was the ritual dance, all the time, right up to the strike of the railways. Parliament reconvened, some kind of a settlement was imposed, the fare structures or, in their case the freight rates, were adjusted afterwards; there was a subsidy here, a subsidy there, once every two years. Mr. Speaker, I don’t think there was anything worse than that ritual dance.

Mr. Lewis: Not so. The CPR wasn’t as bad as the TTC. It was pretty bad but --

Mr. Drea: If the CPR wasn’t as bad as the TTC, certainly the wages of the non-operating workers didn’t reflect that in the 1950s and 1960s.

Mr. Lewis: That’s certainly true.

Mr. Drea: I think that’s a matter of record; but, Mr. Speaker, that was the ritual dance. I don’t think the Legislature should be involved in the type of ritual dance which the member for Riverdale has suggested. I think we would go a long way toward avoiding this type of thing in the future by insisting, as the people who are paying out 50 per cent or 50 cents on the $1 of the operating deficit and paying indeed most of the construction costs for anything new, that there be somebody who really represents the people who find this their only method of transportation.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to mention another thing which hasn’t been mentioned in this debate. While we are considering the seriousness of this situation not a word has been said about the GO service, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto. As somebody who uses the GO train service, I think the Legislature would be very remiss if tonight a speaker did not mention the extraordinary steps that my friend, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes), and my friend the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Beckett), his parliamentary assistant, took to make sure that the only form of transportation in the Metropolitan area was expanded as much as was humanly possible during this particular crisis. Mr. Speaker, it may be corny but without the GO train service many thousands of children who are innocent of anything in this probably would not have gone to the exhibition. In the big picture we are all discussing tonight, I suppose that doesn’t mean very much; but I think it matters a very great deal to those children.

I noticed in the commuter bulletin last night that 71,000 people were carried in one day; the previous high was 23,000. I think the people who ran those trains deserve a lot of credit; running them up and down the CNR tracks, where there are a number of other trains running, is not the easiest thing. But they worked it out and they handled the people, despite the fact that most of them were newcomers to the system, with a great deal of courtesy and fairness; and they did indeed make the GO service work. I think they are really some of the unsung people in this present dispute.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon when I heard the leader of the Liberal Party -- and I really wish he was here --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Here he is.

Mr. Drea: Oh, good. I knew it was my day.

Mr. Deans: Should he put on his armour?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He has already been stabbed in the back by his own member.

An hon. member: Oh, no.

Mr. Deans: I am not sure he is able to withstand this assault he is going to get.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I heard a call today from the leader of the Liberal Party for a new approach to labour relations. It amused me no end. Here we had a nice country boy who didn’t know the difference between a conciliator and a mediator-

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on!

Mr. Drea: -- advancing a new theory that somehow we had to develop an alternative to the essential services --

Mr. Deacon: Who is the member talking about?

Mr. Drea: I am talking about the member’s leader, the one who sits next to him.

Mr. Deacon: He is not talking about him in those words.

Mr. Drea: Oh, aren’t I? Why, just hear me! The voice of Bay St. responds. Wowee!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Take a step back.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: No, he has got shoes.

Mr. Deans: The member doesn’t understand it.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why there is so much concern about the supposed failure of collective bargaining.

Mr. Deans: That’s the problem; the member doesn’t understand it.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, if people really believe in collective bargaining -- and I know of no substitute for it -- then they have to believe that of the number of settlements reported on the financial pages -- I think it is 97 or 98 per cent -- only about two or three per cent of all contractual things ever reach the stage where they move off the financial pages on to the front page.

A number of people in this province who are in the public service are now demanding much higher wages and say they are prepared to go to great lengths to achieve them. I don’t think that indicates there is a failure of collective bargaining; rather, I think it shows there is a desire -- and in this I may be in substantial agreement with the New Democratic Party people who were talking about bargaining in good faith -- a substantial desire that the collective bargaining process either be made more flexible or more appropriate to a time when inflation, because of the lack of interest at the federal level, is galloping along at about two per cent a month.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): At the provincial level also.

Mr. Drea: I can’t be upset about the supposed failure of collective bargaining when we are asking people, whose only source of income is their wages, to sign contracts binding them for two years at one set of wages when all they have to do is a little bit of simple arithmetic and figure out that inflation is running at 19 or 20 per cent per annum. Mr. Speaker, I think we would be in substantial trouble in this province if people were willing to sign two-year agreements for wage increases of 12 per cent or 15 per cent.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Two months ago the hon. member was in favour of wage and price controls.

Mr. Drea: I am much more concerned that working people would have so little regard for their future that they would sign themselves into a wage cut.

I don’t think that the present unrest in the labour movement reflects a failure of collective bargaining; rather, it’s a failure --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The hon. member was going to lead them into wage control.

Mr. Drea: What?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The hon. member was working his heart out for wage control. That was his answer two months ago.

Mr. Drea: Oh, just a minute. I didn’t work my heart out for wage control; I worked my heart out for both.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I thought the hon. member was Bob Stanfield’s right-hand man.

Mr. Drea: Well, I’m hardly his right-hand man, my friend, but I worked my heart out for wage and price controls and dividend control. There is a big difference. Of course, I can understand the hon. member’s Freudian slip, that it was only wage control; I can understand that very, very well.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t think that because this Legislature has had to be called into a special session to deal with an extraordinary situation we in this province have to be afraid for the future of collective bargaining.

Mr. Deans: It is happening with amazing regularity.

Mr. Drea: Well, yes, we had the elevator constructors. Members will recall the speech I made about the elevator constructors strike. Do they remember my opening lines? I remember them well myself. No greater pair of bandits ever came down the pipe than the union and the companies in that one. This is an entirely different situation. No one has said that.

Mr. Lewis: I was in Arkansas or something.

Mr. Drea: Kentucky.

Mr. Lewis: Kentucky, he is right. I forget where I perambulate.

Mr. Drea: The deputy leader of the NDP had the same reaction now as he had then. But this is a different situation. I realize that some people have been trying to put the whole blame for this strike upon one of the commissioners.

Mr. Lewis: No.

Mr. Drea: Some others have blamed the entire commission. I suppose sometime before the night is over somebody will blame the union. I personally think that there are --

Mr. Deans: Which of the government members are about to speak?

Mr. Laughren: Is the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) going to speak?

Mr. Drea: Pardon? Well, maybe one of the opposition members will deviate a bit.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier or the member for Timiskaming is going to enter the debate.

Mr. Drea: Oh no, the member for Timiskaming is extremely left-wing compared to some over here.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: I want to come back to the principle of collective bargaining. One of the difficulties with the Liberal Party is that they don’t understand collective bargaining. It is only when you don’t understand collective bargaining that you equate it with strike and dislocation, irritation and hardship.

It may very well be that we have to take a different approach to essential services in this province. But if we are going to do that, then I suggest to you it is not a simple as saying that transit is an essential service, because I think that the point the member for Riverdale made is very, very valid. Why should the transit people, because they can be identified as people who are very essential, have to take a lesser settlement than those who work in an automobile factory and who are not considered very essential?

I think I am prepared to argue, and I think a lot of people are, that it may be much more essential to keep an automobile plant going when it is the only industry in town than the transit, even in a large community like Metropolitan Toronto. But what I am saying is that there is no need at this time; despite the inactivity by Ottawa, despite the inflation, despite the fact that the economy is slowly -- as a matter of fact not slowly -- grinding to a halt; and the stock market has collapsed and a number of other things; I do not think that just because we are imposing compulsory arbitration at this time on a specific dislocation of an essential service in Metropolitan Toronto that we must have a Legislature full of talk about we have to do something about the collective bargaining process because it has failed.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t think that it has failed at all. I think the fact that the union, even though they knew that the cards were on the table and that if they did not agree to the special intervention by the Premier compulsory arbitration would be invoked against them, none the less they used the full advantage of the collective bargaining procedure. They weren’t afraid of it. They said no. And I don’t think that in their next contract they are going to be afraid to go in and use all the normal steps of collective bargaining; nor from the moment they go back to work do I have any doubts that they are going to use the normal industrial relations procedures of grievances and so on and so forth, even on to arbitrations about specific working conditions that are in dispute. Of course not; they are going to go on as they have gone on before.

Mr. Speaker, I think I would be very remiss tonight if I did not take a long look at the attempts to rewrite the role of the Premier in this dispute. I say again that I was not one of those who was privy to the intimate details of this labour dispute.

As a matter of fact the more I read in the paper the fewer people I find who were privy to the innermost details. I’m getting a little bit tired of all the amateurs coming out and saying: “I know what went on in there.” If they all knew what was going on in there surely their figures would jibe; and no two sets of figures ever really appear to jibe.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour in this dispute acted in accordance with the dictates of his office. He is not the labour tsar of this province. He is really the minister of industrial relations and part of industrial relations is the cessation of services or the withdrawal of services by the employees. In this particular matter the employees acted within their legal rights. We may argue as to the impact of what they did but none the less what they did was entirely proper and entirely legal.

At that point, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour, in the words of somebody, should have stood up and thumped his chest and thumped the desk and said: “This is all going to end tonight because I, the Minister of Labour, say so.” Mr. Speaker, this only happens in a couple of places in the world where nobody here wants to live. I know there are some who are enamoured of them but nobody really wants to live in those two places.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour assigned a very skilled mediator to this particular dispute. I think that is a commendation to the already long list of commendations of the Ontario Ministry of Labour. The one person who, in this entire debate, appears without criticism and, indeed, from every speaker has had’ considerable praise is Mr. Speranzini. The minister assigned a very skilled mediator who went about his work in a professional, orderly, methodical way. To suggest he should have gone on television saying: “I’m doing open bargaining. Here’s what they say now, here’s what they said then” -- Mr. Speaker, anybody who’s had even a tittle of experience in industrial relations knows that not only would that not work, it would be a permanent disaster.

An hon. member: That would be stupid.

Mr. Drea: The mediator certainly acted as a very professional one; well within the standards. I don’t really think he was exceptional; I happen to have great regard for the staff of the Ministry of Labour and I think he was just doing his job.

Mr. Speaker, when his efforts came to a halt the Minister of Labour personally intervened and the Minister of Labour asked the parties if they could continue to negotiate and the parties said they could not. I can recall reading in the press that the Minister of Labour in this province, this very week, said collective bargaining has to run its course. He was not going to come in to scoop up and seize the operation. We weren’t going to be one with those demands -- I think it was the last time around and my friend from Bay St. has left; the last time around he wanted to seize the school board because that would end the strike. I think a couple of times before that somebody wanted to seize a union because that would end a strike. That’s not the way the Ministry of Labour works in this province; this is a democratic place.

At that point he put in his top mediator; the director of conciliation, the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Dickie went in. It is a tremendous accomplishment when out of the more than 140 items in dispute between two parties which were so intransigent -- and I’m not going to place any blame; I’m just going to say they were so intransigent or so locked -- today the Minister of Labour gets up and says there were 14 items still in dispute but now they’ve been reduced to nine.

I think that is an accomplishment reflecting the professional standards of our Ministry of Labour. I think that is the role of the Minister of Labour in this province. I do not think the Minister of Labour is to become the chief performer in a travelling road show who decides what workers will get or what they won’t get at any given time depending upon his feelings. I suggest to you that anybody who wants a Minister of Labour in this province to act in that way had better start thinking a little bit about what the impact will be.

Then, Mr. Speaker, after all this, the Premier of the province intervenes. The Premier of this province did not impose compulsory arbitration or say he was going to earlier this week. The Premier of this province proposed, in effect, a cooling-off period in which the people who are on strike would receive an initial wage increase, which is identical to what is contained in this bill, and that there would be mediation and various attempts to bring them together; and that togetherness would be achieved while the service on the system resumed; because quite frankly, everybody agreed that the service had to resume. I agree with speakers who say that the drivers and operators and the mechanics and so forth, they too agree that the service has to resume.

That was the proposal of the Premier. That one of the amateurs chose to reveal it on television and get us into a controversy. I really don’t see how the Premier or the Minister of Labour can be faulted.

Now we have come full circle, Mr. Speaker. There is no way of getting a negotiated settlement. On the one hand, we have 600,000 people who use the system daily. We have school children going back on Tuesday. We have people who are absolutely dependent.

I agree with my friend from York--Forest Hill; I worry about the small businessman. Eaton’s and Simpsons can always take care of themselves; it may be deferred inventory. The little fellow has got to negotiate with the bank every month and the rates are quite high. Okay, it has to come to an end.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you -- and I really haven’t heard anybody talk about any of the details in this bill; I somehow wonder if anybody has ever read it --

Mr. Shulman: We are not supposed to do that on second reading. The member can do that later.

Mr. Drea: Oh, we can refer to it. If the member for High Park followed that rule there would be very few speeches from him.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Is the member getting many calls tonight?

Mr. Shulman: Can I use the minister’s phone?

Hon. Mr. Snow: He can use my phone. I use my finger.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the overriding public interest must prevail. We have come to the end of a very fair, a very comprehensive and a very impartial test of the collective bargaining procedure as it involves the company that operates not only the transit system for Metropolitan Toronto, but as well the buses that serve the smaller communities. We are in a situation where now not only these people who really need it to go to work, but the school children and lots of other people are involved.

It is the Premier’s own words and the Minister of Labour’s own words that we do this with the utmost reluctance. Frankly, I don’t think anybody would have been happier in this province than my friend from York West if he could have negotiated a settlement, because he doesn’t believe in compulsory arbitration. He is a very just and he is a very fair man, but right now he has to let his feelings about the imposition of a settlement by a third party be balanced out by the need of the people for some relief from the difficulty that they are in regarding transit.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you again that this will not end the series of troubles on this transit authority or indeed the one in Kitchener they are worried about next week, the one in St. Catharines that somebody mentioned later on in the month, and the ones that will come in the future. I suggest to you if the government of this province is going to be as deeply committed financially as it is to transit systems that the time has come where at least one -- and maybe if the commissions are larger, maybe there’s some other role -- but at least one of the people who is responsible for running it must represent the people who depend upon that system.

I would throw out one last thing to you. If it wasn’t for the urgency of this tonight, I would suggest an amendment. I am not going to, but I would suggest an amendment that anybody in this province who becomes a transit commissioner doesn’t get a chauffeur-driven car as part of the job, that they get themselves a gold-plated pass that takes them on the system and that one of the conditions of their employment to run the system is that they ride those buses, they ride those subways and they ride those streetcars. Unless and until they get on them, they aren’t going to know the problems of the driver, they are not going to know the crowding of the people, they are not going to appreciate what it means to be driving a Gray Coach bus when there are two or three inches of ice on the road and that’s why we leave our cars at home.

Mr. Good: The same for the Ontario Northland Railway.

Mr. Drea: There’s many a night, Mr. Speaker, when I have to go somewhere out of town and I take one look at the roads and I take a bus. I go to sleep and I often wake up feeling very guilty. The reason that I wouldn’t drive was because I was afraid of the road: but as for the guy who was driving, I had that amount of confidence in him that I went to sleep.

I think the time has come when the people who are in charge of these operations get out of those air-conditioned cars and try those buses and that subway; not just in the rush hours, but they try them in the off-hours and they find out what the people want and what the system wants. Unless we have that as well as some control on the commission from the people who really need these things, then we are just going to have to come back again and again because it’s just an economic struggle or it’s just an arithmetic struggle. I think it’s far more fundamental than that. Thank you.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr. Speaker, I want to join this debate, although I must say that I’m not all happy to join with my colleagues to vote for compulsory arbitration in this particular bill. But I must say that I represent a riding which is within Metropolitan Toronto and in which 90,000 of the two million people in Metro live, and I feel that 19 days is enough; 19 days of stalling by this government is more than enough.

Mr. G. Nixon: The member didn’t say much.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Braithwaite: All right, the member will have his turn.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say this: The borough of Etobicoke, the northerly portion of it, is a part of northwest Metro, and no part of Metropolitan Toronto is more poorly served with transportation facilities than that part of Metro. Mr. Speaker, many times in this House I have asked the Premier and the Minister of Transportation and Communications to do something about the transportation system in that part of Metro. In particular, we’ve asked for a GO station. As I recall, Mr. Speaker, the last time I asked the Premier himself about a statement he made during the inaugural of the GO system from Georgetown to Weston --

Hon. Mr. Snow: Georgetown to Union Station.

Mr. Braithwaite: -- he stated that there should be a GO train station somewhere in the Kipling or northwest Metro area by the fall. I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, that if the GO train station which had been promised to north Rexdale had been in operation before this strike started, the people in northwest Metropolitan Toronto, who have suffered more than the average person who lives in Metropolitan Toronto because of the strike, would have looked upon this as a godsend.

But what do we have, Mr. Speaker? We have an area made up of working people; the great majority of the people who live in northwest Metro, Mr. Speaker, are working people. There’s been a lot of talk today about the working man, but I don’t think that many of the members who have said that they understand what’s happening know what the situation is like in north Rexdale. As I said, Mr. Speaker, if this government had put in a GO station in the Rexdale area before this, the people I represent and for whom I’m speaking tonight --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the hon. member for Etobicoke get back to the principle of the bill?

Mr. Braithwaite: I’m on the principle, Mr. Speaker, with great respect.

Mr. Speaker: You are not on the principle.

Mr. Braithwaite: I’m talking about transportation.

Mr. Havrot: He’s on the GO train but the wrong one.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): He’s on the wrong track.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Braithwaite: With great respect, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): How many rules have you got in this House?

Mr. Braithwaite: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker talked about the GO system and he made it quite clear that no one else had mentioned it. And I’m merely following up on what he had to say.

Mr. Speaker: I wasn’t in the chair to hear the previous speaker but I would say that the member is talking about an extension of the transit system. We’re not talking about any extension of the transit system.

Mr. Braithwaite: And I Mr. Speaker, am talking about the 90,000 people who live in the Rexdale area who are suffering because of this strike --

Mr. Speaker: Just get back to order, please.

Mr. Braithwaite: -- and I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that this strike need not have happened but for that government on the other side of this House. That is what I’m saying and if that isn’t on point I don’t know what is.

Mr. Havrot: Get hold of the boys in Ottawa and the ones in Quebec. What have they done in Montreal?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk today about the elderly --

Hon. Mr. Snow: An honest man like the Leader of the Opposition-

Mr. Braithwaite: -- and I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, that we have two large homes for the aged in my riding, and as I said the great majority of people who live in Rexdale are entirely dependent on the TTC; and these people are outraged, Mr. Speaker, because this strike happened and because it has lasted so long and there is no reason. They cannot understand why it happened to begin with.

They believe, as I do, in collective bargaining, but I want to make it quite clear that there can be no collective bargaining, as many other speakers have said today, if one side says: “No, we are not going to give an inch.”

I’m not going to go over the sequence of events here except to make it quite clear that there was a contract and it ended on June 30. The union had put in its demands away back in April. I have talked to drivers and I’ve talked to employees of the TTC and they have told me how they’ve been after their union people for some news and there was no news.

Why was there no news? There was no news, Mr. Speaker, because the TTC management knew that they couldn’t give an inch because they couldn’t afford it. There was no word coming from this government to tell them: “Well you can go so far.” It was all, as other people have said before me, a charade and it was supposed to go on on and on until the union gave. How could you expect the union to give when they have a gun to their head? What kind of men would they be, the negotiating people? What kind of people would they be if they gave in knowing that they’ve been held up all the way?

I say this, I don’t know any of the negotiating people for the union, but I’ve talked to people who do and I understand that they are very responsible people. Mr. Moynehan is to be commended for holding his people together and keeping them from doing things they shouldn’t have done. I say this, that the TTC management knew that they weren’t going to move and the TTC management knew that the strike was going to come and the government did nothing about it. This, I feel is one of the things that has caused the people of Metropolitan Toronto to suffer, and in particular the people of northwest Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that the management of the TTC, because of the way they have acted not only in this particular case but in the years past, is living in a mid-Victorian era. I’m looking at the final offer that was made by the TTC. Clause 9 of the final TTC offer refers to break periods; and I’m going to use this example to point out to this House something that has already been pointed out by the leader of the New Democratic Party, that they negotiate but they don’t really mean to negotiate, and it became quite clear to the people.

Clause 9 refers to break periods and it states: “Operators’ break periods as provided in present regulations will apply on Saturdays and Sundays.” In order to understand what this is about, go back and look at the average driver, a driver who works an eight-hour shift. It wasn’t until very recently that these people were given any time within that shift to eat or to take care of their personal needs. As I understand it a year or so ago, perhaps a little longer, after many years, the TTC conceded the point and gave these men somewhere between 14 and 20 minutes of a break after they had worked at least five hours of an eight-hour shift.

On the surface that looked like something, but when you analyse it you realize that in those 14 to 20 minutes the man or the employee had to buy tickets, eat if possible and do other things and get back in time to take his shift over when the rest period was over. It turned out, as I understand it, to be almost impossible. In any event, this 14 to 20 minutes was given only if you worked on the morning or the afternoon shift and not at night.

It looks as if, by this final offer of the TTC, they are really giving up something when they say that this is going to apply to Saturdays and Sundays as well and not just to the weekdays. But, Mr. Speaker, from what I’ve been told, the average TTC driver who works on a Saturday or a Sunday doesn’t work a mere eight-hour shift, he works a 10-hour shift, and merely giving him a 14 to 20 minute break after working five hours is really giving him nothing.

If the management of the TTC was not as old fashioned as it is, why didn’t it do something about shortening the period of work on the weekend and why didn’t it do something about giving a shift differential if you worked at night? There are a lot of things they could have done if they really wanted to show the workers that they were interested in them. They did none of these things. Most of the concessions they gave, as I have said, were clearly doubletalk.

It has been said that these people should accept or should have accepted the offer made by the Premier to them, but from what I have been told, Mr. Speaker, in the last seven years the TTC workers’ safety record has been the best of North America. Of all the transportation systems in North America our system here has had the best safety record. This is an indication to me that we have here in Metropolitan Toronto not only the best drivers and other workers but also the most efficient, or the system wouldn’t be working so well. I understand that not only is the question of salary important when a man comes to apply for a job at the TTC but also the criteria that the management apply are quite high and that is why we are having difficulty in getting more men. But the men we do have working for our transportation system here in Metropolitan Toronto are the best in North America.

If this is so, Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with paying these men the same as a man who does the same job in Vancouver or anywhere else in Canada? You can talk about parity but when you are talking about parity and you are talking about the best in the group, why shouldn’t the best men get the most? Why shouldn’t they? Or get the same as anybody else?

Something else, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know if it is commonly known, but I’ve been told that these people by going on strike are fighting the battle not only for themselves but for all of the management and all the clerical staff who work for the TTC. But these are the people who have to give up on their wages. These are the people, Mr. Speaker, who have to suffer, and their families. As if this wasn’t bad enough, the information given to me indicates that in management and clerical and most of the other jobs in the TTC, the wages being paid to those people are higher than the wages that are being paid people doing similar things in industry. In other words, the people who are driving the subway trains, the buses and the streetcars in some cases are getting less than their peers throughout Canada; the people for whom they have to fight the battle of wages are getting more. It just doesn’t make sense, Mr. Speaker, that these people should have to come to this final hour and be forced back to work when it could have been done so easily if their worth had been recognized long ago.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to say this: If you look at the situation from the point of view of a driver, who has seen no good faith throughout these negotiations, and say he were sitting here today and saw how the government, in bringing in order paper No. 77(a), shows its capability for carrying on in a way which doesn’t make it appear that it is capable of showing good faith, you can’t but wonder how these people feel. Are they really going to be treated fairly when this bill is passed?

My suggestion, Mr. Speaker, would be this: Let us forget what has been done in the past. Let us forget the steps the government should have taken. Let us forget what the TTC could have done. Let us say this: Instead of offering these people 12 per cent, as we have in the bill here today, why not raise the offer to 18 or 19 per cent, say, so that these people at least know that the government intends to get off of dead centre? Then, when the time comes to go back to work, Mr. Speaker, you will have people who although they are forced to go back to work, will at least feel that their government does try to understand them.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am supporting this legislation because of the people who live in the riding I represent. I am not happy about it, but I do feel it is not too late for this government to take some steps to show the average worker that they can care if they wish. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on this bill. I have had the feeling in the weeks prior to the strike beginning, as have many here I am sure, that the strike was inevitable. We all knew it was coming, and quite frankly the people who were directly involved were not in a position to stop it. Those who were in a position to stop it didn’t care at that time.

The reason the strike was inevitable is that the men in that gallery, the men who are out on strike, are the same as anybody else in this country and this world; they have a need to do what they can to maintain their standard of living. Something that apparently hasn’t been considered by anyone, including their union leaders, is that although they asked for 40 per cent over two years -- and it sounded horrible -- if you stop and do a little calculating, if they had got that 40 per cent -- and they are not going to get it, but if they had got that 40 per cent -- two years from now they would be earning less in real wages than they are earning today.

Let me just take a moment and explain that. Forty per cent, Mr. Speaker, is 20 per cent a year. We all have to pay income tax. In their wage bracket half of that 20 per cent per year would go to federal and provincial income taxes; they would be left with a net increase in their income of 10 per cent per annum. I suppose everyone in here, even those who have the least knowledge of economics, is aware that the rate of inflation in Canada today is considerably greater than that. The last figure we have as of this moment from Statistics Canada is 14% per cent. Let’s just suppose a miracle occurs that the Treasurer (Mr. White) and John Turner have a change of heart and stop sending us into bankruptcy. Let’s suppose we have such a change of heart tonight and the inflation stops going up; the fact remains that at the current rate those men, at the end of two years, if they get their 40 per cent, will be eight per cent worse off than they are today in terms of real wages.

Sure, they will have more paper money. Sure, they will have a bigger pay cheque; but when they go to the stores they will bring less home. Somebody should tell the government that. When they offer 23 per cent, which is all they had to give, they are going even further backwards.

Mr. Lawlor: Surely those fellows should know that. They have experienced’ it themselves. Have they to raise their own carrots?

Mr. Shulman: What bothers me is the commissioners didn’t have the money to give. They didn’t have the 40 per cent to give and 40 per cent wasn’t enough to keep up.

Mr. Havrot: The member is a real hero.

Mr. Shulman: I am not trying to be a hero. I am trying to point out some facts.

Mr. Lawlor: He will find out before long.

Mr. Shulman: What about the TTC commissioners? They didn’t have the 40 per cent. Where were they going to get the money?

Were they going to raise the fares? All the studies show if they raise the fares, they would drive more people out of the streetcars and out of the subway.

Are they going to increase the taxes? The city can’t really increase the municipal tax any higher than it is now. It is so punitive people on fixed incomes can’t pay it.

This strike was inevitable. No one could do anything about it. It was bound to come because the city didn’t have the money to give. The commissioners didn’t have the money to give and the men had to have it so we have this strike.

What happened? The government sat for 18 days and we went through the process and the Minister of Labour must have known the process had to break down because the money just wasn’t there to give. They could solve 143 of the problems but it isn’t going to solve the basic problem which is: “I have to have enough to keep up my standard of living. I have to have enough to pay the rent. I have to be able to give my wife the same amount I have been giving her before in terms of real buying power.”

He must have known. He had to know -- we have to give him that much credit -- that this strike was going to occur.

So it occurred. We went through the motions. We had his best negotiator come in, and the best negotiator couldn’t solve the problem because there was nothing to negotiate with.

Finally we come down to today; and today it is suddenly, after 18 or 19 days, an absolute emergency; such an absolute emergency that we can’t follow the normal safeguards we have in this House to make sure that bad legislation doesn’t go through. They didn’t dare take a chance on getting unanimous consent. They had to brush our rules aside. That’s what bothers me more than anything else today.

They knew. They had to know. They can’t be that stupid; and yet they come along and play this sort of game.

What really bothers me is the game works. And what’s the outcome of all this going to be? The outcome is going to be that the Premier, the strong leader, solved the problem. He got those streetcars running again.

And what’s the outcome going to be as far as the opposition goes? The NDP got suckered. This is a party of principle and one of the principles is we stand against compulsory arbitration.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Shulman: All right, I give the Premier full credit. He is one of the smartest politicians in the country. There’s no question about that.

Mr. Young: This was planned months ago.

Mr. Shulman: Here’s a party of principle and we are coming down here and saying we stand on the principle and we are against compulsory arbitration. But that’s not what’s going out over the airways.

Members should have heard Jack Dennett at 6:30 tonight -- I wish my leader had heard Jack Dennett at 6:30 tonight -- and the lies that came forth over CFRB. It was said Stephen Lewis is prolonging the strike with a tirade of a speech tonight. None of the members believes that; they know better. They said over CFRB tonight he gave a tirade of a speech on matters that had nothing to do with the issue.

Straight lies. It’s just untrue but that’s what’s being fed out to two million people in Toronto. When this is all over the story that’s going to go out is the NDP tried to prolong the strike by asking for a debate, by voting against it.

Mr. Young: Planned it months ago.

Mr. Shulman: Yet the real people responsible aren’t even in this room. They are down in Ottawa. They produced this economic situation which has driven us to the point where we are having to do this tonight.

We are going to be back in six or eight weeks to do this same thing again with the hospital workers and we are going to have to do it with the civil servants. I don’t know how the government is going to handle that one. We are going to have to do it with group after group after group and we don’t even have the solution here. It’s out of our hands.

The government could help. It could help economically, but basically the problem lies in Ottawa; and it’s so frustrating to sit here as a legislator and know that you can’t really attack the problem and know that the people on both sides are in an impossible situation. I don’t blame this government for this situation -- they are not basically responsible; they followed along willingly, they’ve gone along; the Treasurer of Ontario has not hesitated to rush after with his budget.

Hon. Mr. Snow: How’s the member’s telephone?

Mr. Shulman: What really is upsetting is that I know how this is all going to end up. The government is going to appoint an arbitrator and he’s going to be a good man and he’s going to go in there and he’s going to have the horrible problem of how to satisfy everybody. He wants to give the men more, but he knows he can’t give them everything they ask, which is inadequate, because if he does he’s going to be in trouble with government, which appoints him; and with the public, who are annoyed, angry with the TTC workers. They have no sympathy out there.

There is nobody listening to us in here. Outside in the big public they say: “Good old Bill Davis, he’s showing them. Even the teachers, he’s sending them back to work.” They don’t have the public sympathy.

So I’ll tell you right now what he’s going to give them. He’s going to give them 14 per cent retroactive to the last contract. He’s going to give them 10 per cent in six months and another nine per cent six months after that. So he’s going to split it down the middle and give them a little bit more and they’ll end up with 33 per cent.

Mr. Lewis: So we didn’t need this debate.

Mr. Shulman: They are going to slip back over the next two years another 12 per cent bring-home power; in what you can pay the rent with.

And it isn’t just the TTC workers. It’s going to be group after group. We are dancing around the edges, not really coming to battle with the real problem, and this is a frustration to me.

So, Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to get exercised over this bill. At this point it is about the only thing the government could do. A great deal could have been done in the past, when they weren’t thinking; at this point they have no choice.

Mr. Havrot: Hindsight is better than foresight, yes.

Mr. Shulman: If the word is getting through to someone who might pay some attention and who has some influence with the government -- if it is getting through to that individual, I hope he’ll have a good talk with his Treasurer because that is when the government is going to have to decide what its problems are going to be in coming years: when it sets up its budget.

When we come down to what we are doing, we are sticking our thumb in the dike; we are putting a cork in here and another hole is popping out over there. So next year when the government brings the budget down consider, get a few economists, get some proper advice, because the government is leading us right down the road to economic hell.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I would like to ask you to requisition the transcript of Jack Dennett’s talk tonight. I absolutely trust the report given by the member for High Park. I’d like to see whether my views were slandered publicly -- what I’ve said here. I’ve really had my fill of Jack Dennett and I’d just like to see what he said. Maybe you could do that for me to protect my privileges as a member.

Mr. Speaker: I may be able to do that through the Speaker’s office, but I imagine you could do that on your own.

Mr. Lewis: Perhaps we could do it together and protect our rights collectively.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll do it together.

Mr. Lewis: Good, good.

Mr. Speaker: The next speaker is the hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am, I must say, saddened to be a part of this very shoddy procedure which has faced us today.

An hon. member: Yes, just like Ottawa.

Mrs. Campbell: I oppose, as do my colleagues, the principle of compulsory arbitration.

Mr. Laughren: We have a convert.

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, I have some concern about other people. If I were to say that I would vote against the government on this bill, where would it leave us? It would leave us back with the union having to proceed with negotiations with the TTC.

According to my information, at an early stage the chairman of the commission, who could not plead ignorance of a knowledge of labour relations, took the unprecedented step of making a direct appeal to the membership of the union to try to negate the leadership which they had accepted. Anyone who has the most elementary information about a labour dispute knows that this is unforgivable. I would think the Ministry of Labour could have taken that step into consideration in assessing the good faith of the commission.

Subsequently, he expressed in the newspapers the fact that Mr. Moynehan was a fine man but the other people around him were not. So we get another of those nasty little steps to try to bring about a result which one could easily foresee -- that the members of the union would be outraged and it would be most difficult, in that climate, for Mr. Moynehan to preserve any kind of control, I should think. It is to his credit, as I see it, that he was able to do so.

The member for Scarborough Centre has stated one very important principle as I see it. The whole matter of labour relations doesn’t start just at the point of negotiation; the whole function of labour relations comes into play during the period of the contract. In this case, there was no one on the commission, so far as I can ascertain, with the possible exception of the chairman who certainly some time in his past history knew something about it, who really understood the whole matter of labour relations.

It is true, as the member for Scarborough Centre said, that when Ford Brand was on the commission and when Doug Hamilton was on the commission, we did not erupt into a strike position. I am sure if they were here they could tell you they had some pretty tough negotiating to do.

It is interesting that in the city of Toronto with its harbour commission, with the record of the labour membership, with two very tough unions, we have had no history of strikes because Mr. Genovese some time ago, Mr. Tate at the present time, have established the principle of a decent working relationship during the period of the contract. This is something I don’t think the TTC management has grasped.

What are the alternatives in a situation like that? Let’s go back.

Reference has been made to that amateur who came into the scene as a latecomer. It was perfectly understandable why the mayor of Toronto would come in late. He did not have the authority to come in earlier and he waited until it became apparent that no longer were there to be negotiations so far as the TTC management was concerned before he intruded himself into what he knew was probably a very delicate situation.

It’s so easy to say that we should have been there, from the point of view of those of us who are not involved’ either at the municipal level or on the government side at the provincial level. The question was put of one of my colleagues: “Where were you during all this time?” All I can tell is where I was, representing a downtown riding, I was in touch with the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto on a fairly regular basis. I was in touch with one of me trade unionists in this city who was very aware of the situation at the TTC. I was in touch with Mayor Crombie and I was in touch with a member of the commission. But what does one do on the outside? And you are still on the outside in a situation of this kind.

So my first reason for saying that very reluctantly, very sadly, I am supporting this bill is because I don’t think that sending them back on a voluntary basis will achieve a thing. I have a very firm belief in my soul that the commission did not want to try to resolve this situation because, unlike the member for High Park, I have observed the way in which the Metro chairman runs into close, secretion if you like, with the Premier of this province. And he knew where he was going. He knew what he could get; or he knew what he couldn’t get, either way. We don’t know that.

I don’t pass it off on the basis that they couldn’t decide anything because they didn’t know. I think they had very firm instructions as to where they would go and how they would move in this particular issue.

Added, however, to all of that, is the fact that I have spent the summer in my riding. It is a downtown riding and one would think that most of the people there were pretty able to manage one way or another in this emergency. But one of the people I had to talk to recently was a woman employed by Garfield News who has not had a pay cheque since Aug. 4 and who will, no matter when the strike is resolved, not receive a paycheque for one week after she goes back to work, and she’s concerned about her rent. I say to the leader of the New Democratic Party, that is far more than an inconvenience to which he made reference.

I have met with older people, one woman in particular who was in quite a serious state because she was trying to get to hospital but she couldn’t get a cab. She couldn’t get there, although she needed the treatment, but it wasn’t an emergency so she couldn’t get an ambulance.

So the stories mount. I believe if I could be assured tonight that, for example, the Minister of Labour and his team had even put the Crombie proposition to both sides and they turned it down -- at least I’d like to know who turned it down. I don’t even know that it was ever put, because we’d have to save the face of the Premier of this province. I think if I could be assured that there was good faith with the TTC management I might still not support the position of compulsory arbitration. But at this point anything that I would do to stop it would in my view be totally, utterly meaningless, both for the employees and for the people across this metropolitan area. So for that reason, Mr. Speaker, with all that is in me opposing in principle what I am doing here, I am supporting the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words I would like to say on this bill, which I am unalterably opposed to. Having listened to the debate these past several hours, it is hard for me to believe that the rest of Ontario is still beating away out there and things are going along as normal in Thunder Bay, Schreiber, Sudbury, Kenora and Rainy River. To hear the bleeding hearts here in the Liberal Party and the Premier of the province reciting these great hardships which are befalling the people of Toronto, just makes me wonder what the Province of Ontario is. Is the Province of Ontario just bounded by the narrow section of property here in the downtown core of Metropolitan Toronto?

In any war there are bound to be casualties and I consider this to be a war between two classes of people, those who have and those who have not. It is a working-class war and these people have every right to take certain action in order to try and better their lot.

The member for High Park made a very good case when he figured out the economics of the thing, that even the 40 per cent demand, which to some people seems impressive, is not really going to solve the problem. It seems that the faster they run the farther behind they get, and this is precisely where all of the working class is in the Province of Ontario because of the failure of this government to take the necessary steps to curb inflation.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that all last winter when we were in the House we rose consistently almost every day and recited case after case where the cost of living should have been taken in hand by the Premier and his cabinet, but lo and behold the Premier chose to play politics because he knew there was a federal election coming up and he consistently placed the blame on those dirty Liberals in Ottawa. His game didn’t pan out, thank the Lord for that, otherwise Canada would be in a more desperate situation than we are right now with a Conservative philosophy ruling us.

I was interested in what the member for York--Forest Hill had to say. It is the old line of those people who have a little bit of wherewithal, that wages are inflationary and that this 40 per cent demand was inflationary. Well we see that even the 40 per cent was not going to meet their problem. We know that the inflation is going to eat up even the 40 per cent that they would have got, and yet these bleeding hearts go along and make these statements. The press is also intransigent in repeating these kinds of statements and making the general public believe that the reason we have inflation is because working people want to get a decent wage.

I am not interested in the working class just staying even; I am interested in the working class gaining a little bit of upward mobility. I am interested in reducing the gap between the top and the bottom sectors of our society. Despite all of the strikes, all of the negotiations, all of the hardship that we have had in this province and across this country, we still haven’t made one dent in reducing the differential between those on the top and those on the bottom. To just quote one statistic, 10 years ago a doctor used to earn four times the average wage of the workers in Ontario; the present differential is six to one. He now earns six times more. So, even despite negotiations and strikes and the ultimate pressure that the trade union can put on, we are still going backwards as far as overcoming that problem. The responsibility for that rests with this government and it has failed to take the necessary action.

The reason we have inflation -- and we have told this government 10,000 times already -- is the exorbitant profit margins which have been accruing to the corporations in the past several years. The corporations are getting fatter at the expense of the worker. The corporations are driving up prices in order to magnify and increase their profits. I would just like to quote a few for the year ending December, 1973. The percentage increase in profits has been obscene in the past year and yet this government fails to tax these profits away, fails to lay any controls upon them and just lets the cost of living spiral and spiral and eat up working men’s wages and women’s wages.

Maple Leaf Mills increased their profits by 149.5 per cent. There is not one worker in Ontario who increased his wages by 149 per cent last year, not one, out of the millions who are working in Ontario.

International Nickel Co. -- I know them well, I worked for this gang -- increased their profits by 106 per cent, and at the same time they were increasing their profits by 106 per cent they laid off 5,000 employees. That is speed-up if I ever saw it. The worker is working harder, he is creating more profits and he is getting less return for what he is putting into his job.

Falconbridge Nickel, another Sudbury company, a 776.4 per cent profit increase last year over the year previous.

Rio-Algom Mines -- this is one of the gang that is killing miners like they were made out of popcorn in the uranium mines at Elliot Lake -- increase in profits, 1973 over 1972, 219.2 per cent.

Markborough Properties, a Toronto-based company -- we all know what they are into, they are one of the real estate racketeers around southern Ontario -- we begged this government to do something about land costs, particularly in southern Ontario, and yet Markborough is allowed to increase their profits by 515 per cent.

Is it any wonder that the TTC workers are demanding a 40 per cent rise in wages in order to pay off these profiteers who are gouging the paycheques right out of their pockets? They have every right to take the action that they took. And this government has no right to come here and make slaves out of any group of workers. It has happened four times already in the sittings of this House, since this House went in. This government has blood on its hands. It is making slaves out of people. And let me tell you, the chickens will eventually come home to roost.

The working class of this province is not going to take that forever. It is getting easier and easier for this government every time. They have fallen into a trap. They have a noose around their neck and they can’t get out. They are locked into this compulsion syndrome and at the slightest provocation bring it into the Legislature and we will legislate them back to work. This is shades of Hitler if I ever saw it.

The member for St. Andrew--St. Patrick demonstrated his ignorance of the bargaining process when he tried to defend the Minister of Labour for not intervening when there was so much evidence available that the TTC management had not participated in good faith bargaining. When it takes three months to get a pocket sewn into a uniform to hold a screwdriver, at a total cost of $15, and they argued that for about three months, if that is not a sign of bad faith I don’t know what is. And when you take the last proposal they made, their 23 per cent increase on average, that is about the most ridiculous proposition that I have ever seen. The TTC board of directors, the Toronto Transit Commission, has to bear responsibility for that. Mallette and Godfrey, who tried to outshout one another for a political gain, were using these workers as pawns for their own political purposes.

The member for St. Andrew--St. Patrick thinks this whole debate is irrelevant. He stood in his place and he said that we should not even be holding the debate. We should just come in, vote on the issue, send these people back as though they were not to be considered and that would solve the problem. Certainly it would solve his problem but it doesn’t solve the problem of those people who have to go back.

Now you might suspect that the only people concerned with this strike are the residents of Toronto. Not so, Mr. Speaker. There is a thin tentacle of the Toronto Transit Commission right across this province through the Gray Coach Lines’ exclusive franchises to Sudbury and Owen Sound and various other places in the province.

It is for this reason that the riding I represent has kept abreast of the negotiations down here. They know what is going on in Toronto because there are eight buses from Toronto to Sudbury each and every day. This represents several hundred people from my municipality who have been inconvenienced as a result of the bad negotiations which have transpired in this city.

I would like to read a resolution which was passed by the Sudbury NDP Association on Monday last, Aug. 26, 1974, which is its resolution on what has transpired. My leader has pointed out in very clear terms -- I don’t think I will take the time of the House to repeat all of his arguments; I agree with him implicity -- that the negotiations breaking off was the result of the TTC not doing its job properly. The commissioners didn’t care because they knew they had their friend, the Premier, backing them up, playing backstop, and that he would come in at the right time.

My leader also suggested that this might have been well orchestrated to elevate the Premier’s white knight image in the city of Toronto, which has been tarnished lately, in the past few weeks.

The riding association of Sudbury passed this resolution:

Whereas the Toronto Transit Commission has proved incapable of conducting its affairs, particularly in its relations with its labour force; and whereas the provincial government representing all of Ontario was drawn into the labour dispute in Toronto; thereby be it resolved that the Toronto Transit Commission be placed in provincial receivership until such time as the province can conduct democratic direct election of all commissioners to the end that responsible public representation can be more directly challenged to maintain labour harmony.

One of the weaknesses of the commissioners is they are not directly responsible to the electorate or to those people who have to ride their trains. They are not directly responsible to those people who are hitchhiking on Yonge St. tonight. These people who are being inconvenienced by the intransigence of this commission do not have the right to vote and say who is going to run their service for them.

By the same token, those of us in northern Ontario who have to rely on Gray Coach for our communication with the rest of the province, have no say in what happens to the service as far as Gray Coach is concerned. Maybe there should be an all-encompassing board to take in all of the territory which is serviced by TTC, including Gray Coach. There is no reason why somebody from out of the confines of the city of Toronto shouldn’t be sitting on this board because they are concerned, too. People from all these communities serviced by Gray Coach should also have a say in what goes on here and maybe a breath of fresh air might come into this great metropolis.

The Premier, who stands there wringing his hands, makes a great case for all of the old people and the hardship upon them. He is very concerned about them. One can tell the concern the Conservative Party has for this issue -- just take a look at the empty seats over there; that is how concerned they are. They are not even interested in what’s going on over here.

Mr. Gisborn: They have been empty since they introduced the bill.

Mr. Germa: Certainly. They have no more concern than the man in the moon has. It is all political gamemanship with this gang over there. Whatever will bring a vote they will do, regardless of how they trample on the rights of others; and when they will make slaves out of 5,700 people they are not doing the right thing.

They have determined, by bringing in this legislation, that here we have an essential service. The good and welfare of this province is at stake if we don’t legislate these workers back on to the job. It has been stated before that if these people are so essential why doesn’t the government pay them?

It has declared that the hospital workers are essential; why doesn’t it pay them? Why are the hospital workers in 11 northern Ontario hospitals going out on strike on Sept. 2, Monday? They know the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act says they can’t go out on strike. They are going. I attended a meeting Wednesday night in Sudbury. There were 500 of them in attendance. They are fully aware of what they are doing. They know that it’s against the law for them to go on strike, but they know that they refuse to suffer any further.

The government is making criminals out of 2,000 people who are not criminals; 2,000 people who are only willing to give of their service in one of the nastiest jobs in this province, working in a hospital. Yet the government doesn’t recognize the essential service. It starves them out, it forces them to be criminals by its idiotic legislation.

I don’t know of any situation serious enough to make slaves out of people, which is precisely what the government is doing here today. It is enslaving 5,700 people, and they should take a look and they should examine what has happened to the hospital workers since compulsion was brought in against them. They haven’t gone any place except down, and now they have to break the law to bring to the attention of the public that they are being maltreated. I suggest that the same thing is going to happen here. Any time you enslave people they will eventually find a way to get out of that enslavement.

I must say that the negotiating committee for the transit workers, Mr. Moynehan and company, have been very modest and moderate people. I think this government is lucky that he is from the old school and is willing to sit down and put up with the frustrations which have been brought to the bargaining table. I suggest that the next generation of trade unionists is not going to be as moderate as Mr. Moynehan and company. As these younger people come into control of the trade unions they are not going to put up with this kind of stuff. It is just thanks to Mr. Moynehan that he has been able to hold them in line, that they haven’t gone out a long time ago.

As to bad faith bargaining, I’ve worked all my life for the International Nickel Co., and this is one of the most intransigent companies in the country, but nothing it has ever done has compared with what was done to the workers here. When you would go on strike and still have 142 demands unresolved, it tells me that something is wrong. Surely during negotiations you can get rid of some things.

I think here the government bears a lot of responsibility in that the union has found it necessary to include in its demands 142 items. These items are being fought at every bargaining table right across this land -- thousands of hours spent on one particular issue which should be resolved by this government. I’d like to point out just a few of them, Mr. Speaker, that I think the government should legislate rather than have the bargaining table cluttered up with 142 items.

As far as I am concerned there should only be two items on any bargaining table. Those are wages and working conditions. Here we are with 142 items which have nothing to do with the work place, which should come as rights of people right across this province.

Item 25 as published in the Globe and Mail -- I’m sure everybody saw the 142 demands -- this ridiculous item right here says, and I quote: “Any member of division 113 on jury duty shall be paid his true value or minimum of eight hours for any day he is on jury duty.” I know that item has been argued 10,000 times in 10,000 different union halls in 10,000 different contracts and it has nothing to do with working conditions or the work place. This government has to legislate things like that out of the bargaining table, because in order for a union, any union, to bargain for jury pay, you have to give away something else. You have to trade that off for wages. You have to trade that off for pensions. You have to trade that off for hours of work.

Why should a working man have to lose wages to do his public duty? We don’t object to doing our public duty but we don’t have to lose wages in order to do it. That’s the kind of area where this government has missed the boat. Jury pay should be legislated across the province in legislation. Why does the government leave it on the bargaining table to be chewed out 10,000 times every year and people having to trade it off for something else?

Item 28: “Any man making out accident or incident reports shall be paid 15 minutes at the basic rate.” As far as I’m concerned that’s part of his job. Why does he have to bargain when he’s at work making out an accident report while he was doing his job? If the man’s on duty he should get paid. He shouldn’t have to negotiate a thing like that.

“Men on compensable illness will have their full wages maintained.” This comes down to the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the Minister of Labour has control over that as well. The compensation legislation in this province is not adequate. We have to bring the compensation issues to the bargaining table. Why don’t they legislate full wages when a man was injured on the job? These are the kind of things where the government has been weak in solving the problems. Why should the workers have to be so concerned with safety? Why isn’t the commission concerned with the items of safety, as recited in item 47?

“Two men on subway trains at all times.” That’s strictly a safety factor. Is the commission not concerned with safety? Is this government not concerned with safety? It makes only common sense that there should be at least two men running an eight-coach train. One man just can’t do that alone. For the safety of the passengers it’s common sense that there should be two people on and that could easily be legislated and should be legislated.

There are so many items here, Mr. Speaker. Item 58 calls for proper facilities to be available at locations where work breaks are taken. These are elementary demands. Should there not be a place for a man to eat his lunch and a comfort station for him to do those things which come naturally? Where is he supposed to go? We shouldn’t have to negotiate these kind of things.

“Overtime after eight hours.” That goes without saying. Here we are, still negotiating overtime after eight hours. How does that came about, Mr. Minister? Where is his liberal legislation on this?

Here’s another good one here -- I think it falls into the safety item -- item 67 in the Globe and Mail write-up: “On statutory holidays and special assignments, men who are forced to work late crews will be granted eight hours off before starting work the following morning.”

I would hope that a guy driving my subway train had a few hours sleep before he came to work in the morning, and here they are fighting for eight hours off and if he has eight hours off he might get four hours sleep, because everybody just doesn’t live right next door to the subway line. That’s one of the safety aspects. That should be legislated, that no man will go to work unless he’s had a rest period of at least eight hours.

I think item 85 is a protective device as well: “Protective shields behind drivers.” It’s a safety item.

An hon. member: It’s about time we had a new commission isn’t it?

Mr. Germa: “Bus stops. Within 90 days, to require more frequent painting of bus stop signs.” What the hell has that got to do with labour negotiations? What’s wrong with the commission that they don’t know enough to paint their own signs? Are the workers running the TTC? If it weren’t for them there wouldn’t be a sign on the post. We wouldn’t know where to catch the thing, but these people have to be reminded in 4 1/2 months of negotiations they should paint signs.

Mr. Bounsall: That’s one way to cut down the payroll.

Mr. Germa: “Street car heaters, trolleys and buses.” These workers even want their streetcar heated now. Is that too much to ask? How about the patrons? I think they would like their streetcars and trolley buses heated as well.

There’s nothing wrong with 109, “A casual employee shall receive the same rate as any other employee.” Equal pay for equal work; that’s pretty well standard policy across this land. Why not casual workers? Why does the union have to negotiate these things? Why doesn’t the legislation just say equal pay for equal work in this province? If you are cleaning fish, you get a certain pay; if you are driving a bus, you get a certain pay, whether you are casual or not.

There are a couple more I would just like to talk about, Mr. Speaker. No. 116, applicable to Gray Coach: “Meal increase to $2; 48-hour charter, the first two meals are $2 and one on receipt.” I would like to see the legislation passed that would control the members of this House to a $2 meal when they go on trips and then they would understand a little better what a bus driver is faced with when you limit him to a $2 meal. That’s about a hotdog and a cup of soup and a cup of coffee, and that’s what the government expects a man to drive all day on.

There are 142 items here, Mr. Speaker. About 120 of them should not even be on the bargaining table. It is within the realm of responsibility of the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Health, and various other ministries in this House to have legislation passed that would solve these problems.

All capitalist governments are the same, in that they set up this bargaining process under which the worker shall bargain against his employer. For the past 60 years the employer has had the upper hand and the worker has not got very far. Recently, with better organization, better union officers and better education, the work force is starting to win a few of the wars. We seem to think that we should have a piece of the action when it’s the labour of the worker that creates the wealth.

This is where these capitalist governments get hung up, in that they want to change the rules of the game when they start losing the war. This is precisely what we are doing now, and it has come faster and faster. As I said, it has happened four times since this House came into being.

Some doubt has been created as to whether the workers in this case are going to accept compulsion. I know my leader has called for them to respect the law, but when laws are so ridiculous that they cannot be respected, then sometimes people have noplace else to go but to refuse to obey them. The hospital workers are not obeying the compulsory law as it is written. They are going on strike on Monday, Sept. 2, and I just wonder if this bill is going to accomplish what the Premier said it was going to accomplish -- that is, get the wheels rolling by tomorrow morning.

I doubt very much that this bill is going to accomplish that. If it does accomplish it tomorrow or this weekend or by Tuesday, it might accomplish it, but I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue in this vein. We cannot continue to force people back to work with a mailed fist. Eventually, this thing is going to react and the government is going to have anarchy across this province.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter this debate relating to Bill 119, An Act respecting Labour Disputes between the Toronto Transit Commission and Division 113, Amalgamated Transit Union, and to support the comments put forth by the leader of the official opposition this afternoon.

Speaking to the comments of the Minister of Labour in the Legislature this afternoon, and presumably quoting his remarks, this bill will establish the machinery to get the parties back to the bargaining table and transportation services moving in Metro Toronto by tomorrow sometime, hopefully. I hope that there is a bus leaving for the town of Fort Erie sometime tonight so I can get back there for the weekend.

What the minister has actually introduced in the Legislature is compulsory arbitration. It has been indicated by a number of speakers this afternoon and this evening that this is the fourth occasion that the Davis government has interfered with the process of free collective bargaining rights of employees and management in this province.

There appear to be no limits to the powers that the Legislature can constitutionally confer upon any so-called emergency labour dispute. Many trade unionists and organized labour unions in the province will question any unauthorized remedy for a crisis until all avenues of the Minister of Labour have been exhausted under the existing labour laws and powers delegated to him by the Legislature.

It has been indicated also this afternoon that the powers are there. What the Minister of Labour and his predecessor have been doing the last two or three months is questionable. I think the bargaining process, particularly between this union and management, has been going since sometime last May. Perhaps it wasn’t until sometime in June or the latter part of August that some decisions from the management had been forthcoming on some of the suggestions in the contract under negotiation, to be applied in this particular case. It seems that perhaps 90 days’ bargaining has been a waste of time by the union, and management perhaps hasn’t dealt in good faith in the bargaining process.

This nonsense of government involvement in recent labour disputes, be it private industry or government services -- and it has already catalogued a number of services as essential -- has commanded this assembly to employ a remedy or seizure of power to effect a 12 per cent wage increase in hope of keeping the TTC in operation, or to regiment labour as oppressively as Hitler did during his army’s crushing of Europe in the last great war, when he crushed the hearts and souls of many civilians in Europe.

It is most important to labour and management for the proper exercise of their function that a line be drawn between responsible autonomy and irresponsible autonomy in labour disturbances in this province.

The question in this labour dispute is how acute is the emergency calling for the passing of the bill by the Legislature today or tomorrow. I’m concerned not only as to the effects that the strike has on Metro Toronto, but with the needs of transportation services throughout the province of Ontario. Of course, I think there are a number of members here who are well aware that Gray Coach Lines does provide a service to other communities throughout the Province of Ontario, to northern Ontario, across Canada, and particularly to the Niagara Peninsula, which has certainly been hampered by the strike to date.

The question has been raised again as to the company or the management of the TTC having not bargained in good faith. Mr. Speaker, not to belabour the House any longer in this debate, the member for Sudbury has gone through the particular points of negotiation at the bargaining table. He mentioned a number of items that should not be included in negotiations. These perhaps are grievances that have been held over for a period of maybe a year or two years and I think legislation is required now to speed up negotiations. These small matters of bargaining process should not hamper the final stages of agreement between management and employees.

Mr. Cassidy: There is legislation, but the government won’t enforce it.

Mr. Haggerty: As the member for Sudbury has stated before, the two most important items in a strike or at the bargaining tables are the monetary value and the safety factors. He’s covered that very well. One should not have to go to the bargaining table to provide safety in any industry or any positions in the Province of Ontario. I have mentioned the question of new legislation before. I can recall, Mr. Speaker, on Nov. 29, 1973, I raised a question of the Minister of Labour -- at that time I believe it was the member for Stormont -- as to when new legislation would be forthcoming in the Legislature to update the Labour Relations Act and the regulations in the Province of Ontario. His answer was that the Minister of Labour is constantly having the Labour Relations Act reviewed at all times and a new approach would be forthcoming during the winter months. Apparently, the new legislation or new regulations are not forthcoming as yet, and as long as the Minister of Labour procrastinates on any final decision of bringing in new legislation we’re going to have continuous labour disputes across the Province of Ontario. There are many improvements that can be made. The leader of the official opposition has suggested one, that a select committee of this Legislature should sit down with labour and management and with members of the Legislature and discuss some of these issues to see if we can’t find some of the answers to speed up negotiations here in the Province of Ontario. Compulsory arbitration isn’t the answer. Free collective bargaining is the answer and I think management in the Province of Ontario and industry will spell this out, that they don’t want the interference of government. If the government moves in this direction they might as well go all the way and legislate for all labour problems in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Ferrier: How can the member vote for this bill then?

Mr. Haggerty: Gradually, you’re taking this free enterprise system away from labour and management, the process of free bargaining. It’s been eroded year after year. Every time a bill comes into this House labour is losing its hold, it’s losing its free bargaining process. Not only labour, but management also. I suggest to the Minister of Labour and the Premier of this province that perhaps they should take the suggestion put forth by the Leader of the Opposition that a committee be struck now to review all labour legislation in the Province of Ontario to see if we can’t come up with an approach to the problems of labour disputes here that can be settled without calling the Legislature back to legislate new laws to put the disagreement of the two parties back to the bargaining table. I suggest to the minister that steps should be taken in this direction.

There are other matters that do not deal with this particular bill, but are labour disputes that have been going on for long periods. I can think of one, the John Inglis company in Toronto, the Strachan Ave. plant, which has been out on strike for five or six months. One wonders what the Ministry of Labour is doing in this particular instance. I don’t think they are doing too much. Very little is being done to get this plant back into operation. If the government doesn’t move in some direction to give them some encouragement to continue with the free bargaining process, perhaps this plant will phase out in the city of Toronto.

I mentioned the rubber industry in the Province of Ontario, and the long delay in getting this type of industry, employees and management, back to the bargaining table. I suppose if one had to go out and buy a set of snow tires today they would tell you there’s none available. You know what’s going to happen when there is no production, the price is going to more than double. You talk about increased inflationary costs in the economy, strikes help cause it. The cause lies directly with the Minister of Labour. Perhaps he’s not doing what he should be doing to get the bargaining process back to the table, to get the strikes settled and to get the economy rolling. I would suggest to the Minister of Labour that he move in that direction to bring in new legislation, or take the suggestion of the official opposition that a select committee be struck now to review all labour legislation in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to speak fairly briefly, in fact very briefly, about the bill.

I wanted to say first that at first glance the matter of the Toronto transit strike has not had a great impact on people in eastern Ontario or in Ottawa in particular. We are serviced long-distance by Voyageur Colonial coach lines which is not involved in the strike. Apart from a few travellers who come down to Toronto for various reasons and who have got caught in the traffic jams or in the problems of getting in from the airport, there has really been very little impact up in Ottawa, and for that matter in much of the rest of the province as well.

The Legislature once again has been called together in order to solve a problem which is a Metro Toronto problem because this is a government and Legislature which tends to be obsessed with Metro Toronto.

But there are some wider implications, Mr. Speaker, that I want to draw out fairly quickly, about what this piece of legislation means, and the pathetic little show we have had in the Legislature today means for the people of Ottawa because it could happen there as well as here. I guess the first thing is something quite unrelated with labour relations and that is the way in which the rights of a parliament, the Legislature of the Province of Ontario, are demeaned, debased and abused by the government and by the House leader, for reasons which are totally unnecessary.

We had an example of good faith bargaining, I think you could call it, between the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party in which the Premier was seeking co-operation from the opposition parties to take this bill through all of its stages in one day. Whatever our opinions about the bill, there was regard I think in both opposition parties for the desire of the government to pass the legislation, and for an end to the dilemma in which government inaction had put itself by beginning or creating a strike situation rather than moving in long before in order to help to settle it. Therefore there was an agreement that was made in good faith. We find, however, Mr. Speaker, that the good faith was shattered when Eric Winkler began to play his little games with --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member should refer to the minister by his correct name. That’s not really proper.

Mr. Cassidy: No, it is important, though, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It is important but not proper language. Refer to the hon. minister by his correct title.

Mr. Cassidy: I am sorry, the government Speaker -- and when he played his little games about forcing the Deputy Speaker to agree in some way --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He never forced him at all.

Mr. Cassidy: What?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Deputy Speaker can’t be forced to do anything.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, the tragedy is that the Deputy Speaker agreed, without even being forced, to accept that there would be no dinner break without a resolution from the House leader.

There was willingness on this side to co-operate, Mr. Speaker. We had even discussed it in caucus, and then the good faith was broken. We had a small taste in this Legislature of how the negotiators for the transit employees and the machinists’ union and CUPE felt about the way in which management had dealt with them. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it felt pretty rotten to have that kind of treatment from the House, as it has felt in the past, and I had some taste of the way in which negotiators must have felt with the way that they had been treated with such a lack of respect.

It demeans this House for the government to act in that particular way; it demeans the government to see there to be no trust between government and opposition, and it demeans parliaments everywhere when this particular House goes down the drain because of government action.

Mr. Speaker: Well, be that as it may. Perhaps the hon. member would please discuss the principle of the bill before the House.

Mr. Cassidy: My second concern, Mr. Speaker, which I was getting to -- maybe your timing and mine are in close harmony tonight -- is, as a number of other speakers from this side have mentioned, about the way in which this government is abusing labour relations in the province. That is particularly important for people who are workers, say, in Ottawa and eastern Ontario, because when it happens in Toronto or when it happens in hospitals or other situations around the province, it could also happen in eastern Ontario.

It hurts us all if a government which is responsible for maintaining a harmonious climate of labour relations in the province, fails. It hurts us all -- we all suffer -- if free collective bargaining is undermined because of intransigent management, because of intransigent unions, when that is the case, or because of neglectful or biased government actions.

In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, we are faced with intransigent management and one-sided government, a government which simply favoured one side rather than seeking to hold the ring and to permit, if not encourage, free collective bargaining.

The last member who spoke said there ought to be a law to get the guys back to the bargaining table. There is a law, the Ontario Labour Relations Act, which says the parties must bargain in good faith. Ample evidence has been given by a number of members, including the leader of the New Democratic Party, that there was not bargaining in good faith on the part of management in this particular set of negotiations. For four months negotiations ostensibly go on and yet not a single issue is resolved.

A lengthy list of demands was put in by the union. It may have been unrealistic, I don’t know, but nevertheless at the beginning of any negotiating session it is quite common for a union to put everything including the kitchen sink on the bargaining table.

There were a number of real issues within the 142 issues put forward by the union and a number of others which may have been frills or window-dressing; I don’t know. The point is, Mr. Speaker, that they were not dealt with substantively by the company and at every opportunity it made it clear that it simply did not wish to negotiate in good faith.

The workers and the trade unions of this province have come to expect they will get a deaf ear from the province if they go to the Ontario Labour Relations Board with a complaint about lack of good-faith bargaining. It has come to such a pass that in many cases they don’t even bother to try. They know the procedures before the OLRB will be dilatory; that they will not get enforcement of the law; that they will not get the support of the Minister of Labour, whoever it happens to be at this particular time. The new Minister of Labour, who is only a few months in office, it seems to me has failed to carry out any promise he might have had in coming freshly into the office because he failed to make any effort to ensure that the TTC bargained in good faith in this particular case.

What have we got? We have a government which in the field of labour relations is carrying out a series of ad hoc policies, and a government which in the field of public service employment is carrying out a series of ad hoc policies. All of us whether in our roles as citizens or as taxpayers or as the consumers of publicly-provided services in the province, are going to suffer because of the adhockery of this particular government.

If you want to take health care, Mr. Speaker, the government for years has stepped on hospital workers. It has compelled them to accept sub-normal wages and eventually the Minister of Health has agreed and got his cabinet colleagues to agree to a certain catch-up settlement for hospital workers who were cruelly exploited in a service which is pretty essential in the province. Eventually the Minister of Health gets that but where were the steps over the period of time for a fundamental reform of health care in the province in order to ensure that we got the maximum benefit from the work so many people put in to providing health care in Ontario? Where were the fundamental reforms in order to ensure that, in return for spending one of the highest amounts of gross provincial product on health of any society of any western jurisdiction, we got comparable care? Those fundamental reforms were not made, Mr. Speaker.

It is the same situation in the field of transit. Our government commits itself to transit in words but stands idly by while the situation between labour and management gets worse and worse, while management deliberately exacerbates the situation, presumably with the hope that one way or another it would get bailed out by the provincial government.

Those ad hoc policies of the government, Mr. Speaker, are going to backfire. Right now they are going to be reflected in provincial spending, in provincial taxes, which will probably be much higher than they need have been had there been fundamental reforms in the various services provided by government in order to ensure that the taxpayers got the best value for the work people were providing, while at the same time the workers were reasonably or well remunerated for the work they did. We are going to get rising deficits and we are going to get taxes that are very high because of ad hoc policies taken by the government. We also get -- if I can come back to labour relations -- a deteriorating climate of labour relations which doesn’t just affect the TTC and its workers over the next two years, it affects everybody who is involved in the field of labour-management negotiations. It affects every trade union leader, it affects every employer, whether it is a private, a public employer, whether it is a private, a public or a semi-public employer, and it isn’t just for a month or two months or a year, it is permanent. Because the more you undermine free collective bargaining the less of the institution there is left and, frankly, nobody has a better alternative. The alternative this government provides is a worser alternative, Mr. Speaker, and people will suffer because of what the government is doing to undermine free collective bargaining.

Mr. MacDonald: This government is worser than any other.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Worser? And he’s a professor. Put that down -- the professor said “worser.”

Mr. Cassidy: I am a journalist and I use words that people understand.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Professors don’t usually do that.

Mr. Cassidy: I am also a professor and I use words that professors don’t understand. Mr. Speaker, the third issue I wanted to raise was the question of what does this mean for a local government and local autonomy in government? Nobody has raised this particular point, but I am concerned about what the effective takeover of the transit negotiations by the provincial government actually means as far as the government’s stated purpose of giving more responsibility to local government.

The government has made statement after statement, and we have had a whole regional government plan of the Treasurer, and the pitch has been constantly that you need to strengthen local government by creating two-tier regional governments, by creating new levels of government that are capable of taking responsibilities that would otherwise be centralized unto the province. So you take certain powers away from the little units and put them into big units, like the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, or of Muskoka, or of Niagara, or of Hamilton, or of Halton, or of Metro Toronto. Then these larger units, which are rather more approachable, it is said, than the province, will be able to cope.

But look what has happened here now. Here you have Metro Toronto and the TTC, which has been acknowledged as one of the finest transit operations on the continent, unable to cope and deliberately playing games, deliberately jeopardizing the future of a very good and a very fine transit operation and one that we should basically be proud of.

In other words, if any of the regional federations or any of the regional governments is capable of handling the decentralization of power from the provincial government, it ought to be Metro because it is the granddaddy of all the regional governments, it has been around the place now for more than 20 years. But look what happens.

You have the TTC, it now has a political board composed, as I recall, entirely of politicians, I think they took all of the appointed non-elected members off it apart from Metro chairman Godfrey. You have therefore, the board of the TTC, which presumably reflects the strongest if not the wisest elements in the Metro federation. But look how the TTC copes. It appoints its personnel director, Mr. King, it sends a flunkey, to carry out the negotiations with the union. One has to ask oneself, where was James Kearns, the general manager, during those 4 1/2 months?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s not a nice expression to use for a civil servant.

Mr. Cassidy: What?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s not a nice expression to use for a civil servant, “a flunkey.”

Mr. Cassidy: I am sorry, but that is certainly the way he behaved. He had to go back to the commission and they could never meet with the people who were responsible.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If, as and when you get into power you may call your civil servants flunkies. We don’t and neither does Metro.

Mr. Cassidy: I am saying that the commission of the TTC sent a flunkey because it sent somebody who did not have the authority to negotiate. Now, Mr. King may be a very fine person but he was sent as a flunkey because he did not have any powers to negotiate. He had to go back for orders, he had to go back to check absolutely everything --

Mr. MacDonald: The minister doesn’t know what flunkey means.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It wasn’t meant to be complimentary, I know that.

Mr. Cassidy: It is proven by the fact that over the four months that he was in charge of negotiations nothing happened. Now, is that because Mr. King is incompetent? I doubt it. As far as I can see, that is because the instructions that he had from the TTC were simply not to negotiate in good faith and they would not give him the leeway to settle all these minor issues, to narrow it down to six or eight or 10 major issues which then could be taken up by Mr. Moynehan and the other chief members of the negotiating team on the union side, along with the members of the commission itself, or one or two members of the commission and the general manager, Mr. Kearns.

Where was Kearns? Where was Mallette, the chairman of the TTC and also a Scarborough controller and a Metro council member? Where was Chairman Paul Godfrey? They were absent during all this process.

Where was John MacBeth, the new Minister of Labour? Also absent. Where were his people? Also absent. Who was reporting to him? Absent. Or if they were present, their presence was not marked by any success in the negotiations. Where was the province seeking to ensure that the good faith bargaining provisions of the Labour Relations Act were being abided by? It was absent.

Now that surely is something else that my people up in Ottawa and in eastern Ontario ought to be aware of. That the municipal people here in Toronto blew it, and that the provincial people here at Queen’s Park, both elected and appointed, blew it, and the responsibility has clearly got to come down to the elected people, first at the municipal level and then at the provincial level.

So it comes to a crunch. The TTC wants to come to a crunch. They are obviously courting a strike. They treat the union with contempt. A strike eventually transpires and then suddenly Paul Godfrey comes waltzing in, in order to look like the rescuer of the whole situation, and suddenly he will be the hero of the hour. He drags or brings in the Premier with him.

Was that intended, Mr. Speaker? We don’t know. Was it intended that the Premier would have a coup in his hands, would be able to send the men back to work in order to win another half dozen seats in Metro Toronto in the next provincial election a year hence? Would that be the particular idea? The Minister of Labour shakes his head and I guess he wouldn’t agree to this publicly. Did Karl Mallette and Paul Godfrey and the Premier meet one dark night early in August and decide on the scenario?

Mr. Foulds: Or even one bright night.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right, even one bright night. Was there a rendezvous up at Honey Harbour where all this was worked out in advance?

Mr. Haggerty: Was the member there?

Mr. Cassidy: Were the Tories so worried about the fact that the leader of the NDP has been leading the Premier in popularity in the Metro Toronto area that they decided they had to come up with some grand coup which would allow the Premier to re-establish himself?

Mr. Turner: That’s hardly the principle of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: It doesn’t seem very likely to me. But I really can’t explain the whole succession of events which sees the provincial government take any kind of a conscious interest in this thing, only after tempers are flaring, after the strike has been under way for several days, and only then the province apparently begins to discover that the TTC had not been negotiating in good faith and that somehow there were still 142 issues on the bargaining table which had not been resolved.

The Minister of Labour has surely been in his office long enough to know, or his officials could have told him, that Godfrey’s dramatic interventions were pretty useless, that the Premier’s confrontation with the union people over a boardroom table somewhere in the bowels of Queen’s Park was grandstanding and nothing more and would not lead to any particular impact. I’m sure that the Minister of Labour has learned from his officials that the great intervention of the Premier was too little too late, and had something like that been done earlier, as the leader of the NDP had to say, it might have had an effect. But when it came at that time it was simply a pitch in order to get headlines in the Toronto Sun and the Toronto Star and not a realistic kind of way to proceed.

I’m disturbed at the fact, speaking now as municipal critic, Mr. Speaker, that after 20 years of developing one of the finest transit systems on the continent, after 20 years of developing a municipal federation in Metro Toronto, which, for all of its weaknesses and for all of the abuses of power which it permits in the hands of the likes of Paul Godfrey, is still for better or worse one of the best municipal governments that exists in the north American continent, after all that, that we see people the like of Karl Mallette and Paul Godfrey and the Premier and the Minister of Labour, and the Treasurer I suppose, and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Irvine), who also have some responsibility for the Metro federation, allowing that kind of developed transit system and developed municipal government to be abused for tawdry and small and short-term political purposes by the people that I’ve named. That simply does not seem to me a justifiable use of the apparatus of government that has been developed over that period of time.

The government comes waltzing in at the last minute in order to make headlines but it is not serious about making good faith bargaining work. At the time when their intervention or their coaxing -- a few phone calls and that kind of thing -- might have had a real impact, when a small amount of pressure might have turned these negotiations around, the government was absent. Therefore, they come in now after 19 days of a strike and they say, “Now we will use the powers of the Legislature, the powers of Eric Winkler, the powers of our 86 members in order to force the bill to the Legislature, force the men back to work, force a settlement, under- mine free collective bargaining.”

As a municipal critic, I’m concerned about the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the undermining of local government isn’t just in the politic posturings of Godfrey and Mallette et al. It is also in the fact that the Metro federation is emasculated by its lack of financial resources. Therefore, the question of who paid the piper for this particular settlement was, in effect, shoved by diem up the tree, up on to the lap of the provincial government.

Just recently there has been a report from the Metropolitan Transportation Plan Review which says specifically that there may be very serious problems about the major increase that is forecast for expenditures in transit and transportation in the Metro Toronto area. The current expenditures are due to double from $133 million in 1971 to $300 million, in 1971 dollars, a decade hence in 1981, and that money has got to come from somewhere. It comes from taxes, it comes from the property tax, it comes from provincial subsidies and it comes from the fare box.

There is no long-term planning between the province and the Metro federation about how those kind of expenditures are going to be met, and there is no long-term planning about the future financial stability and financial development of Metro Toronto. Metro Toronto has got a regressive, slow-growing financial base and therefore it’s very difficult for Metro Toronto to negotiate freely with the transit unions when it may be putting forward dollars that it simply doesn’t have to offer because of the other constraint of the province -- which is one that we don’t disagree with -- that is that future revenues should not come from increases at the fare box.

So, what do we have? We have a financial system that makes it terribly difficult for municipal government to make responsible decisions, despite a government which says that it wants to allow municipal governments to make more responsible decisions and to decentralize power from Queen’s Park; we have a bunch of politicians at the municipal level who shove the problem upstairs to Queen’s Park, and we have a bunch of politicians at the provincial level who refuse to enforce good faith bargaining and who posture and grandstand and eventually use the powers of this Legislature, when they could have intervened and helped in a very quiet kind of way a month or month and a half ago to ensure that this strike would never have occurred, because it could have been resolved by free collective bargaining.

Mr. Deacon: I was looking for the other man on the list but he’s not back here yet.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the bill. It’s a sad occasion for all of us that we are doing it, but the Ontario Legislature has no recourse at this point but to correct the results of bad labour legislation and a bad local authority situation in this province. The need we have is to return to local autonomy, where those who are in a position to run things locally definitely have the powers and the resources to run their show without coming to us continually for direction. The need for legislation that removes the stalemates, the conflicts, the confrontations we’ve seen in this and similar situations is something we must certainly turn our attention to when this bill is passed.

The situation today reminds me, and I’m sure all of us, of the situation a few months ago when a stalemate in negotiations resulted in a very great deal of cost to the students in York county, when there had been plenty of talk but little listening and little action in a constructive way over many weeks.

The merits of the case put forward by the union had certainly been well illustrated prior to the time of the breakdown of negotiations by the difficulty that the commission had had in attracting drivers. The wages and the working hours of 13% hours away from home, in effect, for an eight-hour day certainly caused harrowing problems. This in itself indicated that something had to be done in order to correct the situation. When one cannot attract people to the work force, whether it be for cleaning a hospital or picking up garbage or driving a bus or whatever it is, when one sees there is difficulty in hiring one knows there is a real need for and real merit in changes in working conditions and pay.

That was the case in the situation with the TTC in Toronto. The delay from April 23 to July 17 in getting a counter-offer to the union was certainly inexcusable. We know well from the history of any study of labour negotiations that one of the prime causes of work stoppages is aggravation of that sort, when management or labour do not come back with their counter offers. They consequently appear to delay the efforts and it is usually management’s fault in situations of that sort.

We are disappointed frankly. I can say this to the Minister of Labour -- I am really disappointed that the results of his department seem to be far less significant in the weeks they were working, or the time they were working, than those for the few days a group from the city council, including the mayor, worked. It seems to me there needs to be a revision in the approach we take in these negotiations so that we can actually find ground for settlement much more expeditiously and in a much better fashion than was the case this winter with the teachers, and in this case with the transit workers.

I was interested when the member for Sudbury mentioned the widening spread between wages at the lower and upper scales. How can we have it otherwise as long as we work to just percentage increases? It shouldn’t be on the basis of percentage increases; it should be definite dollar amounts of increases because as long as we consider it only in terms of percentages we are going to widen the spread. It is bound to be the case.

We all know that although there had been a tremendous gain in the position of the working people in this country in the post-war period, in the last two or three years there has definitely been great difficulty in keeping up with the inflationary disease we have caught not only in Canada but throughout the world. We have caught that inflationary disease here in Ontario particularly with the rapidly rising cost of housing which we have experienced in the last few years -- it is far faster than anywhere else in the country -- and with inflationary spending when our budget deficit in this province is double that of the federal government itself. It certainly shows there has been little evidence of any effort on the part of the Ontario government to control one of the major causes of labour disputes today.

Insofar as the matter of local autonomy is concerned, about which we speak a great deal in this party, Queen’s Park continues to give grants on the basis of percentage instead of unconditional grants. The grants are conditional on a percentage which gives no incentive or no autonomy to people, the local authorities, to work for savings or efficiencies because, after all, the province gets the bene- fit of its percentage of any saving achieved. It also takes the position that it has some say in how the money is spent. This means we have two bosses and the upper boss, in this case the province, is always going to be the one that, in the end, is going to have to take over. In both the case of the teachers and in the case of the transit workers, it is having to take over to settle the disputes because we haven’t definitely left the authority and the responsibility, through unconditional grants, with the local people.

I want to move into this whole question of free collective bargaining and the need for us to find really new approaches in our labour legislation in Ontario to eliminate the causes of the breakdown in negotiations which are so prevalent.

If we look at the causes of breakdowns, one of the prime causes has been, as I mentioned before, the protraction of and the ways of negotiation. I think we should think about adopting US legislation whereby as soon as a contract has expired, the workers can enter into a legal strike. There’s no question about delay and all kinds of procedures before they can go on strike; management realizes that the day the contract expires it has to have a new contract or it can face a work stoppage. We have to stop this playing around in negotiations and eliminate this very aggravating cause of annoyance and build-up of distrust and feelings between management and labour. The second thing I think we have to recognize is the one the member for Scarborough Centre brought out. That is the need for actual union representation on the boards and commissions. In Germany, there is a law whereby corporations have to have union representation on their boards. Companies which have appreciated the contribution these representatives can make have had exceptionally fine results.

I was amazed a few years ago when I saw the set-up of the rail commuters study for the Toronto area, and found we had representatives from Metro, from the federal government, from the provincial government and the CN and the CP but we didn’t have one representative from the unions involved. Yet they are the ones who were blamed for it being impossible to run commuter service profitably in this area. They said it was the unions’ fault and yet we knew that the unions wanted to have more employment opportunities for their members. We knew the unions wanted to have commuter service developed yet we failed to have them included in a study to work out how we could improve commuter transportation in this area.

Why don’t we do the same with our TTC? Why don’t we bring in labour legislation which says Ontario corporations shall have to have representation from their unions on their boards, because it is working elsewhere. We are making labour a partner with management and customers and producing a better product and being more efficient.

It is time we got away from this idea that they have to be apart. They can be brought together at an early stage and we can eliminate some of the causes of breakdowns in understanding and breakdowns in sense of trust which cause the work stoppages. A third thing I hope the ministry will start to introduce in labour legislation is that we try the final offer selection approach to labour negotiations. Management and unions have been very sceptical about this but it has been working for a long time in the Tennessee Valley Authority. It has been attempted in other cases but there must be a conviction on the part of management and labour that we have failed with our present approach.

The present approach is we have to be protagonists; we take the approach that it’s a class war and we have to have two sides, the workers fighting the management. If we can’t find a different way or realize we have to be partners, we are going to be in trouble. The final offer selection approach involves each side presenting its case in a way that justifies what it is asking for. The sides are trying to present their cases so each knows its case in total, just as before a judge in a court, will be the one selected.

Mr. Lewis: By whom?

Mr. Deacon: By the arbitrator.

Mr. Lewis: Then what is the member talking about? He is talking about effective compulsory arbitration.

Mr. Deacon: No, I am not. They decide before they enter into this if they are going to agree to arbitration or not. It is decided whether they want to go the strike route or try the other and any person who has had experience in this will realize --

Mr. Lewis: They can do that now. They can go the voluntary arbitration path.

Mr. Deacon: -- a final offer selection --

Mr. Lewis: A final offer selection is frankly rubbish.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deacon: -- more and more and realize we have to go that direction. Don’t think the public in this province is prepared to put up with the inconvenience, with the cost, the expense, the waste -- including the ordinary working man who is having the inconvenience today with this strike -- don’t think they are prepared to have this carry on without at least trying something that’s working elsewhere. It’s time we did it.

Mr. Lewis: Look to somewhere other than the United States for the solution.

Mr. Deacon: How many times must I mention there’s only one place where it has worked and it has worked there for about 35 years. Because traditional management and labour, with their antiquated approaches, refuse to really try to make it work, we have this continued tendency to have polarization, extreme positions, and the thought that maybe the more extreme the position a person maintains at the time of arbitration or breakdown, the more likely that the settlement will come in their direction.

Mr. Lewis: The member is supporting this extreme today.

Mr. Deacon: We are supporting a move which the NDP leader and every person in his party knows is necessary. It is absolutely necessary for us to remove the chaos in this city of Toronto today. It is necessary that this Legislature and this government will appoint a committee, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, that not only consists of members of this Legislature but also some leaders in union and management who aren’t members of the Legislature, who have had problems like this, to see if we can’t come to a better solution and better legislation. It is time we realized that what we are doing now is just putting out fires and the fires are going to be much more frequent in the future, especially at a time of serious inflation.

What is bringing Britain to her knees today, and other countries, is the result of this continued confrontation, the continued war between the so-called working class and management, and it is just a matter of time before people are going to be forced to either find new approaches or come to their knees. I think it is time we stopped holding to these ideas --

Mr. Lewis: What ideas? Just allow the system to work, as it can. The Liberals just join with those people over there to subvert the system.

Mr. Deacon: I am amazed at the member with his experience --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deacon: -- his unproclaimed efforts to try to improve things, that he hasn’t recognized that the course we’re continuing to follow is just increasing the division between management and labour.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The system is a good one, but it doesn’t work all the time.

Mr. Deacon: I just hope that maybe the NDP will realize before it is too late for that party that the people of this province want a new approach to labour-management negotiations, and certainly this party is one that is going to be working continually, even though it hasn’t been tried in Canada maybe, we are still going to try new methods wherever they have been tired and have succeeded, or develop new ones on our own that will work.

Mr. Lewis: I understand, but the member’s new methods are gimmicks.

Mr. Deacon: They are not gimmicks at all, they are efforts --

Mr. Lewis: They are just a distraction.

Mr. Deacon: -- to build a different approach to what the objective is, to build a team which will produce better working conditions, better products for customers, better profit returns for the shareholders. That is something that isn’t idle talk, it is possible and only possible if we have government that gives leadership in that direction.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am sadly supporting this bill --

Mr. Martel: I see the crocodile tears.

Mr. Deacon: -- but I am hopeful, though, in our wish to eliminate future situations like this, that we will receive leadership from across the floor in setting up a commission to make a report on new methods to deal with such situations before they arise.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I couldn’t resist speaking on this particular bill, having come 1,200 miles or so for this session.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Try hard.

Mr. Laughren: But even if I had only come from across the street, after hearing a member of the Liberal Party describe collective bargaining as class war, I would be moved.

Mr. Deacon: He is quoting his own man. The member for Sudbury said that.

Interjections by hon, members.

Mr. Laughren: Of course, I am comfortable with that, but I am surprised that a Liberal would let those words cross his lips.

Mr. Foulds: We would like it to be a partnership.

Mr. Laughren: That is right, we would like it to be a partnership.

Mr. Lewis: A commonality of interest.

Mr. Deacon: They don’t like any commonality of interest.

Mr. Lewis: There is some commonality, yes, but there are legitimate differences.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt has the floor.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

An hon. member: The government is on the defensive.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You’d never know it by looking over there.

Mr. Laughren: Who is the minister to talk, I ask him?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I hope the member never dies. I will never be the shortest guy in the world.

Mr. Laughren: That is uncomplimentary. He should just say he hopes he dies before I do, that’s all’ he should say.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: How about the bill?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as a member from the mid-north in Ontario I hope to give some perspective to the debate, because we do not view the problem of rapid transit in Toronto with the same kind of passion, I suppose, as those people who are directly involved in it, and whose constituents phone them daily perhaps to resolve the problem.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there were no vibrations in the Sudbury area when Sudbury transit was on strike there this year, and there was never any hint that there would be a problem.

Mr. Givens: Did the member have a strike in Sudbury?

Mr. Laughren: There are two million people in Metro and there are only 100,000 plus in Sudbury, but they are still individuals who require public transit to get to and from work just as they do in Metro Toronto.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we members regard the issue and this bill from a different view. We regard it not so much as a public transit bill but more as a bill that deals with the whole question of collective bargaining, and the whole question of whether or not there is good faith bargaining occurring in this case. Really, we do not regard the issue as being one of public transit or public health or safety being at stake, but really a question of to what degree --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member doesn’t think so he should live here for a little while. That’s ridiculous.

Mr. Laughren: -- to what degree the public can be inconvenienced by a strike of the public transit.

Mr. Deans: What’s the matter? Couldn’t the minister’s chauffeur get through the traffic?

Mr. Laughren: I really feel sorry for the Conservative cabinet ministers in their air-conditioned limousines.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course it wouldn’t be the same problem in Sudbury. That’s absurd. The member is not here to worry about me, he is here to worry about the 2 1/2 million people in Metro

Mr. Deans: Is the minister not one of them?

Mr. Laughren: He isn’t worrying about any of them.

Mr. Speaker, the other question that is at stake here is the whole question of motivation in this issue. We have heard throughout the day the question of to what extent the TTC was bargaining in good faith in the beginning, what role the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto played in the bargaining, and of course just what it was that has motivated the Premier to bring in legislation at this time rather than lending his support a month ago when it could have accomplished something and would have prevented the necessity of this emergency debate.

It is obvious to us that this need never have happened if there had been good faith bargaining. It is also obvious that die people involved at the TTC and the Premier are strengthening their own hand in this whole issue and we find that most offensive.

We also know of course, as most people do who seriously look at compulsory arbitration, just what it means in a labour dispute when compulsory arbitration is on the horizon. It is generally conceded by now that as long as compulsory arbitration is on the horizon, that is when good faith bargaining stops and neither side is willing to give up anything and so compulsory arbitration occurs.

So, in light of this, how is organized labour to know where it stands? Whether you are talking about organized labour in the form of a trade union or in the form of an association such as the CSAO, how is it to know where it stands in any dispute with the employer? Whether you are talking about the hospital workers or the teachers or the civil servants of this province or the transit workers, they just don’t know. It means, of course, that collective bargaining will not be carried on with the same degree of commitment to finding a solution that you would have if you did not have that spectre of compulsory arbitration hanging over the negotiations.

It is fine for the Premier to sit there and smugly count the number of inconvenienced people in Metro Toronto as he brings in this legislation, but he is overlooking a growing number of people in the Province of Ontario who see themselves as being threatened. It is worrying a lot of working people and a lot of trade unions as they see the increasing reliance on what is critically expedient, and that is resorting to compulsory arbitration which subverts the whole collective bargaining process.

The rather maudlin references to the elderly people are truly offensive. The Premier has had lots of opportunity to help elderly people in this province and he takes this opportunity to shed his crocodile tears.

Mr. Speaker, the minister himself is very proud of how seldom legislation is required to settle a dispute. He might do better to reflect on the larger question of why a dispute like this reaches this point; why is it that an impasse like that can be reached. He might be surprised to find out that it’s not simply money. He might be surprised to know, for example, that when the civil servants slap on the bumper stickers that say “Free the servants” they are not talking about freeing the servants from insufficient salaries alone, they are talking about freeing working people from restrictive legislation.

Perhaps he should think more seriously about what it is that his ministry can do in the Province of Ontario to make trade unions have more say in the operation of whoever they’re working for. The member for Scarborough Centre talked about having a union member on the commission. That’s a step in the right direction. He talked also of having commissioners ride on the public transit, I agree with him entirely. For example, I would even make it mandatory for the Minister of Transportation and Communications in Ontario never to set foot in an airplane. If he wants to go to northern Ontario, he drives. It might open up his eyes as well.

I think that when the whole question of disputes in the public sector in particular is going to arise in the next year, the Minister of Labour should seriously look at what it is that’s at the root of the problem. We sit here and we see him hacking away at the tip of the iceberg while the real issues are submerged and he’s not reaching them at all. Until he gets serious about what it is that’s causing this kind of alienation in the work force he’s going to continue to have confrontations, he’s going to continue to have strikes, he’s going to continue to have this kind of legislation that destroys the collective bargaining process.

I’m very concerned to see the government becoming promiscuous in its use of compulsory arbitration. It’s aided and abetted, not only by its majority, but of course in the full knowledge that the Liberal Party will always support compulsory arbitration, unless, of course, it’s for a group with whom they’re trying to curry favour such as the teachers of the Province of Ontario.

We in the New New Democratic Party view the problem differently of course. We believe that the interests of collective bargaining in Ontario will be best served by enforcing the good faith bargaining section of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. In this dispute that good faith bargaining has not occurred and for that reason we must oppose this bill.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex--Kent): Mr. Speaker I will just partake in this debate very briefly. As the fellow says you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t but I feel that there are certain responsibilities that when a member is elected to this Legislature he must act upon.

This week I had a radio station call me and ask me what I thought of the rumour that the Premier was going to call the Legislature back. I said: “Well I’m always ready to act as an elected member when public necessity calls and I would be prepared to go if the necessity is there. But I think, in this case, it was not at all necessary.”

In following the Toronto papers as often as we get them in our area, and not being in the city too much in the last couple of weeks, I have come to my own conclusion that bargaining was not done in good faith. When you see that the union made its offer on April 23 and the TTC would not give a counter offer until July 17, one cannot but believe that there certainly was no worthwhile bargaining going on at all.

I spoke with my son yesterday, and he is the chairman of the local union where he works. I told him that I had to go to Toronto because the Legislature was called and asked him what he thought of the situation, since he’s also in transportation. He said: “Well, I’d rather not be in your position, but that’s something you have to decide. If public necessity is great enough, then that is your responsibility to decide which way you have to go.”

In looking over negotiations and wage scales in the public service, having worked for 10 years in the federal civil service, I found that negotiations in that department were very, very poor. At that time we had an association, and pay scales ran until Oct. 1 each year, if I remember correctly. About the following September, about 11 months later, they would finally come to an agreement as to what your pay scale was for that year and you’d get your retroactive cheque for the 11 months. If that’s some of the way in which negotiations go on in the public service, it is no wonder you have discontent and strikes.

I was just reading in the paper the other day where, in Windsor, three small plants settled their new agreement three months prior to the end of the old contract. It gave the companies an opportunity to set out their work load for the next two or three years and price it and so forth. They knew where they were. So it shows you that if there is good-faith bargaining agreements can be made before the contract runs out.

We have the recent strike, of course, at the Union Gas Co. That was one of the longest strikes in Ontario, in which Union Gas really didn’t do any negotiating for about 3 1/2 months. I think management had its mind made up that was going to be a long strike and they could wade through it.

So what I think we need is some form of tribunal or government agency to check as contracts near termination, at least three months before the termination of a contract to see that the union and management join in negotiating. It would seem to me that the government could set up some tribunal of this type to check into these matters and see that the parties are negotiating; and after so many weeks, if one or the other doesn’t make a fundamental offer that looks reasonable, then I think the government would have to step in and in some way try and force them to at least negotiate in good faith.

I have been in negotiations with county employees, as a member of county council, as chairman of the personnel committee for a year or two. We negotiated a number of settlements with county employees. I can recall that we did have a conciliator down from the labour department and we discussed our proposals with him and he would make --

Mr. Lewis: Did the member go to their dances like the member for York--Forest Hill?

Mr. Ruston: Oh I think I did, probably. I like to dance, so if there was a dance going I think I’d be there.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Does the member for Scarborough West like to dance? Does he like dancing?

Mr. Ruston: We would make counter offers to the conciliator, and he would then go into the room where the union representatives were; and in a day or two, why, we came to an agreement.

Mr. Deans: Is that how it is done?

Mr. Ruston: I would think that this is how to do it. If, say, the TTC had made a reasonable offer to the union right after they made their proposal and then they sat down and started pounding it out.

I suppose someone did mention the federal labour minister. I would like to see someone like Bruce Mackasey at the head of the table; I think he could pound the table a little harder and speak a little louder than our present Minister of Labour. Although I will say that our Minister of Labour is a fine gentleman, maybe he doesn’t have the power and the force to make them listen to him. Because you sometimes have to say it a certain way or they don’t listen to you. I think maybe that’s what we should have had here, a little more pounding of the table by someone telling the TTC that they had to get down to serious bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, I was just out a few minutes ago getting some gas in the car and so forth, and when I pulled into the parking lot the first thing that the gentleman running the parking lot wondered was when the strike was going to be settled. He didn’t have room for all of the cars and they were parked on driveways and everything else.

I went into a store and because one of my friends here gets a little hungry about midnight I picked up a few chocolate bars. He said, “Well, I guess the strike will be over by midnight, eh?” I said, “Well, I don’t think so but is it of that much concern?” He said, “Oh, yes, it’s terrible in the city.”

Well, I just ran across two people and they both are terribly concerned, so there’s no doubt that there are thousands in Toronto who feel the same way when you only run across two and they both speak out about the problem.

Mr. Deans: Did the member take a Gallup poll?

Mr. Ruston: That’s 100 per cent, I suppose, in a Gallup poll. If you wanted to say it, I guess that’s the way some of the polls are taken, too, really. I would think that that’s the way some of the polls were taken in the last federal election. I think mostly that they were reporters sitting back talking to one another but they didn’t go out and listen to what the people were saying out on the side streets and in the rural areas and all over the province.

Mr. Haggerty: Ask David Lewis, he knows.

Mr. Ruston: That’s probably what happened in those polls and they were probably not even conducted that well.

Mr. Ferrier: What has the member’s constituent from Chatham got to say about it?

Mr. Ruston: However, it is interesting, too to look at the pay scales. I think Mr. Whelan, the Minister of Agriculture, has a habit once in a while of speaking out on certain things. He said he didn’t know why a man producing food shouldn’t get paid as well as a man putting a fender on a car. I would suppose there is no reason why a man driving a city bus or a subway train or a streetcar shouldn’t get paid as much as the man putting the fender on a car. He has the responsibility for 50 or 75, and in the subway it may be 1,000 people, and why he shouldn’t he get as much as the man putting a fender on a car?

We seem to think nothing of buying a car and paying the price. Companies are talking about raising the prices, and I suppose they will still sell. Maybe our priorities are all wrong. We don’t seem to complain about the things that we don’t really need, but the necessities of life we seem to complain about when somebody feels that he needs a fair wage.

I think that’s really the main point I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, and I think that if two sides want to settle the strike, provided everybody is bargaining in good faith, it can be done.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to oppose the bill. We do not merely in a ritualistic way, as the press has implied this party would do, but we do so in a profound and very real way. Over my three years as a member in the House, I have been very proud of this caucus, because on every single occasion in which compulsory arbitration has been brought before it, we have fought against it with every legislative means at our disposal. I could not in all conscience, and I cannot, vote against compulsory arbitration for elevator workers, for teachers, for civil servants and for hospital workers, and not vote against it on this occasion when it affects transit workers.

If I could paraphrase something I said in a different context last December, we oppose Bill 119. We oppose it because in principle we oppose compulsory arbitration. We know that in opposing the bill we may not be taking a popular stand. We know that the public feels more comfortable with its buses and transit system running. We know that the editorial boards of the major Toronto dailies are relieved, in fact eager, to see compulsory arbitration imposed on the transit workers.

However, we feel as a matter of principle that we cannot allow the transit workers to be made victims of a heavy-handed and dictatorial government. We know we must oppose any attempt by this government to take away the rights of individual minority groups within our society, because once it is possible to do that to transit workers, it is possible to do that to other workers in the public sector. Next it will be workers in the private sector and it may extend even to so-called privileged groups in management. If we give up this fight without a battle it becomes easier and easier for this top-heavy government to deny individual groups within our society their due rights with less and less responsible reasons.

That is a paraphrase of something I said about the teachers’ dispute last December. It applies even more readily to this dispute because -- the record shows it, Mr. Speaker -- it has become easier for this government to bring in compulsory arbitration legislation. It has got into the habit and where does one draw the line?

Does one draw it at the Toronto transit system or at the St. Catharines transit system or the Kitchener-Waterloo transit system or the Thunder Bay transit system or the Kenora public transit system? Is this public transit system essential only because it is in Metropolitan Toronto? I suspect that is the way the government thinks; that is the way it works. It is unable as a government to decide anything except in quantitative terms. It feels this strike must be settled by this method because of the numbers involved.

I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, and through you the government that a bad law is a bad law whether it affects 6,000 people, 600,000 people or six people. A bad law is still a bad law even if it benefits 600,000 people but takes away unnecessarily the rights of a minority group won through hundreds of years of bargaining; a labour group in this case.

This law is unnecessary. If the initiatives my leader and other people in this party have mentioned had been taken this law would be unnecessary. If there had been a genuine expediting of good-faith bargaining, this law would not be necessary. The essence of a democracy, Mr. Speaker, is not that the majority rules but that the minority’s rights are protected. This, after all, is a legal strike. It is a right that this Legislature has given those people.

Mr. Lawlor: Is the House leader listening? That the minorities’ rights are protected on occasion?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I am the greatest protector of minority rights.

Mr. Foulds: Not in this House he isn’t.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Anywhere.

Mr. Foulds: And not in this province.

Mr. Laughren: He abuses them consistently.

Mr. Lewis: He protects the fat cats, that’s what he does. They are a minority group.

Mr. Martel: They are a minority group but they get all the money.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what King said; does the minister recall that?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I can tolerate these fellows. What else can one put up with?

Mr. Lewis: There are far fewer rich than there are poor. They are easier to protect.

Mr. MacDonald: As a matter of fact it was Sir John A. Macdonald.

Mr. Lewis: Was it Macdonald?

Mr. Speaker: Let us get on with the bill, please.

Mr. Foulds: How is it, Mr. Speaker, that this ministry and this government could allow such blatant bad-faith bargaining to continue over such a period of time? For God’s sake, Mr. Speaker, isn’t it about time that this government, through its Minister of Labour, took seriously its responsibilities to protect the rights of labour? Surely it is about time that good-faith bargaining clause, section 14 of the Labour Relations Act, began to have some meaning?

Who is it in this province who speaks out for the working men and women of this province? Interestingly enough, it is not the Minister of Labour even though we respect him as a person. He does not conceive of his position -- and this government does not conceive of the position of the Minister of Labour -- as speaking out for and protecting the rights of the working men and women of this province. If the minister feels it is necessary to act in this strike, and if this government and the Premier feel that it is necessary to act in this strike --

Mr. Martel: Billy the Kid.

Mr. Foulds: -- why haven’t they acted in a strike like the one that is taking place in the medical clinic at Fort Frances? Why hasn’t the Premier of this province done something about the 1,700 letters that he has on his desk from the citizens of Fort Frances asking that alternative medical facilities be provided to the people of that community, so they are not forced to cross the picket line to receive medical attention?

Mr. Martel: That’s the corporate set-up.

Mr. Foulds: Why doesn’t this province do something to establish a public medical clinic in Fort Frances, so that the people do not have to pervert the collective bargaining process? Why doesn’t the minister put the screws on the management in that case?

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich--Riverside): Because they are doctors.

Mr. Laughren: They are the fat cats.

Mr. Foulds: Is it because an intervention in that particular strike will help the union and the workers? Why is it that the Attorney General (Mr. Welch) -- who is also the Provincial Secretary for Justice -- and the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr), why is it that they allow the Crown prosecutor in Fort Frances to administer the laws in one way against the union representatives when an infraction is called, and not against the management in that case?

Well, I’ll tell the members; it is because the crass bias of this Conservative government shows in labour disputes and in disputes like the one we had before this. Their bias, whether they understand it or not, Mr. Speaker, is instinctively against the working men and women of this province; and it is even more so against the worker in the public sector.

Mr. Laughren: It’s instinctive. It’s part of being a Tory.

Mr. Foulds: Frankly, I find that understandable, even if I don’t like it. But what really upsets me, what I really find repugnant, is the sanctimonious terms in which they cloak their actions. We must admit that in their party they do that very cleverly. They get a lot of assistance from headline writers and editorial writers in papers like the Globe and Mail. When you have heartrending headlines like this one in the second section of the Aug. 27 Globe and Mail: “TTC Strike Means Fewer Aged, Children At CNE.”

That really strikes to the fundamental core of why we have to end this strike.

Mr. Gisborn: Saves some of them from getting gypped, that’s all.

Mr. Foulds: Within the body of the story there are a couple of interesting comments:

The strike has resulted in about half the normal number of children lost daily.

Surely that is something we should avoid. We have to lose more children at the CNE. It is a mark of success. For instance, on Children’s Day, normally, there are 600 lost, but this year there were only about half that number. What a pity I What a shame!

Mr. Lewis: That’s what we are dealing with.

Mr. Foulds: It is very cleverly organized, very cleverly orchestrated -- children at the CNE. Then there are the elderly the Premier was speaking about a day or two ago.

Mr. Martel: They worried about the CNE games.

Mr. Foulds: School children on Tuesday -- tugs at the heart strings. There is a story in one of the papers I managed to get hold of today. This is it. This is a classic, beautiful remark by the Premier:

Meanwhile, Davis speaking at a press conference said he would “leave no stone unturned” to get the 5,900 striking transit workers back on the job.

Well, you know what, Mr. Speaker? He unturned that stone and you know what he found under it? A little tool, a little club, a little snail, a little slug, that he has used four times before. He has picked up the stone and he said: “What do you know, compulsory arbitration!” And he clubbed them while he was holding the stone.

That is what this legislation does. It is the sanctimonious hypocrisy of it all that I find objectionable. The members opposite enjoy compulsory arbitration. They like it. And why do they like it? Because like them, it is administratively simple. And the government backbenchers like it.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I find compulsory arbitration repugnant in a philosophical way. I have found it repugnant in a personal way. I have spoken in this House before -- about my father’s experiences as a working man. He was one of the non-operating railway workers who went out on strike in 1952.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Hasn’t the member had any experience as a working man?

Mr. Foulds: Yes, I do have, both on the railway and in pulp mills. I probably have a hell of a lot more than the minister has.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Then why doesn’t he tell us about it?

Mr. Martel: We weren’t selling cars.

Mr. Foulds: Right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Very few guys over there have it.

Mr. Deans: I beg your pardon!

Mr. Martel: Is the minister standing up or is he sitting down?

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister sit down, I have got the floor.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I worked for years without pay.

Mr. Lewis: What did the minister do?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I worked for a union organization.

Mr. Lewis: He did?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I sure did.

Mr. Lewis: It was probably the American Federation of Labour. He probably worked for George Meany as his executive assistant.

Mr. Martel: He must have been working for Driver Pool.

Mr. Lewis: Let the minister not tell us about his union experience.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’ll tell the members.

Mr. Lewis: Believe me, I don’t believe him.

Mr. Martel: He must have been working for Driver Pool.

Mr. Lewis: His union experience!

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Members opposite are professional labour.

Mr. Martel: When did he work for Driver Pool?

Mr. Lewis: Brave union experience! Good Lord!

Mr. Lawlor: They wouldn’t have him in the plumbers’ union.

Mr. Lewis: That is the ultimate.

Mr. Speaker: Order! Could we get back to the bill, please?

Mr. Foulds: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have more workers to the square inch than the whole opposition.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, would you give the minister a bag of peanuts and tell him to leave the House for a few minutes?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, there are certain hecklers in the House who should be a little silent.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this bill is compulsory arbitration. In every bill of this type the workers are forced into a situation where they strike to catch up and are lagging behind in the wage demands. Compulsory arbitration imposes on them what on the surface often looks like a fair settlement. That happened to the railway workers in 1952. They got an increase of approximately 20 per cent, but they had fallen 20 per cent behind in the seven years between 1945 and 1952. With that 20 per cent they didn’t even catch up with comparable trades in other industries. The same thing is happening here.

Mr. Martel: They have never caught up.

Mr. Foulds: They have never caught up. We saw the results of that a year ago on the federal scene once again, where they went out and were forced back by the federal Liberal government by compulsory arbitration. As has been demonstrated by of all people, the member for High Park earlier, even a 40 per cent demand, if they get it, means that by the time they get it at the end of the contract, they will in fact be seven or eight per cent behind what they are now earning in real dollars.

Mr. Speaker, when I hear of a strike taking place, instinctively without knowing the details of the issue, I have to declare my bias. I am on the side of the strikers. That is an instinctive reaction with me. I suppose that is the reaction that distinguishes people in this party and the people that have a commitment to working people in this country from the other two parties in this House, because instinctively that is our reaction. Also, and I don’t think I am betraying any confidences, in caucus today we did have a very heated battle about the battle lines on which we would draw this debate.

Mr. Deans: Not whether or not we would fight.

Mr. Foulds: Not whether or not we would fight, but how we would do it.

Mr. Deans: How we would do it and whether we would do it above or below the belt.

Mr. Lewis: Tell them more. That’s all right; I don’t mind. We’ll tell the House more.

Mr. Martel: I didn’t want to give unanimous consent. If I had had my way members opposite wouldn’t be here. They would be coming back tomorrow. They are a bunch of phonies.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s what one calls a voluntary leak from the caucus.

Mr. Martel: The minister and Billy Baby there are so worried about the public.

Mr. Foulds: One of the things that needs to be said, Mr. Speaker, in this debate and has not been said so far by the government or the Liberal party or I don’t think by any of the speakers for our party so far is that somehow the impression is created by the Premier, by the Karl Mallettes, by Godfrey, by that whole crew --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is an orchestrated conspiracy.

Mr. Lewis: It is indeed -- the Premier, Paul Godfrey, Karl Mallette.

Mr. Foulds: -- and by the newspaper coverage --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We even delivered that note to Crombie.

Mr. Lewis: Did the government?

Mr. Ferrier: It is nice to hear the minister admit it.

Mr. Foulds: -- that somehow the workers love going on strike and that it is the greatest sort of experience for them.

Let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker, strikes hurt everybody. That is a truism. What everybody that says that the truism forgets is that strikes also hurt the strikers. Nobody knows that better than the people who put their income on the line by going on strike.

To go out on strike, a group of workers needs to be driven to that position. If any single dispute in this province over the last year has done that to working people, this dispute has. The management of the TTC has driven them to strike. They don’t go out on strike happily. It is not a holiday. They lose income; there is social disruption in the household. They feel all the social pressures just as much as we do.

Like my colleague from Sudbury, I am not interested in just helping or letting the working man maintain his position. I am interested in equalizing and helping him to gain some ground. We in this party are interested in some genuine redistribution of income in this province, and that applies to people in the public sector.

Mr. Speaker, I was taking two weeks in a cottage in northern Ontario when this dispute was first coming to our attention. I must admit from the sporadic newspapers that I received, and which I trekked in nine miles to get every third day, I didn’t really read the stories about the Toronto transit strike all that eagerly. It seemed somewhat remote. It wasn’t affecting me. I was following it with a certain amount of interest, but not keenly. As late as Sunday, I thought maybe the thing would be settled. We in this party are eternally optimistic about the goodwill of men. We have to be to survive. When the announcement came through that the Premier had put a secret proposal to the union, I thought maybe that was a serious attempt --

Mr. Lewis: I thought that too.

Mr. Foulds: -- and that it would avoid having to call the Legislature. I had a sort of moment of hope when I turned on the World at Six and listened to the news broadcast. But it was Tuesday night that Mayor Crombie spilled the beans. On Wednesday morning at 6 o’clock I had the privilege of getting up and feeding my two-month-old son. I turned on the 6 o’clock news and I heard what that proposal was.

Do you know why, Mr. Speaker, it was kept secret? They would have been ashamed to reveal it. They knew it wasn’t serious. A proposal of that kind coming at that time was a bit of grandstanding, if I may say so. If I had been out on strike and if anybody seriously had tried to put himself in the position of the worker who had gone out on strike and had been out on strike for 2 1/2 to three weeks and had received that proposal, hell, would you have accepted it, Mr. Speaker? I doubt it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I thought the hon. member was very happy when he found out the Premier’s proposition wasn’t acceptable.

Mr. Lewis: On the contrary, we would have wished it to be acceptable.

Mr. Laughren: We aren’t as Machiavellian as the government is.

Mr. Foulds: As my leader has pointed out, if it had occurred before the strike occurred, there might have been some hope, but as a worker I and no serious person in this House would go out on strike and then go back to work just to stand still. That is all that the Premier’s proposal did. It doesn’t even help them to stand still. No, Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not at all; that is a complete distortion.

Mr. Lewis: Not at all; that’s exactly what it was. Even so, we would have wished it possible.

Mr. Foulds: I am not sorry to oppose this bill. This bill is a very bad bill. It is a bad procedure. Compulsory arbitration is unacceptable in the free collective bargaining process. As has been said earlier, if these people are so essential to the health and welfare and safety and convenience of the public in this province, let’s dam well pay them a decent wage.

This law, to meet this particular situation, just gets too repetitive when it is a principle that has been embodied in four pieces of legislation within the last 14 or 15 months. This law, like the House leader of the Conservative Party, is an ass. I take great pleasure in opposing it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Did I understand the hon. member rightly in referring to the House leader of the --

Some hon. members: Retract.

Mr. Foulds: I was quoting Dickens, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I don’t care what the hon. member was quoting; that was not a parliamentary term and I would ask that he withdraw it.

Mr. MacDonald: “The law is an ass” -- that is a very well-known quote.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, it may not have been a parliamentary remark. It was originally coined, as you well know, by a parliamentary reporter, Charles Dickens. I do withdraw the remark as it applies to the House leader. I would not withdraw it as it applies to the law.

Mr. Speaker: Well, that is a different thing. It is quite in order.

Mr. Lewis: Does the Speaker mean he would place the House leader above the law?

Mr. Speaker: The member shouldn’t do that to me.

Are there any other members who wish to speak to this bill?

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, I should be mercifully brief in this bill. Throughout the course of this debate today, I heard the word “regrettable” used repeatedly -- repeatedly regrettable, or regrettable repeatedly. There has been a certain amount of lachrymose hand-wringing from all sides. When the bill was first introduced, the first word I heard was regrettable. The member for York--Forest Hill was sobbing with regrets, as far as I could see, throughout his somewhat lachrymose speech; and this has been the general tenor.

Well, if it is regrettable -- and I am sure it is -- then damn it, have we not got the fortitude, the faith, the wisdom or the intelligence to do something about it in the sense of changing the wretched laws? It wasn’t the New Democratic Party that invented this society. We only live in it. We find it in some degree unpalatable.

Mr. Lewis: And that’s regrettable.

Mr. Lawlor: The hon. gentlemen over there, the establishment are so well esconced in their fortunes and their general dispositions of life that they don’t want to be disturbed by inconveniences. Those fellows over there during the last 150 years have created this kind of a society. They created a jungle. It is a kind of warfare. They glory in it, or they are supposed to glory in it. Every man’s hand is raised against every other. Fortitude, competition, success in life, put the other guy down -- this particular kind of domination has been their philosophy. That is what they live by.

Ah, but when the fight gets a little rough, they were able to keep the trade unions in hand. They were able to suppress them. They were able to throw them all in jail for almost 100 years under weird laws called “restraints of trade,” so they couldn’t even form the trade unions -- three of them couldn’t get together. If they were detected by the Privy Councillor on the corner, to jail they went. They were subversives, they were in states of sedition, they were undermined. It was true in this country -- since we borrow all our laws from Great Britain -- and it was true in a vicious sense in the United States, too. In the US the cause of labour, if anyone knows about it, has been an uphill and bitter fight. The bosses have banged the workers’ heads together, blown out their brains, and the workers have had to hack their hands to get anywhere. This is just another minor episode in that great ongoing struggle with those people, perched on the position of this government, again trying a stratagem.

The causes grow somewhat equal in a sense. Lloyd George was unable to hold the labour forces down. He had to recognize them. He did so. He achieved office because he did; and for the first time the trade unions came into being in the western world, and that wasn’t very long ago. But there is always the undercurrent, the ongoing fight, the hedgehog posture of seeking to put them down the hole and in chains so that the dominant people can still have their will and will still gamer the fruits --

Mr. Speaker: Very interesting, but get back to the bill, please.

Mr. Lawlor: I thought a little history might do you some good.

Mr. Speaker: Please get back to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Lawlor: How can you understand anything unless you understand the great background?

Mr. Speaker: I can’t tell whether it is parliamentary or not.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, you are very fortunate. I told my hon. leader that when I got up to speak tonight, I’d speak on Warren Hastings and on that particular trial.

Mr. Lewis: He used to represent St. Andrew--St. Patrick.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s right -- and a far better member than the extant one too, even if they had to impeach him in the end.

I say the government doesn’t live by its own vicious code, so it stands around in an elephantine way, wreaking its regrets; everything is regrettable. I point out to the minister that if he is an imaginative force as the Minister of Labour, it is well within his scope in hand to begin to move. First of all, he is going to have to move all kinds of consciousness of this society a little bit away from the present disposition of affairs where coercion or the great mask of the law is brought to bear in every crunch situation in order to solve it by force, and not by good will.

I ask the minister to take a trip to Sweden this fall, if he can work it, and take a look there. On this continent or in this province, we can’t borrow holus-bolus from Sweden the particular mores and customs that have been worked into their society, but I suggest that we can very well learn some of the details, some of the ways in which they approach this particular problem, because they went through far greater catastrophic events than anything we face tonight or any other time so far -- but it is imminent, it is coming; as a matter of fact, it is upon us.

What we are going to have to do in this particular respect, I suggest, is possibly two things: One of them is we are going to have to give a far greater recognition of the role of labour vis-a-vis management -- in management, on management, working with management. The rapprochement must be very much greater than anything we have devised so far. The whole attitude again is one of defensiveness and offensiveness, and the two go together in almost every case. In that kind of rapprochement, we know how the workers work and sit on these boards.

The second thing is that there must be ongoing negotiations at a very high level with a wide perspective or a pan-vision over the whole of industry. What this government does is to take every isolated incident one by one; we can’t do that if we are going to frame an overall vision of society and the way we want things. As these things accumulate and drive this society into chaos, they may very well eventuate in some form of fascism in the next few years -- and I am sure none of the members opposite want to be in the van of that particular kind of thing. It is to forefend against it, in our interest, that I say the appointed minister in this regard must take this danger by the hand and steady it, and bring into this House an innovative, new visionary approach. I don’t know how it is working, it is too new yet, but take a look at what British Columbia is trying to do. They have set up --

Mr. Havrot: Tell us a little more about British Columbia.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: All right, it hasn’t worked, but it is doing a damned sight better than any of this mob. That is all I can say. They have blundered today with their compulsory --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: It is more complex; it is more difficult to work, representatives are aware of that. It is a kind of quasi-court. It is a kind of ongoing arbitration process. Give it a chance. Take a look at it. The minister could read about it some afternoon.

I am not saying that the government is doing nothing. But what does it do? The most simple-minded, childish solution on every issue is to pass a bill saying, “You must go back to work. The strike is over.” Well, as has been mentioned here, some afternoon the government will find that is not going to work; and, by George, what they do on that occasion is going to be mightily interesting. They are going to have to use intelligence. They are going to have to make a prudential approach. They are going to have to reformulate their policies. They are going to have to find greater areas of accommodation. They are going to have to do these things to keep our society extant and alive in any sense.

What does the government expect the New Democratic Party to do in instances of this kind of legislation? We are a labour party. We represent the cause of labour. We represent the workers of this province. I would think that the term “workers,” since every executive considers himself a sweat-bedewed worker, might cover a great diapason, an enormous span in the higher echelons of the Stock Exchange that I would welcome if they could consider themselves workers too. But somebody has to speak on their behalf and it ain’t the members opposite. That is not their position.

Mr. Lewis: Because they don’t work.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: They are aligned with big business. They get their money from them. They are completely cognizant of their interests. So that is our role. We have two tasks in this party as I see it. Our job on every occasion, season in and season out --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. MacDonald: What is the member for Middlesex South (Mr. Eaton) screaming about up there anyway?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lawlor: Is there a doctor in the House, Mr. Speaker? I think he has got apoplexy or is just verging on hysteria. Calm down, my friend. It is a short night.

I was saying we have nothing to lose but our yokes as he probably knows. He is bedizened. Wait until the next time I get him on committee. We’ll eviscerate him. They got rid of about $3 million worth of bad eggs last week and forgot him.

Mr. MacDonald: He said bad, not rotten eggs. That’s how kind he is.

Mr. Lawlor: If I had said rotten eggs, the Speaker would have made me withdraw it. I said we in this party had two tasks, and one of them is to defend the poor on every possible occasion, no matter how successful. If the bourgeoisie, if the well-to-do, if the people out there who are doing very well and don’t want to be hurt find that is unpalatable that the defence of that interest of the voiceless is unacceptable, then we won’t get elected, and that is too bad. But that is the way we are going to be and that is the way we are.

The second area is the area of the working class people of this province who, as far as we are concerned, are not going to be put upon in these circumstances.

The way we propose to do it is by planning and by an overall government intervention in those areas of critical concern in order to alleviate these things -- the very thing that he is unwilling to do now. If he had done it two weeks ago or even five or six days ago in a forthright way, we wouldn’t be here tonight at all. That is just how ineptness, how holding back and how particular philosophical predilections will affect a man. It will stultify him.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): As long as it doesn’t transmogrify him.

Mr. Lawlor: There is a kind of stultification over there, a kind of sickliness. You know, Mr. Speaker, like all things in human life, the strike wasn’t all that bad. It had its moments. I felt that there was a sense of amity, a slightly greater sense of community than otherwise prevailed in cold Toronto. Day after day I picked up every hitchhiker I could see in order to alleviate the tension, and my contribution was formidable, let me tell members. There were the conversations I had with people in the car and the friendly way in which they approached me.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They just all happened to be pretty girls too.

Mr. Lawlor: I am not playing down the obnoxiousness and the cost of the strike. Nevertheless, it did have its moments too. On one occasion I remember a fellow getting in and I said to him, “I guess this strike is pretty bad, eh.” He said “Yes.” Then as we went on he found out I was a lawyer, and he said at that particular stage, “Well, if the lawyers went on strike, nobody would know anything different for three months.”

Mr. Havrot: Well spoken!

Mr. Lawlor: It goes some distance to proving that the transit workers have some kind of role to play in this society. If they are all that valuable, then let’s treat them as that. If they can bring a city to a state of standstill, that means rewards in monetary terms. Curiously enough, it is the lawyers who wouldn’t be missed for three years who are the ones who make all the money while the transit workers have to crawl and almost to clutch in order to get a few bucks out of the powers that be. Now there is some kind of wrong there, some kind of injustice indeed into that situation.

There was one other situation, but I am not going to recount all the various individual instances.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Tell us about the girls.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s what I won’t tell the minister about. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MacDonald: At least he knows when to stop. That’s more than those fellows know.

Mr. Speaker: Any other members who wish to enter the debate?

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, if I may; but that’s really a difficult act to follow. We don’t have too many hitchhikers right now in Sarnia. I want to say that if the lawyers did go on strike, frankly, I’d be quite willing to come and article to the member for Lakeshore for a couple of weeks to see his particular styles; because I can well imagine that following him in court would also be a difficult act.

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, the principle of the bill is that we are called upon basically to impose compulsory arbitration on a certain segment of our society. We have taken the position, I believe, in this parliamentary system that it is an inherent right of a person to collectively bargain, and that the only thing that could deprive him of that inherent right to collectively bargain is the public good.

We must make some evaluation as to the establishment of the priorities, not from the point of view of those who sit on the boards of directors of huge corporations and public utilities, but as has been said before, from the point of view of the total public good, including those people who are to be deprived of their rights.

The essence of what I want to say in a quick, and I hope substantial fashion, is this: There is nothing new about this, Mr. Minister of Labour, through the Speaker. There is absolutely nothing new about what we are doing here. This isn’t the first time the government has called upon us to impose compulsory arbitration; to make a value judgement in a very ad hoc fashion as to whether the public good should be superimposed upon that inherent right that we feel exists to the collective bargaining procedure.

What I want to implore of the new minister, through the Speaker, is this: Could the minister possibly overcome the inertia of the board room orientation of his fellow cabinet ministers to recognize, as has been said before, that labour relations are truly the poor relations of the legislative process in this province? That has been said to the minister so many times and to his predecessor so many times.

I just want to catalogue, if I may, these dates for the minister, Mr. Speaker. On May 16, 1968, on June 2. 1969, on Dec. 17, 1969, and on Nov. 1, 1973, I myself exhorted the then Premier and the then Minister of Labour to establish some type of legislative forum, preferably a select committee, for the purpose of looking into the question of labour relations in the Province of Ontario.

This forum would have looked into this very question of establishing what constitutes an inherent right to collectively bargain in the public sector. It would have helped us to establish guidelines and parameters as to what constitutes a priority to take away the right of collective bargaining, instead of forever coming on this ad hoc basis to decide whether the garbage men are essential, whether teachers are essential, whether hospital workers are essential -- now whether transit workers are essential -- in the context of their responsibilities and our responsibilities.

I say to the minister, through the Speaker, that surely the time has come that we can do something about this. This is what my leader has asked for today; some initiative. I say to the minister again that we have got to stop this business of sending people on junkets to find out how to use schools in the province, when we have got these tremendously important economic and social responsibilities.

I know that there are members on the front and other benches, especially the front bench opposite, who really can’t grasp and don’t want to grasp because of their particular orientation the responsibilities that we do have. It was frankly, in my respectful opinion, a sad, sad afternoon. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I take much more interest in what went on this afternoon in connection with the rules of this Legislature than in the imposition of compulsory arbitration on this group of workers because if we had permitted to happen what was being attempted, it in effect castrated the ability of the opposition to oppose.

I think it is very important that we look at things from this point of view, but I exhort all members to consider this. We are supporting this legislation because we’ve come to a conclusion we had to make a value judgement. As a person from Sarnia I have been guided in that value judgement by my colleagues here who represent people in the Toronto area. They have told me about not just what has been characterized as staggering inconvenience, but about what is more than staggering inconvenience to people. I think frankly if it was a question of balancing the right to collectively bargain against staggering inconvenience, I’d come down on the side of the right to collectively bargain.

It is more than that. It is a danger to some sectors of the society of Toronto to continue with the strike. It is a deprivation to others, and we can’t permit that to continue. But I don’t want to be put in this position. I don’t want to have to come down here in an almost carte blanche fashion to try to make a judgement as to whether the transit workers are so essential in the present circumstances.

Surely we have an obligation to the people we represent. I have an obligation to the people in Sarnia to say “Yes, I have looked into the question of secondary picketing. I have looked into the question of jurisdictional disputes. I have looked in the question of the absolute stagnation of the Labour Relations Board in connection with bona fide collective bargaining.”

Every person who spoke today, whether they were correct or not in connection with the bona fides of the bargaining in this particular situation, certainly were correct in saying that the sections of the Labour Relations Act in connection with bona fide collective bargaining aren’t enforced. They aren’t. We know that. I exhort my colleagues here to do this, to try once again to impress this upon the Premier if we can. I think he is a man probably who has a sensibility in connection with these matters.

I think the time has got to come to an end when we look upon ourselves as only able to decide about drainage ditches. I take it upon myself to accept that responsibility. What to do with schools is a responsibility. Snowmobiles are a responsibility. But goodness sake, surely to goodness, labour relations in the Province of Ontario is a significant responsibility.

We talk about 96 per cent of collective bargaining coming to a fruitful conclusion. Whoever said it was quite right when he said “It is not ours to be interested in the 96 per cent. It is ours to be interested in the four per cent that doesn’t work.” I say it is ours primarily to be interested in that percentage of the four per cent that affects the public good because in collective bargaining it is not a bilateral arrangement. There are three parties involved, management, labour and the public good. I want to say that we can’t sit here and chastise management and we can’t stand here and chastise labour, when we have sat here in our lethargy not taking care of the public good.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister. Oh, the hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: I thought for a moment I had missed my turn. Mr. Speaker, I have got a number of thoughts I want to convey to the minister. I have thought a lot about this dispute in the last two or three weeks, wondering when we would arrive in the Legislature, wondering what the outcome would be, thinking about the problems of Metropolitan Toronto and wondering why it is that the Legislature has been recalled to deal with a problem which is uniquely confronting people living in Metro. It has driven home to me something that I have wondered about and something that we in Hamilton have long believed, that Metro is given preferential treatment by this government. In fact, this government is more Metro-oriented than it is oriented to any other part or, for that matter, all other parts of the province.

When there is a dispute which is brought about by an agency of the Metro council being unable or unwilling to sit down and bargain with its employees, it can automatically count on the government of the Province of Ontario to come to its assistance. But when there is a similar dispute in other parts of the province, dealing with exactly the same kinds of situations -- though perhaps not in as large an area, because there is no area as large -- the government of the Province of Ontario doesn’t seem to care very much about the way that dispute would be resolved.

I want to bring to your attention, for example, Mr. Speaker, that it is not three years ago that we had a transit strike in Hamilton. It lasted 71 days. There was no indication that the provincial government gave a damn about the people of the city of Hamilton. There was no indication that there was any public good at stake, that there was any public inconvenience or danger. Somehow or other the city of Hamilton didn’t exist in the minds of the Premier of that day or in the minds of the cabinet or of the Ontario government.

Seventy-one days went by and finally they got back to the bargaining table and resolved the dispute in a free collective atmosphere. The end result of that particular happening was that in the next set of negotiations they were able to sit down and collectively bargain and to come to a settlement a week before the expiration of that particular contract.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is the hon. member suggesting that we should let this go on for 71 days?

Mr. Deans: In addition to that, just over a year ago, when the city of Hamilton had a strike of their outside workers and there was garbage piled up in mountains all over the city, did the provincial government walk in and say, “Let us help. Let us help resolve the problem”? Did the Premier indicate any concern for the citizens of Hamilton? No, sir, he did not. Yet when a similar situation arose in Metropolitan Toronto the Premier was forever indicating his concern and his desire to see it resolved.

What I am beginning to wonder is whether or not we have three tiers of government here in Metropolitan Toronto: whether we have the local government, the Metro government, and on top of that the Ontario government, which looks after the best interests of Metro and to hell with the rest of the province.

It aggravates me that we should be called in to resolve a dispute which should have been resolved by the Metro council. They should have understood that those people operating on their behalf, in an effort to try to run the transit system, were not bargaining in good faith. They should have understood that there had to be some changes made and direction given from the Metro level in order to try to bring about a settlement. They should have also understood that it was their responsibility, as Metro council, operating a Metro transit system, to do everything in their power to bring about a resolution of the dispute. They should have further understood that the core area of Metro, which is very much affected by the strike, has a government of its own, the city of Toronto council, and they didn’t want a legislated end to this dispute. Yet the government insists on moving in.

I often wonder where the government is in all these other disputes that take place. And where is the concern of the government for the public good or, for that matter, for the good of anyone at any other time, other than when it happens to affect Metropolitan Toronto? I am getting sick and tired of it, and I think that is probably true of a lot of people across this province. They are getting tired of this government dealing only with problems which are unique to Metro, to the detriment of other parts of the province.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is the reverse of what the newspapers say about what we do for Metro.

Mr. Deans: Anyhow, that’s some personal views of what I think about this government’s attitude to the rest of the Province of Ontario. It’s time that there was some consistency in the attitude of the government towards all of the province. It may well be Toronto-centred, but not everything of any value that happens happens here; and it’s time that this government recognized that.

In Hamilton, we had a dispute going on for seven months between employees of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. and the company itself; and that dispute is being subsidized directly by imports from the United States of America. That dispute is being maintained because this Premier and this government refuses, in any way, to make it known to the Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. that in Ontario there is something called bargaining in good faith. And that’s only one dispute. There are many others across the province that fall into the same category. This government is so inconsistent in its attitude towards bargaining in good faith that it is virtually impossible to determine from day to day what its attitude is going to be.

The Minister of Labour knows full well that in the dispute that I was just talking about, the Firestone dispute, that there is a considerable Canadian public interest at stake. It’s entirely possible that that plant could close down and it’s entirely possible that the company could attempt and succeed in importing into this country all of the products necessary in order to maintain their operations here -- and there are some 1,200 people involved.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s what they are doing now.

Mr. Deans: Is there any indication from the first minister of this province that he even cares? In response to my request that he indicate to the company that they should bargain collectively with the union within the terms that are generally acceptable to the Canadian public and within the terms that are generally acceptable to the Ontario public, the Premier says that he believes in the free collective bargaining system and that it will eventually resolve itself.

However, it is different when it comes to a dispute in Metropolitan Toronto which is inconvenient, to say the least. But I differ to some extent from my hon. friend, the member for Sarnia, because I’m not sure that the danger that’s involved in the Metro transit dispute is anything like the danger that was being experienced by the people of Ontario as a result of the strike against the Union Gas Co. And yet there was no indication in that instance of any concern by the Premier. There was no indication of any genuine effort by the Premier to move in and to assist in trying to bring about a reasonable settlement to that dispute. That there is absolutely no consistency from one labour dispute to the next. And I think that that’s probably what aggravates me most about this situation.

I think that we have seen -- since the time that I came into this House -- the gradual erosion of the collective bargaining system. And that erosion has been hastened along by the activities and inactivity of his government. In the case of the hospital workers, in spite of the urgings of people from this side of the House that their position of arbitration would, in the long haul, be detrimental, the government forged ahead. It insisted on imposing its will; it insisted on taking away the rights of those workers. And I say now that what we predicted would happen is happening right across the Province of Ontario to the detriment of both the workers in the hospitals and ultimately to the detriment of the public. Arbitration will not do away with legitimate discontent. The government cannot arbitrate away all of the problems that arise during the course of collective agreement. It just simply won’t work over the long haul.

When the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act was brought in some two or three years ago, it was argued from this side of the House that it was too restrictive and that we ought not to impose the kind of arbitration on Crown employees that the Act contained. And we pointed out that it would bring about a great deal of discord and disharmony within the public service. And let me remind the government that that discord and disharmony is now emerging and they are finding it extremely difficult to work within the very restrictive terms set out in that bill. And that action of this government took another step along the way towards destroying the collective bargaining system in the Province of Ontario.

Further, when there was a strike of teachers and this government moved in again and imposed its will upon the teachers, we pointed out to the government that this was yet another step along the way towards the destruction of the collective bargaining system in the Province of Ontario. And I suggest to the government that what we said at that time will come to pass. There will ultimately be unrest and upset develop within the profession if the government insists on following through with the imposition of arbitration on teachers.

Then there was the elevator constructors’ strike. The government in that instance said it was in the public good, and we argued that. I think the record would show that we were right in that argument also.

It worries me to see the destruction of the system without the government having taken the necessary steps to try to make whatever minor adjustments may well be necessary in order to make it function even better than it functions now. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it functions fairly well. I want to read to you the section that deals with bargaining in good faith and what is said about that section, but not many people actually look at it. It is in sections 13 and 14 of the Act. Section 14 of the Act says -- I’m just reading the one part- “... and they shall bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to make a collective agreement.”

That’s contained within the Act, and that is the most often neglected, the most often breached section of this Act. It is virtually useless to have that there because there is no one -- certainly not this government -- with the will to make that section stand up under pressure. How many times has the report been given to the minister that one side or the other is not bargaining in good faith?

I’m not privy to the information passed on by Mr. Dickie or Mr. Sperazini or by anyone else, but I’m sure that when the truth is told to the minister he must be told that one side or the other is not bargaining in good faith. Yet nothing is ever done about it. There’s never any effort made by the minister or the government to insist that that particular section of the Labour Relations Act be adhered to. It’s in that section and in that section alone that most of the changes can be made that will bring about the kind of free collective bargaining that everybody claims to want, but that is quickly rejected whenever any pressure mounts.

It’s so easy when one stands in the House to say, “We are in favour of free collective bargaining but in this instance we’re going to have to do something else. We are in favour of free collective bargaining but in this instance it isn’t working very well.” Well, damn it all, life isn’t that easy. One can’t compartmentalize life. Everything isn’t exactly the way one would like it to be. Everyone isn’t in little boxes set out to be viewed operating exactly the way the government might like or, for that matter, operating exactly the way anyone might like. There is always going to be a time when there will be dispute and a difference of opinion arise. If this Act is going to have any meaning, if this Act is going to bring about some fundamental changes in the attitudes of some companies and some unions, then there must be felt within the Act the arm of government and the will of government to make sure that it operates effectively.

If you take a look at the situation to which I was referring earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Firestone Tire and Rubber dispute, there is no one sitting in this House who has any knowledge of it and there is no one outside this House who has any knowledge of it who would say for a moment that the Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. is bargaining in good faith. Yet is any effort being made by this government to go to them and say: “Look, in our laws in the Province of Ontario, my friend, there’s a section which says you shall bargain in good faith and, by God, you shall. If you don’t there will be sanctions against you which will be sufficient to make sure that in the future you do bargain in good faith.”

Is there anyone in this House who would dispute that in the case of the TTC strike that the transit commission bargained in bad faith, that there was no legitimate effort made by the transit commission to bring about a settlement of the dispute which was before them?

Is there anyone in this House who would claim for one minute that the commission in fact made any kind of legitimate offer to the employees in an effort to resolve the dispute? Is there anyone in this House who could honestly say that they believed that the commission bargained in good faith and made every effort to reach a satisfactory settlement? I doubt it.

The minister said in his opening statement, as I recall, that he believed that the parties legitimately tried to come to an agreement.

Mr. Lewis: That’s balderdash.

Mr. Deans: I find that very hard to believe. I think the minister and I are pretty good friends, and I find it hard to believe that he could stand in the House and say that he believes that from the time that contract expired until the time those men went on strike that there was a legitimate effort put forward by the commission to bring about a satisfactory conclusion to the negotiations.

Now the minister may say to me that in the last two or three days the commission have moved a little more speedily, that in fact they have attempted to find some way to resolve it. I may disagree with him, but that might be a fairly legitimate position to put forward for argument’s sake. But this Act requires that the bargaining in good faith begin immediately and that it be carried on throughout the course of the negotiations. And neither the minister nor anyone else in this House is going to tell me that he believes that the transit commission bargained in good faith throughout that period of bargaining immediately prior to the expiration of the contract.

That’s where labour relations, when they don’t work properly, actually fail. They fail because a strong hand is required, the government must exercise that strong hand in saying that our reports from our officials tell us that you or you, depending on which party it may be, are not making a satisfactory effort to bargain in good faith and to bring about a reasonable conclusion to this labour dispute. But that strong hand is never used. There is never any pressure. There is never any legitimate effort. That is the reason we are here today.

The minister and his officials, perhaps even the Premier, should have been prepared to move into the dispute in the early stages. They should have said, “Look, we are dealing with an ‘essential service,’ and we cannot afford to have a strike in Metropolitan Toronto at this particular time. Therefore, we are saying to you, the TTC, you are going to have to sit down and attempt to resolve your differences; you are going to have to do it systematically, and you are going to have to report back to us day by day on how you are getting along with the resolution of the various matters that are before you.” Perhaps then, before the date the contract expired and before the strike began, we would have been in a position that we are now in with nine items outstanding. And then the Premier could have gone in and said what he said two days ago.

An hon. member: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: That would have been the time to have gone in and made the suggestions. This is where the entire procedure for dealing with labour disputes in the Province of Ontario is wrong.

But beyond that, let me note that the minister claims in his statement to have tried every conceivable avenue to find a resolution of the dispute; that the government, through the Ministry of Labour and the Premier on his own behalf and on behalf of the government, attempted everything that they could in order to find a way to resolve the dispute that is currently under way. That is simply not so.

I refer you, Mr. Speaker, if I may, to section 34 of the Labour Relations Act. It deals with something called an industrial inquiry commission, brought in over our protestations by this government, supposedly with an eye to bringing about a reasonable inquiry into the reasons surrounding the dispute and the labour scene and for a report back to the minister for action. That wasn’t undertaken by the ministry. There was no effort made to appoint an industrial inquiry commission to look into this dispute and report publicly and to the minister on the reasons why we were faced with a strike in Metropolitan Toronto in the transit system. There should have been.

To claim now, at 11:05 in the evening of Friday, with the dispute having gone on for three weeks that the government has tried everything is in fact not so, because that was there to be tried and it was not tried. Had it been tried and had there been a report back to the minister from that inquiry saying that the transit commission was not making a legitimate effort to solve the dispute, then would have been the time for the minister and the Premier to move in and to attempt to put on the kind of pressure that would have been necessary to bring an end to this particular strike.

I am convinced that the government of Ontario made up its mind some weeks ago that it would be to its political advantage to have a strike in the Metro system. I am further convinced that that was brought about by discussion which ultimately said to the Premier that he can move in at an appropriate time and he can bring this thing to an end and that he will then receive the plaudits of the people who are frustrated and angered by the strike. I am convinced that that happened and that the Premier made his decision for base and crass political reasons rather than for reasons of trying to satisfy public need. If public need had been the prime concern of the government, it could have used the inquiry commission or it could have moved into the situation some many weeks ago in an effort to resolve what was obviously going to be a strike situation.

I want to make one final point. If the government is going to talk about essential services, if it is going to try to categorize them ad hoc, then we are going to find that without question almost every single public service dispute will involve an essential service, that there will be very few things for which the public pays directly which cannot be somehow or other interpreted to be an essential service. The public will say -- and quite rightly so -- “We are paying for the service and we deserve to get it.” This government will ultimately bend to the whims of everyone in an effort to try to win political favour. But winning political favour isn’t the most important thing in the world. Acting fairly and responsibly is much more important.

If the government is going to have something called an essential service area, it is time that it defines what that essential service area is going to be. It is time that it set out who and what are the categories that make up the essential services of the Province of Ontario, because if it is essential for the transit system to operate in Metropolitan Toronto it is no less essential that the transit system operate in the city of Hamilton. Conversely, if it is not essential that the transit system operate in the city of Hamilton, then how can the government claim that it is an essential service to the city of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto? I think it is in that area that the government’s logic is faulty.

It is inconvenient, it is frustrating, it is aggravating to drive through the tremendous traffic jams in Metropolitan Toronto, but I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not at a point where it is a danger to the community. I reject that as a thought. I believe that the public is right to be aggravated, but they should be taking out their aggravation on the Metro council, they should be taking out their aggravation on the TTC, the commission itself, and talking to them about how it could be that so many weeks and months could go by without any legitimate effort being put forth, how it could be that Metro council could sit back on its haunches and wait until the city’s transit system ground to a halt before they paid any attention at all to try and resolve a dispute which was obviously coming to a crisis. In fact, I think most people who were aware of what was going on recognized it was going to end up in a strike many weeks before the strike itself actually took place.

The transit commission did something today which I consider to be totally wrong. The transit commission, upon hearing the government was going to introduce legislation, immediately began the process of calling their workers and telling them to come back to work. That was wrong on their part. They had no right to do that. The law is not yet in effect and the transit commission showed its arrogance and disregard for the legitimate rights of those employees by attempting to coerce them into returning to work.

But there was one thing that was said earlier that grated on me, and that was this: That they were on an illegal strike. It seems in this province that a legal strike is only legal as long as this government decides it will be legal and that if for some reason -- often without reason or logic -- the government --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is not reason or logic.

Mr. Deans: There is no reason or logic in what the government has done. There is none.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It must be right, otherwise we wouldn’t have done it.

Mr. Deans: If this government decides to make a strike illegal, it will do so at its whim and fancy.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: How many times has the government done that?

Mr. Deans: The government has done it four times to my knowledge, making strikes illegal in different sectors of the economy.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Which ones?

Mr. Deans: I’ve gone through them already. The minister should have been here.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do it again.

Mr. Deans: No.

I say this to the minister, that unless the government brings about a fundamental change in its attitude towards collective bargaining and unless it is prepared to concede that the collective bargaining system as it now operates it efficient and desirable in order to maintain good labour relations in the Province of Ontario, and unless it is prepared to say that it will not interfere with the collective bargaining system at all, then it is going to have to sit down and devise brand new rules, because the rules under which people are operating today don’t lend themselves well to the ad hoc attitude of this government.

We oppose the bill. We oppose the bill because we believe that ultimately the introduction of compulsory arbitration in this dispute was not desirable; because we believe that this government had an obligation to move in the dispute some months prior to the time that they moved; because we believe that the responsibility of the settlement of this dispute rests with the Metro council; because we believe that it is not a matter of urgent public importance in the provincial sense; because we believe that this government is Metro Toronto-oriented to the discredit and disregard of other parts of the province; and because we believe that this government is bound and determined to destroy the collective bargaining system in the Province of Ontario and to destroy labour relations with it. That is why we oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Would the member tell the Metro editors that we are biased in favour of Metro Toronto?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker, it’s with a great deal of reluctance and some repugnance that I rise to speak on the bill this evening. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I probably experienced more difficulty than most, perhaps as much as my friend from Port Arthur, in arriving here today to take part in the debate and the vote. I think it might be of interest to the House if we could relax for a moment from the humdrum of the debate and I could relate to you, Mr. Speaker, how I did happen to arrive here.

Last evening I was camped on my island in Nym Lake, which is just on the edge of the famous Quetico Park. I was having a pre-prandial drink about 8:30 or 9 as the sun went down, waiting for the coals of the barbecue to warm up, when I heard a boat pull up in the darkness outside and a voice said: “Pat, are you there somewhere?” The president of the Liberal-Labour Association of Atikokan appeared out of nowhere with his trusty guide and brought me the bad news that I was to return to Toronto for the sitting this afternoon. It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, obviously that I don’t have any means of communication, either radio or telephone, at my cabin. I might also say it is the first time this summer I have had a chance to enjoy it. As a matter of fact, had the weather not been so bad I wouldn’t be here today. I would be in the middle of Quetico Park, where no one, sir, would have found me, including all of the Natural Resources people.

In any event, after carefully considering the situation, I had to load my boat and my trusty guide into the boat --

Mr. Speaker: Maybe we could get back to the principle of the bill. We can hear about this excursion later on.

Mr. Reid: You haven’t heard the best part yet, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Did she object?

Mr. Reid: As a matter of fact, I am leaving some of the better parts --

Mr. Speaker: You are going to have every member in the Legislature crying if you keep on.

Mr. Reid: As a matter of fact, I am leaving some of the better parts out, Mr. Speaker.

In any event, I went across the lake, loaded everything into my car, including the trusty guide -- and, believe me, that was a chore -- and drove home. I arrived at my home in Fort Frances at 2:30 this morning, got up at 5 o’clock to catch the plane, and arrived here this afternoon at about 2 o’clock, fortunately able to be present this evening --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Fortunate for whom?

Mr. Reid: -- and fortunately able to hear every golden word of wisdom that flowed from both sides.

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in the present situation because of two main problems, both of course, attributable to the government and the way they operate. The first, of course, is the lack of policy with regard to public transit in the Province of Ontario. We have been over that -- I think my leader covered that fairly completely -- but it is obvious that the transit man of the year has certainly disappeared and been replaced by a do-nothing Premier with no policies; in fact, bankrupt policies would be the best way to describe them.

Obviously we are in this mess partly because the provincial government was not prepared to say to those conducting the negotiations that there was money in the kitty to meet some of the legitimate demands of the union. As a matter of fact, one of the very interesting repercussions of this is how it is going to affect those other cities and the subsidies they are receiving.

We have yet to hear from the Premier, but perhaps the Minister of Labour will indicate just what the cabinet and the government has decided in regard to their policy of assisting municipalities with their transit costs. Are we, for instance, going to change the 50 per cent subsidy on approved deficits? Is this going to affect Sudbury? Is it going to affect Kitchener, where the next problem is going to be, and Hamilton, St. Catharines and so on? This is one of the repercussions I think we should examine and hear about before we pass this bill this evening.

The other problem, Mr. Speaker, again is attributable directly to the government. The member for Sarnia has pointed out that when the collective bargaining process as we know it breaks down, there is no other alternative but to come to this Legislature and demand legislation for compulsory arbitration, which neither management nor union wants. We have been after the government for years -- as a matter of fact I believe the minister is probably in receipt of a letter that I wrote to the Premier at the end of June asking that he set up a select committee to study labour problems such as these so that we would have an alternative to compulsory arbitration and the necessity of this Legislature involving itself directly in union disputes. I have heard from the Premier that he passed the letter on to the Minister of Labour, and I am sure that in due course I will hear from the Minister of Labour.

The essence of this strike, as has already been indicated, relates to section 14 of the Labour Relations Act. We have heard a great deal about bargaining in good faith from all sides of the House. The most notable thing about that debate is that there isn’t one of us who has been able to satisfactorily define for the rest of the House what he means by bargaining in good faith.

My friends to the left might have one definition, I might have another and the government may have another. But this is, in essence, what the problem is. I would think that a select committee of the Legislature with direct responsibility to come up with some kind of reasonable definition that could be used in labour disputes could do that and would avoid the kind of confrontation in this Legislature that we’re having here tonight, because that is the essence of the problem.

There’s also one other point I’d like to make, Mr. Speaker, before I go on and that is that there have been many calls that the conciliator or mediator should have made a pronouncement or statement or done something to say that one party or the other in the dispute was bargaining in bad faith. In this case, most people seem to be saying, in this Legislature in any case, that it was the transit authority that was bargaining in bad faith and that the mediator should have made some kind of pronouncement about this. I think that shows a complete ignorance, sir, of the function of the mediator.

I’ve had some personal experiences with some of the people in the Labour department and I must say I’ve ben very impressed with the calibre and honesty and integrity of those people. But I think it should be pointed out, and perhaps the Minister of Labour can do this if he has now found his feet in his department, that that is not the function of the mediator. In fact, if the mediator was to make those kinds of pronouncements his function would be finished forthwith, the confidence and respect that he has and must have from both sides would be entirely done away with, and the Ministry of Labour then would find itself entirely without a role to play in mediating disputes.

Mr. Speaker, this strike has ground on really in effect since last April when the union presented its demands. There were meetings between May 5 and June 21 -- 10 meetings with little or no progress at all. On July 10 the union asked for conciliation. On July 17 the TTC made some kind of an offer to the union. On July 10, to go back a little, conciliation meetings were held, but again with very little progress. On July 31 the TTC asked for a provincial mediator to intervene. On Aug. 1 Mr. Speranzini met with union officials and TTC officials and some progress was made. On Aug. 6 the talks recommenced, having been broken off over the long weekend. On Aug. 6 to Aug. 10 talks continued with little or no progress. Some of the relatively minor issues were settled, but on Aug. 12 the strike began. We find ourselves here 18 days later, trying to bring it to some kind of conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, I share the views of my colleague from Sarnia. I could very easily have voted against this bill, not being a member for or resident or constituent of Toronto. When you’re far away in the Rainy River district some 1,200 miles from Toronto, the traffic jams in the morning and the noon hour and the afternoon don’t perhaps concern you quite as much as they do if you’re downtown on Yonge St. or Queen St. trying to get somewhere in Metro Toronto. But our colleagues from the city have prevailed upon us and told us that in their view, which we respect, this is a serious matter, that it has to be brought to a conclusion, that the city can no longer stand this kind of strike. So, reluctantly, I too go along with the rest of my colleagues and will support the bill.

Mr. Lawlor: More Lib than Lab.

Mr. Foulds: Regrettably?

Mr. Drea: A reluctant hero.

Mr. Reid: Well, I’ve never been called a hero before, so I’ll accept it, reluctant or not.

Mr. Drea: He is for compulsory arbitration.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Look at that great ocean voyage it took to get here.

Mr. Reid: Is the member for Scarborough Centre against compulsory arbitration?

Mr. Drea: No, sir!

Mr. Reid: I thought maybe he was from the way he was talking.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He’s in favour of wage and price controls. That’s his answer.

Mr. Drea: That’s right. I’ll make a Freudian slip again.

Mr. Reid: Speaking of Freudian slips, Mr. Speaker, it’s rather interesting, although I didn’t hear it myself, I heard a fairly accurate report that the leader of the New Democratic Party on CFRB yesterday was at least understood to be in favour of compulsory arbitration in this particular dispute --

Mr. Lawlor: That was a vile canard.

Mr. Reid: Well, I am just going by --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Reid: I don’t say that the leader of the NDP is for compulsory arbitration by any means, but I understand his remarks were interpreted by the news broadcasters at CFRB --

Mr. Lawlor: We are going to sue them for slander.

Mr. Reid: -- that reluctantly he could see the need in this particular case for compulsory arbitration.

As a matter of fact, I understand Joe Frazier or Mohammed Ali would have been impressed with the footwork of the leader of that party when he found out that he was being taped for the radio programme.

Mr. Lawlor: Talk about Freudian slips -- that’s enough about Freud for a while.

Mr. Reid: I understand further, Mr. Speaker, that John Crispo, that renowned expert on labour relations, also suggested on the CBC yesterday morning that in the present circumstances that compulsory legislation was necessary to bring this particular strike to a halt.

So, Mr. Speaker, we’ve outlined before the reasons for supporting the bill. There is one matter that perhaps we can deal with during the clause by clause in section 3 of the bill in regard to the --

Mr. Speaker: I think we should leave that for clause by clause then.

Mr. Reid: Well, I was just going to make one very brief remark --

Mr. Speaker: On the principle?

Mr. Reid: -- on the principle of compulsory arbitration, being that the time limit is left open when the arbitrator can make his report. And we will move an amendment that perhaps it says a reasonable time; we would like to put a specific limit on that time.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reiterate that reluctantly the Liberal Party will vote for this bill. We would like to reiterate that this bill is a direct result of the ineptitude, incompetence and ignorance of the government in regard to the role of transit in the Province of Ontario, and also of its ignorance and neglect of the labour people and the labour laws in the Province of Ontario. We hope that the government will act to remedy both of those defects.

Mr. Drea: Vote against the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak before the minister? The hon. minister.

Mr. Cassidy: Tell us about good faith bargaining.

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for my finally having an opportunity to rejoin this debate. As I did back some days ago, the last day we were here together, I listened and tried to listen well. I’m sorry that my ministry is the cause to bring you all back again here today to give me the second lecture in labour law, but once again, I have listened. I think I have learned and have been impressed by many of the things that have been said by all parties here.

The matter that is before us, of course, is not easy for me. And yet, this is just one of the many difficult problems that I see I will have before me as Minister of Labour in the months to come -- if I last that long.

Mr. Laughren: It’s going to get worse.

Mr. Reid: There won’t be a federal election for four years -- the minister won’t be able to resign.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: These problems are not just happening in Ontario. They are happening across North America, and I think even beyond that. On the problem that I have to deal with, I have listened to the theories and the simplistic solutions that have been offered -- and I appreciate them -- but I have to deal with specifics and realities.

As I say, there are difficult days ahead. Right here in Ontario we have a labour shortage. We also have the problem of inflation to deal with. Now, that makes it difficult for both sides sitting down at the bargaining table to know what is fair for their workers and what is fair for the company. And I sympathize with those people. I said earlier I did not criticize the parties to this bargaining, and I don’t. I’ll come to that perhaps a little bit later. As I said in my statement, I think all parties were trying to act in what they themselves thought were the best interests of everyone concerned.

We have all had enough to say about the distaste of compulsory arbitration. I was interested in the remarks of the member for York--Forest Hill about bargaining behind closed doors. This is something I have been concerned about when we are dealing with the public sector. Who is being reasonable, who is putting a reasonable position forward, who is doing the stalling and that type of thing.

I think Mr. Dickie views with some alarm my suggestion that perhaps in the public sector there is room for some public viewing. This is so contrary to the concept that we have of negotiations that are done behind closed doors. But if they are done behind closed doors, then who has the right to sit in judgment upon them as to whether or not they are acting in good faith?

Let me put it this way: Most people say they are in favour of strike action. The strike happens. If people are in favour of strike action, they must realize that a strike is going to happen some time. And that is what has happened. But the criticism I have received today as minister is that it should not have happened.

The members opposite and they have been somewhat kind to me, perhaps kinder than I deserve -- put the blame on lack of good faith. Maybe stubborness is lack of good faith or at least a sign of bad faith; I don’t know. And these are problems. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that they should be studied. Goodness knows, I am looking for solutions to these problems, and I am sure everyone is looking for solutions.

I would be glad to see some study of all these phases as to what is good faith, but I don’t think it stands to reason that one of the minister’s mediators should come to him with a report that in his opinion one party is acting in bad faith and that on the strength of that, I should use the powers of my office during the course of these negotiations.

Certainly I heard criticisms of both sides, but to my knowledge nobody has made any complaint before the Labour Relations Board or anybody else that one of the parties was in fact acting in bad faith.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Might I ask a question before the minister proceeds? I think this is an important point. Why would he not feel that it is the responsibility of the people in whom he has direct confidence to report their views on that matter and that he himself would then take action, because it is required of the law?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That brings me to my next point, and that is this business of the neutrality of the Minister of Labour. It has been the tradition in this province, and in most provinces, I think that the Minister of Labour takes a rather neutral position on these things --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- and he does not try to say which party is right or which party is wrong. I’m ready to have that position reviewed, but that is the position the ministry has taken to date and at this point I see no reason for changing it.

Why I say that is that subsequently I may be in a position, as I may be tomorrow, of making some recommendation as to an arbitrator. In other word’s, my ministry’s duties continue beyond even the point of perhaps not settling the strike, but we do not know what ramifications are going to come out of some finding on my part of bad faith somewhere along the line. In that way, I say, I destroy my neutrality. Maybe the House is ready for me to destroy that sort of thing, but I would be happy to have that reviewed; that is one of the problems that I face.

In speaking to members of the various labour unions, they say, “We wish in Ontario we had a Labour minister who would come out and speak on behalf of labour.” I think that is the position that the New Democratic Party put before me.

Mr. Lewis: Just once every three or four years; just for a change.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: All right. I hope that I do speak on behalf of labour, and I take exception to the remarks that our government is not interested in labour, because I know we are.

Mr. Martel: It is a funny way of showing it then.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t think we would be here unless we had a considerable amount of labour support. But my problem is that when I am dealing with matters in the Ministry of Labour, they have to deal with both sides of the coin; we have to deal with the management’s rights and we have to deal with the workers’ rights. If I come out on one side, do I destroy my ability to represent and bring forward true labour positions? Now, one can say, “All right, let the ministry --”

Mr. Lewis: That is a most extraordinary position. The minister has an Act to uphold.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Oh, I’m quite happy about that. Upholding the Act does not give me any problem at all.

Mr. Drea: It’s the same as the one in BC, and members opposite know it.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The problem of upholding the Act does not bother me. I think I am doing that. But I am worrying about the philosophy of --

Mr. Drea: If Labour Minister King had made that speech the members opposite would applaud it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister kept very quiet while the rest of you all had your say.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Maybe we should take the position that seems to be happening in Ottawa today where the Minister of Agriculture speaks out strongly for those things in agriculture. The Minister of Labour speaks out strongly for that area. What bothers me in that approach is where do you get your cabinet collective responsibility? At least, when I speak I believe I am speaking for the collective position of the cabinet on labour matters as they affect both management and labour. If members want me to speak only for the side of labour then we will have to have maybe somebody else to speak on management.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is never very reluctant to speak for management.

Mr. Bullbrook: The government hasn’t anyone qualified to speak for management.

Mr. Renwick: Exercise judgement in this case.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Well, I don’t question that. But do the members want two different voices from the same government? That is one of the factors.

Mr. Lewis: Maybe the Premier knew what he was doing when he appointed the minister.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I’m beginning to doubt that myself. In any event I am just putting some of the problems, as I see it as a neophyte minister in the field. These are the things that I see.

Mr. Lewis: Neophyte? This ain’t a neophyte speech. It is as accomplished as any I have heard.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I would welcome a study by the House in connection with it, but at the same time I am faced with an immediate problem.

Mr. Lewis: Surely.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I say we don’t like to impose compulsory arbitration. But when we have two parties involved, unless I’m to find one of them acting in bad faith, or the Labour Relations Board finds one of them acting in bad faith, I don’t think in my position of neutrality, as I see it, that I want to step in and say which party is reasonable or which party is not.

Mr. Deans: But that’s the minister’s job.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t see it that way.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister has to enforce the Act. The Act is not being enforced.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The law provides for an official complaint.

Mr. Lewis: How can the minister pretend to be impartial when this bill embodies the management position?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I suggest to the member that it does not embody the management position.

Mr. Lewis: Sure it does.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It embodies the position that the parties have reached up at the time they broke off negotiations.

Mr. Lewis: No.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Management never wants compulsory arbitration. The member knows that.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It is the point of agreement that has been reached regardless of what offer. I think it embodies all the points on which agreement has been reached. That is my understanding of what has happened.

Mr. Deans: Well, how can it? There’s only one thing in it.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, there’s more than one thing in it. It says those terms that have been agreed to.

Mr. Deans: That’s not enough.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: All right. Then what else does the member want in it?

Mr. Deans: I don’t want it.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I know he doesn’t want it, but I say I’m in a position --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just proceed on the principle of the bill and forget about the questions.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I am in the position, Mr. Speaker, of having the responsibility of doing something about the situation we see.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member opposite says if it doesn’t help Hamilton, don’t worry about it. That’s what he says.

Mr. Deans: That’s nasty.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I’m not so sure that I said that we had exhausted everything. Time was one of the factors that entered in here. I personally did not get into this matter until I was informed that there was no further hope that negotiations could carry on. Since that time there has been less than a week. I did my best at one time to speed procedures up, so that there might still be time for further discussions. People say that I did not take a strong enough hand, and that could be, but at that point the Premier of this province came in and I think the proposition that he put was not that bad a proposition, that it should have been --

Mr. Lewis: No, it was late; it wasn’t bad.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Well, it may have been late; but there again, at what point do members want the minister to enter the proceedings?

Mr. Lewis: Before the strike occurred.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Where is the free collective bargaining then?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I suppose at that point, then, I must admit that strikes are a bad thing.

Mr. Lewis: When the minister has evidence of bad faith bargaining, he moves in before --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In whose opinion?

Mr. Deans: In the opinion of the conciliation officers who reported to the minister there was bad faith bargaining.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I have more things I could say. I was going to go on and describe something about the offer of the Premier -- that the offer had something in it that we thought had some innovative parts. Namely, that they could get back to work; they could pick up the discussions immediately; and that here would be no coercion in that time --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Well, all right; whether it is old or not, it was innovation as far as I understand our position on it. In any event, we believe it had some merit. Some members opposite are saying it should have been made earlier. I am not so sure that I should have entered the picture any earlier than I did. Whether I should have held on to it longer or not, or directed it -- as it seems some would like me to have done -- with a strong hand by saying, “You shall do this and that” -- but that is not the position I view the ministry in. I would be glad to see that position reviewed as to whether that is the proper position of the minister, not that of neutrality.

As I say, there are many things that I could go on to speak about. I am a Toronto person; I am proud of the Toronto Transit Commission service. Over the years it has been a good service and the employees are the ones who have created that system, giving it a pride of operation.

Mr. Lewis: The commissioners didn’t do it all.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, the commissioners recognize that, too. Some of them were commenting to me how the employees had laid up the equipment prior to the strike in a way that it would be operative shortly. They give the employees credit for that and the pride of those who operate the system.

We are all proud of this system. Today, it is in trouble. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, for the immediate help of this House in restoring to the citizens of Toronto -- and I go beyond that with the Gray Coach system to all of the communities served by the Gray Coach.

This is a service that we need and I think it is essential to the well being of the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 119.

Carried?

Some hon. members: No, no.

Mr. Speaker: Before I ask the members to decide on the question, I have an announcement to make. One of our esteemed friends, a friend who is respected by everyone in this Legislature, informs me it is the first time in 28 years he has sat in the Legislature on Saturday -- our esteemed Clerk, Roderick Lewis.

The motion is for second reading of Bill 119.

The House is divided on the motion for second reading of Bill 119, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Auld Bales Beckett Belanger Bernie Birch Braithwaite Breithaupt Brunelle Bullbrook Campbell Carruthers Carton Clement Davis Deacon Downer Drea Eaton Edighoffer Evans Gilbertson Givens Good Grossman Haggerty Havrot Henderson Hodgson (Victoria--Haliburton) Irvine Jessiman Lane Lawrence Leluk MacBeth Maek McIlveen McKeough McNeil McNie Meen Miller (Windsor--Walkerville) Newman (Ontario South) Nixon (Dovercourt) Nixon (Brant) Nuttall Parrott Paterson Potter Reid Reilly Riddell Rollins Root Ruston Scrivener Singer Smith (Simcoe East) Smith (Nipissing) Snow Spence Stewart Taylor Timbrell Turner Villeneuve Walker Wardle Welch Wells White Winkler Wiseman Worton Yakabuski Yaremko -- 79.

Bounsall Burr Cassidy Davison Deans Dukszta Ferrier Foulds Germa Gisborn Laughren Lawlor Lewis MacDonald Martel Renwick Young -- 17.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 79, the “nays” are 17.

Motion agreed to; second reading; of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Mr. Lewis: No, no.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the member for Scarborough West take his seat for a minute?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: If the members would just be quiet long enough for the Speaker to hear what is going on, I’m sure that the business would proceed, much faster.

There has been an order for committee of the whole House.

Clerk of the House: Order for House in committee of the whole.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION LABOUR DISPUTES SETTLEMENT ACT, 1974

Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions or comments to any section of this bill?

Shall section 1 carry?

Section 1 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 2 carry?

Section 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Rainy River.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Chairman, I have a brief question. I realize that section 3(2) deals particularly with illness or other problems in regard to the arbitrator reporting back. I wonder if you could give us some indication of when you expect the arbitrator would make his report known and bring the parties to a collective agreement? Have you put a time frame on it?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I didn’t hear the end of the question. Was it how soon he would be appointed or how soon he would report?

Mr. Reid: Both. When will he be appointed and when will he report?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I would hope that he would be appointed just as soon as we can find a suitable person and get the order in council through. I don’t like to bind myself by time, but time is the essential thing with us. That’s why we are suggesting one arbitrator. It’s all a question of time, and I would hope he would be appointed within two weeks or maybe three. As to how long he meets, again I don’t want to put any kind of time zone over his head, but I think it depends on the person we appoint to act reasonably. I think we could use section 3(2) if he doesn’t act reasonably in terms of time, but I’m sure there won’t be any problem in regard to time and that he will report as soon as reasonably possible.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chairman, I would seek to elicit from the minister a response with respect to the optional issue here, to which he has no doubt given good consideration, and in the eventuality, we may very well move a complete deletion of the clause and a substitution therefor in a way in which I’m sure he would recognize. Namely --

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That’s better. I can hear the member now.

Mr. Lawlor: What are the different considerations that went into appointing a single arbitrator over against the normal practice of a three-man board? In the previous compulsory bargaining legislation that you brought before this House the minister had opted for the Arbitrations Act procedures and for the three-man board notion. In this instance, he has altered his stance.

Some of us over here rather think that the three-man board situation is probably fairer. It gives a wider diapason and will not be as onerous a burden on a single person. Rather than slow up the process, probably it would advance it. It at least gets all parties well heard and advances the process. It gives the appearance of greater representation, which is terribly important in coercive legislation with arbitrary tints to it -- which we regret so much. It gives a sense of a greater feed-in -- that the chairman of the board is cognizant of what arguments are going always. And I would think that it’s a fair-minded way that the minister probably would go for if he felt a three-man board situation -- and I accordingly prepared a motion in this particular regard -- but we want to hear first what the minister has to say about this whole issue.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was mainly the time factor again. Now, as you recall with the elevator case we did have the three-man board and members may recall that there was some difficulty at that time in getting the report in, which delayed things.

Now, also we are faced on this matter with the fact that there are four parties to this dispute. There are three unions and the management itself. So we thought we would have to have the three boards to properly do it. And this way, time being one of the main elements as far as we are concerned -- and we think as far as both the parties are concerned -- we thought everything could be expedited by one person rather than have the problems we saw in the elevator case and with the three unions involved here.

That is why we selected a single arbitrator. It has not been done without thought and without the consideration that it has the appearance of more democratic procedures.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, could the minister advise us if the parties who are going to be involved have had any input in this decision? I am just wondering if the approach with respect to one arbitrator is presumed to be acceptable to the parties in advance. I think if we were aware of that, it would no doubt smooth things along quite well and perhaps the section would pass without any particular further comment.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: There has, Mr. Chairman, been some cautious probing on that matter. It’s hard to probe when people see something coming that they don’t want to come. But we have had indications that if the bill had to pass, that the one arbitrator would be satisfactory to them. Now, I don’t want to go beyond that.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr. Chairman, when we discussed it, we were generally aware of that. The minister was kind enough to indicate it earlier. Members of the NDP caucus were just a little anxious about the one-arbiter approach, feeling that in a situation like this three might work rather better. I have a feeling from this debate -- we may not be inclined to press it -- but I do feel some anxiety about the business of putting this whole matter into the hands of one person.

If it were simply wages and simply cost of living, that might well be legitimate. But when it involves something as complex and difficult as the split shift situation, which is obviously a very awkward situation to cope with, I would have thought that the opportunity for a three-person board -- indeed, even the opportunity for a dissenting view, should that be the case on report -- might be socially useful, might be publicly profitable.

I wonder about that. I take it you thought of all that. I must say that it is hard to strike the balance.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I cannot admit, Mr. Chairman, that I thought about the desirability of having dissenting views and that that might have some ideas in it that would be helpful to us in the future. I can’t say we considered that. I must say we did consider all the other points. And I am satisfied it will work and I think it’s best under the situation that came down on the side of the single arbitrator.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): May I just comment briefly on a matter that concerned me when I first read the bill and still does. In arbitration it’s very difficult to find a person who has the capacity to know sufficient about the intricacies of an operation to be able to sit down and to work out, say, the scheduling necessary to implement something other than a split shift.

The value of a three-man board is that each of the parties would be appointing someone in whom they had both confidence. They would be appointing someone who they felt had the knowledge necessary to add whatever input was required by the chairman of that board to reach a knowledgeable conclusion, not just simply to say, “Well, I’ll choose that side over against that side,” or, “I think that makes more sense to me, though I don’t have the details and I really don’t know enough about it”. They wouldn’t say it publicly but I know that’s how it happens.

It would seem, since they are arguing I presume with the matter of how you might go about arriving at better working conditions with regard to a split shift, that both the management and the union would want to have a person there who had some legitimate reason for being there during the deliberations that would take place by the arbitration board.

I am not trying to be ornery about it, but I think in the interest of coming up with something both sensible and knowledgeable that it would be beneficial to both parties if this were a board of arbitration rather than a single arbitrator, for that reason if for no other reason. I am sure the arbitrator can look at the cost of living index and can look at comparative wages and come up with a wage settlement. I am sure he can also look at other fringe benefits paid to other people and come up with fringe benefit settlements. But in working out the details of any changes he or she might contemplate making in the hours of work, it would be of tremendous benefit if each party were represented legitimately in the final deliberations of that. I really do urge the minister to making that a three-man board. It doesn’t take long to set one up.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I would only be redundant. We did consider that and the time factor and what we understood was the agreeability of the parties to it. We have decided on one. The arbitrator would, of course, be assisted by counsel and any expert witnesses. I would expect that he would rely considerably on the advice of counsel for the respective parties. I know that is not the same as being able to take them into confidence when you are writing a judgement or a decision, but we feel that we will be able to pick somebody who has the skill and the wisdom to handle discreetly and wisely the problem that the member is talking about.

Mr. Deans: I hope the minister is right.

Mr. Chairman: Is section 3 agreed to?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Chairman, on section 3 on the same point, I just want to try to persuade the minister to think again about it. It’s not the same for expert witnesses to be putting the case as for three people to be sitting down, one of whom knows pretty intimately the union side, one of whom knows pretty intimately the management side and one of whom is independent, and for the three of them to come and possibly arrive at the kind of wisdom which will not happen if this thing is all revolving in the head of one man.

To give an example of the complexity of the problems, I was talking with one of the workers this afternoon and he gave me an example of a split shift which really rather appalled me. I am not sure if the Toronto press were given real examples of the kind of working conditions that the transit drivers have. This was a fellow who had been working for Gray Coach. One of his shifts was to stay over in Buffalo at night, pick up a bus at 7:30 and leave with it at 8 o’clock in the morning, drive to Toronto and then at 11 o’clock take a tour of sightseers to the African lion park in Rockton, somewhere near Guelph. It being a split shift, he has three hours free in the middle of his shift. Those three hours -- which are not paid for -- he must spend sitting somewhere around his bus or watching the lions or whatever he wishes to do at Rockton.

It is time which is clearly totally useless, unless he is a student of metaphysics, like the member for Lakeshore, who would absorb himself in classical Greek or philosophy or other such abstruse pursuit. At any rate, for the kind of thing that most people might want to do with their time, it is useless. Then he brings the bus back to Toronto and eventually packs it in at 7:30 or 8 o’clock in the evening, having spent a full 24 hours away from his home, having spent 11 1/2 or 12 hours in what all of us would call work, although three or four hours of that time was idle in the sense that he wasn’t actually driving, and he is paid for eight hours.

What are the practical details of the necessity of the 13- or 12-hour shifts that are being spent in Toronto by relief drivers who must go on perhaps half a dozen or a dozen different vehicles during the course of a day and whose time also gets frittered away so that effectively they put in eight hours over 11 1/2 or 12 hours but never have a solid block of time which they might use for themselves, let alone time that they can actually go home if their home happens to be distant?

One arbitrator --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. May I ask the hon. member what relevance this has to section 3, the appointment?

Mr. Cassidy: If the Chairman was listening, he would know that the words I had used were “one arbitrator” and I was returning to that very point.

For one arbitrator to know this kind of thing intimately, to feel it the way the men feel it, or to understand it the way that management with its problems may understand it, you simply can’t ask someone unfamiliar with the industry who comes in as an independent arbitrator to try to come to grips. This, of course, is one of the weaknesses of the arbitration process over the process of collective bargaining. But to ask one guy to do it without two other people who are equal in status to him, and who can debate in the confidence of the arbitration chamber, is simply unrealistic.

We may have an amendment on this, but I don’t think that the argument about time alone is compelling. It seems to me that there are other ways around it. For example, if the minister is concerned that an arbitration decision be reached by the end of September or the end of October, say, then let that be put into the legislation and let that deadline be given to the arbitrators so that the arbitrators know they’ve got to get stuck in and can’t take on other commitments or must divest themselves of other commitments in order to carry out this arbitration in that time, if that is the main thing that is moving the minister. If there are other concerns that move the minister, then let him say it. But it seems to me that time is the only one that he’s mentioned and that there are other approaches to a problem of time if the public and the transit workers and management want to have a decision quickly.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 3 carry?

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, a few more remarks on section 3 if I may. I was hoping when I first stood up on this section that the minister would appear to be suggestible in this area -- not adamant, open -- and if he had, then the response would have been to move the amendment.

If you’re going to stick, as you obviously intend to, then may I have the effrontery to make a few suggestions to you?

Don’t appoint anybody to this very demanding job, in the first instance or at all, who would appear to have a conflict of interest. Your previous legislation mentions the usual conflict situations, and in the amendment it would read, in section 10:

No person shall be appointed a member of the board who has any pecuniary interest in matters coming before it or who has acted or who has, within the past six months preceding the date of the appointment, acted as solicitor, counsellor or agent to the employers or of the unions.

In other words, this is very gravely important in this particular context.

I would adjure you too not to appoint any previous member of the commission itself at any previous time or any union, on the other side of the fence, simply because they seemingly have that inside track. I think that very well could be a mistake where there is an in-built bias, where there is not that objectivity that is so requisite in this particular thing. And if you’re going to sustain this legislation at all, that is the very minimum you’re going to need.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, those are words of wisdom and I have noted them.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 3 carry?

Mr. Lewis: Can we have a commitment from the minister that he will not appoint a person who was associated with the commission before? Because that is a matter which is now causing some worry to the workers.

Mr. Breithaupt: Or the union.

Mr. Lewis: Or the union. Someone who was not in fact a former commissioner or associated in a former way with the Toronto Transit Commission.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t want to bind my hands. Often we may find somebody who we may want to appoint did in fact have a summer job with the TTC or something of that nature. Now, if you take --

Mr. Lewis: Can we have a commitment from you that you will not appoint someone who actually sat on the commission before?

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): You can easily give that.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t see any problem with that at all. You don’t want us to appoint a former commissioner.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes, I can give you that commitment.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Is Section 3 carried?

Section 3 agreed to.

Mr. Deans: On section 4.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: I have two matters under section 4. One is would it be possible for the minister to list for us the nine items that are still in dispute in order that we can understand fully what they are? Can he do that first and then I can deal with the second matter which is not related?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, as I understand them after their discussions this morning, union proposals still outstanding are wages and cost of living allowance, shift premiums for drivers, hours of work, Sunday premiums, overtime, exact fare, schedules -- and that deals with the spread and split shifts -- and the operator’s wage rates.

As for items the unions are recommending to their executive board, I don’t know whether you want me to list those or not. These are some, I understand, which came out of this morning’s meeting: weekly indemnity, 70 per cent first year, 75 per cent second year; vacations, both entitlements and quotas -- union to recommend two weeks for one year, three for five, four for 12, five for 22, six for 30 and drop quota request; three work breaks on all straight crews, union to recommend Saturday, Sunday and holidays with present regulations.

Company proposals still outstanding are temporary and part-time operators for both TTC and Grey Coach. Items resolved between parties Friday, Aug. 30, 1974 are (1) skill bonus of drivers to be included in the rate (union dropped) -- I’m sorry that’s in brackets. These are the items that I guess they talked about and the union or one of the parties decided to leave out. If you are content, I’ll carry on in this way. (2) semi- private coverage for all employees (union dropped); (3) term of agreement, company agreed to two years from July 1, 1974. Company proposal -- the right to change carriers of the medical plans -- company dropped’ this request.

Mr. Lewis: I should think so. That was a King special.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 4 carry?

Section 4 agreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anything on section 6? The member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: Just a technical thing, I’m not going to get into the discussion that we’ve had on other bills of this nature, or the removal of the rights under the Arbitrations Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act Part 1, but you are removing the provisions of the Arbitrations Act totally from any proceedings under this Act. I ask you to direct your attention to the effect of section 8, subsection 3.

As I read that, the arbitration contemplated thereunder is not an arbitration carried by the arbitrator contemplated under this statute. I ask you to consider whether you should remove from any arbitration proceedings contemplated under subsection 3 of section 8 the provisions of the Arbitrations Act.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): It is covered under the Labour Relations Act.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I’m not so sure I understand the question.

Mr. Bullbrook: What you are doing here is depriving the parties before this arbitrator --

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The Statutory Powers Procedure Act?

Mr. Bullbrook: -- of the rights -- well, I just want to refer to the Arbitrations Act -- under the Arbitrations Act. If you will look your section 8 provides for the conduct of the parties in the interval between the return to work and the disposition of the matter by the arbitrator. Subsection 3 of that section provides, if any matter is in dispute as to the remainder of section 8, that matter can be carried by either of the parties to arbitration.

I’d like you to help me. I don’t think you mean this arbitrator. I don’t think you mean that.

Mr. Renwick: It’s an arbitration under section 37.

Mr. Bullbrook: Right! And I’m suggesting that you shouldn’t deprive that proceeding under subsection 3 of section 8 of the rights under the Arbitrations Act. Section 6 says: “The Arbitrations Act does not apply to the proceedings under this Act.”

What you might say in response, I’m not certain, is that the proceedings under subsection 3 of section 8 result from the Labour Relations Act and not from proceedings under this Act. But I think, quite frankly, that you might find yourself up against that argument. All I’m suggesting to you is that you con- template an addition to section 6 saying “save and except subsection 3 of section 8.” The section would then read:

“The Arbitrations Act does not apply to the proceedings under this Act save and except the proceedings contemplated by subsection 3 of section 8.”

Mr. Renwick: It sounds very logical.

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I’m getting some instructions here, because the point you raised is one that I hadn’t considered. I don’t think there is any problem with section 6, subsection 2, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. We’re quite happy to have that come out. It’s when we get down to section 37, there has to be reference under that section whether you want the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to apply.

Let me see what my note says: “The Arbitrations Act does not comply to all arbitrators under the Labour Relations Act; see section 37(11) of the Act.”

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): That is 37(11)?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think that 37(11) is referring to the Labour Relations Act.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Bullbrook: Does it apply to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, because we’re going to get into that in a moment?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes, right.

Mr. Bullbrook: We’re going to get into the application of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to any proceedings under subsection 3 of section 8.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: If I just may read that; it’s very short. Section 37(11) of the Labour Relations Act: “The Arbitrations Act does not apply to arbitration under collective agreement.”

I’m not so sure I’m clear in my mind. I hope the member is.

Mr. Renwick: The minister is right.

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t want to get overly technical, but this isn’t a collective agreement. You realize that there’s no collective agreement in force. They say “as if the collective agreement was still in operation.” Correct? The Labour Relations Act refers to collective agreements and grievances in arbitration proceedings pursuant to collective agreements. This subsection just said that it applies and inures benefits to the parties as if the collective agreement was in force.

I invite your consideration that you still could be in trouble, but I’m not going to carry it forward any more. Frankly, I’m somewhat placated by the subsection that you’ve read to me.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 6 carry?

Section 6 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Section 7, the member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I’m bothered by the provisions of section 7. Section 7 provides for a 12 per cent increase. That figure sort of strikes a harmonious chord because it seems to me that 12 per cent was in a mysterious statement delivered by the Premier which was delivered by some unnamed person to the mayor of the city of Toronto, who then saw fit to read it over television. We never really did get to the basis of it. But it only provides that the 12 per cent shall be retroactive.

What concerns me is that the negotiations -- the substantial part of the negotiations -- have related to much more than 12 per cent. In fact, the union is asking for 40 per cent. The union seemed to indicate, or Mr. Moynehan seemed to indicate that he was prepared to come down to 30 per cent. It would probably be not unreasonable to assume that the end figures that an arbitrator is going to arrive at lies somewhere between the 23 per cent and the 30 per cent, but it should be retroactive.

All this section says is that the 12 per cent should be retroactive. This bothers me, because the collective agreement has come to an end. I would like to see whatever financial arrangements are determined by the arbitrator to be retroactive to the date of the termination of the old contract. I think that’s only fair. I’m not trying to guess what the arbitrator will do, either in amounts or what day you will bring forth his decision, but it would seem to me that it should be made abundantly clear in section 7 that whatever award he makes should be made retroactive to the date of the expiry of the old contract.

With this in mind, Mr. Chairman, and reading some of the definitions of the Act, I am going to move an amendment.

Mr. Singer moves that section 7 be amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

... provided that if the arbitrator determines that any increased financial benefits be awarded to any employee, whether hourly rated or not that if the arbitrator determines that any increased financial benefits be awarded to any employee, that the same shall be retroactive to the day immediately following the expiry date.

Mr. Singer: I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about whether we are dealing only with hourly rated employees, or whether we are dealing with weekly paid, or monthly paid and so on. And “financial benefits” means not only salary; it may be pensions, sick benefits or anything else.

The words “expiry date” are defined in the Act, and I think this makes good sense. What in fact we are doing today or tonight or tomorrow, or whatever time we are doing it, is to say that there shall be a determination as of the termination of the old contract. So I am urging that the minister accept this recommendation and that whatever award the arbitrator makes relating to financial matters -- and it really doesn’t matter whether the pocket in the overalls be retroactive or not; it is relating to financial matters -- be made retroactive to the expiry date of the old contract.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, if I may speak on that for just a moment, it is my understanding that the way the 12 per cent was arrived at was that this was the figure that both parties had agreed upon. Now I don’t think they had necessarily agreed as to when the adjustments would become effective, but this was only the first step in various proposals. In other words, there was to be 12 per cent at one point, an additional per cent at some other point and maybe on two terms or three terms depending on whatever they could agree upon. So that I think that will probably still happen, that there will be an additional award in the second year, or at the end of eight months or some other term.

I don’t think it was even contemplated by the parties at this time that they were, for instance, asking for 40 per cent right away. This was spread over.

I would be most hesitant, of course, to do what the member suggests because I think it would limit the scope of the arbitrator. In other words, if he had to make everything retroactive to the time of expiry of the old contract, he could not have the flexibility that he would have in saying, for instance, that after eight months there would be another increase of a certain size --

Mr. Singer: All right, I hear what the minister says but I am not quite prepared to accept that. It would seem to me that as of the expiry date -- and that’s the date defined in the definition section of the statute -- everything more or less has come to an end, and I don’t think it is reasonable to say that only 12 per cent of that should be retroactive.

Let me try to reason with the minister for a moment: Perhaps my wording is a little too broadly cast, and if there is a 40 per cent end award it would be unreasonable to make all of that retroactive. But the minister surely can grasp the thrust of my amendment? I don’t want the arbitrator to be put in the position, or believe that he is statutorily directed that he is in the position, that only a 12 per cent award retroactively can be granted.

Today is Aug. 31. Let’s suppose the arbitrator starts in the middle of September and he listens to representations and arguments backwards and forwards; and about the middle of October he comes up with an award and says, “In my opinion, the wage in the first year should be increased by 17 per cent. However” -- I think you will find sections in the statutes that will support this view -- “I am only allowed to make 12 per cent of that retroactive to the date of expiry; the other five per cent can only date from the date of my award.” I don’t think that’s fair. Between my wording and the minister’s thinking there has to be some kind of a compromise. The arbitrator has to be given clear power that the portion of the award that he determines shall be applicable in the first year shall relate to the expiry date. I grant that my quickly scribbled wording may be at fault, but surely it has to be fair and reasonable that the portion that the arbitrator determines is awardable in the first year be retroactive to the expiry date. Let the minister play with my wording and introduce the appropriate amendment.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I understand what the member is saying but I ask him to look at the last three lines: “... but nothing in this section prevents the arbitrator from granting increases in the basic hourly wage rates in excess of those established in this section.”

Mr. Singer: I don’t think that’s enough. I think the arbitrator should be clearly directed by us to say that whatever he allocates in the first period --

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): If he does.

Mr. Singer: -- If he does, shall be made retroactive to the expiry date. Otherwise, you are inviting the arbitrator to deprive the union of the portion of the increase in financial benefits that will be available in the first period. He may want to stagger it. He may want to say X per cent in the year 1974 and Y per cent in the year 1975. I think we have clearly, distinctly, definitely and in unmistakeable language to direct him to the fact that whatever his first award is shall be retroactive to the expiry date and not just 12 per cent to the expiry date.

Mr. Chairman: On this point the member for Windsor West was first up and then the member for Hamilton East.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): From the way the member for Downsview has now stated it I am in firm agreement with it. This was some concern of mine about the 12 per cent in here retroactive to the expiry date of the contract, and surely we must consider this 12 per cent that is in the legislation as a base figure and expect any arbitration award to go above that.

Our concern was that the award may in that first period, as now clearly enunciated by the member for Downsview, be higher than 12 per cent of course and be in its entirety retroactive to, in this particular case, July 1. We were fully knowledgeable in our caucus of the 23 per cent and the 40 per cent being split up into three different sections, one at the expiry time and one each at two different eight-month periods there- after. That didn’t bother us, but we were a bit concerned, as precisely indicated by the member for Downsview, if the first portion of the award, for example, be 16 per cent from the arbitrator, that that 16 per cent be backdated, when it comes to July 1, the expiry date of the old contract, and not just the 12 per cent back dated and then another four per cent to start at the conclusion of the handing down of his arbitration award.

That is the principle and a section quite worth building into this section.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Hamilton East is next.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): Mr. Chairman, now that the guillotine has fallen and the House has adopted the compulsory principle of the bill, I don t think that we can now set out the terms too definitely as to what should take place.

First, I am opposed to setting in here the retroactivity of the total amount. I would agree that if we set an allowance in the bill that that should be retroactive, but in many cases the union might make representation and say they want to bargain off all of the retroactivity for something eke or they want to bargain off a portion of the retroactivity for something else, and they may make that very clear in their representation to the arbitrator.

I don’t think we are doing a service to the union or to the arbitrator by setting the terms in this bill ourselves, except where the amount is set firmly, as set here. Now we have here set 12 per cent. Fine, I would think that could be retroactive. If they want to change the figure of 12 to 15 or 20, then I would agree that that should be retroactive because it is so implied in the bill. But I would not go along with the feeling of the member for Downsview that any amount agreed upon should be retroactive. We should leave that to the representations made by the union so that they are in a bargaining position.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: I want to suggest a way of dealing with it. My colleague makes a convincing argument but not quite convincing enough for me.

I’d like to suggest to the minister that one way it could be dealt with, since I happen to think it ought to be retroactive and should be guaranteed, is that he could add to the end of section 7 that any increase applicable to the period between the expiry date and the date of the award shall be retroactive to the day immediately following the expiry date. That means if the award is brought down on Nov. 15, for example, then there is an undue delay, as there may well be because of the intricacies of dealing with some of the matters, but those people will not be in any way deprived of the full benefit of the award for the period from the date which the contract expires to whatever the final date is of the first portion of the award.

Let’s assume for a moment that the arbitrator decided that he or she was going to give 15 per cent. Only 12 per cent of that need by law be retroactive. But, by adding the wording that I am suggesting, it would guarantee, regardless of the date of the award being given, that the total amount of the first stage of the award would automatically be retroactive to the expiry date of the old contract.

The arbitrator need not then be as rushed as he might normally have been. It gives him the chance to look into all matters fully and guarantees that the workers will receive the full benefit of any award once the award is finally given. If the member for Downsview agrees with that wording, I would like to suggest it as an alternative to the motion that he made.

Mr. Bullbrook: Would the member mind reading it again?

Mr. Deans: Yes. What I said was to add to the end of section 7 “any increase applicable to the period between the expiry date and the date of the award shall be retroactive to the day immediately following the expiry date.”

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, can I say that the member for Wentworth and I are talking about exactly the same thing? I’m prepared to accept his amendment or an alternative proposed by the minister as long as we achieve the common principle that we have both been putting forward and that other members have been putting forward. If the minister feels there is better wording than either I or the member for Wentworth have put forward, I would be quite prepared to go along with it. I would concede that the present wording put forth by the member for Wentworth is probably a little better than mine. It may be that the minister or his advisers have a little better wording.

The principle that we are arguing is abundantly clear. It is a fair principle and I would argue that the minister adopt in some form one of the two put to him, or perhaps adopt his own.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): While I am sympathetic to the member for Wentworth, I would like to point out that we have some difficulties in here -- not so much with the last three lines but with two words in the last three lines. The member for Downsview, as usual, hasn’t taken a look beforehand.

Mr. Singer: Oh, come on. This is typical of your stupidity.

Mr. Drea: Oh, calm yourself down. You are putting on a charade all day. Just calm down, will you?

Mr. Singer: That is typical of your stupidity. We are trying to work out a reasonable solution and it is typical of your whole approach to labour matters and other matters.

Mr. Drea: But you don’t know what you are talking about and you are going to get the people into some difficulty. That’s why I want to talk to the member for Wentworth.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: You should talk to the Chairman.

Mr. Singer: Yes, under the rules of the House.

Mr. Drea: Well, I will talk to the member for Wentworth, through the Chairman, and you can all do your little thing.

Mr. Singer: What is your little thing?

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s between his ears.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

An hon. member: Not much.

Mr. Reid: You are a refugee from the Howdy Doody show.

Mr. Drea: If I was the labour critic in my party and as inept as you, I wouldn’t make remarks about me, so just cool it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: One of the difficulties in this is we have expiry dates. We have three local unions involved with three different expiry dates. That’s what concerns me.

Mr. Renwick: Two dates, three unions.

Mr. Drea: Well, two dates, all right, fine.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: A lot of research as usual.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex--Kent): He’d better read it again.

Mr. Drea: We don’t have in this common expiry dates. We have three local unions involved. It seems to me that the two words “but nothing” cover these.

An hon. member: That’s quite true.

Mr. Singer: That’s very clear.

Mr. Reid: You are making great progress.

Mr. Drea: It seems to me that the two words in those last three lines “but nothing” -- and then it goes on to say “prevents the arbitrator from granting increases in the basic hourly wage rates” -- cover the situation. If you are going to reasonably present this kind of an amendment and you are going to put into specific language that there is retroactivity -- whereas this is pretty universal -- we are going to get into some problems with those on common expiry dates.

I can understand why this was put in. I think it is reasonable when you say in those last three lines “but nothing prevents the arbitrator from”. Then we got down to the second crucial point, which is the basic hourly wage. And while the basic hourly wage isn’t defined specifically, I think that, on a reasonable basis, the basic hourly wage, when it is being implemented by an arbitrator, involves the principle of retroactivity.

Mr. Singer: Oh, come on.

Mr. Renwick: That’s exactly the point. It doesn’t.

Mr. Drea: Oh yes, it does. Of course it does. It may very well be that in return for something else over the course of this contract, the union may want to trade certain aspects of retroactivity for something in the future or something in the present. And to limit the arbitrator --

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Mr. Drea: -- and I think that’s what we’re doing if we put in the thing about retroactivity and we have to put in retroactivity on the basis of each one of the three locals.

Mr. Deans: That’s what I’ve got. That’s what I have.

Mr. Drea: It is my feeling that you’re really tying the hands of the arbitrator.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. That’s what we are doing.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: It’s wide open, but nothing prevents him from --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: Then if you want to limit the hands of the arbitrator, by all means proceed; but it seems to me that we say that nothing will prevent him from giving an award based upon the basic hourly wage rate and the definition of what that is.

Mr. Deans: Okay, can I say something?

Mr. Drea: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Deans: It’s quite conceivable that the arbitrator could come down with an award like this. He could give 12 per cent retroactive to the date of expiry of each of the contracts up to Sept. 1. He could then give an additional two per cent to Oct. 15 or the date of the award. Okay? We’ll say that’s the date of the award. What I’m saying, and I don’t think what the member for Downsview is saying, is this: If he is going to make an award, until such time as the award is given, any increase granted by the arbitrator should automatically be retroactive to the date of expiry of the contract --

Mr. Singer: Right.

Mr. Deans: -- which in each case, since there are two cases, would be different dates. I’m just trying to be sure that the arbitrator doesn’t simply take the 12 per cent and say that’s already been granted and therefore I will start to operate as of tomorrow; its retro- active from today back --

Mr. Singer: Or from Oct. 15.

Mr. Deans: -- and from tomorrow on we’ll have a different level which won’t be retroactive back to the expiry date and therefore, because of the strike and because of the problems that arose, those workers will lose that retroactivity. I’m suggesting therefore that there should be an addition at the end. Let me go through it again if I may,

Mr. Deans moves that there be added after the word “section” in section 7 the following:

Any increase applicable to the period between the expiry date and the date of the award shall be retroactive in each case to the day immediately following the expiry date.

Mr. Bullbrook: The word “award” is not used; it is “decision.”

Mr. Deans: I’m sorry, I thought it said “award.”

Mr. Bullbrook: Does it? I’m sorry, I thought 5(1) said “decision.”

Mr. Deans: Oh, I am prepared to change “award” to decision. I’m sorry.

Mr. Singer: As I said, Mr. Chairman, I’d be very interested to hear what the minister believes -- what his advisers have told him -- and dependent on that I will either withdraw my amendment in favour of the hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Lewis: I think the amendment makes very compelling sense. Its a reasonable amendment and one which protects the workers involved. Might I just say. Mr. Chairman, that one of the things the minister said is not really accurate and reinforces the position put.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That may be the cause of some of the trouble.

Mr. Lewis: You implied that the 12 per cent was an agreement at some point between the parties. It wasn’t, of course. The 12 per cent was the last offer of the company and the company offered 12, five and six. The union responded with 27 and seven. Since there’s a disparity of eight per cent at the last offer, then surely one attempts to find the middle ground for the arbitrator, which is then made retroactive as this amendment would require.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Let me just clear the point that you’re making. I have a note here which I was going to read: 12 per cent was the last TTC offer; it was not agreed upon. The rest of what you said is correct.

Mr. Deans: And we want to be sure that the decision is retroactive.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: All right, now. Certainly the arbitrator has the right to make it retroactive.

Mr. Deans: If he wanted to.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: You’re saying that you want him to be directed to make that retroactive.

Mr. Singer: It should be mandatory.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Well, that may cut what he does later on -- and you’re saying that’s taking a chance on it.

Mr. Deans: I will take that chance.

Mr. Drea: He has it now.

Mr. Deans: No.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Let me just consult again with my people here.

Mr. Singer: Can we agree that we only have one Minister of Labour?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes, that’s right. It’s easy for me to --

Mr. Lewis: We’ll be glad if you speak to your advisers. It is your backbenchers that worry us.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It’s easy for me to agree to something that may have some ramifications which I don’t understand.

An hon. member: Why don’t you listen to your backbenchers?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Now, as far as this point is concerned, it doesn’t bother me. I’ve looked at it, but he has that power now anyway. You’re just saying that is something you want to make mandatory.

Mr. Singer: Mandatory, that’s right.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: You’re not questioning his power? Let me just take a moment.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments on this section at this time?

Mr. Singer: We only want one Minister of Labour sitting on the government side.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): There’s nothing to stop us from having two.

Mr. Singer: Well, if you’re prepared to say it -- two order papers, two Ministers of Labour, two heads, fine.

Mr. Reid: What does the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development do over there now?

Mr. Singer: He’s in charge of order papers.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry but we feel that we want to leave the arbitrator with the right to use that power as he sees fit, one way or the other.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Who feels?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, in view of this I will let my amendment stand.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Chairman, I would like to get a clarification on the first line of section 7 where it makes specific reference to the basic hourly rates of wages. Now, some people make all of their salary or income from wages per hour, and some people make part of their wages from a rate per hour plus a certain mileage allowance. Did you think about the mileage allowance when you said that only the basic hourly rates of wages would benefit from this 12 per cent retroactivity? Or is it your impression that those people who make part of their income from mileage allowance would also be included as hourly rates of wages?

If you are only thinking about those people who earn salaries at a certain rate per hour, then I think you are doing a disservice to those people who are on a mileage basis as well, because the mileage basis is to some degree part of their hourly rate as well. I don’t know how many people this would involve, but I am sure that there are a considerable number of persons who are paid on the mileage rate.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, it goes back to the same point I have been trying to make, that it is entirely open to the arbitrator. The only reason for putting this 12 per cent in there in the first place was to make sure it wouldn’t be any less than that.

Mr. Drea: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I want to leave the arbitrator as much flexibility as possible; there is the suggestion that if we do this, we are cutting down on how he can perhaps bring the parties together on this thing. We want to leave him as wide a scope as possible.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister hasn’t looked at this section very clearly. Twice in this section it makes reference to basic hourly rates of wages: In the second line it says they shall be increased by 12 per cent; then it says, “but nothing in this section prevents the arbitrator from granting increases in the basic hourly wage rates.” So you have twice eliminated everything except basic hourly wage rates. You haven’t given the arbitrator the right to raise anything except basic hourly wage rates; you have eliminated mileage rates completely from this segment.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): That’s wrong.

Mr. Germa: Read the section.

Mr. Drea: I have, you haven’t read it.

Mr. Germa: What are the basic hourly wage rates then?

Mr. Chairman: The member for York--Forest Hill.

Mr. Deans: You know he is right.

Mr. Singer: Of course he is right. That’s why I worded my amendment the way I did; I said, “financial awards.”

Mr. P. G. Givens (York--Forest Hill): Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a question on another point. May I proceed to it? On section 7?

Mr. Chairman: Well, we have an amendment and an amendment to the amendment. If it is in order, we will take those now.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, one point on this section: I don’t want to be caught with the section having been carried.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: It is not a point by way of amendment and it is quite different from the matters which have been discussed.

Mr. Givens: On another point I want to ask my question.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): I would like to speak to the amendment if I might, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: On the amendment, yes.

Mr. Givens: Mr. Chairman, on section 7 there are continuous references to the expiry dates of the old contracts, but no reference is made in section 7 or in any other section of this bill as to the expiry dates of the new contracts. Now is it to be assumed that the expiry dates of the new contracts will be two years or one year, or is that to be left flexible?

Mr. Lewis: They have agreed to two years. He read that out.

Mr. Givens: Has the minister read that out? I beg your pardon.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The term of the agreement is one of the points, Mr. Chairman, that I understand was agreed today. The company agreed to two years from July 1, 1974.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, might I speak to the amendment put by the member for Wentworth?

I suppose nothing more fundamentally divides us in this party from those across the way than this particular item, because they have great faith in the compulsory arbitration process. We have less faith in the compulsory arbitration process --

Mr. Drea: And therefore you will destroy it.

Mr. Foulds: -- and that is why we are willing to go a little further in ensuring that the men get a fairer and higher retroactive award. If that means binding the arbitrator’s hands a little bit tighter than you have bound them, we are willing to do that.

You cannot make the argument that you want to provide the arbitrator with untold flexibility, because in the section you have bound him to retroactivity as a principle and you have bound him to a specific rate.

Mr. Drea: He hasn’t.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: As a minimum.

Mr. Foulds: As a minimum. You will say you have made the point that he may find a different wage and he may make that retroactive.

An hon. member: And he may not.

Mr. Foulds: We are saying that the first rate that he establishes for the duration of the contract should be retroactive in its entirety. It is that principle that we disagree on and on which we have moved a specific amendment to toughen up the section to grant more assurance to the workman because we have relatively little faith in the compulsory arbitration process.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I was rudely interrupted before and I really think I can finish up on this.

If we were to accept that, I suggest to you, and I say it to my friend from Wentworth who threw me out some examples, just supposing the arbitrator comes down and goes along with the 12 per cent which is automatically retroactive --

Mr. Foulds: He has to.

Mr. Drea: Okay, he has to. I said automatically. Then says, “In view of the cost of my settlement, the next award” -- and let’s take it that it’s a couple of months away -- “will be five per cent and that that will be retroactive.” He argues that on the basis of the restrictions you are putting in that he really cannot award anything after the initial one which is automatic and is being done tonight. He comes back on that one and then he limits it because of the total cost of the package. You are tying his hands.

Mr. Foulds: You have tied his hands already.

Mr. Drea: All I’m saying to you is that with the two words “but nothing,” he has no restrictions whatsoever on what he has to arbitrate. I can accept the argument that you don’t believe in the ability of the arbitrator.

Mr. Foulds: No. We don’t believe in the ability of the principles or policy involved in compulsory arbitration.

Mr. Drea: Okay, it’s the same thing. You don’t believe in the ability of the arbitrator to come up with a just settlement. I’m saying to you if you limit that, then believe me you are believing in that principle, because you are making sure that the arbitrator is going to put in --

Mr. Lewis: The member for Scarborough Centre had better let the minister handle that.

Mr. Drea: -- and by compulsion a lesser award that may be retroactive than what he could do if those two words “but nothing” and then the next three lines are left. I think that is as close to a blank cheque as is humanly possible to give -- “but nothing will prevent.”

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, this is an entirely different point. I would ask the minister if he would carefully note what I have said and draw it to the attention of the arbitrator. I’ve had two occasions where there have been awards made by an arbitrator where the effect of the awards, since it must be at a time in the future, has been to deprive employees who left the employ of the employer during the course of time between the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement and the time when the award was made. The arbitrator has made his award as applicable only to those persons who were employees at the date of the award, with the result that anyone who severed his employment through death, through retirement or any other reason in the interval is deprived of what his pro rata share of whatever the bene- fits would be up to the date when he leaves that employment.

It happened specifically in the Toronto Hydro-Electric dispute which was settled here by legislation. It happened again in another award situation with Ontario Hydro. When the question was then raised as to whether or not the persons who had left the employ in the interval could be covered in some way and the arbitrator could be asked to amend his award, the answer came back that he had completed his work and in that beautiful language of the law was functus and nothing could be done. A very real injustice was done to a number of persons; through the good graces of the then chairman of the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission, Mr. Gardiner, in his own way, it was clarified that Ontario Hydro didn’t feel that they could help their situation.

I would ask that this arbitrator not fall into the trap of covering only those employees who were employees at the date of this decision, because that will exclude those who have left in the interval from sharing whatever the pro rata or proportion of interest they would have in the benefits granted on a retroactive basis and up to the date on which they did in fact leave the employ.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to support the points of my colleague, the member for Riverdale. It even happened with the arbitration agreement brought down by Emmett Hall for the railway workers. I have had several constituency cases surrounding this issue, and it has worked a real hardship on people who worked for several months in that case for the railway after the termination of the agreement and yet they did not get the money and there is no way they are going to. So I certainly support the member for Riverdale on that point.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I assume I have no right to instruct him, but I will certainly ask him to cover the point. I don’t think that’s beyond my right to do.

Mr. Singer: The minister has every right in the world.

Mr. Chairman: We have the amendment moved by Mr. Singer, and an amendment moved by Mr. Deans. Is it necessary to read them?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Chairman: We have the amendment of Mr. Deans.

Those in favour of this amendment, please say “aye.”

Those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, they “nays” have it.

We have now the amendment of Mr. Singer.

Those in favour, please say “aye.”

Those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Shall section 7 carry?

Mr. Deans: No, I want to make one other comment on section 7 if I may. I am not going to move any amendments because I don’t want to be put in the position of settling both the upper and lower limits at the same time, but I think in case the arbitrator should ever read the debates, he or she should be made aware that it is the desire of this House that the award given by the arbitrator should certainly not be less; in fact, it is the desire of this House that the award of the arbitrator be considerably more than the last offer given by the Toronto Transit Commission.

Section 7 agreed to.

On section 8:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I want to say something about section 8 which I think flows logically from section 8(2)(a).

The Globe and Mail tonight has a story headlined, “Bill Orders Strike End.” The first paragraph reads:

The Ontario Legislature moved last night toward certain approval of a bill ordering an end to Toronto’s transit strike, but it appeared unlikely that the city’s trains, buses and streetcars would be running today.

Despite the heavy penalties for defying the bill, leaders of the Amalgamated Transit Union did not recommend that their members return to work this morning, and union president Leonard Moynehan dropped from view last night.

I want to say a word about this, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Bullbrook: What are the penalties the Globe talks about?

Mr. Lewis: It says: “The penalties would be the penalties applicable under the Ontario Labour Relations Act, $1,000 a day and 810,000 for the union.”

Mr. Chairman, I guess I want to address these remarks if possible to the Minister of Labour and perhaps indirectly to the Premier as well.

It was the profound hope of everyone, I think, and with the best will in the world, that the transit system be running as quickly as possible and hopefully tomorrow. I really don’t think that is going to happen. I suspect that the meeting of the union on Sunday, the mass meeting which they have called for noon on Sunday will probably have to take place first. But whether or not that’s the case, and that is just speculation on my part, I want to urge the Minister of Labour to try to draw the transit commission to its senses before it does very great damage to the way in which this bill is implemented. I think that is a matter of some importance.

The Toronto Transit Commission today, without authority and with an insensitivity which is startling -- and my colleague, the member for Wentworth, described it -- started phoning them and directing them back to work before the bill was even introduced into the Legislature. The Toronto Transit Com- mission tonight, or during the course of the day but into the evening, whoever the civil service is, started phoning men and directing them to jobs with no reference to seniority whatsoever despite the fact that seniority is part of the contractual arrangement for signing up and reporting for work.

Yesterday, five minutes before the mass meeting took place -- I have it here on my desk; I could read it -- Mr. King, I presume on the authority of the commissioners, de- livered to Moynehan a letter indicating that if he didn’t have a cheque in his hands by noon on Friday, the benefits would be cut off for all the workers.

Now, I’m telling you, Mr. Chairman, these people are nuts. They don’t know what reasonable human relations are. And there’s enough provocation and enough irritation al- ready. And if you want these workers to go back to their jobs in a spirit of goodwill, then tell the commission to lay off.

Mr. Drea: Oh, come on.

Mr. Lewis: No, I am very serious about that, because if you want the system operating by Tuesday, then you approach the people sensitively. And I think it would make a great deal of sense for the Minister of Labour himself to say to the workers: “We, the government, would wish that you return as quickly as possible. We understand you have regular sign-up procedures. Please see that they are implemented.”

It might also be useful for the Minister of Labour to say to the transit commission: “For God’s sake, we passed a bill in good faith. Don’t provoke the workers. Don’t aggravate them so much.”

I must have spoken to 20 or 30 of them this afternoon who were really offended by phone calls being placed to them in violation of seniority arrangements, directing them back to work while you were still introducing the bill. I really think that if things aren’t going to get out of hand at that meeting on Sunday, and if we are to get an orderly transition, that it is necessary for you to say that to the commission.

I think we can have the system going in two or three days and back, hopefully, to full operations on Tuesday. But it won’t happen if the commission is going to act in such a perverse fashion. And I think I’ve given you enough evidence to show of what that perversity consists.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I haven’t heard all of the details. I have it only by rumour and what the hon. member for Scarborough West has now said about the OHIP matter, about the telephone calls. They are a little difficult for me to understand, particularly the OHIP matter; it comes to me as a bit of a surprise. It might be legally right, but it certainly doesn’t seem to me to be morally right.

Mr. Lewis: It’s not even legally right, as a matter of fact.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The province and the city are certainly dependent on the goodwill of the workers and anything I can do to keep that I certainly want to do, and if it’s consistent with the bill. So I will see what can be done to talk sweet reason.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I am just a little bit worried about whether “sweet reason” can override the provisions of the bill in the light of what the leader of this party has said. This bill is going to come into force on the moment it receives royal assent, which will mean that it will be in force all day Saturday. The intimation in the Globe and Mail is that for practical purposes the notification of the terms of the bill as to the members of the transit union -- and leaving aside that suggestion that everybody in North America or everybody in the Province of Ontario is deemed to know the law the moment it becomes a law; leaving that fiction aside -- if it is true, in fact, that the return to work in an orderly way does not get under way in any substantial way until Sunday, I don’t want to find that the commission is then taking the position that there is going to be a difference between them as to whether or not subsection 2, item (a) has or has not been complied with and that we are immediately going to be faced with the kind of arbitration envisaged under section 37.

Now, I would not again raise the question except for the obvious problems that even the minister can’t understand with respect to the way in which the commission has already started to act. Now, as my leader has said, if there is any suggestion in the commission’s mind that they are going to suggest that the men have got to start back to work tomorrow, and if in fact the orderly return to work doesn’t take place until Sunday, that there has been a breach of the statute, and that the matter must go to arbitration, then in that kind of a situation we are simply dealing with a group of men who can’t understand what it is all about. And I’m afraid they are exactly that kind of group of men.

The minister has indicated he can’t understand why they’ve done some of the things in the interval, and I want to make absolutely certain that the mutual goodwill which is necessary to make this thing work isn’t destroyed in the very first instance by some ridiculous stand by the commission.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 8 carry?

Mr. Renwick: Is the minister going to permit an arbitration to take place under subsection 3 of section 8 if there is no return to work in an orderly way commenced until Sunday when this bill is in force all day Saturday?

Mr. Lewis: Would you answer that, and then I want to ask you something?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It is a little difficult for me to answer, Mr. Chairman, but not if it is a matter of my discretion.

Mr. Renwick: Right. That’s what I was afraid of.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes, if it was a matter of my discretion, but it is not. I can’t prevent the functioning of the law if somebody else does something.

I would not expect that. Certainly from the government’s point of view we are not interested in prosecuting anybody. We simply want to retain the goodwill and we want to get the system moving as quickly as possible. I would hope that there might even be something moving today. I realize, looking at the clock, if it is moving today it will have to be by goodwill.

There is a procedure established for signing up. We had some thought about it in trying to draw up this section, and we said the best we can do, because there is a board and that board changes at the end of September. We were hoping they could start on the old board, but we say their regular practices, so that if they don’t get this into effect until September we realize that there could be another two days’ delay perhaps. We don’t want that sort of thing -- when I say “we”, we the government -- in wanting to get this transportation system rolling again can be also frustrated within the law, and we don’t want that sort of a situation.

In other words, it depends on goodwill to make it work. Certainly, that’s why I say I am alarmed at these things that have been reported to me. But I can’t give anybody immunity, as you know, from prosecutions or anything else that might be beyond my control.

Mr. Lewis: No one is asking you to do that, but the esteemed chairman of the transit commission is sitting in the press gallery. Maybe you can tell him what you feel, as the Minister of Labour, the conduct of the commission might be.

I read in the Globe that, had we passed the bill by midnight, if it is approved by midnight, Mr. Mallette says we expect to have all our services running at 6 a.m. including the Exhibition streetcars. Do you think that is a reasonable way to deal with the men?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is impossible.

Mr. Lewis: Is that not an invitation to trouble over the next three days or isn’t it?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I might question the word “expect” as opposed to “hope.” I can see him understanding “hope”; “expect” maybe is too --

Mr. Lewis: May I say, Mr. Chairman, that this is exactly the danger that now arises. I have no influence, I understand that. None of us on this side of the House does in this situation, but I implore you to make it clear that if there is that kind of provocation, then you are dealing with people who feel they have been pressed to the wall anyway and you are inviting trouble. I urge you to remove that possibility by indicating as Minister of Labour that you would like the transit commission to be as encouraging, as thoughtful, and as sensitive as possible in the next 72 hours.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I hope they will be just that.

Mr. Chairman: Is section 8 carried? The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, it is as it relates to section 8 that worries me. The paper says, “If any men do not return to work,” Mr. Mallette said, “the TTC would probably look at each case individually --”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Foulds: “ -- before deciding whether to ask for the $1,000 fine to be levied as provided in the legislation.”

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, despite what is in the Globe and Mail or anything else or what is not, there is a commitment from the Minister of Labour. Mr. Chairman, continuing on, if I would have read the Globe and Mail this morning and taken everything in it very seriously, I would probably not have made the remarks I did this afternoon. There has been no more orderly decent group of people than those who came in our galleries today.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Drea: If we want to go back 24 hours ago and read the Globe and Mail, everybody could have expected the worst.

Mr. Lewis: Not at all.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, please, the Minister of Labour has made his position: going on and reading things out of a newspaper or out of something one way or the other isn’t going to help.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: I was just going to ask the minister (a) if he finds that kind of statement slightly worrying; and (b) could he get in touch with Mr. Mallette and say, “Look, don’t ask for that fine until” -- can you phone him and say “Look, cool it, don’t ask for awhile”?

Mr. Chairman: The minister has made a commitment. Shall section 8 carry?

Section 8 agreed to.

Interjections by hon. members.

Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 agreed to.

Bill 119 reported.

Hon. Mr. Grossman moves that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill without amendments.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

Clerk of the House: Order for third reading of the Toronto Transit Commission and Division 113, Amalgamated Transit Union, Lodge 235, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local No. 2.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for third reading of Bill 119.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to; third reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves second reading of Bill 120, an Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ACT

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, as a matter of interest, should it really not be Bill 121?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I think not. I really don’t mind what the number of the bill is, but I’ll move it as No. 120.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York--Forest Hill): Would you call it the Winkler-Nixon bill?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Surely.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Whatever the name of this bill, I certainly am glad that the steps have been taken to correct the anachronism that we’ve been talking about for some time. I would also hope that although the legislation still leaves the Premier a great deal of leeway in setting the date, I would hope that the new member for Stormont will be able to join us -- on this side, of course -- when the House resumes early in October.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Bring him on, bring him on.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): They’ll regret bringing in that amendment.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): We’re glad the minister is back.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The motion is for second reading of Bill 120.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 120, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, Her Honour awaits to give assent to certain measures.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the legislative assembly and took her seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. Pauline McGibbon (Lieutenant Governor): Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the legislative assembly of the province has, at its present sitting thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said legislative assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour’s assent.

The Clerk Assistant: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour’s assent is prayed:

Bill 119, An Act respecting the Toronto Transit Commission Labour Disputes Settlement Act, 1974.

Bill 120, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty’s name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the House do now adjourn to a date to be named by the Lieutenant Governor by her proclamation.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1:45 o’clock, a.m.