Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moves second reading of Bill 170, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, there have been one or two areas of concern expressed by those people who examined the bill with some care.

Obviously, the members of the opposition and the private members of the Conservative Party would look at it, since it has something at least to do with the provision of Services for our caucus facilities.

One area that does seem to be of more general concern is the establishment of the position of the servants of the House -- if that is the proper terminology to use -- in sort of a special grey area; those people from the Clerk of the House and his assistants and others, who by custom are not designated as public servants in the normal course of events, and find themselves very much subject to Mr. Speaker and a cabinet committee of three.

I think, perhaps, there is an area of potential injustice there. It appears that this whole concept was modelled after, let’s say, the mother of parliaments at Westminster, where Mr. Speaker has a position that is not associated with any of the political parties. His position does not depend entirely on the success of one party or the other in achieving a majority and, therefore, the government of the day.

It seems that this is a matter that has not been adequately pursued. I thought that on second reading we should at least raise it, so that when this bill is in committee the government might have an opportunity to reconsider its position. I hope that I have made myself clear enough in that regard, because as we read the bill it appears to me that any review of employment and certain other matters seems to depend on Mr. Speaker, as it should -- but in association with him, three members of the government, rather than, as it should in our view, as representatives of all parties in the House.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It is really ridiculous for the government to bring on this bill when the Speaker is not in the chair. It really is. I know that the Speaker has another engagement this evening, but this bill relates to the Speaker’s office and, with the greatest respect to the member who is in the chair at this time, the Speaker is the person who should be here to listen to what is being said about the constitution of his office.

I would ask that the government, in all common sense, stand the bill down until such time as the Speaker is in the chair and has an opportunity, not to participate, of course, but at least to listen to what is being said about a matter of immense importance to the assembly and of immense importance to the authority of the Speaker’s office.

Mr. Speaker: It is the opinion of the Chair that there is no point of order. The Speaker doesn’t call the order of business in the House. I would ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to continue.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, certainly the point made is an interesting one. I have always felt myself that since the Speakership here is constituted as it is, there should be an occasion when Mr. Speaker could assume his seat in the House as a private member and participate in a debate that concerns matters that have something to do with his own jurisdiction. Certainly, if it would be possible for the minister to stand the bill down until Mr. Speaker is either present in the chair or in his seat as a private member, there would be a certain sensibleness to that that would be appreciated on all sides and by the Speaker, as we are, in fact, by the passage of this bill giving him new responsibilities and powers which, I believe, are significant indeed and of substantial importance. Does the Speaker want to give it further consideration?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): May I make a comment or two with regard to the point of order?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: I think that the point is well taken. As the Speaker is going to preside over much of what is contained in the bill, he should have been here to hear the discussion. There are a number of points that are going to be made during the course of the evening that are very germane to how he will handle the business of the House in terms of the way in which they might deal with the employees of the various caucuses.

Beyond that, it would seem to make sense to me that the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Winkler), who by the establishment of the bill will have a considerable impact on whatever takes place with regard to future determination of the rights and status of employees of the office that’s being established in the bill, should also have an opportunity to hear what’s being said and to take part in the debate.

I don’t deny for a moment that it’s the bill of the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Snow), but I think that the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet and the Speaker will have a very real role to play and that they should have both heard and taken part, wherever that’s appropriate in the discussion, so that we can clearly understand the direction which we’re going to travel and the kinds of things that we expect -- and that other members of the House expect -- will evolve as a result of the change that’s going to take place in the way in which the House and the business of the House are going to be ordered.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak again on the question of the point of order, the point of order is really the order of the business of the House, and we understand that the government has the call on the order of the business of the House. It seems very unreal to be debating this bill in the absence of the Speaker.

The Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) is in his place. It has been understood that one of the bills that will be called will be bill -- whatever the number of it is --

Mr. Deans: Bill 161.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Bill 161.

Mr. Renwick: Bill 161 dealing with the snow vehicles --

Mr. Deans: We will go to that now.

Mr. Renwick: -- and it would appear to us to make sense that that debate could proceed now. Perhaps in due course of time the Speaker will be free from a prior engagement, which I know he has, and we could then go on. I would ask whoever is the acting House leader for the government party to give serious consideration to that request. I’m sure the Minister of Government Services would agree.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, regarding the comments made on the point of order, Mr. Speaker was certainly aware from discussions this afternoon that this bill was to proceed this evening.

Mr. Renwick: But he had a prior engagement.

Mrs. Campbell: We were told it would be Bill 161.

Hon. Mr. Snow: He certainly made no comment to me that he wished the bill delayed.

Mr. Renwick: But he is the Speaker; he cannot intervene in what the government is going to do.

Hon. Mr. Snow: In any case, Mr. Speaker is certainly familiar with the bill and has been involved with the development of the bill.

Mr. Renwick: It is just wrong.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Although the House leader is not here at the moment, I know he is in the building; he was here a moment ago. He, as Chairman of the Management Board, as was suggested by one of the members, might wish to be here; I’m sure he will be here periodically, depending on his other duties.

Mr. Speaker: May I again point out to the hon. member that the Chair does not call the order of business, and I would ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to continue with the debate.

Mrs. Campbell: No. That’s not fair.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, I am simply saying that I am not going to sit in the assembly tonight to listen to the results of the Camp commission report on the reconstitution basically of the office of the Speaker, how it is to be financed, what his responsibilities are, how it is to be organized -- all affecting every member of the assembly -- and have it done in the absence of the Speaker.

I think it denigrates again the assembly. Surely there is some minister on the government side who will recognize the validity of the argument and will stand the bill down. We are not asking that nothing happen. The Minister of Transportation and Communications is in his place. The members who sat on the snowmobiles select committee are available for the debate. It is an equally important bill and can easily go ahead.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. acting House leader.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I’m afraid I’m not quite the acting House leader either, but as far as the bill is concerned I would like to say that I can recognize the point made by the hon. member for Riverdale, but by the same token it would seem to me that the Hansard copies will be available. I’m sure Mr. Speaker is familiar with what is in the bill and I know he will read with interest the comments that are made as recorded in Hansard. I would suggest that we should proceed with the order of the House as it has been called by the House leader and proceed with the debate. We’re ready to go ahead with it and I say we should go ahead.

Mr. Renwick: It will proceed without my particular presence, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you of that. It may not be important to anybody else, but the assembly is an important place and if the government continues to denigrate it the way it is doing from year to year, we might as well close the place up.

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

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Shame.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should comment further on this since it has to do with the operation of the House. I think the matter is serious, although perhaps not as serious as put forward by the member for Riverdale. It is true that the report has been available for many months and has been perused by all of us, certainly by Mr. Speaker and his assistants and, I am sure, by the officers of the House. We have seen that the government has issued a statement, also many months ago, as to which aspects of the report it is prepared to accept and which ones it is not prepared to accept. This bill implements the large proportion of the recommendations with the exclusion, I believe, of only two or perhaps three of some significance.

As a matter of fact, while the funds which are referred to in this bill have not as yet been spent, they have been available for the budgets of our caucus, and presumably the other caucuses, in establishing a fair pay scale and a level of service that is prescribed by the report even though the bill has not passed the House.

Once again I would say we regret the absence of the Speaker, not so much that he would sit in your chair, sir, and listen to the views expressed, but that he might very well, in his private capacity, have contributed to the discussion. That is certainly not customary but in this particular instance, surely, if necessary, we could have set a very valuable precedent in this regard.

I had actually thought that many of the discussions associated with the levels of financing, the distribution of the money and the establishment of new authority for the operation of the House had largely been agreed to, based on the recommendations of the commission on the Legislature. But I did want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that there are those employees of the House, at a level below the clerk and the assistant clerk, who find their positions somewhat in question on the basis of the bill that is before us, in that it gives Mr. Speaker, if there is a question of discipline or even dismissal, the option of calling a hearing if he chooses to look into a grievance that might be associated with that.

That, it seems to us, and certainly it has been brought to our attention by others, is something less than the rights that are available to other people employed in the public service; and we think that anything less than that is unacceptable to the employees of the House. I hope this is something that can be given further consideration.

I understand that the proposals had been modelled almost directly on the practices at Westminster and to almost the same degree, parallel to the practices in the House of Commons of Canada. But I believe we could improve on that to take into recognition and to recognize the very special features of the development of our practices in this House.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I would agree that where the rules do not otherwise provide we can look to the mother of parliaments for guidance in establishing our own procedures, and that parallel procedures with the Parliament of Canada are, of course, always useful for processes of uniformity. But all one has to do is sit for a dray or two watching the procedures in the Parliament of Canada, or of the United Kingdom, to realize that we have our own procedures here that have been established by custom and order, if not by rule, which are in many respects just as efficient, rand perhaps in many other respects even more so, for our own purposes. So I want merely to bring that matter to your attention, Mr. Speaker.

My colleague from Waterloo North (Mr. Good) has examined the bill in more detail and has one or two matters that he would also like to refer to, sir.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I thought I saw the House leader.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He saw the member rising.

Mrs. Campbell: He ran away.

Mr. Deans: I want first of all to say that we were heartened to some extent by the undertakings of the Camp commission report and the way in which they went about their business. We weren’t entirely satisfied with what they recommended, but nevertheless the content of this bill doesn’t really cover some of the major problems that we see.

I want first of all to make reference to the fact that this bill deals with the Legislature. It doesn’t deal with the government. It deals primarily with the business of the Legislature. It deals with the way in which the members elected will be serviced; it deals in terms of the way in which the Speaker’s office will be able to accommodate the needs and the requirements of members not only here but members that are yet to come.

I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the minister involved, that the Board of Internal Economy should have recognized that it is in fact a legislative board and that there should be a provision in the Board of Internal Economy, since it has so much power vested in it by virtue of this Act, that there should be representation on that board from the opposition.

I think that it would be a different matter if we were talking about simply a government function. But we are talking about something that is entirely different from a government function. We are talking about meeting the needs of the members of the Legislature as they have to go about their day-to-day business. The Board of Internal Economy should have been set up in such a way as to ensure that all of the views of the various parties in the House were taken into account, because quite obviously not all of the views of the people of Ontario are represented by the government, though they might like to think they are.

I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that at some appropriate point we would like to offer to the government an amendment which would enlarge the board, leaving the control virtually in the hands of the government -- as I suspect they would want it to be, though I don’t understand why it need be that way -- but allowing for opposition representation on this board, so that we can put forward views which are views which may differ substantially in some instances, but not too significantly at other times.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Like both opposition House leaders.

Mr. Deans: Both opposition House leaders might not be a bad idea, although that was not exactly what I had in mind. This board should be constituted differently from the way in which it is here and it should truly represent the Legislature. It should represent all views in the Legislature and not simply the government view. It may well be that some of the powers that are delegated to the board may be deemed by the government to be inappropriately delegated if there were members of the opposition sitting on the board.

I am prepared to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the government that it should devise a calculation whereby representation on the board was by virtue of the general makeup of the House so that we had representation on this board in the same numbers that we might have representation on the standing committee. We could then appoint people to sit on the board and to put forward views.

I say this for this reason. This bill deals with the affairs and the effect of legislation on employees of the various members of the Legislature -- not just the employees of the government members but the employees of the opposition members. In our particular case, because of our enlightened attitude toward employee-employer relations, we have had instituted a union bargaining agreement. We have now a collective bargaining agreement and we have a relationship with our employees that is more formalized as a unit than perhaps the government or the official opposition has. That requires that special representation be made from time to time with regard to the contractual arrangements which we have with our employees.

I want to say that within the terms of this bill there is no real opportunity for us to assure our employees of the continuation of that contractual arrangement. I am sure the government wouldn’t want anyone to interpret this bill as being a union-busting effort.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We are not going to interpret it that way.

Mr. Deans: No, and I wouldn’t interpret it that way either. I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that within the terms of the bill, section 86 dealing with the Board of Internal Economy’s requirements, says that the Board of Internal Economy may:

“(a) establish job classifications and salary ranges;

“(b) provide a system of cumulative vacation and sick leave credits;

“(c) provide for the establishment of plans for group life insurance;

“(d) provide for granting of leave of absence;

“(e) prescribe any other terms and conditions of employment for employees.”

I assume, and I think quite rightly, that the employees of the various caucuses will in the very broadest sense be employees of the Office of the Assembly. That’s my understanding. If my understanding is correct, then that means that the terms and conditions which we in good faith and our employees in good faith entered into are no longer as valid as they were. I want some assurance from the government that there will not be any of the terms or any of the conditions which we currently have in force and effect altered by this particular section of this particular bill.

We have an obligation, we want to live up to it. We want to live up to it because it happens to be a very worthwhile obligation, in our view. Our employees are protected by the contractual arrangement which we have. That is one of the reasons why I feel that the bill must go just a little further. Not only must it go a little further, but that’s one of the reasons why I think that the opposition, both parties, should have representation on the board in order that we don’t have the problem of the cap-in-hand situation where we must appear before this board and try to appeal or beg for some kind of change or condition which they may not, in their wisdom, see as being in keeping with what they had customarily been required or inclined to give to their employees. So, it’s for that reason and other reasons we think that there should be some changes to the Act, some guarantees.

I want to be able to say to my employees, “You are guaranteed at least as much as you had previously and all of the terms and all of the conditions that are permitted to be established by this Office of the Assembly.” And beyond that, I want to be able to talk to them seriously about how we will negotiate with them in the future with regard to any changes. It would make some sense in the overall that we be able to make direct and constitutionally guaranteed, legislatively guaranteed representation within the board, rather than to the board, that we should be a part of the decisions that are made by this group on behalf of members of the Legislature in total.

I want also to say that one of the reasons why the bill wasn’t brought forward two or three days ago, as I understand it, was a dispute which had arisen between employees of the Speaker’s office -- if not a dispute, at least some questions that had arisen in the minds of employees of the Speaker’s office -- with regard to their rights. In private discussion, I had come to the understanding that there might well be some changes contemplated in the bill in that regard.

If the minister could nod one way or the other, I would then know what more to say about it. Is it the intention of the minister to make any adjustments in the bill to guarantee such things as the right to a hearing for an employee who --

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Before a grievance board.

Mr. Deans: Well, before whomsoever we would choose at this stage -- but the right to a hearing for an employee who may be disciplined or who may be fired or dismissed for cause or without cause?

Is it the minister’s intention to guarantee, in the bill, that for all employees there be an opportunity for them to appeal or appear before a duly constituted board for the purpose of hearing their legitimate grievance, if they are demoted, disciplined or fired for any reason? Or are we just to assume that the Management Board, and through the Management Board, the Office of the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy, will deal fairly with everyone and they will never have a problem? Because if I have got to assume that, I have got to wonder a little bit about it.

I think quite frankly that it would have been a much more useful exercise -- it would depart from the normal procedure, but it would have been a much more useful exercise -- if there could have been a discussion, an honest-to-goodness discussion, between the government representatives and the representatives of the opposition prior to the bill being drafted. Since this is in effect a bill which deals almost solely with matters which affect all members of the Legislature, I am really sorry that the government didn’t see fit to include the House leader for the official opposition and myself, and perhaps others who had an interest, in a discussion of what the bill should contain, given the recommendations of the Camp commission.

Beyond that, there were some recommendations in the Camp commission report which I understood had been accepted by the government and to which I see no reference made in the bill. I want to ask that the hon. Minister of Government Services state quite clearly here tonight exactly which of the recommendations have been accepted, which of them are contained in the legislation, and which of them will, without question, go into force at the time of the bill having passed.

For example, I can recall that there was a recommendation that the secretary to the whip and the secretary to the leader should receive an emolument somewhat different from that afforded other secretarial help. That, as I understand it, was a recommendation accepted by the government. I see no reference to it and I wonder how we can assure those people that they in fact will be taken care of in the way that the Camp commission recommended.

I want further to know how the Board of Internal Economy can deal with the recommendations which were referred directly to it by the Premier (Mr. Davis) in the statement that he made -- I think it was the Premier -- when he spoke about the recommendations that had been accepted and the recommendations which were being referred. I would be interested in knowing how that referral process will take place, what kinds of meetings will be held, what representation will be permitted and at what point in time one might reasonably expect that the government or the Board of Internal Economy, as it’s called in this bill, will give forth some answer with regard to the matters referred to it.

I also want to know a little bit about how the opposition and how government members too, make representation to this board. Will the board sit regularly? Will the board deal with all of the matters pertaining to the affairs of the members of the Legislature? How does one go about making representation to the board and how do you appear before the board? Is it at the whim of the board whether the board hears us or otherwise? Or is it a constitutionally guaranteed, legislatively guaranteed right of a member to appear before the board on its regular meeting day to make representation about matters which directly affect members with regard to the services which are afforded to them? I don’t see that contained in the bill and I think it should be contained in the bill.

As I look at it, I’ve got to think that while I recognize that it may have been drafted rather hastily and that it may have left a great deal of power in the hands of the members, so to speak, in fact it has left all of the power in the hands of the Board of Internal Economy. And the makeup of the board is obscure, to say the least. The individuals who will make up the board are not named, with the exception of the Speaker. It’s extremely difficult to tell from day to day whether the makeup of the board might be changed as tasks and jobs become more onerous in the cabinet. Therefore, I don’t know how we’re going to maintain any continuity of thought and continuity of direction.

I, frankly, want to suggest that what should have happened in the bill was that the Speaker should have been set up as the chairman of the board and that the government should have been invited to appoint four members to the board --

Hon. Mr. Snow: He is the chairman.

Mr. Deans: -- now, wait a minute, just listen to me -- that the government should have been invited to appoint four members to the board and the opposition should have been invited to appoint perhaps a lesser number, but a number of members to the board in order that it truly represent the views of the entire Legislature.

I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that would have made much more sense. Then the expenditure of funds on behalf of members would have been regulated by the members through their delegated representatives and we would then have had some input, which is so vitally necessary if we’re going to satisfy not only the requirements, but perhaps the desires, of members on this side and on the other side of the House.

My colleague says, and he’s right, that we once had a Speaker’s House committee. The Speaker’s House committee, though it wasn’t as functional as it ought to have been, could have served as the basis for the establishment of a board to regulate the business of providing services for members. We should have been given the opportunity to make representation with regard to that as a constitutionally-set-up board to deal with the affairs, not only of this side -- because I’ve got to be quite honest, I’m sure that many of the back-benchers on the government side won’t have the kind of representation, other than through the cabinet, that they might feel is a good idea -- so, maybe we could have had each caucus have a representative on the board and then the cabinet, being the government, would have had the remaining representatives on the board. Thus, the board would have represented the Legislature rather than the government.

I think, if we’re talking about a democratic system and we’re talking about the House in total, that it’s necessary to ensure by legislation that members elected to the House have a say in the way in which their affairs are handled and in the way in which their services are to be provided and paid for.

I intend to urge upon the government some changes to the bill. I’m sorry that it has to be done during public debate, because I think that that probably spells doom for anything we might have thought was worthwhile. But I do think that they should give serious consideration to a different kind of structure, because I think you should hear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that given the nature of politics one can never he absolutely sure of always sitting in government.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The changes effected in this legislation are most important and vitally affect the operation of the government caucus and the opposition caucuses.

As the House is no doubt aware, the practice has been that the offices of Her Majesty’s opposition, as well as the caucus of the third party, are dependent on funds appropriated by government for the use of the opposition parties. I understand this has traditionally been worked out usually by the Premier and the leaders of the opposition parties as to the amount of funds and the purpose for which the funds can legitimately he used by the members within the opposition caucuses. In my seven years here I have seen a marked improvement in the facilities and amenities provided for opposition members, as I am sure all members in all parties will agree.

There are certain things in the bill, Mr. Speaker, which concern me greatly. I would like to bring them to the attention of the Minister of Government Services, starting first with the section which says that every member of the assembly is entitled to a private secretary or a personal assistant and that money shall be provided for that purpose. This gives the government and opposition caucuses funds with which to provide a secretary for each member. I am concerned about this, Mr. Speaker, in that personal assistants are included in here. I suppose those members of the government caucus who have secretaries provided through some other means than those funds appropriated by the Speaker’s office will, in fact, have access as well to personal assistants in lieu of private secretaries as is spelled out here. I see no reason, Mr. Speaker, why cabinet members, parliamentary assistants, and those on the government benches who have facilities provided by other ministries of the Legislature should be included in the appropriation of funds through the Speaker’s office.

This is greatly magnified when we get over to the other section of the bill, section 2, where the allocation of funds to the various caucuses is dependent on the number of members represented in each of the caucuses. We in the opposition parties are grateful for the recommendation of the increase in funds for research purposes. It has been most difficult for the opposition parties to adequately provide the research that is necessary for an effective opposition. The funds that were recommended in the second report of the Camp commission have been promised and have been coming to the opposition parties, and we have been able now to upgrade our research facilities.

The other moneys coming to the party have also been increased, Mr. Speaker, by mutual agreement with the members of the government service that looks after this particular aspect. The research moneys have been upgraded and the apportionment of money which is allocated for the general use for such purposes as the caucus determines, which takes care of the other expenses involved in running an office, has been allocated, I believe, at a sum of $5,000 per member, based on the number of members.

Here again I would like clarification as to whether in the case of the government caucus this includes cabinet ministers. If it does, I think it is unfair, because they are not dependent on any funds coming to their caucus, I am sure, to provide the services that we in the opposition parties must provide from our caucus funds which are sent to us through the passage of this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Even though it appears sometimes that they need it more than we do.

Mr. Good: It is, Mr. Speaker, most difficult to run a proper opposition party office -- which includes proper research facilities and proper amenities for opposition members -- as well as a leader’s office.

Let me further point out, Mr. Speaker, that the principle involved in the next paragraph of that section is that an additional sum of 20 per cent of the amount allocated in the previous section will be added for the opposition party to run the leader’s office. Mr. Speaker, are you aware that that 20 per cent is not the price of one executive assistant who now serves in the Premier’s department and that we are expected to run opposition offices effectively with this amount of funds?

Mr. Reid: Shame!

Mr. Good: I think, Mr. Speaker, that except for research, which I consider to be adequate, the formula in section 2 of the bill is completely inadequate. I would ask the Minister of Government Services to give serious consideration to clarifying this point on whether his caucus is going to accept the funds for the non-cabinet members on a per member basis, including the cabinet ministers. If his caucus is prepared to do that, I think some alternative formula will have to be developed to give the opposition caucuses sufficient funds to carry on an equal type of establishment.

An hon. member: The member has a point.

Mr. Reid: As they do in California where the opposition gets more money than the government.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): That is where they have a reactionary Tory government.

Mr. Laughren: That was when Nixon was in.

Mr. Good: The matter of the financial operations of the Speaker’s office is dependent, of course, on the Speaker, who acts as chairman of the Board of Internal Economy --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Ronald Reagan.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): His days are numbered.

Mr. Good: -- and three cabinet ministers.

Perhaps there is justification, Mr. Speaker, in the government having to have control of the money which must be allocated for this purpose. I see no fault in that, but I think there is an alternative if the proposition put forth by the House leader of the NDP that opposition members should have a voice on the Board of Internal Economy is not accepted. If that is not acceptable, at least I think there will have to be a committee of the Legislature established to discuss with the Speaker, who is chairman of that Board of Internal Economy, the needs and the requirements of the particular caucuses within the Legislature.

I don’t think that proposal would be unreasonable. Perhaps this is the intention, I don’t know. It’s not enshrined in legislation that I could find, but certainly the facilities that will be needed by the caucuses will have to be drawn to the attention of the Speaker so that he can put the case forward to the Board of Internal Economy.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the minister gives serious consideration to the allegations of unfairness which I have made in the amounts of money allocated to the opposition parties in relation to that given to the caucus members in the government party because of the inclusion of numbers which should not, in my view, include the cabinet ministers when the formula is figured out.

The other matter which I think is of great importance is the matter which is referred to on page 15 of the report of the Ontario commission on the Legislature where it says: “It seems only reasonable that legislative employees be entitled to the various benefits enjoyed by most permanent employees in similar situations.” While they believe that they should not be part of the civil service, certainly the Camp commission made it clear that employees of this House and Legislature should enjoy their privileges and benefits.

We see, Mr. Speaker, the principle here which states that employees of the Office of the Speaker should be employed under their new set-up at a salary of not less than he or she was receiving on the day immediately before the day this Act came into force.

Mr. Speaker, we did better than that for municipal employees when they were transferred from former municipalities into regional governments. We guaranteed them salaries for one year. We found that even that was not adequate in some instances where, after the completion of one year of regional government, employers were at liberty then to shuffle and juggle employees around, raise or lower them or discharge them as they saw fit and we think there must be better protection for the employees of the Office of the Speaker in this bill.

Section 89(1) says: “...the Speaker may cause an inquiry to me made.” We think that the bill should read: “He shall cause an inquiry to be made where an employee has been brought before him by reason of a complaint or any misconduct or unfitness of the employee.”

Such things are serious allegations against employees. We believe these employees must be granted permanent status. They must not be treated as part-time employees if they have enjoyed permanent status. There is nothing in the bill here which gives them that continuation of permanent status. In particular, we feel that they must enjoy the same privileges that are enjoyed by other persons in the public service.

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

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, the first thing that struck me as I leafed through the bill on first receiving it in my hands, and I must admit it amused me at the same time, was the very George Orwellian aspect of the name the Board of Internal Economy. The Board of Internal Economy has a beautiful ring to it. I wonder what civil servant or what cabinet minister dreamed that up some night, awakening with this term on his lips, the Board of Internal Economy.

An hon. member: The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): He must have had a PhD.

Mr. Bounsall: It must have been, in one of his nightmares.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Jim Orwell. He was a Tory candidate in Halton in the Forties.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: His name wasn’t George.

Mr. Bounsall: And he had nightmares about the Eighties.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the hon. member for Windsor West has the floor.

Mr. Bounsall: It has the ring of using the name the “collectors of external residue” for garbage collectors, which is a very common designation in the Chicago area. I must admit it amused me no end to see this name.

Mr. Lewis: It is a further Americanization of the Ontario scene.

Mr. Bounsall: I can image if this name persists, over the years, and I don’t mind this, the public smiling broadly when they first encounter the name of the board which runs the Legislature, the Board of Internal Economy. With the name economy on it they won’t believe it anyway, but it has that nice touch.

Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Assembly should be and must be a completely non-political, non-partisan office. The Speaker is to be the head. In its greatest traditions and its best traditions, and really leaving alone greatest or best, the tradition of the Office of the Speaker and the Speaker himself is, in capitals, to be the non-partisan member of the House for as long as he is the Speaker; and with this Speaker, heading this Office of the Assembly, the whole office must be completely non-political and non-partisan.

The major officers of the Office of the Assembly, the Speaker as well as the deputy Speaker, the Clerk of the legislative assembly, the first assistant clerk, the Sergeant-at-Arms and all of their employees must be strictly non-partisan in all the duties that they perform and interested only in serving the members of the House and the business of the Legislature. Surely all this goes virtually without saying. The director of administration who is going to do the day-to-day work should be the handmaiden of the House, directly through the Speaker and through the influence of duly chosen members on all sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker, in short what I’m saying is that the members of this Board of Internal Economy, the board which will be advising the Speaker and directing the director of administration, should be the Speaker and other members of this House from both opposition and government caucuses, and definitely not just from among the members of the executive council, which would make the board partisan and government-influenced.

In fact rather than serving the members of the House they would be serving mainly the interests of the government. The board should be made up of the members of this House and must serve all members of the House. It would be distastefully paternalistic if the government’s viewpoint of this bill is leave it to us men and women and we, the government, will ensure that the Board of Internal Economy will be non-partisan. That is such a distastefully paternalistic attitude, that I know of no more stronger way to say it than that.

Other aspects of the bill interest me, Mr. Speaker. The staff of the Office of the Assembly and all other staff -- including all of our secretaries -- will be neither civil servants nor public servants, I gather. They have been removed from both categories.

In the absence of any reference in the bill, I assume that they are eligible to form a bargaining unit and to choose a bargaining agent of their own, should they so desire. There is nothing in the bill to prevent it and they are not going to be covered by the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, or any other provisions relating to civil or public servants in the Province of Ontario.

One other aspect of the bill concerns me. Being able to choose a bargaining agent of their own, should they so desire, will in time clear this up, but in the transfer over from public servants to employees of the Office of the Assembly, various benefits are transferred over relating to vacation and sick leave and superannuation and so on, in which the bill specifies they are to be at least equivalent to those benefits now in force. That’s fine. But how are they to continue? How are they to continue and expand and receive additional benefits?

Mr. Haggerty: No job security at all.

Mr. Bounsall: There is no job security either; that’s quite correct. Whether or not they have a bargaining agent to form themselves into a bargaining unit, is it the government’s plan in this area to tie them to a civil service classification; and as those wages expand or vary, will they receive as a minimum at least those benefits? There is this type of question which we would definitely want some answers on in terms of what the government has in mind for the immediate future, if not the entire long-term future of all employees here.

A second major concern is the area relating to section 89, the board of inquiry. I would like to have some idea as to who might form this board of inquiry and of whom the board will consist. And what will be the procedure of appeal on the decision of the appointed board.

Nothing appears in the bill to provide an appeal of a decision by the board of inquiry or, indeed a reasonable grievance system at all.

In its absence, I can only assume that the government is encouraging them to form a bargaining unit and bargain very quickly for this type of protection; a protection that would allow them a certain degree of job security, and so on.

In thinking about what the government has in mind, and how they can, without putting it in the bill, say that employees aren’t eligible for some sort of collective bargaining unit, it would appear to exclude them on the basis of confidentiality. That’s an old catch word which management uses to keep an employee out of some bargaining unit.

I’ve talked about this from time to time when it has come up in the estimates of the Ministry of Labour -- about it never really being a valid means of exclusion of any employee, because it is part of his job description. In this bill, it’s quite clearly part of the job description, in fact, the oath which employees of the Office of the Assembly take lays that out specifically. So it becomes a condition of employment.

If an employee is found to have been indiscreet about information or documents of which he has knowledge, then he is simply fired. That is the major reason for firing from this office. But it certainly does not prevent these employees from forming themselves into a separate bargaining unit. I can well see the government perhaps being a little leery of them being in the same bargaining unit as the CSAO because of the confidential information which from time to time the members of the Office of Assembly have. That may well be the reason why they are not public servants or civil servants and are put into a separate category, although they have not been given any discouragement in this bill from forming their own separate and distinct bargaining unit should they so desire.

Mr. Speaker, I think those are all of the remarks I’d like to make on the bill except --

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Hear, hear.

Mr. Bounsall: Hear, hear -- yes; except to make one other small point.

Mr. Ferrier: The member for Downsview is having a bad time getting on these days.

Mr. Bounsall: The bill indicates that the secretaries are to be paid from the moneys appropriated to this body, and it goes on at some length about how one can get an advance for expenses; but not in one simple section that I can find easily does it spell out very quickly and succinctly that this Office of the Assembly will in fact be dealing with the day-to-day monthly expenses, as we have been doing since around a year ago. It just doesn’t say it very succinctly, as far as I can find. It’s very specific for the secretaries, for research and for pre-accountable advances which are to be accountable, but it doesn’t lay down very succinctly the current practice as we know it.

If the minister has a clause he can point to, I would be interested in seeing it. It’s inherent in the bill; it is implied all the way through, but not very succinctly stated. I would think that might be something we would find in regulations, but on a very close reading of the bill, I can’t see the normal section which appears in most bills about the making of regulations to accompany the Act, although I can recall one sort of an aside mentioned somewhere. I think maybe this aspect of the bill should be spelled out a little bit more clearly.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, none of the employees of the current House, and none of our own secretaries, have ever had an opportunity in connection with their own work to come before a committee of the House over a matter which so concerns them as this bill does and talk to us, as members of the Assembly, as members of the general public concerned about a specific interest. Considering the amount of time it might take to have the normal employees, including our secretaries, come before us and tell us openly how they feel about the bill and how they feel about their jobs, I would like to urge the minister to send this bill to a committee of the House for the purpose of their addressing us.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Excellent idea.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, there are several interesting aspects to this bill, which I think can be appropriately labelled, because of these aspects of this bill, the “snow job.” It has no particular relationship to any particular member, but if any particular member feels identified by that definition, so be it.

The particular sections that I am concerned with are at the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3; those relate to an apparent equitable distribution of the financial resources of the Province of Ontario, as amongst all members of the House. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, some members appear to be more equal than other members.

Mrs. Campbell: Of course.

Mr. Singer: Before I read section 2(c), may I point out that we have followed with very great interest the achievements, the appointments and the new emoluments of office that our 74 Tory colleagues have achieved. We have done some research on this, and we have been able to identify more than 70 of them who have other responsibilities, in addition to their responsibility of being private members. For instance, Mr. Speaker, some 26 of them are cabinet ministers. A number that we can’t calculate at the moment are parliamentary assistants. We have some on the liquor board, some on the Northland Transportation Commission, some on the St. Lawrence Parkway, some on the Niagara Parkway --

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): How about the Don Valley Parkway?

Mr. Singer: -- some on the Racing Commission, some on the Hydro commission. Name a government institution and there is a government member who is there.

Now I have no objection. After all, the Tories did win the last election and they have the power to do that. What concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is that when we have added up all of those numbers, 26 cabinet ministers and X number of parliamentary assistants, board members and committee chairmen and all these other things, we have only found two or maybe three -- one of my colleagues told me tonight he thought there were three -- back-bench Tories who haven’t got an extra job.

Mr. Lewis: Who are they?

Mr. Singer: Well, we can, I think, I would so identify the fellow from St. Catharines, the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Johnston). I don’t think he’s got an extra job.

Mr. Lewis: That’s one piece of justice.

Mr. Singer: Nor have the member for Humber (Mr. Leluk) or the member for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Belanger). These are the only three that we have been able to identify. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think there are any others. Of the 74, only three are we able to identify who don’t have extra pay.

What does extra pay involve? Extra pay involves an office, a civil service, car and a secretary --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Singer: Oh, yes. Secretaries, executive assistants, additional mailing privileges, additional expense allowances and so on. Maybe those are some of the emoluments of office, or “to the winners go the spoils” or whatever.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Even the vice-chairman of Hydro.

Mr. Singer: Even the vice-chairman of Hydro. I saw him today. I saw his car when I came up at noon, sitting there with the chauffeur waiting anxiously. He got in and he had his friend, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor), get in the back seat. The vice-chairman got in the front seat and off they went to lunch.

Mr. Reid: Did he push the button on the automatic seatbelt?

Mr. Singer: I’m sure it was very important that they had those additional emoluments of office to better enable the vice-chairman of Hydro to be able to carry on his duties. I can’t quarrel with that. If he is doing a job as vice-chairman of Hydro, he should have all those additional privileges.

What bothers me, Mr. Speaker, is this. Let’s look now at the section at the bottom of page 2 in this Act: “...for the use of the caucus of the government, the caucus of the official opposition...” and it is calculated on a per member basis. Let us recognize it. We have 74 Tories, 23 Liberals and 20 NDP, so it is done on a per capita basis when you get down that far in the Act.

Mr. Reid: On the other hand, if there are a few more by-elections we will have them beat.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I only single out the vice-chairman of Hydro because I happened to see his car at lunch time, no personal vendetta. But he has the facilities of a car and a driver, and an office down at Hydro and a secretary, and probably several executive assistants, speech writers and so on; and so do 70 of the 73 of them. Other than by reason of the “snow job,” why should these allowances be calculated on a per member basis when the Tories have looked after so well 70 of 73 of their members? I think it’s unfair, I think it’s unreasonable, and I think it’s irrational.

I would think that the least the government could do regarding this section 69(c), which is mentioned in section 2 and at the bottom of page 2 of the Act, and the least the hon. minister who introduces this could do, if he wants to escape the continuous opprobrium which is going to be attached to this -- because we are going to call it “the Snow job” henceforth and forever and a day more -- is to say “unless services are otherwise provided.” That would eliminate he and his colleague, the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) and all the gentlemen who occupy the front benches. We can run along one, two, three, four cabinet ministers; and the whip. What’s the gentlemen down at the end? The member for Port Hope? He’s got a job -- it just slips my mind. The member in the back bench, the deputy assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Eaton); the lady member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) in Housing; the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin (Mr. Root) -- what is the hon. member for Wellington? -- Water Resources, Hydro --

Mr. Good: Niagara Parks Commission.

Mr. Singer: -- deputy Speaker. All these people should be eliminated from this because they have these facilities already once, twice, three or four times. They have secretaries, they have personal assistants, they have speech writers, they have cars, they have drivers. Now why, again, should it again be in the statute, so that they overbalance beyond all proportion the facilities that are in fact provided to the opposition?

You know, Mr. Speaker, when I walk in the north door and I see those sacks and sacks of mail that sit there every day, and I wander down into the lower regions in the north wing and see the government print slop and see how busy it is and how many people they have in there and the amount of -- propaganda? -- literature, information that’s churned out every day, I must admit, in jealousy my tongue hangs out. I wonder, how can those members, who are apparently equal to us because we’re all members together, afford to do all this? Because to get one mailing out of myself, as a private member for Downsview, the very --

Mr. Reid: Humble.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: -- humble, minor member for Downsview, to get one piece of literature out I have to work weeks and weeks and weeks, spend money out of my own pocket; I just wonder how all these sacks of mail go out, day after day after day, out of the government print room.

I’ve thought about this, Mr. Speaker, and when the Snow bill presented the snow job I began to put figures together and came to the conclusion that some people are more equal than others. I think that it would only be fair if the minister could admit that perhaps he’s overstated the fact, and those like him who have all of the facilities of the ministry -- cars and secretaries and assistants and that sort of thing -- should opt out of this and it shouldn’t be given as a credit to a government caucus member.

Even you, sir -- and I would be the last one to throw any opprobrium on the Speaker’s position -- where the Legislature votes a substantial amount of dollars for the Speaker’s office, surely it makes no sense that we should provide in this section of the Act additional money on behalf of the Speaker because he happens to have been elected as a Conservative member or as a government member.

We feel the Speaker has to be looked after. He has to have an apartment and he has to have facilities and he has to have a car and a driver and all these things. Why should he, in addition, have an allotment that is substantially directed to producing -- propaganda? -- propaganda for the Tories to convince whoever might be convinced by the propaganda that the Tories are an important element in the legislative scheme of Ontario?

Then, Mr. Speaker, if you’ll come with me along through this section and on to page 3, there’s an amendment at the bottom of section 2 which is an amendment to section 70. There’s a very interesting phrase that I suspect -- I don’t know; and it’s very unfair I suppose to attribute motives to anyone -- but I suspect that Mr. Camp might have put in the words “or personal assistant.”

You see, it’s very important and, Mr. Speaker, you should know, that each member have a secretary. Now some members are fortunate enough that in addition to having secretaries they have personal assistants. I’ve taken the trouble to look at the Camp report, and the Camp report stressed that facilities should be provided to each member for a secretary. Where the phrase “personal assistant” originated, I don’t really know. I suspect somewhere between the original writing of the report and the drafting of the bill somebody scratched his head and said: “Well, my goodness, I already have a secretary, but why can’t I get twice as much money? Why shouldn’t I have a personal assistant too?”

So when you take the lowly people who sit on this side of the House who already have secretaries, and you subtract from them those who might already have secretaries, but who also have the privilege of having personal assistants, what the Snow job does is to provide additional money for those who happen to find themselves in that very fortunate position.

All I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is this: If this is done in the name of equity and fairness, it is a fraud. That’s all. If this is done on the basis of equalizing the opportunity of members to have the same kind of facilities, it is untrue. If this is done on the basis of trying to provide opposition members with the same kind of facilities that government members are provided with, it is a calculated political scheme to enable the government party to have advantage of public money to advance its own position. I say, for those reasons, Mr. Speaker, it is a snare, it is a delusion, it is a snow job and it should not be supported.

I would think that the least the minister who has introduced this can do is to say that where any member is in receipt of emoluments of government beneficence -- if he is a cabinet minister, if he is a parliamentary assistant, if he is a member of a commission, he has these additional duties which provide him with cars and secretaries and personal assistants and so on -- there shouldn’t be an extra sum of money, there should not be an extra sum of money which will accrue to the benefit of his caucus solely for political purposes, and this is what is happening.

So I urge you, Mr. Speaker, because you are a fair man -- I know you are a fair man; you have told me that many times -- I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to impress that upon your colleagues and --

Mr. Speaker: I will send a copy of this Hansard out to my constituents, in view of what you are saying.

Mr. Ferrier: This must be important, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Singer: Oh yes, you can quote that to your constituents. I urge that you would impress upon your colleagues the importance of being fair in a matter of such serious consequence as this one.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough --

Mr. Lewis: West.

Mr. Speaker: West.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you. Even though my riding has been altered, it is still Scarborough West.

Mr. Speaker, just a brief word. I support most of the criticisms which have been levelled from this side of the House, raising a number of points which I think are really quite telling. Certainly the point being made by the member for Downsview should not be treated lightly by the minister. There is an enormous unfairness about the special privileges which attach to a number of government members; perhaps not to all of them. I notice that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food was looking rather surprised to learn that he had a car and a driver and a number of other emoluments he hadn’t yet recognized he was entitled to.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): I am going to speak after the member on this.

Mr. Breithaupt: He is slower than most.

Mr. Lewis: Well he is not so slow. He is easing his way into that portfolio fairly quickly, I would say.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is amazing what style can do.

Mr. Lewis: But the reality of additional secretaries, assistants and special help for a large number of so-called backbenchers is true, and it does give the government a very disproportionate advantage, which it chooses to continue to exercise. I suppose one can be fairly philosophic about it because, frankly --

Mr. Breithaupt: We won’t.

Mr. Lewis: -- well I know the Liberals -- my own sense is that it is only going to last for a few months longer and maybe this self-indulgent orgy which the Tories are having right now of lavishing these special privileges to themselves, subject to the public criticism that flows intermittently, and simply reinforces the general image of the Tories in Ontario -- which is not a happy one -- maybe this is a self-destructive impulse which we should encourage rather than decry. I don’t know. I personally think they are beyond redemption anyway, so I am not going to spend time on it.

What I want to raise with the minister, apart from all of the things that have been said about the Board of Internal Economy and many of the deficiencies of the bill, is a quite separate and specific matter. In every reorganization of this kind, some group gets squeezed, some group is under-represented, some group is left out. It has always been true, even in terms of regional government, I put it to you, Mr. Speaker. Regional government has always been discussed in every aspect without ever consulting the employees who are involved in the transition, and very often for the employees -- witness regional government in Niagara -- the transition is extremely painful.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to raise with the Minister of Government Services is the need to make a special effort -- which is not contained in this bill -- to protect those employees, not many in number, who are now attached to the Legislature in whatever function -- at the table, as attendants to the Speaker’s office, or to the Clerk’s office about to become part of the Speaker’s office -- and I want to say to the minister, through the Speaker, that that group of employees is essentially without defence.

In our caucus we have a union with a collective agreement that can bargain toughly and can even, through us as a caucus, get the Premier and the minister to make some changes, which he has done and which we appreciate.

The secretaries in the Liberal caucus and the secretaries in the Tory caucus have their own members to act as a lobby for them; and the nature of the club being what it is, they can achieve some success.

But the group of employees who in this bill have no representation at all, except what the government chooses to give them, almost out of goodwill, are the people who have served the assembly loyally for a number of years, who are now on the assembly staff and are about to become part of the Speaker’s staff or are already part of the Speaker’s staff -- I’m not sure of the transitional element.

Mr. Speaker, if I can put it to you, and perhaps you will then put it to the minister, who has to leave for whatever reason -- I’m just going to wait a moment to find out whether he’s gone.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Be right back.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): The Speaker isn’t here, and now the minister has left.

Mr. Lewis: I presume the minister has left for whatever good reason.

Mr. Stokes: For the usual reasons?

Mr. Lewis: No, he was called out.

Mr. Reid: He’s not going out to be human; he’s going out to answer a phone call.

Mr. Lewis: But it is a bit much that the Speaker is not here, although the member for York North (Mr. W. Hodgson) performs that function well. The House leader isn’t here, and now the Minister of Government Services isn’t here. I’m holding the floor, but I’m waiting for his return.

Mr. Speaker: Why doesn’t the member for Scarborough West just carry on? It will all be recorded.

Mr. Lewis: No, I want to speak directly. I’m glad to have my words in Hansard. It causes as much of a nightmare to me to read them afterwards as it does to almost anyone else. I regret ever having spoken when I have to look at the instant Hansard, but I really think --

An hon. member: The member doesn’t read it.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t have to. My colleague from Riverdale walked out. I’m stopping; I’ll wait until the minister comes back. We’ll have a pause.

Mr. Speaker: Is there another speaker who wishes to take part in the debate?

Mr. Lewis: No, I’m not going to relinquish the floor. I see no point in this. We don’t have to participate --

Mr. Speaker: Maybe some other member would like to take part while the minister’s absent if the member for Scarborough West doesn’t care to take part.

Mr. Lewis: I’m sure the members of the opposition -- here’s the minister coming back.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member like to take part in the debate?

Mr. Lewis: No, the minister is coming back, and I’ll speak to the minister now. I understand that the minister left for a specific reason.

Mr. Stokes: Boy, the Speaker is arrogant. He is getting just as bad as some of the others.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): If we haven’t got the minister to talk to, let’s have it.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much, the member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Lewis: He just wanted to make sure that when the Speaker sent out that Hansard, everything is contained in it.

It becomes pointless -- well, I understand the minister went for a specific reason; I’ve no objection, of course.

Mr. Lawlor: He wanted to give himself some relief from his ministerial responsibilities.

Mr. Lewis: May I just raise with the minister, then, that this is not a casual matter. I don’t know how we write in the protection for this group of workers, but I urge him that it has to be written in; and when we come to clause by clause we will try to find a way.

This group of workers obviously hoped that they might become part of the CSAO at some stage. That has been denied them. Are they to be pegged to a level in the Civil Service Association without consultation and negotiation?

When we wanted to negotiate salaries for our secretaries to the NDP caucus, we went to the Camp commission, to the ministers of the government and to Mr. Fleming. We’ve been making the case that they should be plugged into the civil service levels at a certain classification rate. We have been making the case on their behalf, fighting it through with them and on their behalf.

Who does it, Mr. Speaker, for the attendants in the legislative assembly? Who does it for all the people who have been serving this assembly and do serve this assembly fully? Who represents them? What right have they to go before the Board of Internal Economy to make the case whether as a formal bargaining unit --

Mr. Stokes: The Hansard staff.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, my colleague from Thunder Bay mentions the entire Hansard staff, to boot -- all of these people who are part of the Legislature, who are absolutely indispensable to its functioning. It is not without significance that in the process of drafting the bill, any effort to enshrine the rights of this group in a democratic and collective way is absent. There’s a kind of gratuitous reference in the bill, but without any guarantees at all. It is just a kind of crazy human instinct that those upon whom we rely most heavily are always most expendable in any reorganization. I don’t care what level of government it is, it seems to work invariably in that fashion.

I appeal through the Speaker to the minister that all of those who are brought into the Speaker’s office by way of attendants, Hansard staff, and those in the Legislature, be consulted as a group or that representatives whom they choose be consulted as a group before their salaries are pegged to civil servant levels, that they he entitled automatically, to whatever increases the Civil Service Association may negotiate for itself and whatever settlement we arrive at this month, hopefully avoiding a strike on Jan. 1; that all of those increases be automatically passed on to this group of people, that this group of people be given a formal status to come before the Board of Internal Economy to make representation whether on wages or fringe benefits or grievance; and that we do not treat most shabbily the people on whom we rely most heavily.

It just is not possible that it should be approached that way. It really worries us that that’s what is happening, that that’s the group we are taking for granted and that that’s the group we deal with in a paragraph and assume that everything will settle itself. They have had no collective bargaining rights at all.

I know as leader of my party and I know the member for Wentworth as House leader of my party and I know the member for Thunder Bay as whip have approached people in the government on behalf of our secretaries. We are fighting about classification levels now. We are disagreeing with the Camp recommendations. We are making thoughtful and careful cases to indicate what the level should be. I suspect that will be true for other caucuses.

Who is doing it for the people who serve the assembly? No one. They have no recourse, and that’s wrong. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, whatever other alterations are made to this bill, I urge you to set up an apparatus which, first of all, allows for consultation when you determine the wage levels; secondly, allows for automatic increases pegged to any increases granted any other government employees in the course of their collective bargaining; thirdly, allows some kind of formal representation to the Board of Internal Economy or to the Speaker directly, but preferably to the Board of Internal Economy, so that this group of employees doesn’t find itself stranded when we have run through to royal assent, as would now be the case, I want to say to you, if we don’t give it some very, very special consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, or the surrogate thereof, please convey to the Speaker of this House, whose special precincts and whose special domain is this particular legislation, that there is not written into it any protection or security, job or otherwise for the clerks and other people in this Legislature and, as my leader has mentioned, all those other people who are involved. There is no appeal procedure. At least under the civil service regulations, if they are dismissed from their job, they have a right to be heard and justification is given and the lines laid down.

If it’s discrimination, if it’s will-o’-the-wisp, if it’s whimsical, if it hasn’t got basis of soundness, then at least they have a hearing and they can be reinstated. Here the power is arbitrary, the sword falls, they are finished. There is no justification; it can’t go beyond the Speaker. Surely that was not the intent. Surely this government and the Speaker of this House don’t want arbitrary powers in that way and would wish their powers to be subject to review like every other.

On one side, the bill places them within and brings them within the purview of civil service benefits of various kinds -- pensions benefits, insurance benefits and all that sort of thing. Provision is made for that. But as for the fundamental thing which is the most requisite in their lives, knowing where they stand in their security, they are left out. They hang. That is not fair and that is not just.

I make a particular appeal this evening to the Speaker to make this provision now. We will try during the committee stage of this bill -- and I hope you are amenable and accede in advance to this possibility -- to have some appeal procedure, some review powers as to status, qualifications and responsibility, provided within the purview of this legislation, and hope that there will be no quarrel and that the government party does not throw its weight against it. It seems necessary to me.

It gives them a sense of belonging. It gives them a sense of the full plenitudes of what has already, through long tradition and by great custom in this House, been finally won by hard measures, and it can’t be dismissed overnight simply because we happen to pass a bill because Mr. Camp and others see fit to strip them of these prerogatives. Nor will we in the New Democratic Party accede to that. We will fight it. But what we are hoping for is a certain amount of suavity on this occasion, and that the Speaker’s office will see fit to grant security of tenure at least in this particular regard.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too rise to reiterate the sentiments that have been expressed by the last two speakers. I have spoken to a number of the people in this assembly and in the environs of this House whom I consider not only to be servants of the people but friends of mine and to whom I would hope I could speak freely, and they expressed the concerns that have already been put to you, sir, about just what is going to happen to them.

The intent of the bill obviously is that the House itself and the environs -- the physical plant, if you like -- that we inhabit, will come under the direct control of the Speaker of the House. I don’t think that we have much quarrel with that, sir, because it would have to be a better operation than presently exists.

I recall when I came down here, Mr. Speaker, seven years ago at the tender age of 24 years, recently elected, coming to the Ontario Legislature, seeing what the facilities were and saying to myself, “I wouldn’t run a hotdog stand the way the Ontario Legislature is run.” And I felt, Mr. Speaker, even at that tender age of 24, somewhat demeaned to find that as a representative of some 35,000 people, representing one of the 117 ridings in the Province of Ontario, sent down here with the responsibility to make and indirectly enforce the laws -- maybe even more importantly for some people, spend their money -- I was relegated to an office with four other members about maybe twice the size of the office I now inhabit, with a group of secretaries -- a steno pool, I believe it is called, up on the fourth floor -- the names and faces of whom I never saw. These were the facilities that I was presented with to represent the people who had elected me and sent me down here to the Ontario Legislature to represent them and to do a job for them.

I am told, Mr. Speaker, that prior to my coming down here in 1967 -- and not too much prior to that -- the services and facilities were even less than that. I am told that within living memory of most members of the House -- the majority of whom I would suppose came in in 1963 -- they would come up to the lobby or even sit in their seats in the House with a stenographer that they might have seconded from somewhere, and they would dictate their letters sifting in their seats in the House -- and this was, of course, obviously outside of sifting hours; in the morning -- because this was the only private place they could find.

I have made this speech before perhaps, and not necessarily in the House. We’re spending -- depending on which figures the Treasurer (Mr. White) wants to give us -- some $8.5 billion of public money and yet we have the facilities that we have and that we have only enjoyed recently; which bothers me, Mr. Speaker, because my constituents say, “Why didn’t you answer my letter within two days?” or “Why didn’t I hear from you?”

As a rural member, coming from a rural riding 1,200 miles from Toronto, not having the kind of facilities that are available to the urban members or those located closer to Toronto where they have a full medical staff with all the experts, where they have a full legal staff with all the experts, all the professional people, where they have all the welfare and social services available at the end of their finger if they can use the yellow pages, I have probably a heavier constituency load than most, and I am sure that all the members that come from those kinds of areas do.

It bothers me, Mr. Speaker, that I should look at this bill and see what is provided for the government and what is provided for the opposition. I want to say that the propositions put forth in this bill by the government and by the Minister of Government Services show extreme arrogance, extreme callousness, an abnegation of the democratic principle.

We have already been over the fact that perhaps there may be provided a special assistance for those backbenchers of the government party. It has already been suggested that government ministers, parliamentary assistants and others who have emoluments, such as the chairman of the Crop Insurance Commission, vice-chairman of Hydro -- whatever you have -- have the kind of facilities that we in the opposition do not have.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if the government appreciated the democratic system and the difference between our system and a totalitarian system, it really boils down to this -- simply that in the democratic system there is an opposition, a vocal opposition, hopefully a prepared opposition, and hopefully an opposition that has the facilities to do the proper job. Well, it requires funds to do the proper job.

We have been criticized, and the party to my left has been criticized, because sometimes the media says we do not do an effective job. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes I can’t do that job because I don’t have the facilities to do it.

If I could draw upon my experience as a member of the select committee on the rules and procedures of the Legislature of some four years ago, we went -- as my leader is fond of saying -- we, as did all select committees, went to California.

Mr. Stokes: Not all.

Mr. Reid: Well, some of them go to Florida.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Not all.

Mr. Reid: If you are the drainage committee and it’s the winter, it depends what turns you on, I suppose.

An hon. member: Suppose it’s a harem?

Mr. Reid: But we went to California, Mr. Speaker, and let me tell you very briefly what they provide there for the opposition.

First of all, they provide a larger budget for the opposition than they do for the governing party, based on the proposition, Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Wells: There is no opposition.

Mr. Reid: -- that the government has all the resources of the civil service at its command to prepare its budgets, to prepare its estimates, to make the apologies and to make the arguments for the government. Obviously the Legislature of the State of California feels that that should be equalized to a greater extent by providing greater funds and greater material benefits to the opposition so that they can do an effective job in criticizing the ruling or governing party.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The member doesn’t understand.

Mr. Reid: I don’t understand what?

Hon. Mr. Wells: There is no opposition in California.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, but we understand.

Mr. Reid: Oh, well.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All the members in the House there are equal.

Mrs. Campbell: Not like here!

Mr. Reid: Well, there certainly is a difference.

Mr. Cassidy: Not like here, that’s right.

An hon. member: Not like here.

Mr. Reid: I might say, Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is a completely different system. If the hon. member wants the American system of government --

Mr. Reid: I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that probably in that particular state they may have --

Mr. Cassidy: The inequalities of the democratic system.

Mr. Reid: -- a much finer appreciation of just how government works than this government does, because they provide the material benefits, the money, the funds, and the bodies to provide an effective opposition. Even with the small resource that we have, I would say we have done a pretty good job. But we have bad a lot of help and assistance from the governing benches over there; because we can sit here almost daily and not say anything and they would destroy themselves.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Every member of their House gets a car.

Mr. Haggerty: The minister has one; hasn’t he?

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the member for Downsview touched on the one point that -- I don’t want to go into personalities. I don’t want to name members, because I believe there are only three of them left; three, Mr. Speaker, out of 74. That means that there are 71 of the “big blue machine” over there who are drawing extra money, who have some position with the government, who are not what we refer to as ordinary backbenchers interested in government legislation and interested in the goings-on and proceedings in this House. There are only three of those poor souls who have been passed over by whoever runs the Conservative government offices.

Mr. Haggerty: And they missed them in this bill.

Mr. Ferrier: Isn’t the hon. member the chairman of the public accounts committee too?

Mr. Reid: And we wonder, Mr. Speaker, what sins those three people could have committed that wouldn’t allow them into the largesse that the governing body, the Conservative Party in the province, has to offer. We could name them --

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): The member took one of their jobs away from them.

Mr. Stokes: What about the chairman of the public accounts committee?

Mr. Reid: We could name them, but to no good purpose, Mr. Speaker; because we wouldn’t want to single them out for any more ridicule or scorn than they already suffer at the hands of their colleagues.

An hon. member: So deservedly.

Mr. Reid: Not to have an extra job in the Tory caucus is to be a leper, really, because everybody else has. When there are three out of 74 who don’t have something extra, Mr. Speaker, surely the disgrace of it all really --

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Have they got a complaint under the Human Rights Commission?

Mr. Reid: -- must be frustrating, discouraging and heart-breaking in the extreme.

Mr. Givens: Have they got a complaint under the Human Rights Commission?

Mr. Reid: As a matter of fact, my friend, the member for York-Forest Hill, suggests that perhaps they should make a complaint under the Human Rights Code for discrimination against them.

I hate to mention this, now that it has been suggested, but two of them are non-Wasps. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, that is a sin in that party. However, I would think that they have something to complain about.

I go back, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that under the provisions of this bill, the opposition parties are not provided for to the extent that they should be. I think it’s generally known, at least in our party, that we have to find funds outside of what the government provides to pay for our research and other services that we feel we need and require in this Legislature.

Mr. Good: And that should never have had to happen.

Mr. Reid: This, Mr. Speaker, I think goes entirely against the spirit of the Camp commission. They said we should not rely upon outside donations, especially for these kind of purposes, in order to do an effective job in the Legislature.

As the member for Downsview has pointed out, sections 2 and 3 limit us severely. It’s a two-edged sword that’s cutting us both ways. It’s not the ordinary two-edged sword, where there’s a benefit and a non-benefit. We are getting cut both ways.

On the one hand, the government is providing for itself very well indeed, thank you. We have to ask ourselves, for instance, if the salaries of the people in the Premier’s office are paid out of this bill. Not very likely. There’s a separate appropriation. And yet we have seen since the present Premier took over that the personnel complement and the salaries have more than quadrupled in that particular office. We can go through each ministry and find the same thing. And we can go down through the parliamentary assistants and others to show that the government is very well looked after indeed, to the detriment not only of the people of the province, but the corresponding provisions have not been made and, in fact, are not made in this bill.

Why, for instance, Mr. Speaker, should the appropriation for research be based on the smallest party in the Legislature? I refer you to section 69, clauses (c) and (e). We’ve already gone over the proposition dealing with personal assistants and it bothers me somewhat, Mr. Speaker, that it is not named in the bill what level our secretaries are going to operate at. A lot of things are taken for granted, as to each party’s appropriation, as to what level the secretaries will be pegged at, or what category they’ll be placed in, but there’s nothing particular in the bill about it.

I want to say something directly to the Minister of Government Services about this, through you, Mr. Speaker. I have a secretary who has been with me for some 4½ or five years now. For that she deserves a medal, if not a large salary.

Mr. Cassidy: He’s right there, yes.

Mr. Reid: Well, we’re in agreement on something. But she does an excellent job for me, Mr. Speaker. I would say that she is one of the best, if not the best secretary, in the Ontario Legislature. I have no qualms about saying that. Some other members may put their secretaries in that category. But she has been with me for almost five years. I look upon her and, hopefully, treat her as my executive assistant; not as a secretary but as my executive assistant. Many of the matters relating to my constituency, she can handle. Many of the matters relating to research, she can handle, and does more than adequately. And yet, I see no provision made for her in this bill. I see no specific category laid out for her in this bill. I see no specific protection made for her.

Mr. Young: Let her join our union.

Mr. Reid: Well, she’s had that offer, but she also has a soul and she wants to stay where her spirit is.

Mr. Cassidy: Maybe the Liberal caucus is anti-union, eh?

Mr. Reid: But what I want to say also, Mr. Speaker, is that my secretary is that kind of person and yet I don’t see the protection here for her. What I do see are a whole lot more of Tory hacks and Tory hangers-on hired by the Conservative Party.

I want to bring to the Minister of Government Services this particular point, and it may be wasted on him, particularly in view of this bill. He has, under his ministry, a group called the citizens’ inquiry branch. As I understand this -- and I’m saving the greater part of this speech for another occasion, Mr. Speaker --

An hon. member: Good.

Mr. Reid: -- the citizens’ inquiry branch comes under the Minister of Government Services. And as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, if people phone or write just to the government, or they say they have a complaint and they don’t know who their member is or where to go, it is referred to the citizens’ inquiry branch.

I don’t have the figures with me, because I didn’t intend to speak on this particular aspect tonight, but I want to use this as an illustration. At last calling, as I recall, one of the people -- who, as far as I’m concerned, does the same job as my secretary -- is getting $14,000 or $15,000 a year. What that particular person does, Mr. Speaker, is this: If a letter comes in addressed to the government or addressed to a general department, or is a complaint of some kind, it’s directed to the citizens’ inquiry branch, that particular person takes it, looks into the matter, goes through all the government departments, provincially or federally, finds out what he or she can, writes back the person who wrote the letter or made the phone call and says, “I have looked into your problem and here is the answer.”

I will not grab at figures because I can’t remember the exact figure; all I know is that one of the persons who does that kind of work gets in the neighbourhood of $14,000. Mr. Speaker, my secretary does that and more every day of every week in every year.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Except Saturday and Sunday.

Mr. Reid: Well, even on Saturdays and Sundays. I am glad the member for Sault Ste. Marie said that, because often she will phone me on a weekend and say, “I tried to get hold of you, but I had this problem. What should I do?” Or “I have looked after this.”

Mr. Young: That’s exploitation.

Mr. Reid: Well, 1,200 miles is a long way away for that kind of thing. But she now gets in the neighbourhood of $150 a week, and it is not that much; $600 a month or $7,200 a year, which is less than half, Mr. Speaker, what the people in the citizens’ inquiry branch get not for doing substantially the same job, but more than that job.

Mr. Young: She needs to join our union.

Mr. Reid: I want to protest, Mr. Speaker. That is not correct; it is not fair; it is not right.

I want to say something about the Office of the Assembly and the director of administration. This bill was introduced on Dec. 5, and we are now in second reading. We haven’t had the Camp report that long perhaps; I forget exactly what date it was introduced here.

Hon. Mr. Snow: December, 1973.

Mr. Reid: December, 1973? Well, we have had it for a long time --

Hon. Mr. Snow: For a year.

Mr. Reid: We have had it for a year. Okay.

Mr. Breithaupt: But no bill.

Mr. Reid: No bill, of course. But it was interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that in the arrogance of the government, and perhaps of the Minister of Government Services, I don’t feel that he is entirely responsible --

Mrs. Campbell: None of them are.

Mr. Reid: -- the refurbishing of the office downstairs, where the old post office was, has been going on for some time. It is going to be a very nice office indeed, in royal blue. It is going to have the great wooden desk --

Mr. Breithaupt: Marble.

Mr. Reid: -- the marble columns. It will have the nice view looking out upon the members’ parking lot to the north.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Sounds like Trudeau’s office.

Mr. Reid: But it is going to be very spacious, it is going to be very comfortable, thank you very much, and no doubt will have one cabinet over in the corner against the wall that will provide the necessary refreshments for any of those who might happen to drop in.

I don’t complain about Mr. Fleming, who obviously is already ensconced in those offices and who was the secretary to the Camp commission. I am sure we will find some other person to replace him in the Camp commission, which will go on and on and on until the government changes in the next election. I am sure it will.

But the supreme arrogance is going through with all these changes before the bill has even reached the Legislature, let alone been passed. It is maybe a small thing and perhaps, in the context of the government’s majority, not an important one. I don’t know Mr. Fleming’s qualifications --

Hon. Mr. Snow: The funds have been supplied for the members’ secretaries since April; the member is not complaining about that.

Mr. Reid: What’s that? I didn’t hear the minister.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I said the funds have been supplied for the additional services since April, and the member is not complaining about that, although the bill is still not through at the middle of December.

Mr. Reid: They haven’t got the money.

Hon. Mr. Snow: They have got the money.

Mr. Reid: The secretaries haven’t got --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Aha, what has the member been doing with it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: $200 a week since April for his secretary and only paying her $150.

Mr. Stokes: Shame, shame.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The shame of it all. Now we know how he financed that last leadership convention.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member for Rainy River continue?

Mr. Reid: Oh no, let’s make it perfectly clear the secretaries have not got the money. Until this bill is passed they are not going to get the money.

Mr. Good: They can’t give it to us until this legislation is passed.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Are the members opposite going to pay them the interest?

Mr. Good: Retroactively.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member continue?

Mr. Reid: The money has not been paid and it’s not available to the secretaries. They may get it retroactively.

An hon. member: Sure they will.

Mr. Reid: And I believe they deserve it. It’s long overdue but we don’t have it. I don’t have it and if I did she would have had it a long time ago.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): The member would have had it spent; I know that. Good thing he hasn’t got it.

An hon. member: The ministry said they can’t pay it until the bill is passed.

Mr. Reid: Certainly, but the minister is trying to confuse the issue. There’s a difference between giving an employee the back pay that he or she deserves and setting up offices and making all the refurbishings. I wonder, just as a mailer of interest, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Government Services would inform us just how much that refurbishing is going to cost us or is costing us and what Mr. Fleming’s salary is going to be, because I can bet him -- as a mailer of fact I’ll give him a bet -- that his salary is going to be substantially more than that of any member of this Legislature.

Mrs. Campbell: And his staff.

Mr. Reid: If it’s under $20,000 I will be most surprised. Is it over $20,000?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know. He is an employee of the Legislature.

Mr. Reid: Yes. You see, that is the other thing, and the only point I want to make on this bill is this, Mr. Speaker. I have all the confidence in the world in Mr. Speaker Rowe. I must say I had my reservations about Mr. Speaker Rowe, but I think he is doing an excellent job. Again in this bill, as in most legislation that has come before the House lately -- and this is something that the government seems to have got in its craw in the last year or two -- is the kind of discretion that we are left at and the people of Ontario are left at of the various government ministries, and now you’re asking us to do it with the Speaker.

We’ve already heard the argument about the people who work in this House and the environs and how there is no protection built into this bill for them. Everything else in this bill relates primarily to the discretion of the House except those matters that restrict the money available for the functioning of the opposition. Everything else is at the discretion of the Speaker.

As I say, we have the utmost regard for and belief in the present Speaker, but we feel that these matters should be set down by law so that we have some guidelines to go upon, because in my time in this Legislature we’ve had -- I won’t say some, we’ve only had three -- but we’ve had one Speaker to whom under no circumstances would I allow him the discretion that we’re giving him under this bill. The Speakers can change for one reason or another, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect.

So I’m most unhappy, Mr. Speaker, with many provisions of this bill. I would hope that the Minister of Government Services, as is his usual wont, will give some serious consideration to the arguments put forward by the opposition.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Middlesex South.

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I’d just like to say a very few quick words on this. I think I can, perhaps, support the position of the member for Downsview, who said we shouldn’t have all these extra amounts of money coming into our caucus, providing we were getting all the amenities that he referred to as parliamentary assistants.

Mr. Haggerty: Where did the money go, then?

Mr. Stokes: What does the member for Middlesex South get?

Mr. Eaton: He refers to speech writers and executive assistants, which we do not have.

Mr. Carruthers: Motor cars.

Mr. Eaton: Now, either this is an indication that he and the member for Rainy River do need assistance from research to get their facts straight, or he is intentionally trying to mislead the public into the fact that we have these services. I would think it would probably be the latter.

Mr. Reid: When we look at the member for Middlesex South we know he hasn’t got any services, or he wouldn’t make the speeches he does.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay, so the member doesn’t have a speech writer, we agree.

Mr. Breithaupt: Well, what does he get?

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I think when he stands up and makes these kinds of statements which he knows are not right, he should come in and make apologies to all those members who are parliamentary assistants and who don’t have those services --

Mrs. Campbell: The member doesn’t have any extra money?

Mr. Eaton: -- who don’t have secretaries over here or money provided to our caucus for secretaries over here as well. The caucus is not doing it.

Mr. Good: The member’s caucus is getting it. Certainly it is.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Young: Does the member have a secretary in his office?

Mr. Eaton: Yes, I have a secretary in my office and the member who asked me has a secretary in his office.

Mr. Breithaupt: Does he have one in the minister’s office too?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, the hon. member for Middlesex South has the floor.

Mr. Eaton: But we do not have, as the member referred to, speech writers and executive assistants.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is apparent. Does he have a secretary in the minister’s office seconded too?

Mr. Eaton: We have a secretary, the same as any other member does, to do our work.

Mr. Breithaupt: That gives two.

Mr. Eaton: In some ministries perhaps they have two, one doing ministry work and one doing riding work.

Mr. Cassidy: And does the member have one over there as well?

Mr. Breithaupt: Isn’t that delightful.

Mr. Eaton: I think, Mr. Speaker, that we would agree that one shouldn’t come separately to the caucus because they don’t come.

At the same time I don’t think statements as misleading as those of the member for Downsview should be made in this House.

Mr. Singer: That is a bunch of nonsense and the member knows what I said is true. If anyone is misleading it is he.

Mr. Eaton: That is not true.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It is not true.

Mr. Singer: Yes, sir, it is true.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, the hon. member for Cochrane South is the next speaker.

Mr. Singer: The Minister of Agriculture and Food doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that two or three weeks ago --

Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): The member for Downsview is not telling the truth.

Mr. Singer: Oh, come on. The member has been milking the government for years.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, it is another denial.

Mr. Root: No, it’s no denial.

Mr. Breithaupt: No denial?

Mr. Root: On a point of order, the hon. member for Downsview said I have a car. I haven’t a car. I’m driving a 1970 Dodge of my own.

Mr. Singer: I didn’t say that at all.

Mr. Root: He said all the members on boards and commissions have secretaries. I don’t have a second secretary.

Mr. Cassidy: What is wrong? Has the patronage system let the member down?

Mr. Reid: What he needs is a speech writer. I’d almost pay for it myself.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There is no point of order. Would the hon. member for Cochrane South continue?

Mr. Cassidy: This is a disgrace, Mr. Speaker. He has got a conflict of interest.

Mr. Root: The member should withdraw that remark.

Mr. Singer: If you say there is no point of order then I don’t have to, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Root: The member should withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: I will not withdraw one word of what I said. Read it in Hansard.

Mr. Root: It’s a disease that seems to affect even the Liberal House leader. He has made misleading statements about what I am paid on two occasions.

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

Mr. Ferrier: I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberals are so hot on this issue that if they were in the same position they would be doing the same or more than they are doing across the way.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Speaker, you and I and the member for Essex South (Mr. Paterson) --

Mr. Singer: Why is the member for Wellington-Dufferin so unhappy? How many secretaries does he have?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: He gets paid for two.

Mr. Root: I am not paid for two.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Cochrane South has the floor. Let’s restore order to the Legislature and continue.

Mr. Carruthers: Is he sure he has the floor?

Mr. Ferrier: I don’t know. There is a rowdy bunch over here. Mr. Speaker, for the third time I’m going to try to start my introduction.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ferrier: This place is a lot more rowdy than when I used to speak to my congregation. At least they didn’t speak back.

An hon. member: Yes, but there was nobody there.

Mr. Reid: He got more money.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, they never paid such attention.

Mr. Ferrier: That was my power base that I used to launch out into politics.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We pay more attention than they do.

Mr. Breithaupt: No collection either.

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Speaker, you and the member for Essex South and I were in Ottawa at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association seminar about three weeks ago.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): Another rip-off.

Mr. Ferrier: We had the opportunity to see the kind of services they had and the way that the federal members of Parliament were looked after by way of secretaries and people in their office.

Mr. Breithaupt: Amenities.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: And riding offices.

Mr. Ferrier: I will get to that too. I’d just like to say that we are really in the minor leagues here at Queen’s Park. We don’t know really how to operate the way they do there. In most instances, they have less riding work than a provincial member does. Look at the kind of services we have. We have the majority of the social assistance problems. We have the majority of the compensation problems. Unemployment problems that they should be looking after very often come to us and many other problems, Mr. Speaker. They have two or three people in their Ottawa office and they have a riding office as well.

Here we are making a major step forward. Imagine -- in Ontario, the largest province, with a magnificent big budget, in this Act they are guaranteeing for the first time in the history of this province that there will be a secretary for each member of the legislative assembly. Well, it’s about time.

Fortunately, this bill is retroactive and we were able to get a secretary earlier this year. It’s made a great difference in the way that a great many people in this assembly have been able to operate with the kind of assistance that a full-time secretary has been able to give with ease work. That’s not just the total need that a member faces. I suggest the time is coming, or it should be here, when the minister should be incorporating into this bill provisions for n riding office for the members, especially those members who are a considerable distance away from home.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ferrier: Most of the out-of-town members are here and they spend their time in the assembly all week. Those who live nearby speed off home at night and they are back to their ridings and so on through the week. They hold their clinics on Wednesday nights and this kind of thing.

Mr. J. H. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Saturday mornings.

Mr. Ferrier: That’s where it hits the members who are far away.

Mr. Stokes: We spend all our weekends --

Mr. Ferrier: We spend our weekends interviewing constituents and getting phone calls. Then we grab a plane on Monday morning to come back here. It has been a more hectic weekend at home than the week down here. It’s this way week after week after week.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Amend that Act now.

Mr. Ferrier: There should be some provision in this bill to provide, even on a part-time basis, some kind of assistance in the riding. As it is now, the member’s wife, in most cases, gets the calls through the week.

Mr. Haggerty: And she gets nothing for it.

Mr. Ferrier: And, she doesn’t get anything for it.

Mr. Haggerty: She is not even included in the pension fund.

Mr. Ferrier: Maybe the members’ wives are going to form a union or something.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mine will join.

Mr. Ferrier: Maybe they will kick us out. I don’t know. With the extra family responsibilities that many members’ wives have to bear, those who have small children or even those a little older, with the kind of community responsibilities they try to carry, it’s not fair for them to have to continually answer the phone as they do. This was one glaring oversight in this legislation. I think it is about time that the minister took a careful look at this.

This bill sets out the board to look after the setting up of the budget for the assembly. They call it the Board of Internal Economy. The Speaker and a couple of members of the cabinet sit on that board. I think it would be much more desirable in terms of understanding how the members have to operate and their particular needs and problems, if this was an all-party board. I think that one of the recommendations in the Camp commission, if I’m not mistaken, was that the other parties have some say in the operation of this assembly.

Mr. Good: No.

Mr. Ferrier: It wasn’t?

Mr. Good: It should have been.

Mr. Ferrier: It should have been. The backbencher has a significant role to play in this assembly and in the operation of this building. It’s the way that Parliament operates. There has been too much of an effort on the part of government to downgrade the role of Parliament.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Ferrier: It should be enhanced and a lot more encouragement should be given to debating in this assembly and to considering the issues that come forward in the various pieces of legislation than is presently the case. What happens is that bills are dumped in at the last minute and often they are shoved though and the general public don’t have a chance to appear before a standing committee. The bill is through before they even realize that it has been introduced.

If this place operated in a little more orderly fashion, where legislation came in a lot earlier in a session, the role of this assembly would be greatly enhanced in the life of the province.

The stress is too much on the executive making the decisions and having all the say; and the rest of us are supposed to be along for the ride. I think that’s something that should very well be changed.

I think that one small step would have at least been to have made that committee a committee of all parties. There is no reason why the government couldn’t have the majority in a committee of five. The Speaker, a cabinet member, a member of the government caucus, and one from each of the other two caucuses.

It would provide a much better opportunity for input from members of the various parties. There could be a lot more face-to-face negotiations. I think there could be a lot more improvement in the way this assembly operates and the contribution that members can make to the debates of this assembly; and to a lot of other things.

There is another aspect I would like to see considered; although perhaps it’s too early. In Ottawa, the library has research personnel. If a private member wants some information on a subject, he can go to the library and a library staff member will research that subject for him.

I was interested in finding out more about the congressional system; how it operated. I spoke to one of the members, and he gave me a bibliography and some material.

Now I think that kind of thing should be taking place here at Queen’s Park. If a member wanted some general or some specific information, and it was not possible for the research staff of the party to do it, then he should be able to go to the library and say: “I want this researched.” It might be background for a speech he wanted to make.

Maybe you are going to do that later on, Mr. Speaker, but I don’t want you to lose sight of it. Because it can be of significant help to the backbencher in any party. I think it could add considerably to the debates in this assembly if more of these kinds of services were provided. Granted, there is a good deal of improvement in the bill, there’s no two ways about it.

If more time was given for the consideration of the bills and these other back-up services were provided, I don’t think the government would be coming forward with the bills of the past year or two, with the number of amendments that it has to make to them.

I think that more consideration and more backup support for the members would mean greater scrutiny of the legislation and the arguments presented even better than they are now as to why changes should be made and why something is not workable. Then the minister, if he was amenable at all, could make the changes then; or they could be made in standing committee and you could reduce the number of amendments here in the House.

While there are improvements here, there is room for a great deal more improvement. I hope that you are open-minded on this, Mr. Speaker, and those improvements will be a forthcoming before too many months have passed.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to amend the Legislative Assembly Act. As such, it is a matter of importance to each and every member in this House. I would like to try to put into some sort of context what I see this bill as doing. As a matter of fact, it is in a way unfortunate that I should speak here and thus warn the government of the kinds of statements which I am prepared to make concerning this bill as I go through my riding and across this province.

What it does is to ensure to the government caucus approximately $282,000 over and above that which is available to the opposition at a time when, as has been pointed out, virtually every member of this government already has assistance which is denied to an opposition member.

But more important, and shabbily, what it does is to give this sort of funding to the government caucus while leaving a group which serves this assembly in a never-never land. These staff people serve the entire assembly and serve it well and faithfully and with long hours. This government is so concerned with the next election, and providing itself with any kinds of amenities that will help it as a hidden kind of tax on the people of Ontario for their assistance, that it really doesn’t care what happens to its staff. We have seen the erosion of others around here, and here they put in jeopardy a group which has no way of speaking for itself.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, this is, in my view, and obviously from our remarks and those of the NDP, a contemptible position. There is no reason why there should not be a committee which is made up of all of the parties in this House to discuss matters which relate to the legislative assembly of this province.

I don’t know how, in conscience, anyone could pass section 71 or section 72, which grant no assurances but only give concern to those upon whom we draw heavily for services to the assembly. What this government has the prerogative to do is, of course, to govern; but I say, Mr. Speaker, that it does not have the prerogative to set np a committee of government which will make the decisions, in a partisan fashion, which govern the affairs of the assembly. It is really bad enough, as I understand it -- and I am pretty new to this job -- that there is very little meaningful grievance procedure available to those who are within the association because that appellate board is again really made up of government.

It is intolerable that any member of this Legislature should consent to or willingly approve the provisions contained in this bill. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it is one of the occasions when I personally feel that it is an embarrassment to be expected to debate it in its present form.

I have to acknowledge, of course, that things presumably are better than they were before I was in this House. You’ve heard that description, sir, and I can’t quarrel with the fact that more assistance is provided today to the opposition than was the case in the past. But just recently, in a discussion of some government policies, we had to stop and consider that pretty basically, we are functioning under the Baldwin Act; and someone remarked that it is a pity that in this year 1974 we are trying to provide oats for the automobile.

This is what the government is using as an excuse to introduce legislation to be imposed upon this assembly; and without any question, it shows the contempt of this government for the legislative assembly of the Province of Ontario. I shall not support this bill in its present form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, there are two things that annoy me about this bill. One is the fact that there is no provision for the protection of the employees of the Legislature; that has been discussed at considerable length, and I won’t repeat what has already been said. The other is section 80 of this Act.

When I first came to this House, it was explained to me that one-third of my pay cheque was tax-free because that represented the expenses I would have in carrying out my political responsibilities. Those expenses were: shelter while in Toronto; food while in Toronto; travelling around my riding; an annual report to my constituents; and the charitable donations that every member finds he is called upon to make.

As a result of the first Camp commission report, most of those expenses were covered, apart from this one-third. For example, our shelter while in Toronto is covered; travel around the riding is covered; part of the cost of the constituency report is covered. That leaves, to come out of the expense part of one’s salary, food while in Toronto, part of the cost of the constituency report and, of course, the charitable donations. Therefore, there is now little reason for this one-third part of the salary that is tax-free. But section 80 of this Act says that not only can MPPs have this extra expense money, above and beyond the tax-free one-third, but that they may get this money in advance if they ask the Speaker for it.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that a year or two ago there was a great deal of adverse criticism of students who secured loans or grants and then invested the money in some way or other and made quite a nice interest rate out of this loan which they had borrowed from the government.

Section 80 of this Act says that MPPs can get money in advance, provided, of course, that it is accounted for. What I would like to know when the minister replies is: What is to prevent a member from getting $1,000 in January, investing it at say 10 per cent, and paying it back at the end of December? He would account for it, of course, but what is there to prevent him from doing this just the way some students did in similar circumstances a couple of years ago?

An hon member: It’s not accountable.

Mr. Burr: Of course it is accountable. You say: “I spent the money -- here are the receipts.” But why get the money in advance? Why must we have this money in advance? So what I would like to know is: Who asked for section 80, why was it put in and what possible excuse is there for it?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Mr. T. A. Wardle (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, in saying a few words on this particular bill I should like to say I support the improvements that have been made, especially those to private members of this Legislature.

I think every member, no matter which party he belongs to, should have this added assistance, and I know that in the work of the Legislature and the work in the riding, every member certainly needs a secretary. In my office we keep our secretary busy through the day; we have a number of calls, and I think this would apply to every member, not only in the urban ridings throughout Ontario, but in rural ridings as well.

Mr. Speaker, I think I was one of the first elected members in a metropolitan area to open a riding office. This was some seven years ago. I still maintain that office but I do it at my own expense. I do not complain about that, Mr. Speaker, because I feel this is a very necessary thing in certain ridings throughout Ontario, and I can see that this would be a great benefit to private members, whether they represent urban or rural ridings. This type of office, I think, would be a very good thing for people who live in the rural areas and in small towns throughout Ontario.

I know that the members I speak to in all parties have some help, but their help is usually their wives, who, when they are here in the city of Toronto, are looking after telephone calls. This, I am sure, takes a good deal of their time. If in this bill there were a provision for a riding office, even though only the rent and utilities were paid, I feel that the members who set up such an office would have people who would volunteer their services, so there would not be the necessity of having a paid person in that office.

In the interest of all members in this Legislature and in the hope that they would have a more effective role in their ridings, I think we should seriously consider adding to this bill the opportunity of having a riding office with the rent and utilities paid. All those bills, of course, would be submitted to this particular committee.

There are some members, I would think, who would not require such an office, who may feel such an office is not the type of thing they would wish to do, but I would think the opportunity should be given to every member of this Legislature to have a riding office, with utilities and rent paid for if they so desire. This is a step that should be taken now, because I think people today expect their elected representatives to have the opportunity of communicating with them.

Even though we talk in this Legislature about many subjects, I think we often assume that what we say here is communicated to the people of Ontario. It is surprising that people do not know what the people in this Legislature are doing. In a riding office, I am sure there would be better communication between the member and the people he has the honour to represent.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Laughren: Nickel Belt, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, Nickel Belt. I thought it was your partner there.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You must get up to the riding of Nickel Belt some time and acquaint yourself with its boundaries. We’ll reserve a couple of days when you come, however, to make the journey.

Mr. Speaker: My pleasure.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, you can come any time.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): How about tomorrow?

Mr. Laughren: Who was that? Was that the member for Algoma who said that?

Mr. N. G. Leluk (Humber): Dovercourt.

Mr. Laughren: Dovercourt? Oh. I was going to enter into a debate with the member for Algoma.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): The member for Nickel Belt and I meet up at the moose line.

Mr. Laughren: That’s right. Momentous occasions indeed.

Mr. Speaker, if I could talk about this bill for a moment, ignoring the interjections of the front bench of the Tory party --

Mr. Carruthers: I’ll go for a riding office.

Mr. Laughren: Will the member for Durham go for a riding office too?

Mr. Good: Everybody needs an information centre more than a riding office.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, one thing I want to talk about is the whole problem of out-of-town members. It’s very surprising to hear a Toronto member get up and talk about the need for a riding office. When Toronto members are in this Legislature or out of this Legislature, their constituents have access to their secretaries through the telephone and through the telephone directory. Out-of-town members do not have that privilege. I suspect that most of us from out of town spend a great part of our weekends talking to constituents on the telephone and replying to telephone calls that come in during the week.

The other thing that bothers me is the size of ridings. I happen to represent a very large riding. It’s probably one of the five largest in the province. Some of the problems of getting around that riding mean that I cannot be here as much as other members, or that I cannot be in a central office in my riding, or even in my home, as other members might be able to do.

I think there is not enough consideration given to out-of-town members. I think, for example, of the need to have someone in the riding who is able to deal with constituency cases on a day-to-day basis. I’m very much aware that members of the Conservative Party are quite happy to see --

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): No way.

Mr. Laughren: -- us as opposition members, expending almost all our time on shoring up the system they’ve created in this province.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right on; right on.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The opposition parties have been ruining the system.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Laughren: That’s what they’re happy to see us doing.

Mr. Cassidy: Ask the local Tory member to help, and there’s nothing.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member is wrong again.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, if the Conservative members are upset tonight --

Mr. Cassidy: The member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) won’t lift a finger for his people.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: What was the member doing down there all day yesterday, coercing the people? It is the best offer the member has ever had.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Nickel Belt has kept pretty quiet all night. Now he has the floor.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): He’s always quiet.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative members are upset --

Mr. G. Nixon: We are not upset. The member is just imagining it.

Mr. Laughren: -- because the Liberal government in Ottawa has provided constituency offices to the federal members, and they are seeing the Liberals in Ontario gaining ground on the Conservatives.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: They are spending 51 cents on the dollar.

Mr. Laughren: It has nothing to do with the constituency offices; it has to do with the Tory administration for the last 30 some years.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Good, eh?

Mr. Laughren: It has nothing to do with constituency offices at all.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: That doesn’t mean --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Bear in mind that that was as a result of the desire of the people of Ontario too.

Mr. Laughren: That’s correct. To --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s right. Don’t forget that.

Mr. Laughren: To elect federal Liberals.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Don’t forget that.

Mr. Laughren: Has the minister read the latest polls?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Oh, I don’t worry about them.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, the minister doesn’t worry about the latest polls, does he?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: How many federal NDP do they elect?

Mr. Cassidy: Is it a Teeter poll?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Look what happened to old David.

Mr. Laughren: No, I’d rather not. The members opposite should be most concerned about the part in this bill that says that a party must have 12 members in order to qualify for the emoluments, because in 1975 it may not even have 12 members.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I attempted to approach this debate in a very sober manner and the interjections of members opposite have driven me to some hyperbole. Given the hour, I would adjourn the debate, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Next time stand up.

Mr. Laughren moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House I would like to say that tomorrow morning we will return to the debate on the bills that I had presented today in the name of the Treasurer. We’ll deal with them all tomorrow morning.

Mr. Laughren: Can’t we come back for this one?

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 o’clock, p.m.