Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock p.m.

Clerk of the House: The 12th order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 100, An Act respecting the Negotiation of Collective Agreements between School Boards and Teachers.

SCHOOL BOARDS AND TEACHERS COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS ACT (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, as a former teacher who has looked forward to this legislation for a long time, I wish to speak on Bill 100. This is a good bill. If the minister (Mr. Wells) accepts a few amendments it may well become an excellent bill.

This is the kind of bill most opposition members like -- a bill in which the opposition can make constructive suggestions and the minister is not driven into an adversary position in which he feels it’s necessary to dig in his heels, become stubborn, and refuse to listen to the advice of the opposition.

It is my hope Bill 100 may be so successful its good faith collective bargaining technique will be extended to the rest of the public sector in a short time, and perhaps also to the private sector.

The bill fulfils a need that has become obvious in the last few years. Traditionally, teachers have been seen as persons dedicated to giving children all the educational help possible to help them to make a living, and, more important, to develop certain philosophies, habits and attitudes that would enable them to spend their lives usefully and happily. A tall order, of course, in an imperfect society, in an imperfect world.

For most teachers, salaries were secondary to the enjoyment of their work and security of their tenure in their chosen profession. Inflation, however, has brought a change in this attitude on the part of teachers. While most other organized groups of employees were successful in keeping up with the increasing cost of living, teachers and many other employees working for the public dropped behind. Other groups were able to use the strike weapon in their struggle to keep up. For teachers, hospital workers, civil servants, and others employed in public service occupations, the strike weapon had been considered unusable.

As all members know, various employees in the public sector have now resorted to strike action in order to maintain their standard of living. The teachers were no exception. First, they used the mass resignation technique. Later they simply went on strike. Because their salaries had fallen behind in the wake of continuing inflation, they had considerable catching up to do when they finally resorted to the drastic action of striking.

Gradually for some, and quickly for others, has come the realization that strikes in the public sector are different from strikes in the private sector. In strikes against General Motors, for instance, the inconvenience is restricted largely -- not entirely, of course -- to the workers of that private company. In strikes in the public service, large sections of the public suffer inconvenience, frustration and, quite often, financial loss.

This realization has prompted legislators to seek ways of making strikes unlikely and, hopefully, unnecessary through clearer and improved guidelines and procedures for collective bargaining, not only in the public sector but also in the private sector. It may well be, Mr. Speaker, that the unforgivable actions of some firemen in Montreal will be recorded in history as a turning point for collective bargaining in Canada.

New Democrats have maintained that lack of good faith was the usual stumbling block where collective bargaining negotiations collapsed. We have maintained also that legislation which could make good faith mandatory is essential if collective bargaining in a free society can be made to work. Bill 100, with its establishment of a trained fact-finder, seems to acknowledge the validity of our contention. It should be possible for future negotiations to be conducted on the basis of known facts, certified information, accurate statistics, and data which are objective, although the conclusions drawn will, of course, still be subjective.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to know why the definition of such a word as “co-curricular” is not given at the beginning of the debate, rather than after everyone has speculated about its meaning. Personally, I have assumed that co-curricular activities refer to such things as hall duty, study hall supervision, the giving up of a free period on the timetable to supervise a class when a colleague is called away unexpectedly; and that these activities are concurrent with the school day. I am anxious to hear from the minister how far out I am in my guess at the meaning of co-curricular.

In this connection I should like him to define for me two expressions in the bill -- namely, the ultimate offer of the board referred to in section 63(1)(d); and the expression “good faith,” both in general and also specifically in relation to a board’s ultimate offer.

For example, when an impasse has been reached and the board negotiators say, “This is our limit, our last offer. We simply haven’t one more dollar to put into the pot,” the teachers have in the past, on occasion, reluctantly accepted the offer only to find sometimes that the board had several hundred thousand dollars left over at the end of the year. This money, of course, had to be returned to the ministry. This reduced the board’s grants, accordingly, in the following year to the further financial detriment of the teachers working for that particular board. In this case the board, either through error or through bad faith, not only misled the teachers but also denied them their legitimate claims in succeeding years. It might also be said that the ministry, if aware of the situation, participated in this act of bad faith.

How can this bill prevent such acts of bad faith in future? My answer would be that one of the functions of the fact-finder will be to eliminate or reduce considerably such recurrences of bad faith. I will be interested to hear what the minister’s answer is.

I should add that there have been instances when a board has said, “We have put every possible penny into this offer. It’s our last word,” and the teachers have rejected the offer overwhelmingly. A day or so later the board has asked to re-open negotiations, saying, in effect: “Our computer made a mistake. We have found another $300,000. Let us make another offer to you.”

Again, I believe the fact-finder will play a worthwhile role in assuring that collective bargaining will be carried on in an atmosphere of candour and that negotiations will be easier for all concerned, and of shorter duration than in the past.

I am pleased to note that our party’s representations have been heeded in the matter of trained mediators. Our leader has pointed out on more than one occasion that genuine collective bargaining in the public sector is a new field, at least in Ontario, and that there is consequently a dearth of skilled mediators with the required experience. Bill 100 makes provision for a supply of trained personnel who should be of considerable assistance in future negotiations.

I must state at this point, however, Mr. Speaker, that section 11, subsection 2, which arranges for all contracts to expire on Aug. 31, will cause all kinds of difficulties when it takes full effect in 1976. It would appear that fact-finders, mediators, arbitrators and selectors will have one period of intense activity each year and nothing to do in the rest of the year. If this is the case, I trust they will not be paid a full year’s salary for a half year’s work. If approximately half of the contracts in dispute terminated at the end of December and the other half or the rest at the end of August, there would be a fairly full year’s work for a certain number of persons. Section 11(2) of Bill 100 will require twice as many trained persons for about one-half year’s work each. If this is the case the procedure is inefficient and unnecessarily expensive.

I have received only one letter from a teacher applauding the bill’s treatment of principals and vice-principals; dozens were opposed, just one was for. I have been approached by principals and vice-principals who did not participate in the mass resignations and the strikes in Windsor and by those who did. Yet all, both kinds, of these principals and vice-principals, want to be with their staffs in the future. They do not want to be alienated; they want to enjoy the full collective bargaining rights. They don’t want to be in the position of voting for a strike and then collecting a salary which amounts roughly to twice that of the average teacher while their fellows are picketing or on strike and not collecting.

I am particularly concerned about the separation of the principals and their assistants from the staff during a possible strike. I regret that so much of our debate is centering upon this situation because it’s our hope, of course, that strikes are going to become a very rare event. But in discussing the principle of the bill, this is what we have to talk about to a certain extent.

I believe it is axiomatic that the best schools are those which have the most harmonious relations between principals and vice-principals on the one hand and the teachers on the staff on the other, yet Bill 100 would separate them during a time of most tension, most frustration, if there were some benefit to be gained from this exclusion, I could weigh the possible benefits against the almost certain harm which will be caused by the exclusion.

It seems to me that the attitude of trustees in two of the cities where major strikes took place, Ottawa and Windsor, should be taken into consideration. They felt from their personal observations and experiences that this wedge should not be driven between the teachers and the head teachers. The minister should listen also to the numerous ex-teachers in this Legislature who have unanimously, I believe, expressed opposition to section 64, that is, the exclusion of a principal and vice-principal during the period of a strike if one should occur.

I consider section 64 a mischievous section; one of the few flaws in an otherwise good bill. The teachers want this deleted; the principals and the vice-principal want it deleted; at least some of the trustees want it deleted. Who is in favour of it? No one likes strikes. One of the features of a strike is the bad feeling engendered between those who have favoured a strike, and those who have not. It doesn’t take much imagination to realize the principals and vice-principals are going to be put in an invidious position.

Another flaw in the bill occurs in section 1(l), subsection iii, where the discontinuance of extracurricular programmes in a school is defined as a strike. Because the minister has never been a teacher, as far as I am aware, and because I taught for some 34 years in a school --

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Has the minister ever been a teacher?

Mr. Burr: -- in which, by and large, staff members worked in an atmosphere of harmonious co-operation, I feel I should share with the minister some of the benefits of my experience.

Extracurricular activities are usually agreed upon at the first staff meeting of the school year. The various school activities are listed and volunteers invited. During the year, special unforeseen events, drives or projects may be added, and further volunteers secured. Some of the student-centred activities common to almost all schools include the supervision of student councils; school year-book; open house evenings; graduation exercises; dances; fairs or garden parties; dramatic presentations; special clubs, e.g., art clubs, photography clubs, science clubs, chess clubs and any others that the students seem to be interested in.

It is recognized that music teachers, of course, will hold orchestra or choir practices outside of regular school hours. Physical education teachers will coach various teams outside of school hours. They know this when they decide to specialize in these particular areas of teaching.

It is traditional that all teachers share one heavy assignment one year and a lighter assignment the following year. Teachers whose timetables may be unusually heavy in one year may be given a less than average burden of extra activities, or even none at all in that particular year.

It is one of the peripheral, but important duties of a good principal to arrange these activities in the best interests of the staff and students, and to make sure the burdens are shared in an equitable fashion. Once you make voluntary activities of the teachers mandatory, you destroy something that is good. Once you force people to do something they are only too willing to do voluntarily, you can make a source of pleasure and satisfaction become drudgery; you kill the spirit of goodwill. The students know then that you are participating with them because you must, and not because you want to.

Furthermore, you are pushing extracurricular activities into the realm of negotiable items. This has happened at times in various parts of the province. Occasionally athletic coaches, for example, after a gruelling season of long extra hours of practices and playoffs have asked for bonus pay. Occasionally, a sympathetic board has responded favourably. Immediately the academic teachers, who may work until midnight several nights a week preparing lessons, marking tests and projects, evaluating essays, marking examinations, feel aggrieved that the athletic coaches are getting more money although working fewer hours after school. Such actions have caused more ill will than you would imagine. I hate to see this possible development encouraged by section 1(l), subsection iii.

Any teacher, or principal, with a few years of experience will tell you the fewer rules there are for a staff the better off for everybody. Once we codify and tabulate and formalize extracurricular activities, we can expect at least one member on almost any staff to begin to make odious comparisons about workloads, to criticize those members who work beyond the call of duty, in short, to create disharmony. Why does the ministry insist on promoting conditions that will cause ill will? It is simply asking for trouble.

It is wrong for the minister to make the teachers’ benevolence compulsory, and I don’t mind saying that it is equally wrong for teachers to take out any possible spite they might have toward the minister by suspending their benevolence toward their students. Let us be fair about this, a little good faith and charity should be exercised on both sides. So I ask the minister to delete section 1(l)(iii) and I ask the teachers to prove, should the need ever arise, that he was justified in deleting it.

Although I used the word “burden” in reference to extracurricular activities, I used it in the sense that it is a demand on a teacher’s time rather than on his or her talents. Teachers may derive as much value out of the activities as the students, because it enables them to establish a rapport much more quickly, much more easily and much more firmly than in the ordinary classroom work.

The benefits of this rapport, of course, are reflected later in the classroom behaviour and interest of the students involved. Even today, when, from time to time, after many years I encounter former pupils, the ones with whom I am able to reminisce most pleasantly are usually the ones with whom I helped to decorate the gym for a school dance, or the ones who helped me in the second-hand book exchange or belonged to the noon-hour chess club in my home room. In a school system, a pupil’s future life and human relationships do not depend entirely on the formal procedures of the traditional school room. Much of the formal teaching is soon forgotten, but the attitudes developed inside and outside the classroom last a lifetime. So, again, Mr. Speaker, I urge the minister to delete section 1(l) subsection iii.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have looked forward to participating in the discussion on this bill, because as I look across to the minister, I can recall circumstances where, in debates in this House over various legislation dealing with teachers, teacher-board negotiations and education generally, we have had a strong difference of opinion. In this legislation, as the minister knows, generally we are in agreement with the principles that are outlined in the bill, and I do not intend to go into all the areas where we have certain reservations. These matters have already been said.

I suppose something should be said about the legislation as a preliminary before we get into discussion of the actual bill itself. If that minister should have a theme song, it’s “What a difference a year makes.” I have before me here, the debate that took place here in mid-December, 1973, and I recall at that time the position taken by the government. It would be very interesting and I think the minister, I suppose for posterity’s sake if not for political reasons, should outline some of the debates that took place in that Conservative caucus about this change of mind by this minister and by the caucus. I can recall, and I can quote here from Hansard --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): The caucus never had a shot at it. That’s how it got through.

Mr. Roy: Well, somebody must have used harsh words, because I recall discussing it privately with members of caucus and I recall the position taken by the caucus and the minister and the Premier (Mr. Davis) back in December, 1973. Their position was quite clear at that time.

I can recall, Mr. Speaker, in the Hansard of Dec. 12, 1973, strong words were exchanged across the House. If you recall at that time, Mr. Speaker, the objection taken to the bill -- apart from the draftsmanship, which was just terrible, and I must say to the minister that the draftsmanship in this bill has improved somewhat -- but I recall in the famous Bill 274 that the draftsmanship and the matters in the bill certainly left something to be desired. The effects of it, if brought to their logical conclusion, would have been, in simple terms, very tragic.

I recall asking in an exchange with the minister -- not only I, but other members -- the reason why Bill 274 was taking away from teachers or workers the right to resign from employment. And, of course, anyone in a democracy must oppose that position.

I recall the minister’s reason for that. I read from page 7104 in Hansard of Dec. 12, 1973, where the minister had given an explanation of this and he said: “What we are really dealing with here, Mr. Speaker, is a strike. What this legislation is doing is reaffirming our principle that we do not feel that teachers should strike.”

So, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, I think he might address us, following our discussions and input in this legislation, and tell us the history of this change -- this St. Paul’s conversion, as we might call it, on the part of this minister and on the part of this government.

The leader of the NDP, Mr. Speaker, when he discussed the bill earlier this afternoon, went into certain reasons that brought about this change. He talked about the question of bargaining in good faith and that possibly this was the proper approach to teacher-school board negotiations, the approach taken in this bill. Then he went on to talk about political reasons.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the reason for the change is that, having delayed as long as they have in bringing in any legislation, they were forced into a situation. It became obvious that the teachers were striking anyway. Whether you called it a mass resignation, a strike, or whatever, the minister finally realized the legislation was too narrow, too restrictive.

Mr. Speaker, if you have that type of legislation, the workers, no matter who they are, cannot be stopped from striking -- because it is unfair to them. They will strike anyway.

Other members have mentioned instances of this. For instance, there was the firemen’s strike in Montreal. If they see that the authority they are bargaining with or the legislation puts them in a straitjacket, then government is forcing them into that situation.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to refer to an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen following the lengthy teachers’ strike in Ottawa in April of this year. They talked about this question of strikes and the effects such a strike has on a community. I suppose of any community in this province, Ottawa has been hit with strikes as much as anyone. We have had three since Jan. 1, 1975. Fortunately, two of them were resolved in a matter of just a few weeks. But the strike which lasted seven weeks, Mr. Speaker, involving the Ottawa Public School Board, created havoc and created a lot of bad feeling. This was not only among teachers and parents within the community, but among the students and among certain teacher groups. No community should be forced into that situation.

As the Citizen pointed out in its editorial, one of the main reasons for this is that there was no legislation. Legislation which had been promised for 18 months had not been brought in. And so school boards were taking positions in a vacuum and teachers were trying to assert what they felt was a reasonable approach to bargaining in sort of a vacuum as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am reading from the Citizen of Tuesday, April 15, 1975, where it states:

“It will take time to assess the bargaining strategies, proposals and counterproposals which led to the tentative settlement of the Ottawa high school teachers’ strike. The most important question is, was it worth it? Well, this question will not be answered quickly or easily. But some conclusions can be drawn. The most important is that the legislation governing bargaining between teachers and school boards is overdue” --

how often have we said that in this House, Mr. Speaker? We’re not the only ones:

-- “a fact which probably contributed to the confusion which prolonged the strike.”

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, through the minister, how many times have we told this minister the effect when you had a vacuum, when legislation had been promised for 18 months and had not been brought in; and the effect on teacher-school board negotiations?

The editorial goes on to say:

“One thing the legislation should contain, unpopular though it may be, is the right of teachers to strike. Outlawing such strikes in the future will not accomplish anything. Strikes will happen anyway, only they will be classified as illegal. Far better to establish the strike right and place it within a framework of rules and procedures which will make effective bargaining possible.

“Bargaining has not been effective in the Ottawa situation. This, as much as the original pact that was offered, and what was demanded, was largely responsible both for the strike and for its duration. There was little of the give and take which traditionally characterizes the collective bargaining process. Not until the very end, in the formal sense, did the teachers budge from their original position. The board, after an initial flurry, also stood still for a long time. Board offers were made without teachers knowing what they were. Teachers’ goals were not clear to the public; in fact, were not clear to many of the teachers. Further extraneous factors were too influential. Teacher strategy was geared, it seems, for political impact elsewhere rather than to a quick settlement here and the seeming imminence of provincial legislation” --

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Is the member reading?

Mr. Roy: What’s the minister’s problem? Reading from a document? Man, he couldn’t say two words in this House if he didn’t read from a document.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Roy: Continuing to quote:

-- “the seeming imminence of the provincial legislation to cod the strike diminished the board’s negotiations flexibility.”

The Ottawa strike has been, in short, an exercise in the failure to communicate. It has also been a splendid example, if the government is looking for one, of what to avoid in the future.

Mr. Foulds: Be a little more generous and read the Ottawa Citizen editorial of June 12.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education):

Why doesn’t the member do that?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the minister, looking at the Ottawa situation, has reflected, or has learned some of the things that have been put in the bill. If nothing else, I suppose there are matters in the bill which will certainly force both parties to communicate. That was a problem.

It always seemed to us, Mr. Speaker, as well -- and one of the things mentioned in Ottawa or in the editorial here -- was the fact that the teachers’ strategy was geared, it seems, for political impact elsewhere rather than to a quick settlement here.

Mr. Foulds: What does that mean, exactly?

Mr. Roy: We have always felt that that was a problem, in the sense that the teacher negotiator for Toronto -- I don’t recall what his name was, the fellow in Ottawa -- when people talked about the community response and the parent concern about the strike lasting this long, seemed not to be too concerned about this, whereas some of the local teachers seemed to be much more sensitive to the situation.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I suppose what this party and what I as a member from the Ottawa area must be critical of this minister and the ministry for is the fact that you have allowed no legislation for a period of 18 months. In fact, that situation has caused, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, irreparable damage in Ottawa.

What did he do, for instance, during that period of time for these students who, in fact, have quit school; students who felt they could not continue because they were in their last year, were getting marginal grades and thought they would get employment elsewhere and have left? I suppose there will be other students who, in spite of the effort made by universities to be more flexible, will not get a chance to get into universities because of their marks or because they have lost time or whatever.

I suppose, other situations have been caused by strikes involving the students. It is a fact that some students, having all this time on their hands, got into trouble and ended up in court, and this is not something that I speak of idly. In talking to family court officials and provincial court officials, they said that during the Ottawa teachers’ strike, the crime rate involving students increased.

I really think that the fact that the minister delayed so long, the fact that he was indecisive for so long, the fact that he failed to bring about legislation which would create a framework for negotiations, caused some of the problems that we have in Ottawa. I only hope that this legislation, in some way, over a long term -- and I am sure it will be some term -- will create a system where we can correct some of the damage, some of the flaws that were felt following the teachers’ strike in Ottawa.

As the leader of the NDP has said, if nothing else, the approach by this government toward teacher negotiations has solidified the teacher movement to a point where this government -- and it’s reflected by this legislation -- backed off. One of the main reasons, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have this present legislation is that the government was afraid of the threats from the teachers. It is obvious by the minister’s own approach during the Ottawa teachers’ strike. We were in the fifth and sixth week of the strike and he was sunning himself out there in Florida; not that he is not entitled to that, but his timing --

Hon. Mr. Wells: What does this have to do with this bill?

Mr. Roy: The minister can sit there, casual and satisfied with himself, but I am saying that he has not accepted his responsibility during the last 18 months and I don’t think he should be allowed to get away with it.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Ottawa East stick to the principle of Bill 100?

Mr. Roy: I am speaking to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: You are not speaking to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Roy: I ask what took so long? What took so long?

Mr. Foulds: Did it ever occur to the member that if the bill had been brought in earlier, he would be speaking to a different principle?

Mr. Roy: A different principle?

Mr. Foulds: Yes, there would be a much different bill.

Mr. Roy: I don’t know what the member is talking about. The fact remains, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Foulds: He knows what I’m talking about; he would have been speaking on Bill 275 if the minister brought it in 18 months ago.

Mr. Roy: Well, it was more than the minister’s usefulness in the Ottawa situation. He, as Minister of Education, was sunning himself out there in Florida while those schools were closed for seven weeks.

That was useful. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that because of the long delay he has caused some of the situations that we have seen not only in Ottawa but in other areas of the province.

Speaking about some of the factors in the bill that I am pleased to see, one of them deals, for instance, with the general principle of the bill, the right to strike -- which we support and which we have supported for some time. The other aspect of it is -- I applaud it, but I don’t know if it has been mentioned --

Hon. Mr. Wells: The member wanted to force them back by legislation in Ottawa.

Mr. Roy: I wanted the minister to accept his responsibility. He should have been negotiating --

Hon. Mr. Wells: The member wanted them legislated back.

Mr. Roy: Yes, the minister should have been negotiating with the teachers after the third or fourth week. That’s what he should have been doing.

Hon. Mr. Wells: And what does the member think I was doing?

Mr. Roy: Where was the minister? Why doesn’t he accept his responsibility as Minister of Education?

Mr. Foulds: Does the member for Ottawa East support or oppose the bill?

Mr. Roy: My position is clear. I said we support the bill. Are they deaf or something?

Mr. Foulds: Does he support the right of teachers to strike?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Ottawa East has the floor. Please speak to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Roy: The NDP are so predictable. They are more afraid of any movement than anybody else. What’s their slogan again, “Bring on yesterday what we should have done tomorrow,” or how does it go? I can’t tell.

Mr. Foulds: Is the member not bilingual? Can he not understand one language?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Yes, what’s their slogan again? “Do tomorrow what you should have done yesterday”?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: I get confused about their new slogan, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: What is the Liberal slogan? Kiss me, I’m Liberal. What kind of a slogan is that?

Mr. Roy: Why don’t you do tomorrow what you should have been doing today or something?

Mr. Foulds: You are confusing.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I think, getting back to the bill, one of the important aspects, and I have never understood it, when a strike vote was taken it was an open vote. I see that this bill will make it a secret vote.

I have discussed this a number of times with teachers. Many teachers have personally taken objection to the fact they had to sign their ballot or have an open vote. I could never understand how, in movements such as union movements, you have an open vote of this nature. In other phases of the democratic process if it was not a secret vote there would be no objections, there would be cries to high heaven.

Mr. Foulds: It is not a secret vote in the Legislature. What is the member talking about, a secret vote?

Mr. Roy: Did that member speak on this bill, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Foulds: Yes.

Mr. Roy: Well why doesn’t he let others speak then?

Mr. Foulds: I gave the member a chance to speak.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Port Arthur just withhold his remarks at this time?

Mr. Roy: I would like to emphasize as well some of the matters emphasized by some of my colleagues about the fact principals or vice-principals cannot have full bargaining rights. This has been repeated ad infinitum to the minister, but I want to point out to him that if he is logically including them in the original negotiations, what is he doing stopping it half way? If he were really serious about stopping the principals and vice-principals, why would he not exclude them from the original negotiations?

I really can’t see the point. I have tried to discuss it with my colleagues; and I’ve discussed it with a number of principals and with a number of teachers.

What is the logic of stopping part way as they do, and what will it do? It has been pointed out to me by principals that it will in fact force principals or vice-principals right out of the OSSTF.

If they can’t participate with their confreres the other teachers or have full bargaining rights, it is obvious that after a while, if they are considered part of management at one particular step, when it comes down to the final crunch, the right to strike, it seems to us their interests will be divergent and at that point they will be forced out. They will step out of that particular association.

I’m trying to understand. The government says it needs someone from management in the schools. Is it going to make that much difference if there is a principal or a vice-principal in the school?

It seems to me there are arguments against this aspect of the legislation. The arguments for including them with the other teachers in the full bargaining process are much stronger. In a sense, it would appear to be more advantageous to keep the whole apparatus of education in a particular school, principals, teachers and so on, together.

I really can’t understand why the minister stopped half way unless he wanted to give the appearance he wasn’t going all the way.

I suggest that is what has been done. Why doesn’t the minister take out the last aspects of confrontation in this bill? I really can’t understand why we would stop at that point.

Mention has been made as well, Mr. Speaker, of the question of voluntary services. I don’t intend to go into that in any length, but again it seems to me that in principle, looking at the logic and the principle of the idea, if these services on the part of the teacher are voluntarily given, they can be voluntarily withdrawn. It seems to us the teachers make a good point, especially when one considers that the withdrawal of such services will be punishable by per diem fines; I don’t know what the fines are, but that seems to us to be unfair. It seems illogical to take that approach in this bill.

Finally, there has been concern in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, about the fact contracts will start and end on the same date across the province. I can see a problem, of course, for the fact-finding commissions as outlined in the bill. But I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things that should be looked at by the minister is that maybe negotiation deadlines could be imposed which would not necessarily correspond with the ending or the starting of the contracts, so that we would not be faced with a situation where all at once the fact-finding commission would be involved in looking into teacher negotiations for 20 different school boards at the same time.

I think the regulation to this legislation could be amended or could be improved or something could be inserted where the bill talks about different periods of negotiations to encourage boards to negotiate at different times for contracts starting and ending at the same time. Having said this, even though we have been critical of the approach taken by this government and the delay in bringing in this type of legislation, which has caused irreparable damage in some areas -- and I mention Ottawa -- the principle of this bill certainly is worth supporting and that we will do.

Hon. Mr. Snow: If I may beg the indulgence of the members of the House at this time, I would like to introduce to the members a very fine group of people in your gallery this evening, Mr. Speaker: The president and members of the executive of the Halton-Burlington Progressive Conservative Association --

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): An election in the wind.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- along with the president and the members of the executive of the Oakville Progressive Conservative Association.

Mr. Reid: It’s nice to see the Minister of Government Services here. He should come more often.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Along with that, Mr. Speaker, we have the new candidate for the riding of Halton-Burlington, Mr. Dawkins.

I’d just like the hon. members to welcome this fine group of people in the gallery.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): There aren’t many Tories in their seats.

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

Mr. Samis: There are 11 Tories here tonight, out 74.

Mr. Roy: We are very privileged. That is the most the minister has said in two months.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): There are only four NDPs.

Mr. Samis: There are 11 Tories and six NDP here tonight.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Would my colleague desist while I am on my feet?

Mr. Samis: I want to get this into the record.

Mr. Speaker: Order please; the member for Windsor West.

Mr. Roy: I think it would be fair to invite them down here to fill all those seats.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this Act to lay out negotiations on collective agreements between school boards and teachers, I’d just like to take a minute or two to say it was most appropriate for the member for Halton East to arrange for the visitors we have here in the gallery at the moment, because I was a resident of Halton county for a great many years, having arrived at Milton at age two. At some advanced age -- I am not sure when exactly -- I cut the umbilical cord and left.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): That’s where the member went astray. That is what happened.

Mr. Bounsall: Of course, I still consider Halton county my home, to be exact. When I speak of my home it’s Halton county I speak of.

Mr. Kennedy: I guessed it was down Windsor way.

Mr. Reid: I hope they notice there are only eight Tories in the House tonight; in fact, 8½.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That is more than there are Liberals.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): One of us is as good as five of them.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Reid: They have all gone to choir practice tonight.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Rainy River withhold his remarks? The member for Windsor West has the floor. Proceed please.

Mr. Bounsall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the general principles of this bill in that it provides a very careful step-by-step procedure that should aid considerably in achieving collective agreements between teachers and school boards in this province. I come from an area, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, that has been struck twice in the last two years. With that experience, in talking to teachers and school board members and concerned parents, I speak with some authority when I say that this bill will go a long way to achieving labour peace in this province between teachers and school boards.

Mr. Speaker, we in the NDP have pressed hard for the good aspects of this bill for a long time and over a great many years in one form or another. We therefore are in obvious support of many of the sections in this bill.

The bill, of course, is long overdue. It is far superior to Bills 274 and 275 of December, 1973. In most respects this bill, therefore, was almost worth waiting for. I would have hoped the same bill could have been brought in a year ago or more, some four or five months after the abortive bills of December, 1973. I suppose it takes the minister some time to rearrange his thinking and learn about the type of collective bargaining that should be taking place between teachers and boards and finally come through with the particular bill we have before us.

Mr. Foulds: I don’t begrudge him the time, it was well spent.

Mr. Bounsall: It’s here in any event. I’ve been one in the past who criticized the minister publicly for procrastinating so long over the introduction of this bill. In fact, I called the delay in the bringing in of this bill reprehensible. We have it before us now, and by and large it is a good bill.

The right to strike is not denied to teachers. It is explicitly granted to them. The situation prior to the introduction of this bill, of course, is that in the absence of any specific denial of that right, the right is there. Indeed, we saw that right employed, as I’ve mentioned, twice in Windsor in the last two years; and in Ottawa and Thunder Bay as well last winter.

There are those in Ontario who termed those strikes illegal. They did not know of what they were speaking. If there was no legislation which denied the right to strike, then strike action was in fact legal.

So the situation as a result of this bill, re the right to strike, is as it has been all along. Teachers have the right to strike. We have just explicitly confirmed they have that right.

Both the Ontario School Trustees’ Council and the Ontario Teachers’ Federation have endorsed that right to strike. The minister shows, by the statement made to the House on May 30, that he has in fact learned a great deal about negotiations in the past year and a half, having had to confront the situation that occurred in some school boards.

To show how far the minister has progressed in the last year and a half, it’s probably worth quoting a couple of sentences from that minister’s statement. The minister said on May 30:

“We have found that it is not realistic to believe that strike-prohibiting legislation solves most of the problems, or leads to acceptable wage settlements and harmony; or even to believe that it eliminates strikes altogether.”

Right on. It shows how much the minister has learned in the last year and a half. In fact, he goes on to say:

“We’ve found much evidence that restrictive legislation of this sort often leads to more disruption and continuing problems than it prevents. Rather than eliminating confrontations it magnifies them and expands them.”

With that statement, we in this party, most certainly agree with the minister. Those in Ontario society who feel taking away the right to strike solves something have been totally wrong right along. The minister has found this out.

Mr. Foulds: By the way, who’s the minister’s speech writer?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Me.

Mr. Bounsall: If the minister is his own speech writer he is to be even more congratulated on arriving at that position about the right to strike, and about the effect of denial of the right to strike.

We in the NDP have said this right along when we have had bills before the House on compulsory arbitration; when we have talked about the bills from time to time and amendments have come up on the hospital labour arbitration Act about the need to grant hospital workers the right to strike, it having been denied to them before. All that denying the right to strike to a group of employees does is to make that strike, when they finally take that action, illegal. It really allows no other recourse in law.

Mr. Roy: I thought the member believed in essential services now.

Mr. Bounsall: The member for Ottawa East --

Mr. Samis: That’s the renegade member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Bounsall: -- gets so confused about things --

Mr. Samis: Have him tell us about denticare.

Mr. Bounsall: He manages to confuse himself and his own position, let alone other people’s positions.

Ms. Roy: What about essential services?

Mr. Samis: Let’s have something on denticare.

Mr. Roy: Tell us about essential services.

Mr. Foulds: We sure know the member is not one.

Mr. Bounsall: We certainly wouldn’t want to confuse the member for Ottawa East --

Mr. Roy: Tell us about the NDP policy there.

Mr. Bounsall: A straight answer to the member for Ottawa East would only result in his getting further confused.

Mr. Foulds: Does he have any further bills to discuss?

Mr. Roy: Tell us about essential services.

Mr. Bounsall: For those who feel threatened in society --

Mr. Foulds: Like the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Bounsall: That’s right -- by granting teachers the right to strike in explicit terms --

Mr. Roy: They don’t miss the member at all in Port Arthur.

Mr. Bounsall: -- they should not feel uncertain, they should be reassured by the careful steps the minister has put in this bill.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Roy: Speak up. I can’t hear the member.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Is the member going to send his lead-off speech to the Ombudsman bill to his constituents?

Mr. Roy: Why not? It is better than most speeches made around here.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Foulds: It is better than most speeches the member has made around.

Mr. Samis: The member for Ottawa East is being a little obstreperous tonight.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The first thing I think should be pointed out to the parents in this province who may be concerned about granting teachers the right to strike are the good faith bargaining provisions in this bill. In more than one place in this bill it stresses that parties must bargain in good faith; and good faith bargaining is, of course, the cornerstone on which all collective bargaining rests. Teachers are a thinking, reflective group of individuals with minds trained to receive and consider ideas as much as by profession they are trained to pass those ideas and those concepts on, both new ideas and old truths. The steps provided for the good faith bargaining assumed here will not fall on more fertile ground than the teachers of Ontario. The trust the minister has placed in their judgement and desire to bargain in good faith, and their capacity to judge, is well placed in this bill.

Mr. Foulds: And with the trustees.

Mr. Bounsall: And with the trustees; I don’t want to exclude the trustees. The trustees by and large are well chosen by the people they represent. If over the years a trustee is found to be recalcitrant in one area or another, it’s been my experience that trustee is finally not re-elected. I trust the judgement of the people of Ontario in this matter in terms of electing trustees who take their job of representing their constituents and bargaining in good faith for contracts with teachers very seriously. The people who elect them will ensure they do.

The second thing I find very interesting about this bill is that the minister has appointed a fact-finder. This fact-finder is to be appointed by the Education Relations Commission; he is to examine both sides of the dispute when appointed and report to both sides of the dispute. If an agreement is not made within 15 days, that report becomes public. I think that is a very key provision, one which in other terms we have urged upon various sectors of this government.

It’s been our policy that such a board in the public service would be very helpful. The problem in our society, be they servants, teachers or public servants, is that it’s very difficult to determine what is fair and what is appropriate in the particular circumstances in a way in which the public understands. Here we have an unbiased third party -- I’ll speak more about bias later -- who comes in and looks at both sides of the issue. This persons knows something about education; knows something about what working conditions mean for a teacher; knows something about the problems under which teachers have to labour in their classrooms; what they mean by working conditions; and what they need in terms of the tools to carry out their job of educating children. Looking at both sides of the dispute, he can come in and make a report as to what he feels should be done in the situation. If agreement can’t be reached, this report becomes public after 15 days; the public can then judge; it has some criterion for measuring the fairness of the fact-finder’s report and to form an opinion as to whether or not the sides should have agreed; or it will become clear -- which is very helpful -- which side is recalcitrant by the remarks both sides make when the report becomes public.

Then, of course, the report itself is not binding; it is to advise and guide the parties. Having received the report in the first instance, the bill enjoins them to endeavour in good faith to renew their current agreement.

After 15 days the parties have several routes open to them. One is to go to binding arbitration; another to send all matters of dispute to final-offer arbitration; or after a further 15 days they can proceed along the strike route, provided they have voted on the board’s last offer by secret ballot, conducted by the Education Relations Commission. A strike vote would follow rejection of the board’s last offer. So the route in arriving at the position where a strike can occur is a very careful one.

I appreciate the very careful steps one must go through to reach a position where the strike situation becomes legal. It is irresistible, I would think, for most teachers and boards in this province to have reached agreement long before they get to the position where a strike is necessary.

Speaking of strikes, there have been very few strikes in the teacher area. It is like everything else, those that occur we hear about. We hear about the length of them, we hear about it almost ad nauseum while the strike is going on.

Yet compared to the number of collective agreements signed between teachers and boards in Ontario over the last two years, the number of strikes that have taken place is almost negligible; I think around one per cent or less.

Mr. Foulds: Point nine per cent.

Mr. Bounsall: Point nine per cent is it? I am reminded by the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Samis: And he knows.

Mr. Bounsall: Well, 99.1 per cent were settled without resort to strike; point nine per cent had to resort to strike.

A very small percentage have gone to strike in the absence of the series of carefully laid down steps we find in this bill. The provisions in this bill should reassure the public that boards will not be continually contending with strikes, nor will teachers be clawing at their blackboards to go on strike. They in fact ensure that very few strikes will ever occur in this province.

There are other good points in the bill, Mr. Speaker. All matters, including conditions of work, are bargainable except pensions. Pensions for teachers are found in the Teachers’ Superannuation Act.

As time goes on, Mr. Speaker, one might reconsider the whole position of teachers’ pensions, and I hope some time in the future pensions will be bargainable under a teachers’ Act. This would, of course, require an Act which changes the funding of teachers’ pensions and therefore pensions would become bargainable. In this day and age pension funds are not only bargainable in the industrial world, but in some sectors the workers who produce those pensions are given some say in the investment of those pensions. Over the next few years I think it is incumbent upon us, and on the Minister of Education, to put our minds to finding a way in which teachers can have an input on their pensions and how those pensions can become bargainable; to considering giving teachers, on a portion of those pension funds if they choose, up to a certain maximum perhaps to start with, an input on the investment decisions.

Having pointed out these good things about the bill, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education, from the other speakers who have come into the debate, knows full well what our objections are. The biggest flaw, of course, is exclusion of the principals and vice-principals, under section 74, from being allowed to strike with the rest of the teachers.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Section 74?

Mr. Samis: It is section 64.

Mr. Bounsall: Section 64, rather. This is a very divisive section, Mr. Speaker. It illustrates the attitude of this government; the residual attitude which somehow considers principals and vice-principals part of a management team, as if you can take the industrial counterpart and transmit it into the school system and say: “There’s your equivalent of foremen in vice-principals, and there’s your equivalent of supervisors as far as principals go.”

Well as the minister knows, this just is not applicable. He cannot make that analogy from the industrial world to the world of teachers in schools.

The minister has heard from more than one person that teachers consider principals and vice-principals to be principal teachers. So we have principals and vice-principals in this bill part of the particular teachers’ group or federation to which they belong. That federation is going to bargain on their salaries, and yet the principal and vice-principal are not going to be allowed to participate in a strike vote, or in fact go on strike.

I would like to read a letter I received from a trustee on the Windsor Board of Education. I think this is particularly appropriate because it is a trustee writing to me about this bill. He comes from a board that has had two teacher strikes in the last two years.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Is he a teacher?

Mr. Bounsall: He is not a teacher.

The minister is trying to irritate us here tonight. I presume that the minister, by that remark, is objecting to the fact that the people of Windsor chose to elect a couple of teachers to the Windsor Board of Education --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would return to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Samis: He is just responding to the question, that’s all.

Mr. Bounsall: Why would the minister make the statement?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would speak to the principle of this bill.

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, the real raison d’être behind it.

Most of the members, on the Windsor Board of Education, as the minister knows, are not teachers nor are they married to teachers. This is not one of them, and it shows that suspicion hasn’t passed entirely from the minister’s mind with respect to teachers.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member will return to the principle.

Mr. Samis: He is just answering the question.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, please call the minister to order for being provocative. He is being provocative at this hour of the night.

Mr. Sands: He is explaining the letter, that’s all.

Mr. Bounsall: In any event, to start the letter, Mr. Speaker:

“Overall, this bill is quite palatable. However, there are two very serious questions which I, as a taxpayer, a father of school-aged children and a school trustee must raise. These two questions refer to points in the bill which can and will have far-reaching and long-lasting negative effects on our school system and therefore on the welfare of thousands of students.

“No. 1, the exclusion of principals and vice-principals from normal membership should not be tolerated by teacher federations nor by rational boards of education. The proposed legislation demands all teachers, including principal teachers, to be members of the federation or other teacher organization, but the principals and vice-principals cannot vote on a proposed strike action. Thereby disenfranchised if a strike is imposed, the principals are compelled to cross their own federation’s picket line, which will have the effect of totally destroying the necessary positive relationship between teacher and principal teacher.”

This is the key section of the letter at this point. He has simply stated what many of us have been stating about the principal and the vice-principal being principal teachers, but he speaks from experience now:

“During the OSSTF strike against the Windsor board last December and January, the principals chose to cross the picket lines. The wound is still in the healing process.

“During the OSSTF strike against the Ottawa board earlier this year, the principals chose to support the strike action. There was no wound to heal. Therefore at the conclusion of the strike, all efforts turned to the benefits of the students.

“This item is most important. If not amended, I feel it could move to destroy the quality of education in this province.”

And by that, of course, he is referring to the rift which will arise and can grow between the teachers in a particular school and the principal and vice-principals as they are forced to cross their own federation’s picket line.

He gives a point, too, which I may refer to later on another section. But there is the comment of a school board trustee sitting back and observing the Windsor situation, where the principals decided to cross the picket line.

Hon. Mr. Wells: What is the other point?

Mr. Bounsall: I’ll get to that when I --

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’d like to hear that now.

Mr. Bounsall: Oh, would the minister like to hear that now?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes.

Mr. Bounsall: All right:

“No. 2, I am led to believe that the purpose of the commission is to provide a reasonable degree of neutrality. [He is speaking of the Education Relations Commission in his second point.] Inasmuch as this commission will have considerable prestige and influence, I find it impossible to believe that neutrality can be achieved with appointments being made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

I’ll have further remarks about the composition of the Education Relations Commission, Mr. Speaker, in just a few moments. Continuing on about the principal and vice-principal situation, I don’t really see why the minister has to have this section in here at all, except inasmuch as he is completely misguided in an analogy between industry and schools.

In many schools I would suspect the opinion as to whether or not to strike and the consequences of that strike, that whole topic, would best be addressed by the principals and vice-principals who belong to that particular federation. But the fact is that they cannot take a strike vote; they really cannot attend the meetings in which the topic of strikes comes up, or if they attend they certainly can’t speak. In practice they should leave the meeting entirely and not participate at all or even listen to the arguments.

This not only deprives the principal and vice-principal of a right, it deprives the federation of their input, that is the particular group of teachers who are coming to a decision as to what kind of action to take. It really denies that group the opinions of what are to them, and quite legitimately, the principal teachers; the teachers they respect in many instances, I would say in most instances.

This is the serious flaw, this attempt to make some real difference between the principals and vice-principals and the rest of the teachers in the school.

And let me say right here, Mr. Speaker, that if I were a teacher in the elementary or secondary school system, and if I had to be making and participating in the decisions as to whether or not to strike and if the result was to strike, I would hope the group to which I belonged, in the interest of the pupils, would ensure that the libraries of the school stayed open so that children or parents who feel that they should have some means of continuing their education would have the libraries of those schools available to them. In the decision as to who should return to the schools, if anybody, in a strike situation, I would think they may rationally think and give their approval to principal or vice-principals returning; teachers returning on a rotational basis to man the libraries so that those libraries could remain open.

But that is a decision to be made by those teachers who have finally decided, having worked through all the steps of this bill, to take that strike action; that decision should be theirs.

It speaks to their maturity, if the particular group of teachers in an area, should they go on strike, set up some sort of rotational basis by which the libraries are kept open for the purposes of those students who wish to come in and continue on work under their own guidance.

They should not, however, be in a situation where there is no way these two important groups of persons should be forever not eligible to take strike action. In fact, it puts them in an invidious situation, Mr. Speaker, when the principals and the vice-principals are not allowed to strike.

They are not allowed to take a strike vote; they are not allowed to be with their colleagues who are taking this sort of action, should it come to that. Yet this very group that has gone on strike must negotiate the salary and working conditions of the principals and vice-principals. They have to negotiate salary and working conditions for a couple of categories of their membership who are not allowed to take that collective action with them or have an input in accepting or rejecting the contract or what levels they wish to attempt to achieve. This not only deprives principals and vice-principals of a right, it sets up a situation which in terms of working conditions and salary can as well be highly discriminatory for them; it doesn’t necessarily have to be, but it can be.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Minister of Education is throwing in this section of the bill so that when it gets to the committee stage he can again be complimented for the fact he has taken it out. However, I certainly hope it comes about in the committee stage; this section of the bill must be removed.

The other aspect on which the trustee from Windsor wrote to me was the Education Relations Commission. I have had many letters from principals, vice-principals, staffs of schools and individual teachers over the last three or four days. One of the points which occurs time and time again is the unease about the Education Relations Commission.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that this is not an original thought which the minister has laid out here. It occurs for the first lime I know of in the Saskatchewan bill on teacher collective bargaining. The name is almost directly copied from that bill. They call theirs the Educational Relations Board, we have the Education Relations Commission. However, the constitution and the makeup of the two differ rather widely.

In the Saskatchewan legislation, the Educational Relations Board is also composed of five members. However, two are nominated by the federation, two by the school board associations and one member, the chairman, is nominated by a majority of the other four members. Where agreement cannot be reached among the other four members, the chairman shall be nominated by -- and I think this is almost as interesting as the fact that the board is composed of two nominees from the federation and two from the association -- the Chief Justice of the Queen’s Bench.

I don’t know the full significance of that, but to me it says that the Chief Justice of the Queen’s Bench is a totally impartial person and when asked to appoint the chairman of this very important, in Saskatchewan’s terms, Educational Relations Board, he is sufficiently above the fray and sufficiently knowledgeable to make a fine appointment.

Hon. Mr. Wells: He is not accountable.

Mr. Bounsall: That is why I find it interesting. Perhaps in committee we can have dialogue about who can best make that chairman’s appointment.

Hon. Mr. Wells: One either believes in the total democratic process or one doesn’t believe in it. People should be accountable for the decisions they make.

Mr. Bounsall: That is the reason the minister didn’t choose the Chief Justice in Ontario’s situation, but certainly I can see Saskatchewan choosing --

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is a different commission. It is not the same type. Theirs is an adversary type of commission.

Mr. Bounsall: This is what we need to talk about at some length in the committee.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We don’t see an adversary situation.

Mr. Bounsall: There is real unease about this. The unease was reflected in the second point which I read from the school trustee. He finds it impossible to believe that neutrality can be achieved with appointments made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

That unease is expressed in many of the letters I have received. It’s a case of who is more impartial, the minister and the Ontario cabinet with the Lieutenant Governor putting into effect the recommendations of the minister; or a Chief Justice in the Province of Ontario.

Many teachers are concerned, and obviously some school trustees are concerned, about the appointment of the chairman and, in fact, the whole board, by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I am not totally sure that I agree, but I share some of the unease. It’s the old story: We would be a bit uneasy about the minister’s appointments, and the minister would be a bit uneasy about our appointments; the school trustees are a little bit uneasy unless they have some say in those appointments, and obviously the teachers are a little bit uneasy unless they have some say in those appointments.

What we are saying here is that if the minister proposes, as he has in the bill, that the commissioners be appointed solely by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, what he has to do is to be absolutely scrupulous that those appointments are above criticism. If he can achieve that -- and this is a key consideration in this bill working at all -- if those appointments are above criticism, then the Education Relations Commission, and all those jobs which that Education Relations Commission must do, become much more believable. Some suggestions, name-wise, came from the member for Thunder Bay --

Mr. Samis: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Bounsall: I am sorry; the member for Port Arthur -- for that Education Relations Commission; and I am sure the minister is very much aware how careful he must be in those appointments.

There is one other worry that I have about this section, and that is the length of the term of those appointments. I would be much happier if those appointments, carefully gathered as the minister must gather them, were made for longer periods. What I fear arising here, with these appointments made for one, two or three years in the initial instance -- and I assume they are going to be three-year appointments, all of them renewable -- is that in the last year or year and a half of a member’s work on this commission, the member will be second-guessing what sort of decisions he or she should be coming up with to ensure reappointment.

We have seen this sort of thing happening in the case of chairmen of arbitration boards under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act. We get a very good decision from one arbitrator and one can almost see him becoming nervous, over the next three or four, about giving a similar award in other areas, lest he not be reappointed as an arbitrator again; and he almost reverses himself in terms of the quality of his decision.

I have often suspected that other arbitrators have not gone as far as they would like to have gone, not because there is any direct pressure upon them, but because they hope by being very conservative to satisfy those people who appointed them in the first place; they are bucking for a reappointment.

I would have been much happier, Mr. Speaker, to have seen a much longer term for the hopefully scrupulously good appointments the minister is going to make in the first instance. If he is not going to take onto that board representation from the involved groups, then those appointments must be scrupulously good. I would hope, therefore, that their terms could be longer without their having to start worrying every two years, or prior to that, whether or not they are going to be reappointed or if their decisions are such that they become eligible for reappointment. This is a matter of real concern.

Everything in this bill hinges on the appointments to the Education Relations Commission. If the minister can make good appointments, then this bill has a really fine chance of working. If he can’t, or if in any one of those appointments either side or the general public feels that commission is being stacked, then the whole concept here is into real problems.

There are other things about this particular commission that I can see will cause concern amongst the teachers and school trustees in Ontario. One of the duties of the commission, as stated in section 60(1)(f) is: To determine, at the request of either party or in the exercise of its discretion, whether or not either of the parties is or was negotiating in good faith and making every reasonable effort to make or renew an agreement. We support that as being one of the duties this Education Relations Commission should have. We support the minister on that point.

I don’t know how often we have said to the Ontario Minister of Labour: “You cannot be neutral in a situation. You must be impartial. In that impartial way you have an obligation to look at both sides of the dispute and if you have determined that one party is not bargaining in good faith, you should make that fact known.”

Here, in the bill this minister has made provision for this. He has said to the Education Relations Commission that it can make a determination, exercising its discretion, as to whether or not either of the parties is not negotiating in good faith. We support him in that, and this is what we would like to see done in normal labour relations. Here again, if any one of the members of that commission is not above rebuke in terms of impartiality, that duty is going to be suspect. I can understand the unease of people reading the duties of that commission when they come across section (f).

What we are saying here is the concept of the Education Relations Commission is good. We agree -- I agree, at least, and our party does I am sure -- with the duties as outlined but the appointment of those commissioners is very important. The minister has to make them in such a way that the fears not only of us on this side of the House, but of the teachers, of the boards and the general public can be completely allayed.

There are several other things in the bill, Mr. Speaker, which need to be addressed in terms of what I find to be detrimental.

Clause 1(l) defines what a strike is. Clause 1(l) subsection (i) which defines withdrawal of services as what a strike is, is the definition of a strike.

If the minister had stopped right there and had not enumerated any further points, this would have been a better bill. A strike is a withdrawal of services; full stop. The other additions make this a weaker bill. All the additions make this a weaker bill except for that first definition that a strike is a withdrawal of services. A slow down in the performance of duties? This must be the first time in legislation anywhere that I know of that a slow down in duties is defined as a strike. It’s ploughing new ground as far as I know, Mr. Speaker, and it is not a step forward.

It may well be rather appropriate, in terms of particular conditions existing, for a board to determine the solidarity of the teachers, should they observe that the teachers have undergone some slow down in the performance of their duties. I can’t conceive how this would happen in a school system. I cannot conceive of teachers deciding, for example, to say to their pupils: “We are going to take only another half page today because we want it to be driven home to the board that we are slowing down our work.” I can’t see how any teacher in a classroom could resist presenting material to that classroom or could try to stop pupils from working at a rate faster than they at the moment are prepared to let them work. It just doesn’t make sense, that definition, in connection with teachers in Ontario; the bill would be stronger without it.

Point 4, the giving of notice to terminate contracts of employment. Two years ago, it seemed as if the right to strike was always there, of course, because it wasn’t denied but to the teachers who went through the mechanism of submitting resignations en masse, that looked to them as the only sort of legal way -- because of their individual contracts they have with the board -- of giving notice that they were going to strike. There’s really a redundancy here. They have the right to strike, they have the steps laid out in this bill; why irritate them by including this provision? It isn’t required to be used.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It’s making it legal; making it all legal.

Mr. Bounsall: The giving of notice to terminate contracts of employment is called a strike, under subsection 4(1) of 1. It’s really a redundancy here.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, it’s not.

Mr. Bounsall: We’ll talk about this further in committee when we get there. But, of course, I’ll add my voice to the crescendo in this House about point three, the discontinuance of the co-curricular or extracurricular programmes in a school or schools. Really, that’s being inflammatory.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, it isn’t. I haven’t heard one person who knows what that section means. That means we haven’t worded it right, but I haven’t heard one person say what that section means.

Mr. Bounsall: All right.

Mr. Ferrier: The minister should have had an opening statement.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It just shows that I’m smarter than a lot of lawyers around, because I wanted to use it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bounsall: The minister indicated before when he rose to give the short --

Hon. Mr. Wells: The fewer lawyers we have around these bills, the better off we are.

Mr. Foulds: He’s saying nasty things about the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ferrier: He’s not saying very many nice things about the Premier, then.

Mr. Roy: The Premier is also a lawyer.

Mr. Samis: The Premier is a lawyer.

Mr. Foulds: It was the Premier who forced him into Bill 274.

Mr. Bounsall: The minister did, in fact, indicate there were amendments be was going to bring forward. I don’t know whether he has communicated this to any members of the House or not, but obviously a thorough discussion of this must take place in committee. The minister is saying that it really doesn’t mean what everyone here is interpreting it to mean; at least, we’ve not found it as he intended it. So I assume this is one of the areas where amendments are coming. But if it’s as we think it is --

Hon. Mr. Wells: The teachers know what it is.

Mr. Bounsall: Well, then, the teachers that are communicating with me are communicating the way that I would interpret it. This really needs to be removed. This is going to give real problems. This is going to be a cause of more discontent. Here again, Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this, it’s going to give more irritation. And it is not the fact that it’s going to be applied at some point -- that they would need to take that action at some point -- but in the sense of: What if we need to take some action at some point? We’re denied the right to do this.

This might be one of the things that it might occur to them to do. Some time in the history of this province, some teachers and some of our boards may take that sort of action to discontinue some extracurricular programmes which they have taken on, or some co-curricular programmes which they have taken on or had assigned to them as negotiations reach a certain point. But the government is in danger.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We’re not prohibiting it.

Mr. Bounsall: The government is defining it as a strike; and there’s only a certain time in the lifetime of a contract that a strike can take place.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s right. Now the member is getting it.

Mr. Bounsall: The minister hasn’t learned quite enough. By defining it and putting it in this section, what the minister is really indicating is that these things cannot take place except after they’ve arrived at the legal strike situation. What it’s going to mean to teachers -- and it wouldn’t ordinarily occur to them -- is that they cannot take this type of action in the lifetime of the contract.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s right. That’s absolutely right.

Mr. Bounsall: That is where the minister is being provocative in this bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, no; that’s not provocative. That puts work to rule in with all the other sanctions; and that’s exactly what it’s intended to do.

Mr. Foulds: Well, that is why the bill is badly flawed.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If that wording isn’t right, we’ll get the right wording. That’s all it’s intended to do -- to put the work to rule sanction in with the other sanctions.

Mr. Foulds: That’s not what it does.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s what it’s intended to do. As I say, if I had had the wording rather than the lawyers, that’s exactly what it would have said.

Mr. Bounsall: We look forward to the dialogue, then, that’s going to take place in committee over this section; we’ll get into this section and --

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s all it’s intended to do; bring work to rule within the ambit of the bill.

Mr. Bounsall: -- at least then, that’s the intent of the minister in this regard.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): I am afraid to speak after his remarks about lawyers.

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

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, I won’t be very much longer, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Renwick: We argued for days on that.

Mr. Bounsall: I think in terms of the bill itself the prominence of final-offer arbitration is a little too much -- in terms of looking at the totality of the bill -- but at least we need one place in legislation where we spell this out.

It has been my experience, as labour critic of our party, in reading the written reports of all those persons engaged in final-offer arbitration -- i.e. the mediators, the arbitrators themselves -- they feel this is not a good means. We would certainly have it as one of the options which any group of persons could have, should they so choose to take it, by spelling it out for the first time in Ontario legislation, and the detail it required seems to give it a bit more prominence than it deserves as a means of reaching a settlement. Of course, it is simply the decision of the parties in dispute whether or not at any time they want to use that.

I might say that the Education Relations Commission, if I can return to that for a moment, is certainly an interesting concept. The appointees must be of absolutely undeniable quality. Certainly the cabinet likes the concept enough to carry it through into the bill governing bargaining between the council of regents and the community college teachers, where the almost identical Colleges Relations Commission is set up.

In the consideration of the Act to amend the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act last spring, when we finished off the 1974 session in the spring of 1975, the House leader and chairman of the Management Board (Mr. Winkler) indicated that perhaps not too much emphasis should be placed on that particular amending bill, because some time in the very near future he was going to bring into that bill a completely new concept in labour relations. So, obviously, in February, 1975, this whole idea of an Education Relations Commission and the Colleges Relations Commission was being talked about in cabinet. I expect that some time in the very near future a Public Service Relations Commission could well come forward for the Crown employees in this province.

In each of those cases, however, the same thing would apply. It will work if the personnel on those commissions are absolutely above reproach and are impartial. If any one of them cannot be found to be impartial, then the whole concept is not worth the paper it is written on and anything which they do, including the appointment of fact-finders and finding and training fact-finders, will all be a colossal waste of time.

I share a little of the feeling of unease over the termination dates and feel they should be flexible upon that point. I need not dwell on that. I can see, with the Education Relations Commission supplying facts and figures to both sides in disputes where contracts are coming up, their need to appoint fact-finders and train them. They are going to be busy all year long, but there will be a peak, with contracts running out on Aug. 31, where they are going to be at their busiest. It won’t hurt the bill, it won’t hurt the principle of the bill and it won’t hurt the labour relations in this problem between boards and teachers, if we make that date flexible, if for no other reason than to be able to build some flexibility into the bill and relieve the peak of work which is going to hit this commission and its fact-finders -- some of whom are not going to be that easy to find and some of whom are going to have to be trained.

The final point of concern over this bill is that I do share the concern of my colleague from Thunder Bay about the omission in the bill, which may be completely inadvertent, which could deny the teachers the right to strike because of the wording of clause 63(1)(c) and section 15.

Section 63(1)(c) in one of its provisions indicates that a strike can take place only after a fact-finder has been appointed and 30 days have elapsed after the commission has given a copy of that fact-finder’s report to each party.

Of course, section 15 is where a fact-finder can be appointed. He can be appointed by the commission.

“If the commission is of an opinion that an impasse has been reached; or if one or both parties gives notice to the commission that they would like to have one; or the written collective agreement that was in effect between the parties has expired and a fact-finder has not been provided.”

The situation my colleague spoke of is what happens if neither of the parties finds it useful to appoint a fact-finder and the Education Relations Commission, in supplying information to both sides, has come across a particular situation.

Here again we are talking about the 0.001 per cent of negotiations which may be entered into. We are talking about the very unusual case. What if the commission knows beforehand that in that particular instance it would not be feasible to appoint a fact-finder? Both sides could have already communicated with the commission, saying, “Don’t give us a fact-finder. Not only are we not asking for it, we are saying to you it isn’t going to do any good. We are just wasting time if that fact-finder is going to come in, talk to us, present his report and 15 days go by; we are not going to accept it. Sure, it is made public but we are not going to let public opinion affect us.” I think either of them would be unwise to take that position; or certainly, if they have it to say that. But if one gets the feeling this is the situation and the minister doesn’t appoint a fact-finder, a fact-finder has never been appointed.

There is a mechanism under the Labour Relations Act by which a conciliator comes in and makes a no-board report. I assume that in this type of situation, to obey the legislation the minister would have to appoint the fact-finder or strike action could not subsequently take place. I think this needs to be clearly stated in the legislation. In that unusual situation I have outlined, could a fact-finder go in and after a relatively short time, hearing both sides, make a report to the effect that in this situation it is not worth making a report? That’s what is referred to as a no-board report under the Labour Relations Act. Is that provision clearly allowed for in this particular Act?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is bad faith; that would be bad faith almost.

Mr. Bounsall: The fact-finder isn’t going to be faulted on bad faith. The fact-finder goes in and he may well find this situation. He may well find a great degree of stubbornness; he may well find that neither of them is sufficiently --

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, but the member is --

Mr. Bounsall: -- locked in to call it bad faith.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The member is going to start interfering with the whole principle.

Mr. Bounsall: What we are saying here is that -- what you are saying is, “No, that situation won’t arise because the fact-finder is going to go in, look at the situation, and charge both of them with bad faith bargaining.” That, in essence, is tantamount to a no-board report.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would rather leave it the way it is.

Mr. Bounsall: Okay. Now if that’s tantamount to a no-board report they can then proceed to go on strike, I take it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s what subsection (c) says, I think.

Mr. Bounsall: There has to be some provision for the fact-finder, whether or not he finds bad faith bargaining. Let’s put it this way; if both sides have exhibited bad faith bargaining and the fact-finder goes in and finds that, there is nothing he seems able to do. If he writes a report he gets the strong feeling that it is useless and that another 30 days are lost or have gone by, and bad faith bargaining has been exhibited on behalf of both parties. When I say this we are talking about the unusual situation.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is really not good enough in this kind of dispute. That may be all right in an industrial dispute but that’s not good enough here because that violates the spirit of it.

Mr. Foulds: Call the minister to order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bounsall: What if it happens? Yes, I think maybe we should move this dialogue to the committee. We have reached the committee stage over this point, and I look forward to that part of the committee, Mr. Speaker, because I think one needs to be a little careful here over this particular point.

My final point, Mr. Speaker, is, having been on the procedural affairs committee and having gone through all those arguments this year about whether or not committee proceedings should be recorded, the last report of that committee to the House on this matter was that if a matter or a bill referred to a standing committee is deemed to be of special interest, the consent of the House must be given to have the deliberations of the committee recorded.

I would say to the minister, through the Speaker, that this is a bill, on which the representations before the committee from the various interested groups should be recorded. The explanations and the feel as to what the interpretations of some sections are by the ministry, the intent of what you are arriving at to compare with the final wording, are worth being recorded.

So when the minister refers this bill to committee, as he has said he would, I would hope the minister would stand in this House and say that he favours this being one of the bills of special interest to this House; that he personally favours the deliberations of the committee being recorded; and that he would vote for the recording of the deliberations of the committee and would urge the other members of the House to so do. I would strongly urge the minister to consider that.

The appropriate motion, I am sure, will be placed so that the committee deliberations be recorded. I would ask beforehand that the minister make his position known to this House, the position hopefully being that he would favour the committee deliberations in this matter being recorded. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill 100 dealing with the negotiation of collective agreements between teachers and school boards, I do so on the understanding that this is a basic step forward that has been requested and suggested for many months and that it is generally going to receive all-party support in this Legislature.

Many of us members I’m sure have been the subjects of a fairly heavy write-in this past weekend, mainly dealing with three principles embodied in the particular piece of legislation: having to do with extracurricular work, the Education Relations Commission, and the dispute concerning principals and vice-principals. I hope the minister, in his wisdom and in the realization that he is receiving all-party support on the major principle of this particular bill, will adjust to some of the suggestions that have been put forth earlier today and this evening by the various members and will attempt to clarify some of the questions put forth by the members as well.

One of the things that has amazed me, Mr. Speaker, has been the very active and successful communications system of the teachers’ federation. I am sure their membership as a whole is pretty well aware of what is going on. I know when I returned to my riding last weekend they knew the bill was coming up for debate on Friday and again today. They were quite conversant on many of the principles embodied in this particular legislation.

This past Saturday morning I had the privilege of meeting with the executive of District 34 of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation who brought forth a 10-point critique of the bill. We had a very full discussion relating to these particular points and to the bill as a whole.

With this in mind, I would like to keep my remarks quite specific and go through these 10 points that have been raised and make a few comments in relation to those matters. In the presentation of District 34, they feel that Bill 100 in its present form -- and I trust the minister is not only going to clarify but is going to make some changes in the legislation. They feel that in the present form this bill is not really desirable. They feel it will affect relations with the Essex County Board of Education and have suggested it appears to be more of a stumbling block than a stepping stone to improved teacher-board relations in negotiating a collective agreement.

In their presentation, they deal with this clause by clause as we go through the bill and in the definition of strike with the discontinuance of the co-curricular or extracurricular programmes in a school as being part of the definition of a strike. I listened to the minister’s remarks here a few moments ago in his interjections to the member for Windsor West, it was indicated that, if he is not satisfied personally with the wording of this particular section, he will clarify this.

The one thing I think that hasn’t really been brought out in the debate as I’ve heard it today is something about school spirit. Personally I feel that the teacher involved in a co-curricular or extracurricular programme is not simply a teacher performing a function, he is part of a school spirit that prevails through the whole school. He or she as well as the other teaching staff are all part of the spirit and they will carry forth in these particular activities without it being embodied in the legislation.

The first question that District 34 suggests is that this particular section needs clarification as the minister has indicated he will do. It states:

“If the framers of the bill can explain how voluntary activities, traditionally based on good will and on an unpaid basis, can overnight be made mandatory, such explanation will be welcome.”

I do trust that the hon. minister can set this matter straight and clarify it not only for us in the House but for the teaching profession itself.

In relation to section 3 of the bill, District 34 feels this clause will cut down on the locally accepted forms of teacher-board communication. In Essex county we’ve had a standing committee of teachers on the board that has functioned on a continuing basis and I think this is good. My interpretation of labour-management relations is that in all areas there should be these committees for ongoing discussion to make changes as they come to the attention of either side.

In this respect, I believe when the ministry made certain funds available to the county boards a few months ago, the Essex county board in particular was able to pass on, I believe, a $50 per month increase in wages to its teaching staffs. The interpretation that District 34 places on this with this restrictive clause, is that it would not be able to undertake these types of activities. I do hope the minister will clarify as to whether there can still be these ongoing committees that will deal with minor differences and clear them up during the inter-period of a collective agreement with their teachers.

In relation to the principle in section 15 -- that is, the commission -- a fair amount has been said on this. But my group of over 500 teachers is quite concerned that there will be delays and negotiating backlogs due to insufficient numbers of fact-finders. They have put forth their case quite strongly on this. They are concerned as to how unbiased the person on this commission can be. They are very concerned with the catching-up position, with the inflationary pressures and the number of boards and the number of teacher groups that are behind in the provincial levels, that there will be a great deal of pressure with the 233 negotiating groups all trying to finalize details before the affixed date.

The other problem that has been drawn to my attention is that they feel this commission is taking away from ministerial responsibility as such; that they may be the determining factor and there can’t be the final political decision by the minister in relation to matters of concern that the commission is dealing with. They further feel that the fact that there probably will be insufficient numbers of people could be utilized by a particular board as a stalling device, and I pass this thought on to the minister for his comment.

Under section 27, a principle embodied therein has also been drawn to my attention; this is in relation to the fact that the copy of the report shall not be made public by the commission. District 34 feels the words “shall not” should be changed to “may be made public.” I recall the discussion we had the other day in the Attorney General’s estimates where he detailed a particular case of a wife who might have complained to the police and placed her husband on the interdicted list; certainly it would have served no useful purpose to have released that information, but there are many other occasions when the public business in fact should be public and not be strictly confidential.

Regarding the principle in section 51, dealing with expiry dates of these contracts, here my secondary teachers seem to feel there is an amount of inflexibility in this particular clause. In our particular area we have been operating under a calendar-year contract to coincide with the board’s fiscal operations. This has worked out quite well.

My understanding is that by late fall the boards do have an understanding from the ministry as to their financial commitments, and as such can deal much more effectively and more intelligently with their teachers in negotiating their contracts, because they then have the really true figures on which to base their negotiations. I would ask the minister to reconsider whether it is really advisable that all school boards as such should have their contracts expire by Sept. 1 instead of on a calendar-year basis.

The matter of good faith bargaining comes under section 60. A great deal has been said about this old chestnut, which I have heard for 12 years around here. What is good faith bargaining? It’s something I don’t think that will ever be resolved 100 per cent --

Mr. Ferrier: The member should not be so pessimistic.

Mr. Paterson: Well, I won’t be here; I trust that the terror from Timmins, in his remarks following mine, will maybe expand on that a little bit and throw some optimism into this particular debate.

Under this section too, District 34 is concerned about the fact that the commission will be supervising the votes under a secret ballot. They pointed out to me that traditionally in our area they have voted with a secret ballot and they’ve always had a very large percentage of their total membership out at any particular voting time.

In section 63, there is a principle that has been drawn to my attention, that is, what comprises the last offer upon which teachers must vote? My teacher group really feels this could be a stalling device, indicating there could be a series of these last offers brought forth by the board. There is the fact that this clause doesn’t require management to take back these particular last offers to the board for further discussion but only to present it to the teachers. They feel that this could eventually wear down the teacher negotiating team if there are a series of these last offers. Possibly the minister would clarify this particular section to give a firm and fair understanding in regard to this.

I think section 64 has been dealt by every previous speaker. That has to do with the principal and vice-principal situation. All I would say is that the minister should simply withdraw this particular section and make this bill palatable to the teaching profession and us in the opposition.

There is a principle in section 65 that has been drawn to my attention concerning the word “threaten.” It says: “The federation shall not and no affiliate or branch affiliate shall call or authorize or threaten to call or authorize an unlawful strike.” It has been suggested to me that it’s conceivable that the head of District 34 could send a note around to the teachers that they’re having difficulty as they proceed toward the end of their current contract and advise them not to enter into any serious financial obligations in the two or three months ahead as there is the possibility of strike action. Could this be interpreted as threatening a strike?

The minister shakes his head to indicate no. This particular section I do believe needs clarification. Possibly a routine form that was sent out by a district federation could be interpreted as a threat. I think this should be spelled out so that general information cannot be so construed.

I missed one point in dealing with section 64 which I have suggested be removed from the bill. That is the fact that there could be several vice-principals in a school. This has been drawn to my attention. Conceivably in a school of 60 or 75 staff members, there could be 10 or 15 vice-principals appointed by the board going into a position of a strike situation. As long as that clause remained in there, these people so designated would be construed as part of management and could, in fact, continue to operate the school. This is something that my district teachers were quite concerned about.

In section 77, subsection 4 -- and I haven’t had a legal interpretation of this -- the district is quite concerned as to whether, if a member of the association has been proved guilty of an offence under this Act, does it open the door to any ratepayer to take this particular person to court? I haven’t had the opportunity of discussing this with my colleagues trained in the legal profession, but it is a concern I wish to pass on to the minister at this time. Does this whole area of section 77 open up another legal ambit that makes teachers, members of the association, liable for further court action if they are proved guilty of an offence under this particular Act? I trust the minister can clarify this to my satisfaction.

These, Mr. Speaker, are the points that I have tried to bring forth on behalf of the 500 members of District 34 and I trust that the minister, in his wisdom, will see fit to not only comment on some of these suggestions and requests, but hopefully take these suggestions to heart and amend the bill to the satisfaction of this particular teacher group. I will send the minister a copy of the brief that was given to me so that he may have this first-hand and follow through on it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Ferrier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few brief remarks about Bill 100. It certainly indicates that the Minister of Education himself has had an education over the last few years and, to his credit, he has learned a great deal and has brought in a bill that in many respects should stabilize collective bargaining by the teachers and the school boards of this province. It’s a far cry from that bill in December, 1973, when we had a really bitter and hard-fought debate in this House and the teachers in this province were very greatly stirred up in opposition to the government’s action in refusing them the right to withdraw their services and to have the right to strike. I think the minister probably had a difficult job persuading some of his colleagues in cabinet and some of the right-wing members of the Tory party out in the province that this was the right approach to take.

But, to his credit, he must have stood his ground and fought it through and realized that to give, as a final right, the right to strike to the teachers of this province would ensure much better relations among the teachers and the school boards, and would mean that the teachers would probably work that much better in their classrooms because there wasn’t something rankling and aggravating them and causing a good deal of dissatisfaction among them. So I would like to commend the minister that he takes this position and has been able to fight it through in cabinet and caucus and to bring it to the House in this way.

The member for Windsor West, I believe it was, gave a very detailed analysis of the bill, but there is quite a good procedure for school boards and teachers to follow in their collective negotiating and there are many ways of averting a strike. If these tactics and these procedures work, then I don’t think we will necessarily have many strikes among the teachers of this province, and I think that is something that we would all want to see.

We don’t specifically want to see relations deteriorate to the extent that the only way the group -- teachers in this instance -- can gain its objectives and get what is rightly its own is by taking this very drastic step. I hope these procedures outlined in the bill, the fact-finders and the possibility of going to voluntary arbitration, will have an effect. The final offer selection, while not too keenly supported by members of this party, may in the odd instance be followed. The Education Relations Commission, if it does its work properly, will also have a beneficial effect.

I am pleased that section 9 says all things are open for negotiation -- things like class size, working conditions and this type of thing. The teachers have a stake in education. They have committed their lives to this objective and have made this deep commitment to it. I think they have a right to say what they think is good educational policy and the right approaches to take in the classroom and this kind of thing.

I am glad the minister has rejected what Reville was saying and has come in with this section. I think it will make for better harmony, better teaching and better education for our students in our schools in this province by giving this right to teachers and giving them a say in the kind of education which is going to be taking place in this province. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, it is certainly the right policy and procedure to follow.

Like other members I have had a great number of telegrams from the principals and vice-principals of the schools in my riding. They have objected very strenuously to the vice-principals and principals not being allowed to vote on a strike or to participate in a strike. They feel this is most unjust and unfair. I think it has been said here tonight that to take them out of this process will cause strife and misunderstanding when by legislation they have to cross the picket line which ordinarily they would not want to cross.

The aim, I think, in most schools is for the principal and vice-principal to give leadership and develop the best kind of programme within their own school with the teachers. I think we should be trying to keep the principals, vice-principals and teachers together and working as much in co-operation as possible and I feel this section is going to impede that. I think it is also a kind of a slap in the face, should they go to the extent of striking, that the principals’ and vice-principals’ salaries and other things will be negotiated for them and they are not -- can they participate in the ratification vote?

Mr. Samis: They can.

Mr. Ferrier: They can participate in that but they can’t have much say in those negotiations going on at that time. I hope that the cumulative --

Hon. Mr. Wells: They can be the chief negotiators.

Mr. Foulds: That is the irony of that clause.

Mr. Ferrier: That is the irony of the clause, my good friend from Port Arthur says.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We could argue it either way.

Mr. Foulds: If we can argue it either way, remove the clause.

Mr. Ferrier: We hope the accumulated weight of the arguments being directed toward the minister from this side of the House, and from the principals and vice-principals in his own riding and all the ridings across the province, will persuade him he will improve his bill that much more by removing section 64.

I don’t want to say anything more, Mr. Speaker. I think the minister has, in many respects, brought in a good bill -- and it can work. The other members of this caucus will be dealing with the clause-by-clause sections and suggesting where, perhaps, it can be improved, and doing that kind of work. But I feel that with section 64 removed we would have that much better a bill. At the same time, I would like to commend the minister for the great improvement he has made over December, 1973. I think I criticized him pretty strongly at that time.

Mr. Samis: The member for Cochrane South had good reason to do it.

Mr. Ferrier: With good reason; but I am glad to see that he has come to the position he has. He has given the leadership within his own group, and we have this bill before us tonight.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland South.

Mr. Haggerty: I would like to add a few comments relating to Bill 100, An Act respecting the Negotiations and Collective Agreements between School Boards and Teachers.

It indicates to the minister that I support the bill in principle, but with some reservation as it relates to certain clauses in the bill -- for example, part I, section 1(l)(iii) and part VIII, section 64, subsections 3 and 2. I do hope the amendments the minister is sitting on will have some relation to these two particular sections that have been in question all night by previous speakers.

Although the bill is a major improvement over the two previous bills that were debated in some length -- Bill 274 and Bill 275 -- this bill is a workable piece of legislation. Perhaps it is not the complete cure-all for disputes between the teachers and the school board or, in fact, the Ministry of Education -- but it does establish a collective bargaining process for the teaching profession which allows them the right to strike. Whether that improves the bargaining position will remain a question in a number of minds throughout Ontario. There are some provisions in the Act that, if applied under the Labour Relations Act, would indeed improve that body, and the bill provides continuation of bargaining rights.

I have heard the discussions tonight about good faith bargaining. Usually that’s the general practice in any labour agreement in the Province of Ontario; good faith bargaining -- no strikes and no lockouts. Of course, this is indicated in the bill. But when I look deeper into the bill, and I think in particular of part IX, it is almost like having a guillotine over a person’s head.

The explanatory note says: “Provision is also made for the appointment of a fact-finder if negotiations come to an impasse and for a choice by the parties of voluntary binding arbitration or final offer selection.” Of course, that was a suggestion put forth by my colleague, the member for York Centre (Mr. Deacon). But reading between that explanatory note and part IX, section 77 of the bill, one looks at the fines that are applied there for any violation of the Act. I would say it is compulsory arbitration when there are fines of that magnitude.

“(1) Every person who contravenes any provision of this Act is guilty of an offence and on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $500 for each day upon which the contravention occurs or continues.

“(2) The council and every member association and every board and federation and every affiliate and every branch affiliate that contravenes any provision of this Act is guilty of an offence and on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 for each day upon which such contravention occurs or continues.”

It goes on further to state other penalties that are there. When I look at that particular section 77 of the bill, it is compulsory arbitration when the government holds that type of fine over a person’s head -- when he is supposed to be sitting at the bargaining table and bargaining in good faith. I am talking about both parties -- teachers and school boards.

I think many of the previous speakers have not looked closely at this particular section here tonight or on Friday. As a member of the union today, I would take a hard look at this. I don’t think I’d want to go to the bargaining table with that clause in there because that makes it compulsory right off the bat with fines like that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Compulsory for what?

Mr. Haggerty: Compulsory arbitration. They have no other choice but to follow every section of this bill. Oh, yes, the minister will see. He’ll come to that confrontation before long. That is what’s going to bring it about.

Hon. Mr. Wells: There is no compulsory arbitration.

Mr. Haggerty: There isn’t? With a fine like that hanging over their heads? Certainly it’s compulsory. You do as you’re told or suffer the consequences. That’s what it indicates. Maybe what should be done in this particular instance is that the bill should be piloted through by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth) because what the Minister of Education has actually put the teachers’ profession under is the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

All decisions, as I interpret the bill here, are going to be made by the Ontario Labour Relations Board. It says: “No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except with the consent of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.” I don’t think we find a penalty of that magnitude in any labour legislation in the Province of Ontario. I’d like to bring this to the minister’s attention. I think that this is one which I think, too, the teachers have overlooked.

I want to go back to the other section that I raised with the minister, section 1(l)(iii), I believe it is. That deals with extracurricular activities in the schools. As indicated here, if a person withdraws that service, it is classed as a strike, or could be included as a strike. To my knowledge, it has always been a common practice that this was done on a voluntary basis by the teachers in the school system. If they want to withdraw that service, I still think it should be under those terms, that it was there on a voluntary basis in the beginning and should not be included as a strike at all. If the minister is going to stick to the strike, he should stick to the actual educational needs that are there under that contract but not under the voluntary basis.

The other part which I want to bring to the attention of the minister, and it has been brought forth by previous speakers, deals with section 64 in part VIII, strikes and lockouts. It says: “A principal and a vice-principal shall be considered essential employees and shall not take part in a strike vote or strike.”

I hope the minister brings in an amendment that would withdraw that particular section 64, subsections 1 and 2, and delete it from the bill. I think that the principals should be part of the teaching profession.

I recall a meeting not too long ago in the Port Colborne High School where they were discussing some of the problems of teachers. It was brought to my attention that many of the teachers, and even the principal today of that school, Mr. Wilson, had gone back teaching. It was indicated by other teachers that they thought the principalship perhaps should be a job of maybe two years and then it should be changed to let some other new teacher go into that position who, perhaps, would bring in some new ideas into the curriculum core which is going to be taught in that school.

I think by this particular section the minister is making it so that the principals cannot go back to the teaching profession. I think in this case, many of the principals should go back teaching. Under the present rules, they’re out of touch with the teaching that is required in a classroom. I suggest to the minister that he delete these two clauses here.

If not, I can see that he is going to have further problems in the educational system because he leaves the principals and the vice-principals no alternative but to organize themselves. They’ll be setting up a bargaining unit within themselves and eventually boards are going to have to meet with them sometime at the bargaining table. I suggest that this should be stopped now by deleting this particular clause and letting them be part of the teaching profession.

I don’t think we need the principals any more in that category in the sense of saying they have to look after the administration of the schools. The minister is paying high-priced administrators now, particularly in the county boards of education, and they look after the administration. The funds were to be allocated for certain schools and should be spent. I think the principals should be relieved of that responsibility and stick more to the teaching required in their schools today. I hope the minister will listen to the other members who want this particular clause, section 64, deleted.

As I said before, I support the bill in principle. I think it’s a working bill. It’s something which I think a number of the teachers want. I think the school boards want it and I think the general public wants something. It does set out a bargaining process for the teaching profession in the Province of Ontario which it had never had before. Again, I question the heavy fines in there and I sincerely believe that under those conditions, it’s compulsory arbitration in the final result of this bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word on this particular bill. Like many other members I have been approached by teachers over the weekend in regard to Bill 100. I think it is fair to say, as has been repeated many times in the House during this debate, that generally speaking the feeling is that this is a very good bill for the most part. There are some things in it which irk teachers and with which they disagree strongly but generally speaking, I think it’s fair to say there are many good aspects to the bill.

The teachers generally seem to feel that finally legislation has been introduced; a variety of routes to a contract settlement has been included and working conditions are officially recognized as negotiable items. In terms of the contents of the bill, I think there are a number of good aspects in the bill including the deadline for starting negotiations; the fact-finding procedures; the final offer selection; the Education Relations Commission; the good faith bargaining; and secret ballots prior to strikes. All of these things are commendable but in my discussions, and certainly this has come out in the debate, there are two very important items to which united disagreement pertains.

Those items have to do with excluding the principals from the collective bargaining unit -- that’s section 64, I believe -- and the matter of extracurricular activity being a contractual agreement. I think those two items have met with universal disagreement among the teachers throughout the province.

Frankly, I think section 64 is a very bad section and one which is hard to understand in the context of the minister saying the bill is to encourage harmonious relationships and good faith bargaining. I think when one excludes the principals and vice-principals from the bargaining unit, it does exactly the opposite. It creates confrontation; it drives a wedge between the principals and their teachers; and I think in the push and pull of that situation, the principals could be caught in an almost inhuman situation. They could find themselves without the support of their teachers in the bargaining unit.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have further remarks to make? In which case, looking at the clock --

Mr. Gaunt: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do have further remarks.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, would you move the adjournment of the debate?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, is there any indication roughly how many more speakers there are going to be on this bill?

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): We have pretty well gone the limit.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is just that, as I think my friends realize, there are a lot of outside groups who are waiting to know when committee hearings are going to be held on this bill; in all fairness to them, they want to plan their schedules too, and I have been hoping that we would be able to get this bill into committee on Thursday.

Mr. Gaunt: May I say on that point, Mr. Speaker, that to my knowledge I am the last speaker in our party; I am not sure about the NDP, but I won’t be more than another five or 10 minutes.

Mr. Worton: Until tomorrow.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the bill is called first thing tomorrow there will be no problem whatsoever about getting it into committee on Thursday.

Mr. Gaunt moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): We will return to this debate tomorrow, to be followed by item No. 2, Bill 86, and then to be followed by item No. 7, Bill 77. However, in consideration of the scheduling of these bills and so on, I would also like the members of the Legislature to prepare for item No. 8, Bill 95; also item No. 9, Bill 96; also item No. 16, Bill 105; and item Nos. 17 and 18, Bills 106 and 107.

I think that that will be enough for this evening, Mr. Speaker.

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

Motion agreed to.

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