The House resumed at 8:00 o’clock, p.m.

TILE DRAINAGE AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: We will resume the debate on the second reading of Bill 131. The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, Bill 131, An Act to amend the Tile Drainage Act of 1971, embodies some of the recommendations of the select committee on land drainage; such as the requirement that an inspector file along with his certificate a sketch showing the location, depth, spacing and direction of field tile laid in accordance with the financial arrangements made under the Tile Drainage Act.

The difficulty encountered by some farmers who were refused loans by their municipalities has been somewhat lessened in that they are now allowed an appeal to the drainage tribunal. In more than one instance, the select committee heard complaints, during its tour of the province, from farmers who had been denied approval by their municipal councils for a tile drainage loan. It seemed the councillors were taking a paternalistic attitude toward the applicants, deciding whether they had a good credit rating, whether they were good farmers or perhaps on some other grounds.

The councillors, of course, overstepped their authority. Bill 131, while not making the council’s approval mandatory, at least grants the applicants the right of an appeal. This is not what the select committee recommended and it adds what is probably an unnecessary meeting for the tribunal. Nevertheless, in future, a farmer will not be at the complete mercy of some unfriendly members of council.

The framers of the bill have accepted our recommendation that where a tiled farm has been taken out of agriculture, any balance on the loan by which the tiling was made possible must be repaid at once to the Treasury of Ontario through the municipality. This money was made available for the improvement of agriculture at low rates of interest -- four per cent, if I recall correctly and when that agricultural benefit ends so should the cheap use of the taxpayer’s money.

The bill also enables loans to be made to farmers in the unorganized territories, a move with which we heartily agree. Farmers in the unorganized territories of northern Ontario should have the same benefits as the farmers in other parts of the province.

I have no other comments which have not already been made once or twice, Mr. Speaker, so I shall merely say that we support Bill 131.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kent.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to bring to the attention of this Legislature and you, sir, one point in this bill which concerns me considerably. Of course, we have discussed sections 1 and 2, with which I agree and I believe most of the hon. members who have spoken agree with this part.

It’s on section 6, subsection 2:

“The annual amount loaned to any one person under subsection 1 shall not exceed 75 per cent of the total cost of the work and shall constitute a lien on the estate or interest of the owner in the land upon which the work was done, and where repayment of the amounts so loaned is in default -- "

Mr. Speaker, when this was discussed in the committee of land drainage it was agreed, I believe by all members of the committee, that the loan which could be acquired would be 90 per cent of the cost of the work of under-draining farm land. We hear so much and so often that if we put in the main drains and don’t do any under-drainage to the main drain, we are not getting real value out of our money. We read how important it is to under-drain farm land. We know it warms up the land five times as fast; and actually if the land is well drained it could increase production by 50 per cent. At that time I understood we all agreed we would be in favour of lending 90 per cent of the cost of tile drainage of farm land, but this bill says it shall not exceed 75 per cent of the cost.

I wonder if the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) who is familiar with this amount in this bill, could inform us what took place. I know somebody must have disagreed with the 90 per cent but I know the government won’t lose any money because we have said so many times how important land under-drainage is, and we should be doing more of it. It is generally those men who can’t afford the other 15 per cent who cannot decide on under-draining their land; the men who need it most are the ones who are short of the 15 per cent. I think it would be a tremendous help to those farmers. Actually, it is hard in so many cases for them to borrow the 15 per cent of the cost of under-draining now, because the cost has skyrocketed. I would like to hear, and no doubt the hon. member for Lambton will outline to me his feeling on this very important issue under section 6, subsection 2.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, I was going to speak on the same thing as the member for Kent has just talked about, whether the loan should be 75 per cent or 90 per cent.

On the weekend I was visiting a neighbour who is clearing out 15 acres of bushland; it’s virgin land, never been used before. With the increased price of land he felt it was necessary for him to clean out this bushland and expand his farming operations. He was informing me that it was going to cost him around $300 or more an acre to have it cleaned out by bulldozing and so forth; and to tile it would be approximately another $300 for two rods, I believe. We are talking there of over $600 an acre and he is talking of $10,000 to do a 15-acre field.

I think the member for Kent has a good point. With land at the value it has come to in the last few years and maybe with the necessity to conserve some wood lots we want to make good use of the land we have. Perhaps this might be one area where we could help.

We realize it means more money to be supplied by the province but it is a guarantee that the owner must make and is against the land so I want to reinforce what the member has said. I think he has a good point and I would be interested to see what the reaction would be from the parliamentary assistant. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lambton.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, In rising to take part in the debate on Bill 131, An Act to amend the Tile Drainage Act, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the members for Cochrane South (Mr. Ferrier), Sandwich-Riverside, Essex South (Mr. Paterson), Kent, and Essex-Kent. I might say, Mr. Speaker, they have all brought out very good, very interesting points.

In order to have it on the record, Mr. Speaker, and to support, possibly, the statement of the member for Kent, a crop of soya beans in Essex-Kent or Lambton, with excellent drainage, will possibly yield 40 bushels to the acre; with average drainage possibly 30 bushels to the acre; with poor drainage, 10 to 20 bushels to the acre. The difference between mediocre drainage and good drainage is possibly 20 bushels to the acre. I would like the member for Kent or the member for Essex-Kent to differ with these figures if possible. At that rate, at today’s market rate of almost $5 a bushel, it would make a difference of about $100 an acre.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): What about bird’s-foot trefoil?

Mr. Henderson: Bird’s-foot trefoil, with good drainage, would possibly double that, with the right type of care taken; but I don’t know of anyone who would have the time or the energy to give it the --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member used to be the bird’s-foot trefoil king.

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): What about Crown-vetch?

Mr. Henderson: Before I became a member here I used to have lots of time to go out and count them.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He had to work for a living.

Mr. Henderson: Yes, I used to count the number of pods on each plant and count the seeds in each pod.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I know; and he used to try to sell it to me.

Mr. Henderson: Anyhow, it is kind of interesting that the member brings that up. I had the pleasure Sunday afternoon of walking out through 60 acres of bird’s-foot trefoil, beautiful in yellow flower; I always call it gold. This year it will come through, I believe, in time for an election, to help finance that campaign.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Right on there.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is not like the largess the member usually distributes.

Mr. Henderson: No, that’s right. I have a few of those cows that eat up this bird’s-foot trefoil, too, Mr. Speaker. They like good drainage along with it; they like a nice spot to lie down and be dry on.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We all like good drainage.

Mr. Henderson: Right. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I got led astray but when the hon. Leader of the Opposition mentioned bird’s-foot trefoil --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is the first time he has been led astray.

Mr. Henderson: Yes, the member is very kind. I really didn’t realize that, Mr. Speaker.

However, to get back to the subject we are speaking about, Mr. Speaker, and to get back to poor drainage as compared to good drainage; when you go through with your municipal drain, Mr. Speaker, you are just supplying the outlet. In order to complete the job you have got to have the tile drains. Poor drainage is when you have the municipal drain constructed to the person’s property, Mr. Speaker.

Following that, the person is going to have to spend about $400 an acre to get comparatively good drainage. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this will double the income from that land, and the comparison I have set out is a soya bean crop. I could do equally as well with wheat; I could do equally as well with corn or even foliage crop of any type.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you can readily see that tile would pay for itself in four to five years in the increased crop. But I am sure the hon members who have been involved in the agricultural industry will realize that it is not only the increased crop, it is also so much easier to work land that is properly tiled. So, I strongly believe in tiled land. I believe tile drains should be at a cost that farmers can afford.

The hon. member for Kent has asked a question about the committee’s report of a 90 per cent loan. I am equally concerned, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the 90 per cent loan that was recommended by the committee I chaired. I am sure the hon. members would agree with me and with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), when the minister sized up the whole situation in his response to me on the 75 per cent as compared to the 90 per cent. The minister felt that at the present time there is sufficient demand for the services of contractors who are in the business of supplying tile, and all the relating factors.

At the same time I reminded the minister that our government here in Ontario, the legislative assembly, and the government of Canada, had improved housing conditions. They have made loans available for a much lower down payment in the housing field than the 90 per cent our committee had recommended.

However, Mr. Speaker, the minister has verbally assured me that this is not a complete turn-down for the 90 per cent, but it’s a turn-down at the moment. He would be willing to reconsider the situation at any time in the future. If I have that assurance from the parliamentary assistant that he is ready to reconsider this at a future date with the thought of 90 per cent in place of the present 75 per cent, I will be quite ready to accept the proposal.

Now there are one or two other clauses I want to touch on in the bill, Mr. Speaker. It has been suggested here that we as a committee did recommend that it should become compulsory for a council to loan whatever it may be, whether it be 75 or 90 per cent. I was the chairman of that committee and I recognized that we recommended this, but I do congratulate the parliamentary assistant and I do congratulate the staff on coming up with this process where there is an appeal available. As you know -- I must use the figure of $400 an acre -- there have been areas in this province where it is costing $400 an acre and the local council will only loan 50 per cent. Under this proposal, there is room for an appeal. I believe and I accept it as maybe being a better solution than we as a committee recommended.

Now in section 2, with respect to the sketch indicating the area, I feel much like the member for Essex South, that possibly this is not stiff enough. Possibly there should be an engineer’s plan available to the farmer for a very small fee when he gets the tile loan approved. Members of the committee well remember the many different places this was brought to our attention. When new owners occupy farms, in the wet season they don’t know where to look for their tile.

I refer members to subclause 2 of section 3. This is certainly going to reduce bookkeeping for the municipality and bookkeeping for the department; and of course if we reduce bookkeeping we’re reducing mistakes.

I refer members to section 4, where it is suggested that if any land that has a tile loan goes out of the agricultural field and more or less goes into land speculator’s hands, the loan for the drain must be repaid. To me, this is progressive legislation. This Act is made to assist the agricultural industry, not to assist the developer or the land speculator.

I just want to speak for a moment or two on the great northern Ontario. The committee, as was mentioned by the member for Cochrane South this afternoon I believe, was in Fort Frances when the fog got too much for the members of the committee and we were almost late getting to Dryden. How many farmers did we have there waiting, very interested? The member for Cochrane South suggested they have their demonstration plots. Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the parliamentary assistant, I want to thank the Ministry of Agriculture and Food for carrying out this demonstration plot that we as a committee recommended.

I can only conclude, Mr. Chairman, by again asking the parliamentary assistant if he will give us assurance that if the tile drainage business becomes a drag on the market, he as parliamentary assistant, or the ministry, will reconsider the 75 per cent with the thought of making the 90 per cent loan available in the future. I would suggest that Bill 130 would have to be proclaimed in order to make Bill 131 a complete success.

With these assurances, Mr. Speaker, from the parliamentary assistant, I can support the bill fully. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to take part in the debate before the parliamentary assistant responds? The hon. member for Middlesex South.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to hear that everyone is supporting the bill, with a few qualifications that I think we can take care of.

First of all, I would like to make reference to what a couple of the members raised -- the member for Essex-Kent and, I think, the member for Sandwich-Riverside and the member for Lambton -- over the mandatory recommendation that was made in there in regard to the tile drainage loans. Probably no one pushed that any more on the committee than I did, and I had a couple of real rounds of debate with some councillors. My particular concern at the time was the fact that they would grant someone a loan of 40 per cent or 50 per cent, knowing that the person would get the rest of the money someplace else and pay a higher interest rate for it. They weren’t judging it on the basis of whether or not they were capable of paying or able to pay, but rather they were deciding that they just shouldn’t be loaning that much, the 75 per cent.

I think we did get that message through to a lot of the councils in our discussions. We felt that we shouldn’t be taking the complete prerogative away from the council in these situations, but that they should have some opportunity to make decisions; and, once again, the person would have an opportunity to appeal to the tribunal. It isn’t to say that if they appeal their appeal is going to carry force. In other words, the council could be making the decision that would be upheld by the tribunal, that the tribunal would feel was the right decision. But it gives the person the opportunity to appeal if they think they’ve been unjustly treated. For the reason of not taking the complete discretion away from the council we didn’t make it mandatory, but we have given that opportunity for appeal.

The other item which seemed to be foremost is the 90 per cent level of the loan. Certainly that was a recommendation that was made by the committee.

I don’t think it was quite unanimous. There was some disagreement on the 90 per cent, no interest; somebody suggested two per cent interest and somebody else suggested 80 per cent. Finally we more or less agreed on these figures.

When we examined it with a view to placing it in the Act for this season, we found the tiling contractors are now working to capacity and most of the tile yards are in the same position. If we were to increase the loan to 90 per cent we feel there would be, perhaps, an extra pressure on the tiling contractors. They would find there was quite a demand and they might just shove their prices up a bit.

So the 90 per cent, in perspective, might really work against the farmers who were doing the tiling. For this reason we haven’t put it in the Act. We have said that we will review it annually and look at the conditions that prevail at that time. I assure the member for Lambton that we will review it.

Another item that was raised, particularly by the member for Essex-Kent, was in regard to the sketch plans. I think the member for Sandwich-Riverside also felt it should be mandatory that they have a sketch plan from the ministry.

At the present time the ministry is really doing a small percentage of the total number of tile plans that are being drawn up. As members know, we’re under some restrictions as far as expanding staff is concerned at the present time. We just don’t feel we could handle any more of it to make it mandatory that there had to be a sketch plan drawn up by the ministry; however, it is mandatory that there be a sketch plan. Whether it is drawn by an engineer, the tiling contractor or is one which is prepared by the applicant, that must go in when application for the approval for the loan is made and it will be a part of that. So we will have that record of all the tiling systems that are put in in the province.

I noted with some interest the mention by the member for Cochrane South of the demonstration plots. That was one of the things which came out quite clearly to the committee when we were travelling through that area. Some examples to show how tile drainage would work in those northern districts would certainly help and, of course, we have proceeded with those.

I noted with some interest, too, the mention the member for Brant (Mr. R. F. Nixon) made about the bird’s-foot trefoil that was raised in Lambton county --

Mr. Henderson: It’s yellow gold.

Mr. Eaton: -- and that the member for Lambton had some reputation for bird’s-foot trefoil.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They’ve got great silos down there too,

Mr. Eaton: I kind of wondered what the member for Brant had a reputation for, then I remembered that picture in the Toronto paper of him wheeling manure. I know now what the member for Brant has a reputation for.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It’s good stuff.

Mr. Henderson: The Leader of the Opposition still has a silo, has he?

Mr. Ruston: We call that fertilizer.

Mr. Eaton: So, basically we’ve covered the items that have been raised. If there is any particular clause which the members want to discuss, I’m willing to go to committee of the whole House on it. If not, I think we can move on to third reading, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 131. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion: Bill 131, An Act to amend the Tile Drainage Act, 1971.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s it, eh? Let’s go home.

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in her chambers.

ROYAL ASSENT

Clerk of the House: The following are the bills to which Her Honour has assented:

Bill 95, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act, 1972.

Bill 96, An Act to amend the Ministry of Health Act, 1972.

Bill 104, An Act to amend the Pregnant Mare Urine Farms Act.

Bill 105, An Act to amend the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. Act, 1973.

Bill 107, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Bill 115, An Act to amend the Stock Yards Act.

Bill 116, the Ontario Agricultural Museum Act, 1975.

Bill 117, The Mineral Emblem Act, 1975.

Bill 119, An Act to amend the Theatres Act.

Bill 123, An Act to amend the Public Health Act.

Bill 124, An Act to repeal the Health Insurance Registration Board Act.

Bill 125, An Act to amend the Health Disciplines Act, 1974.

Bill 127, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Bill 128, An Act to amend the Public Lands Act.

Bill 133, An Act to provide for an interim Freeze in the Price of certain Petroleum Products.

Bill 134, An Act to amend the Pounds Act.

Bill 135, An Act to amend the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, 1973.

Clerk of the House: The fourth order, House in committee of the whole.

COLLEGES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

House in committee on Bill 108, An Act respecting Collective Bargaining for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology.

Mr. Chairman: Any comments on any section of this Act?

On section 1:

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): On section 1, subsection (m), if there is nothing before that, I have an amendment.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): I have some remarks on subsection (f).

Mr. Chairman: We’ll take the minister’s first and then we will go back to you.

Mr. Bounsall: We’ll take the minister’s first as long as we can come back.

Hon Mr. Auld moves that clause (m) of section 1 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“strike” includes a cessation of work, a refusal to work or to continue to work by employees in combination or in concert or in accordance with a common understanding or any concerted action or activity on the part of employees designed to curtail, restrict, limit or interfere with the operation or function of a college or colleges including, without limiting the foregoing,

(i) withdrawal of services,

(ii) slowdown in the performance of duties and,

(iii) the giving of notice to terminate employment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Would the minister care to indicate why under these circumstances he has decided to omit the cocurricular activities? Is it because of the discussion in the committee downstairs having regard to Bill 100? If so, wouldn’t it be better if this bill were stood down until the debate on Bill 100 in the standing committee were completed?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, that is not the reason. I think the original draft was, I guess, pretty well put together on the same basis as the education bill. On the other hand, in the colleges --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The similarity lust strikes me.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- extracurricular activities are apparently quite different to what they are considered to be in the schools and high schools. Consequently, in some discussions with the Civil Service Association which raised this point, we decided we would remove this section because it wasn’t really necessary as far as the colleges were concerned.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bounsall.

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I can quite appreciate that the cocurricular and extracurricular sections should have been removed. But it strikes me that this definition of strike, as included here, continues just too simple-mindedly and too sheepishly to follow Bill 100 regulating the negotiations between school boards and teachers. In the college system, there has never been -- certainly under the bargaining system that has existed -- a technique that approximated a strike such as the giving of notice to terminate employment, which is a technique the teachers in the secondary and elementary school in Ontario felt they had to use at one point as their only means of expressing their concern. This has never been used in the community college community to my knowledge.

It’s not a logical or a natural function for them to take. To have included the giving of notice to terminate employment as one of the definitions for a strike in section 1(m)(iii), simply is not appropriate for the community college situation. I would like to hear from the minister why he feels he must include this, other than the simple, straightforward non-removal of a clause which is in the school boards and teachers collective negotiations bill and which he simple-mindedly carried over into this bill.

It really isn’t appropriate to the community college scene and never has been; and it would not be a technique used in the future, particularly as this bill carefully lays down, step by step, through the fact-finder and the College Relations Commission and so on, the route that would be taken and the possible alternatives to arriving at what would be a strike in the true definition of the word; in other words, the withdrawal of services.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, as I said, the amendment I proposed deletes the reference to the discontinuance of extracurricular activities, which I think is the point that --

Mr. Bounsall: That wasn’t my point. I was referring to what you still have, the giving of notice to terminate employment. It has never been a technique used in the college system in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Well Mr. Chairman, perhaps somebody might try it some time, I don’t know. All I can say is that I met with the representatives of the Civil Service Association. Their concern was the matter about extracurricular activities and we agreed to amend it. They seemed to accept that.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, I still don’t think that’s a strong enough reason for what is, to my mind, just a straight copy of a clause in the bill that would regulate negotiations between teachers and school boards. Teachers in the elementary and secondary school systems used the giving of notice to terminate employment when they thought that was the only means at their disposal to approximate a strike situation. They had written contracts that expired at a certain time, and they gave notice of termination of that contract at the appropriate time as the only means at their disposal of indicating they wished to take what is in essence strike action. That occurred a year ago last December and for a couple of months subsequent with some boards and teachers in the province. Last year when it occurred, they simply withdrew their services and it was called what it obviously was, a strike.

In the community college system, which is what this bill is all about, they have never used that technique. This very bill gives them the route by which they could arrive at a withdrawal of services, if it comes to that, having carefully gone through all the steps that are provided. But this definition of a strike would never be used and has never been used, and is not appropriate to this particular group of employees in our society.

Mr. Bounsall moves an amendment to the amendment to the effect that section 1(m)(iii) of the amendment be deleted.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): I don’t want to speak on this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak on something prior to this.

Mr. Chairman: Any other discussion on section 1?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Yes, I have some comments, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I would like to comment on section 1(1), but I’m trying to get some other legislation on that to look at. Perhaps the other matters related to this section could proceed and I’ll come back to section 1(1) when you are ready.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Are we dealing with section 1(m) as the minister presented it, plus any amendments to that, and then returning to other sections? Or do we turn to those other sections now?

Mr. Chairman: Is there any discussion or questions on any subsection before section 1(m)?

Mr. Bounsall: Yes. I indicated right at the beginning I had one on subsection (f). You then said, Mr. Chairman, that we would deal with the minister’s amendment first.

Mr. Chairman: I think it would be appropriate then. Is there anything before subsection (f)? If not, we’ll take the member for Windsor West on subsection (f). In the meantime, those amendments can be presented.

Mr. Bounsall: Do you mean that subsequently the amendments can be presented?

Mr. Chairman: When we are finished with subsection (f).

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, this is the section which deals with the definition of employee. There is a lot wrong with this section as I see it, particularly in the last half which talks about the support staff bargaining unit set out in schedules 1 and 2 of this particular bill.

I might say of schedules 1 and 2 that the exclusions in those schedules are so wide that they remove virtually scores of people from the bargaining unit. If I just have a look at those schedules 1 and 2, the net is cast far too wide here.

The employees in the community colleges are broken down into two different sections, the support staff and the academic staff. I suggest to you, with respect to the academic staff, in terms of their teaching and in terms of their setup, the community college and the community college teachers resemble more the university model than the secondary school or the elementary school model. In the university model, it’s quite clear all those university campuses that are contemplating forming a bargaining unit under the Ontario Labour Relations Board and all those which are amending their faculty association constitutions to get themselves into a position to make a successful application are definitely including chairmen and heads of departments. They are including directors of school and in some places they are considering every person right up to the position of vice-dean.

As far as I know, it is not contemplated that deans be included in those particular bargaining units at the university level where most of those persons, including the deans, are elected to those positions. It is reasonable that the universities would include those in the bargaining unit with careful methods of selection particularly with the chairman virtually elected, directors of schools virtually elected and with deans selected through a democratic selection committee. I suggest to you that the directors, department heads and chairmen under schedule 1 who are exclusions for purposes of the bargaining unit for community colleges should all be included. Moreover, it’s very important that they be included so that as soon as possible in that college system we establish the same procedures for the selection of those people to their positions as what currently happens at the vast majority, if not all of, the Ontario universities.

The chairman, the directors, and the department beach should be elected by their colleagues from within the department. Their colleagues may well receive permission to go outside the department and choose someone outside the department, should they be able to find someone from some other campus or some other vocation to be the chairman of that department or the director of the particular school, but it should be the choice of those persons intimately involved in that department and that should be an elective procedure.

This is not the case at community colleges but this is the way in which we must be tending here, if the community colleges are to amount to anything, rather than having their chairmen and the directors of schools foisted upon them in all oases by the administration. Some of those appointments are obviously going to be good and some of them are going to be not so good.

The way one gets around that is to do what the universities have done, that is, virtually elect them all. There is no reason why they should be in any way an exclusion from the bargaining unit. They should be elected by the members of their own department to that position. There is no way that it should be an exclusion as we find in schedule 1.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman. I might mention that there is an amendment proposed for schedule 1.

Mr. Bounsall: You have a schedule 1 amendment which deletes chairman, department heads and directors?

Hon. Mr. Auld: We have not quite come to that yet.

Mr. Bounsall: No, this is where the definition of it comes under the “employee,” Mr. Chairman. Section 1(f) is where the reference to schedules 1 and 2 and the support staff is set out.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, if I might interrupt, in part II, section 4, it is quite clear that negotiations can be carried out between the council and the bargaining unit for the inclusion or exclusion of additional points. That is all negotiable.

Mr. Bounsall: What was the reference again? Section 2, part IV? My bill only goes to part III. What other clause are you referring to in which that right is clearly spelled out?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Part II, section 4 says: “Negotiations shall be carried out in respect of any term or condition of employment put forward by either party, except for superannuation.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, is the minister saying then that under section 1(f), an employee is defined as “a person employed by a board,” and so on, “in a position or classification that is within the academic staff bargaining, unit or the support staff bargaining unit as set out in schedules 1 and 2” -- and when you turn to schedules 1 and 2, you have, in schedule 1, “The academic staff bargaining unit includes employees of all boards of governors,” etc., etc., “but does not include: (i) chairmen, (ii) department heads, (iii) directors.” It seems to me that the definition of an employee, with reference to schedules 1 and 2 and with schedule 1 clearly saying: “The academic staff bargaining unit does not include: (i) chairman, (ii) department heads, (iii) directors,” that is a very specific exclusion, and the wording of that can be interpreted no other way than as a full exclusion of the persons occupying those positions from the bargaining unit. That is my interpretation of the bill. If the minister is saying that because of clause 4 in the bill, which says negotiations eon be carried out in respect of any condition by either party, except for superannuation, the position of chairmen, department heads and directors are bargainable in terms of inclusion in the bargaining unit, would the minister please stand up and state so clearly? It does not appear so as written.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, at the present time, as far as the college end is concerned, the difference between this bill and Bill 100 is that there is a collective agreement in force and we have designed this bill around the provisions of that agreement, including those who are presently included, excluding those who are presently excluded, but making provision for application before the Labour Relations Board to whether, in fact, somebody who is presently called a chairman or a director or a foreman or whatever, is actually carrying out the management functions of that position. This, I am told by my legal advisers, is a difficult position, because yen can call somebody a foreman but it really depends on what his or her duties are as to whether, in fact, that person is management or not management. So there is a prevision in the bill -- and I can’t put my finger on it at the moment, but --

Mr. Cassidy: Neither can we.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- I will come to it, if the hon. member will give me an opportunity -- to provide that in the event of a dispute between the employer and the employee organization, whether somebody is management or not, no matter what the title, can be decided by the Labour Relations Board.

Mr. B. Newman: You are talking about section 82, are you, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I am very upset by this bill because it --

Mr. Chairman: I am sorry, I have the member for Oxford. Are you on this point?

Mr. Cassidy: I am on this point as well, but I’ll let the member for Oxford go ahead.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): I made no presentation, sir.

Mr. Chairman: All right, the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Could the minister please explain how schedules 1 and 2 are amended once they have been passed by the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Auld: By the Legislature.

Mr. Bounsall: Following up that same point, Mr. Chairman --

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment for section 82, which is the one that I referred to a moment ago and which at present says:

“If, in the course of bargaining for an agreement or during the period of operation of an agreement, a question arises as to whether a person is an employee, the question may be referred to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and its decision thereon is final and binding for all purposes.”

The amendment provides:

“If, in the course of bargaining for an agreement or during the period of operation of an agreement, a question arises as to whether a person is an employee, including a question as to whether a person employed is a chairman, department head, director, foreman or supervisor, is employed in a managerial or confidential capacity, pursuant to clause (1) of section 1 and the schedules, the question may be referred to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and its decision thereon is final and binding for all purposes.”

I may say, Mr. Chairman, that copies of these proposed amendments were forwarded to both the opposition parties earlier today.

Mr. B. Newman: Is the minister referring to section 1(f) -- an amendment to section 1(f)?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, 1(f).

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes.

Mr. B. Newman: That isn’t what I see. I don’t see anything at all from you in the series of amendments I did receive, but I do see an amendment to that as suggested by the CSAO, which does make good sense. Their amendment reads as follows:

“An employee means a person employed by a board of governors of a college of applied arts and technology in a position or classification that is within the academic staff bargaining unit or the support staff bargaining unit, [and they add] as defined in the existing collective agreements subject to future amendment by mutual agreement of the parties or by the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 82.”

It is, in fact, mentioned under section 82, so you would have the cross-reference. I think the amendment suggested by the CSAO does make good sense.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I think that basically we have achieved the same thing with perhaps slightly different words.

Mr. B. Newman: Yes, we accept that.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item (f) carry?

Mr. Bounsall: I just want to make very certain of that, Mr. Chairman. The minister is clearly saying, then, that the decision as to whether a chairman, a department head or director in the academic staff, and a foreman or supervisor in the support staff, is a member of the bargaining unit, subject to his managerial or confidential capacity, will be a question that can be referred to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for its decision.

That is, the decision as to the eligibility of all these employees in the bargaining unit can be referred, upon request, to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for decision, and the input in the decision rests, not according to their particular name or title, but according to their managerial or confidential capacity. Is that what this section 82 means?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I am not a judge so I don’t interpret the law, but that’s the proposed amendment for section 82, which in discussion with the CSAO seemed to satisfy their concern.

Mr. Bounsall: This isn’t good enough, Mr. Chairman. I want to know quite clearly from the minister, quite categorically, does the amendment on section 82 mean that regarding those persons specifically mentioned in that amendment -- chairman, department head, director, foreman and supervisor -- the decision on whether they are to be included and can be included in a bargaining unit is a decision for the Ontario Labour Relations Board and in that decision their discussion will hinge solely and only upon the degree of their managerial or confidential capacity? Is that what that amendment clearly means? And that, further, there will be no problem in the CSAO sending any one of the persons covered by that particular name capacity to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a decision as to whether or not they should be included in the bargaining unit?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Well, Mr. Chairman, I assume there will be lots of problems and that’s the reason we have a section in the bill, to refer it to somebody who will make a decision.

I can repeat what I said. The proposed amendment will make section 82 read as follows:

“If, in the course of bargaining for an agreement or during the period of operation of an agreement, a question arises as to whether a person is an employee, including a question as to whether a person employed as a chairman, department head, director, foreman or supervisor is employed in a managerial or confidential capacity, pursuant to clause (1) of section 1 and the schedules, the question may be referred to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and its decision thereon is final and binding for all purposes.”

And the only thing that I would add to that proposed amendment is that I would assume that either party, the bargaining agent or the council, can refer this kind of a question to the Labour Relations Board.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I am very depressed about the way in which the minister presented the bill and about the kind of provisions that are in that have been borrowed from the teacher bargaining bill, Bill 100, and in particular about what we talking about right now.

It’s quite correct to say that the Labour Relations Board can determine whether or not somebody falls within the categories of schedule 1 or schedule 3, but that doesn’t answer the question the member for Windsor West has been raising, which is whether the schedules themselves are reasonable or not I think that on behalf of the NDP we both take the position that the schedules themselves are grossly unreasonable because of the nature of the decision-making process in many community colleges, which parallels of that of universities.

You know, if you were to take these exclusions, they would be far broader than those recommended by the Labour Relations Board in the case of a non-government organization where certification was being sought. For example, part-time employees cannot become members of the bargaining unit; that’s people working up to 24 hours a week. Somebody engaged in a project of a non-recurring kind cannot be a member of the support staff bargaining unit. Now, a nonrecurring project could be contract employment on the one hand. However, it could be that they are writing as a life work an etymology of the Hebrew language for some community college somewhere in Ontario, or some other project which requires many years in which to complete, but which will be non-recurring. Now surely they should not be excluded from being part of a bargaining unit because of that kind of thing.

People who are members of the professions are automatically to be excluded from the supporting staff bargaining unit, without any determination as to whether or not they wish to be. Now, surely whether or not they can be is a matter which ought to be bargainable, but it’s not bargainable because it is here in the legislation.

My understanding of past practice, where there has been legislation affecting public servants in the province -- and the people we are talking about here are deemed to be civil servants -- has been that if legislation covers them, then it’s either difficult or completely impossible for them to bargain. Despite the provisions in section 2 related to negotiations about what is bargainable, it is going to be very easy for a community college or for the regents to say: “Look, we are sorry. We can’t bargain about who is in the bargaining unit or not, because it is laid out in Bill 108 that was passed in the summer of 1975, and until that bill as passed is amended, we simply can’t accommodate your desires about broadening the bargaining unit”; or about not having a bargaining unit, I am not sure which.

Now if you get back to schedule 1 and if you read schedule 1 in conjunction with the definition of people being employed in a managerial, confidential capacity, and finally pot those two together, the number of exclusions is absolutely tremendous. Somebody who is a part-time teacher, a part-time counsellor, a part-time librarian is automatically excluded from being a part of the academic bargaining unit.

As the member for Windsor West was saying, an elected department head who, in certain colleges, may only hold the office for a year or two, will be excluded from the bargaining unit. You will get situations where you have people dropping out and then coming back in, if they serve out their term as department head and then drop out. This will inhibit experiments with administration, which is something that I would have thought the minister wouldn’t be averse to in the community colleges, as people look for the best means administering in an environment which can be admittedly difficult.

You also get a situation -- if I can take an example, Mr. Chairman, from Algonquin College in Ottawa -- a college with half a dozen campuses, with a number of teachers in departments scattered all over the map. Now, there you may have five or six people on various campuses, each of whom is classed as a department head in each subject area. In certain cases, their departmental responsibilities may simply be that they get an extra $250 a year and drop mound to a meeting of the general department to report to the chairman once every month or so, and keep an eye on the two or three people who are also teaching in that particular subject area on their particular campus.

I don’t see why they should be excluded from the bargaining unit. But the way in which this has been drawn up, by making it mandatory and judicable through the Labour Relations Board rather than bargainable, you’ve tied them in a straitjacket.

Also there is the title of director. Now I know that this is going to be referred to the Labour Relations Board, but they have no guidance. There’s no definition of director here in the Act. And, once again, because of the variety in the 14 or 15 community colleges across the province, a director in one place may mean a very senior academic employee, and in another place it may be a title that’s given to one of the older staff because it’s like sending him up to the senate. They wanted to honour him a bit with a title, but they didn’t want to give him too much administrative responsibility. So they give him the title of director, an extra $1,000 in merit pay, and leave it at that.

Then, finally, when you come to subsection 5 of schedule 1 and subsection 5 of the exclusions in schedule 2, you’re referred to other persons employed in a managerial or confidential capacity. I happen to have been away with our convention for the last week and a half and haven’t had a look at the bill before tonight. I spent the last half hour trying to find out where that elaborate definition of persons employed in a managerial confidential capacity would apply. The only place I could find it originally was in section 76, where the --

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I assume that the hon. member has not had an opportunity to see the proposed amendment to schedule 2?

Mr. Cassidy: Not yet, no.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Which his party received this afternoon.

Mr. Cassidy: I’m sorry, I haven’t seen it.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Perhaps I might speed things up by reading it to him?

Mr. Cassidy: Let me just finish what I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, and then I’ll close off fairly quickly.

Because the definition of a person employed in a managerial, confidential capacity, as it stands now, unless the minister intends to greatly change it, takes that long list of exclusions in the schedules which is changeable only by this Legislature and adds to it the very general words of “a person who is involved in the formulation of organization objectives and policy in relation to the development and administration of programmes of the employer, or in the formulation of budgets of the employer.”

As the member for Windsor West said, the university model is that everybody who’s around the place in a department for more than a year or so in most campuses across the province is in fact involved in the formulation of organization objectives and policy and in the formulation of budgets. I’ve been teaching in university and I have been in that particular position. I’ve also taught at a community college and at Ryerson, and had I been there for more than a few months I, too, in that situation, would have also had an involvement both in the organization objectives and policy and also the formulation of budgets. In other words, if this definition is to be followed explicitly, it means the academic bargaining unit will not have a single person in it in a number of colleges where they have a fairly democratic administration.

Secondly, “Spends a significant portion of his time in the supervision of employees.” Once again, at Algonquin College, even if they don’t give them the title of department head’s, the lead teacher -- whatever he is called -- on each of the little campuses spread out from Hawkesbury to Pembroke who looks over the work of two or three of the junior profs, the junior teachers who have come in, will possibly came under that particular section.

“Is required by reasons of his duties or responsibilities to deal formally on behalf of the employer with a grievance of an employee.” Once again, that could be very broad depending on the particular structure of grievance handling adopted by that particular institution. I don’t think the people who were involved in grievances, that category, ought to be incredibly narrowed by the institution simply to conform with this and to prevent a wide net being cast and a widening of the exclusions of people from the bargaining unit.

“Is employed in a position confidential to any person described in subclause i, ii or iii.” If you have a democratic campus of a community college where almost all the academic people are involved in budget-making and organization objectives, among other things, along with their teaching, everybody who runs a duplicator or acts as a secretary or as a receptionist or as a TA or in any other capacity to that teaching staff could, theoretically, be excluded from the bargaining unit on the support side because he or she would be in a position confidential to those academic people.

Finally, just in case anybody is left to form part of this bargaining unit, the exclusion says a person employed in a managerial or confidential capacity includes any person who “is not otherwise described in subclauses i to v, but who, in the opinion of the Ontario Labour Relations Board should not be included in a bargaining unit by reason of his duties and responsibilities to the employer.”

I have respect for the OLRB; I’m sure it would not use that clause as it could possibly be used. But that clause is so broad that it could be used to ensure that not a single employee would have bargaining rights in either the academic bargaining unit or the support bargaining unit. I tell you the whole thing is ridiculous.

I’d be interested to hear what amendments the minister has but my feeling is we should have a fairly thorough debate about this because I think it’s an important and objectionable section. I think while we’re talking about the definitions we probably should have this kind of discussion because so many of the definitions touch on these major issues and because of the fact that the government slipped this bill through last night despite the assurances given to the member for Windsor West that the bill would be held over until today in order that he could be present to debate second reading.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, first of all as far as the exclusions are concerned -- particularly the part-time people -- this is the basis of the present agreement and one which has worked for some time. I think the hon. member realizes that in the community colleges, with the part-time and the evening courses and so on, the variations, the changes, are so great that there can be quite a turnover of part-time staff.

I have discussed with representatives of the CSAO this bill and the definitions, As I have said, the definitions in section 1, which is what we’re really talking about as I understand it at this point in time, insofar as management exclusions are concerned are flexible and can be amended, as I mentioned a few moments ago, by section 82 by reference to the Labour Relations Board.

Mr. Cassidy: No, they can’t.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Let me proceed. They can be challenged in their interpretation as to who is a foreman and that sort of thing.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I understand that is standard practice in management-labour negotiations. The title is not the important thing; it’s what the person does which is the important thing.

In discussion with the CSAO about schedules 1 and 2 -- which are at the end of the bill but which we are now discussing because they do relate, in some way, to section 1 -- these are the ones that seemed acceptable to the CSAO, as far as schedule 1 is concerned, and I’m sorry that the hon. members opposite obviously didn’t have an opportunity to get copies of the proposed amendments earlier today.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, since the member for Windsor West and I are sitting in different seats and we can’t communicate too easily here, perhaps the minister could ask his stall to send over another copy of the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I sent over copies. I gave to your House leader this afternoon, at about 3 or 4 o’clock, copies of all the proposed amendments. I have only the copies that I need to give to the Clerk of the House at the moment, but I will react to the hon. member the proposed amendment to schedule 1.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, again, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: What is the point of order?

Mr. Cassidy: I would point out to the minister that it is pretty difficult for members of this caucus to consult with the CSAO and caucus about something when major amendments are handed over at 4 o’clock in the afternoon for debate three or four hours later. I know it’s symptomatic of the way the government runs the House business, and we have become used to this kind of abuse by the government. All the same, it does make life rather difficult, and the minister’s air of injured dignity is not really becoming.

Mr. Chairman: I say to the member that that is not a point of order. The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you that my dignity is not injured.

Mr. Bounsall: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: A point of order, the member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, around 3:45 or slightly earlier perhaps, maybe a few minutes earlier, I came into possession of a series of the amendments which the minister intends to place. I don’t know whether there was any more than one copy or what happened to them, but as far as I know I have the only copy of those amendments extant in our caucus. What the member for Ottawa Centre was saying, in essence, if I could paraphrase him in slightly different terms, is, could he have a copy of those amendments so that as the bill is debated we on this side of the House can do that in a reasonable fashion? And could I suggest, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: I would say to the member for Windsor West, I don’t regard this as a point of order. The minister has indicated that at 3 o’clock he gave your caucus and the Liberal caucus copies of the amendments. I would presume that it is up to your people to make the necessary copies for your members.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, if I may speak on this, I received the one copy as the minister did make mention. I made extra copies for my colleagues and they have them. We weren’t held up on this.

Mr. Chairman: Right, thank you. The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, as far as schedule 1 is concerned, the amendment that I propose to move at the appropriate time is that, as far as section vii of schedule 1 is concerned, section vii be deleted and the following substituted therefor: “(vii) counsellors and librarians employed on a part-time basis.” This is the only matter that the CSAO brought up in connection with schedule 1.

Schedule 2 is a little longer, and the motion that I propose to move at the appropriate time is that schedule 2 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

SCHEDULE 2

The support staff bargaining unit includes the employees of all boards of governors of colleges of applied arts and technology employed in positions or classifications in the office, clerical technical, health care, maintenance, building service, shipping, transportation, cafeteria and nursery staff but does not include,

(i) foremen,

(ii) supervisors,

(iii) persons above the rank of foreman or supervisor,

(iv) persons employed in a confidential capacity in matters related to employee relations or the formulation of a budget of a college of applied arts and technology or of a constituent campus of a college of applied arts and technology including persons employed in clerical, stenographic or secretarial positions,

(v) other persons employed in a managerial or confidential capacity,

(vi) persons regularly employed for not more than 24 hours a week,

(vii) students employed in a co-operative educational training programme undertaken with a school, college or university,

(viii) a graduate of a college of applied arts and technology during the period of 12 months immediately following completion of a course of study or instruction at the college by the graduate if the employment of the graduate is associated with a certification, registration or other licensing requirement,

(ix) a person engaged for a project of a non-recurring kind,

(x) a person who is a member of the architectural, dental, engineering, legal or medical profession, entitled to practise in Ontario and employed in a professional capacity, or

(xi) a person engaged and employed outside Ontario.

I might just say -- and the member for Ottawa Centre has left to do some photocopying or something --

Mr. Bounsall: He is out photostating.

Hon. Mr. Auld: He mentioned that kind of an exclusion a few moments ago. Of course, those people have their own professional associations and are governed by their own professional rules; obviously it would be unwise to subject them to two sets of rules which might be in conflict one with the other. That is why they are excluded. I see the hon. member nods his head and understands that.

Mr. Bounsall: I agree with that last point, Mr. Chairman, but there is a more basic problem throughout all of this. Let me comment on what the minister has just indicated about schedule 2.

In essence, what you have done in schedule 2, in your amendment, is you have taken those formerly in the schedule under employee classifications 1 to 27 and couched those classifications in general terms. This gives you a greater degree of flexibility to account for other titles that might occur from time to time; you don’t have “1. Clerk, General. 2. Typist-Stenographer” and so on down through to 27, which you formerly had in the bill.

That certainly is a step forward, because what you have done is you’ve generalized it so if other titles come up, those titles are going to fall into one or more of those generalized terms which you’ve used. Therefore, that puts flexibility into the definition of employee.

However, when you get to the part which says, “but does not include,” then you enumerate foremen, supervisors, and so on. As the minister read, I carefully checked what he was reading vis-à-vis the bill. The only change that I can see from the original bill, as proposed by the minister’s amendment, following the words “but does not include,” where you enumerate what is not included in the bargaining unit, involves three words under point (iv). Originally, it said, “Persons employed in a confidential capacity in matters related to employee relations or the formulation or application of a budget. “You’ve removed “or application of,” so it simply reads, “the formulation of budget.” The rest has remained unchanged.

Hon. Mr. Auld: That is because that is the way it is now in the agreement, and the two words “or application” were not in the agreement. Those were removed two or three years ago, I think.

Mr. Bounsall: I thank you for that clarification, Mr. Minister. That’s fair enough. That brings me therefore to my main point on all of this. The amendment which you are moving to section 82 simply refers to employees and does not refer to the eligibility for the bargaining unit. It’s in the schedules that you get into who is eligible for the bargaining unit and who is not.

While the amendment you proposed to section 82 is a clarification of who is an employee, it does not help one iota in the classification of which of those employees are eligible for the bargaining unit.

You’ve said in effect that your amendments to schedule 2, which I assume we’ll consider at the very end of the bill, have taken out words so that it will correspond exactly to the agreement that is now in effect. Therefore, the amendment suggested in a written submission by the Civil Service Association, or the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, seems to me to be very reasonable. That amendment makes reference to the existing collective agreements, which would have this wording and this definition, as the minister has pointed out, and it mentions that it would be subject to future amendment by mutual agreement of the parties, which allows the two parties to agree on who could be classified as employees and who are in bargaining unit as well as by the Labour Relations Board under section 82. The amendment under section 82, as you have phrased it, would give well with the way they would see 1(f) read.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think it’s very important that the wording that the Ontario Public Service Employees Union has put forward for section 1(f) have that wording included.

Mr. Bounsall moves that section 1(f) be amended by deleting “set out in schedules 1 and 2” in the last line and substituting therefor “as defined in the existing collective agreements, subject to future amendment by mutual agreement of the parties or by the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 82.”

Mr. Cassidy: I have some comments on this, Mr. Chairman, on the amendment, that has been proposed by the member for Windsor West.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I don’t know why the government chose to bring in such a restrictive bill in this particular instance when it chose to take quite a generous kind of a route in the bill to which this is meant to be companion, the bill giving free collective bargaining rights under certain conditions to teachers. This is why I think it is important that the amendment proposed by the member for Windsor West be passed.

I have just given a number of kinds of examples of how restrictively the schedules could be applied. Whether you talk about the amended schedules or the original schedules is not particularly relevant. What I would point out is that the schedules, even as amended, and which are referred to in subsection (f) of section 1 are far more restrictive than exist either in the teacher bargaining legislation of Bill 100 or in the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

I don’t think any of us in this party are particularly opposed to the view that people who are in a managerial capacity should not form part of the bargaining unit. I think that the matters of definition are somewhat difficult in the community college situation for reasons that have been given. Obviously, the best place for this to be hammered out is at the bargaining table, where people who are familiar with the structure of the way in which a community college works, can work it out. The other place where it could be handled by a body with a good deal of knowledge in this field is at the Labour Relations Board itself.

I think the member for Windsor West will agree with me when I say I would be happier on the managerial clause if it were to use the language of the Labour Relations Act itself, which says that no person should be deemed to be an employee who in the opinion of the Labour Relations Board exercises managerial functions or is employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations. That is a much narrower definition than the definition that has been put forward in the Act and one on which one has to act in the bill that we have before us. One has to ask, why did the government choose to go back on the sections in the Labour Relations Act which date back to 1960? Why have we gone back to the 1950s with this managerial exclusions clause which has been put in here in the particular case of community college employees? Why are we laying ourselves open to the situation where in three months or six months from now, if the section were to be passed without amendment, we will have another government, I profoundly hope, in the House making the amendments in order to bring this legislation in line with legislation generally?

The other point I would make is that if this bill were to be paralleled by Bill 100, then it is quite clear that principals and vice-principals would be treated as people who are chairmen, directors, department heads or in a supervisory capacity or involved in making budgets or involved in supervising other workers. They get hit in about six different ways and they would therefore be deemed to be not eligible to form part of the bargaining unit as far as the schools are concerned, The minister knows very well that principals in a school system are considered to be principal teachers and are considered to be part of a collegium or colleagues with the teachers. They teach with them and they also help to supervise and lead, guide and inspire and so on. They are also teachers; they are simply principal teachers; and that concept which is strongly held by the teacher trade unions has been accepted by the government.

Surely it’s exactly the same thing, if not more so, when you get to department heads and chairmen and people like that in the community college situation? If the government wants to say it’s essential that department heads and chairmen stick around in the event of a strike -- as it has said as its sop in Bill 100 to the trustees -- then put a section like that in the bill. We will disagree with it but at least you are being consistent with Bill 100.

This one doesn’t make any sense at all and it’s liable to leave a very large group -- let’s say 20 to 25 per cent -- of the academic and support employees of a community college in a situation where they don’t have representation and where they will be threatened with being overtaken in terms of wages and conditions of work and that kind of things by those affiliates or colleagues who happen to be protected by being members of the union.

That is an absurd kind of situation. It seems to me that in any labour legislation the net should be as broad as possible; as many people as possible should have the right to belong to the labour organization and the number of managers should deliberately be kept as few as possible. That’s what is done in the Labour Relations Act and that is what is done in what is proposed here.

I hope the minister would very seriously consider the amendment put forward by the member for Windsor West.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on this point?

Mr. B. Newman: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I don’t intend to be lengthy but I did bring this amendment to the attention of the minister in the early discussions of the bill and I hope the minister would reconsider the amendment presented by the CSAO and accept it.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I think I restated my own position that in my view the question of who is or is not in the bargaining unit can be settled, in the case of a dispute, by the Labour Relations Board under section 82. I don’t think there is a valid comparison between the principals and vice-principals of public and high schools and the presidents, department heads and staff of community colleges, in view of their duties and administrative activities.

If there is a dispute there is now a provision, which would appear to be satisfactory, that the Labour Relations Board can be brought in. Either side can argue whether somebody is management or faculty and I think that is the proper way to do it. I am sure there will be discussions about that. I think there is now a mechanism to deal with the very problems the hon. members opposite have dealt with. This is I where we are a little different from Bill 100 -- I think properly -- because I think the college system is a different kind of a system from the universities, in some respects, and certainly the public and high school systems.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, I’d like the minister to consider what he said with respect to the colleges in relation to the elementary and secondary system and the university system, and how the equivalent persons in those three systems relate to whether or not they are included in the bargaining unit.

Let’s start at the elementary and secondary system. In the elementary and secondary system, as you know by Bill 100, the principals and vice-principals, who are equivalents to the chairmen and directors of schools in this bill, are clearly part of the bargaining unit. They have not been allowed to strike but they are clearly part of the bargaining unit.

At the other extreme, the other end of the scale is the university system in which the chairmen and even the vice-deans are elected to their posts and are clearly part of the bargaining unit. If they are certified by the Ontario Labour Relations Board -- as one unit is, I believe -- they are clearly full members of that bargaining unit and allowed to strike.

You have in an intermediate position the community college academic staff and teachers. You say to their chairmen, not only are they not going to be allowed to strike, as you haven’t let their counterparts in the elementary and secondary school systems be allowed to strike, but you are not going to let them belong to the bargaining unit. You are doubly repressive on the chairmen and the directors, in the community college system.

In universities, they are full members of the bargaining unit, and should a strike ever occur under the Labour Relations Act, they are allowed to strike. The elementary and secondary school teachers are members of the bargaining unit and they are simply not allowed to strike. But here they are not even allowed to be members of the bargaining unit.

We don’t agree in Bill 100 that the principals and vice-principals shouldn’t be allowed to strike; we feel they should be. But with the college teachers, you have taken a group midway between in many of their functions. They are considered to be in post-secondary education as the university teachers are, as compared to the secondary and elementary teachers. While both other groups are allowed to be full members of the bargaining unit, you say to the group of chairmen in the community colleges: “Not only are we not going to let you be allowed to strike, we are not going to let you be allowed in the bargaining unit.”

That just doesn’t make sense at all. On the one hand, on either side of the community college teachers you are allowing them both t belong to the bargaining unit, while university teachers are allowed to strike. The only difference with elementary and secondary teachers in the principal and vice-principal positions is that they can’t strike. I hope in Bill 100 in the committee room that that clause is removed. I gather the position of the principals and vice-principals is being debated right now at this very moment and submissions are being heard right now from principals and vice-principals around this province as to why they should not only be members of the bargaining unit, but also be allowed to strike.

To take the community college academic staff and say of their chairmen that not only can they not be allowed to strike under this very careful system in this bill, but they are not eligible for the bargaining unit, just does not make sense when they look at what happens to their equivalent counterparts in the other two parts of our educational system. It just doesn’t make sense and there is no rationale, I suggest, that you can put forward that would cause them to be put in that situation. It doesn’t happen to those equivalent positions in the other two ends of our educational system in this province. You really can’t find a rationale for it.

Secondly, speaking to my amendment, there is nowhere in the bill as it exists or in section 82 that you have amended and put forward that allows for a decision on whether persons who are employees, and on whom there is dispute as to whether or not they are to be members of the bargaining unit, where you specifically allow that mutual agreement of both parties would allow a particular name or classification of those employees to be eligible for membership in the bargaining unit.

The amendment that I put forward, which was suggested by the OSAO or the Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union, indicates quite clearly that both parties by mutual agreement can amend that. You may say it is implied, but I am not so sure that it is implied that both parties could amend that by mutual agreement.

By putting it squarely in the amendment to section 1(f), you allow three things to happen. All those definitions that are in collective agreements now between the community college teachers and the Council of Regents, are as is. You have made various amendments to some of the sections to ensure that the wording is the same as those existing collective agreements. We can get rid schedule 1 and 2 completely by simply using the phrase “existing collective agreements. You allow agreement to be reached between the two parties as to which employees would be, by agreement, in the bargaining unit, by the second phrase, “subject to future amendment by mutual agreement of the parties”; or in section 1(f) you refer to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 82 which you have covered, and covered more extensively in your amendment.

This, as I see it, is an amendment which covers all ends of the scale. It allows the agreements to be reached, it covers the point of what’s already in collective agreements and it makes reference to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

I see this as a very well-thought-out amendment by the Civil Service Association. It covers everything the minister wishes to cover, and in addition allows mutual agreement between the parties. Surely, in collective agreements and in bargaining between employees and employers around this province, what you are encouraging -- and the rest of the bill at various points speaks to it -- is mutual agreements between the parties.

Really, the only thing you have left out in section 1(f), which this amendment would clearly allow, is for that mutual agreement to be reached without having the inflexible positions which will arise from time to time because of schedules 1 and 2. You get around that by having the amendment say, “these defined in the existing collective agreements which by mutual agreement, can be amended.”

I would hope the minister would seriously consider that amendment because I think it’s a very good one, very well worded. I also suggest to the minister that he has really got to think rather clearly on the positions of the chairmen of community college teachers as opposed to their counterparts in the other two systems, where you have clearly put them at a much more disadvantaged position.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I have a couple of questions, but perhaps the minister could try to respond to the point made by the member for Windsor West. What’s different about a department head in a community college that means that he or she cannot be even a member of the bargaining unit, whereas a principal or a consultant in a school system -- a consultant who, we will say, is head of music for all of Ottawa, or the head of geography, or the head of English or something like that and is responsible for English teaching right through the city or in a whole group of schools -- a consultant or a principal, who may be a principal with 2,000 or 3,000 kids in a big urban high school on the one hand, or a department head, chairman, something like that in a university faculty; not only can be a member of the bargaining unit, but in the case of the university quite probably also has the right to strike? What is different about the community college department head as opposed to the secondary school principal on the one hand or the university department head?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, very briefly I suppose it is the historical difference of all the people in the public and secondary school system being members of the same association no matter what their function in the system, and the present agreement in the college system between the Council of Regents and the CSAO as to those who are in the bargaining and those who are not. I won’t comment on the university system because that varies from university to university.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, on that, can the minister point to one university in Ontario which has decided that it does not want to include department heads in its faculty association, or in the faculty association as it is revising the association so that it will make a successful application to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for certification? Can the minister name one, because as he knows, my experience as well as that of the member for Ottawa Centre, is from the university field and there is widespread agreement right across Ontario that chairmen, most of them elected by the faculty in that department, are in fact the servants of that department; they are there at the behest and at the whim, almost, if you like, of the members of that department; they are clearly one with the rest of the faculty in that department.

That’s the view that is held all across Ontario toward chairmen or heads at the university level. In fact, it has got to the point where directors of schools and vice-deans, and in some cases even deans, but certainly those other two categories, are looked upon in the very same manner.

Hon. Mr. Auld: But they say it does vary from university to university.

Mr. Bounsall: Not the attitude toward chairmen or department heads. There is absolutely no disagreement on that in the universities of the Province of Ontario. I challenge you to name one university that does not have chairmen as members of its faculty association, particularly those faculty associations that are reorganizing themselves to make an application for certification before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, of course, the universities all operate under their own Acts -- other than, I guess, Carleton which has been certified for a group with a faculty -- and they will be operating, I assume, under the Labour Relations Act. We have been operating under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. We’re now proposing to amend that and to change the rules.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, the minister misses the point completely. We’ll keep at this point until we come to grips with this point, because I’m sure he’s got the capacity to come to grips with it. He is the Minister of Colleges and Universities. What members, in terms of what you would call administrative staff at Carleton University, are included in the bargaining unit as certified by the Ontario Labour Relations Board? Can he answer that question?

Hon. Mr. Auld: No, I can’t Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bounsall: You should find out. That’s rather a disgrace. That maybe accounts for why we have a bill here that simply single-mindedly and like a sheep follows the legislation which was introduced for teachers and school boards in this province. The minister is capable, I’m sure, of finding out those facts, coming to grips with them and putting some thought into this bill -- and surely his advisers are.

One would have thought that in the rarefied academic and intellectual atmosphere of the colleges and universities systems, they might have been producing a bill which led the way in this province in terms of collective bargaining, rather than following along, like a sheep, a bill that was introduced to deal with elementary and secondary teachers in this province.

The minister just hasn’t come to grips with this bill, Mr. Chairman. Because he hasn’t -- and he’s admitted he hasn’t -- the chairmen and heads at Carleton University are clearly within the bargaining unit as certified by the Ontario Labour Relations Board. For those other three or four universities in Ontario which are amending their faculty association constitutions so that their application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board is certified beyond doubt, they are also included -- chairmen and department heads.

The equivalent to this bill is that chairmen and heads of departments and directors of schools should, therefore, be eligible for membership in the bargaining unit as defined by this bill.

Mr. Chairman: I think there has been a fair discussion on this point.

Mr. Cassidy: I have a couple of points to make, Mr. Chairman. I want to say to the minister that I know why he has brought the bill in in this particular way. It just speaks to the failure of members of this cabinet to do their jobs adequately. This is not a bill designed to help out the college staffs across the province. This is a bill which is designed to do as little as possible and give as little as possible, because you don’t want to open the door to giving free collective bargaining rights to your civil servants under CECBA. That is the reason why you won’t give to department heads and chairmen, and other people like that, the same rights you give to principals and that you give to university chairmen.

Is there a quorum in the House, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: I will ask the Clerk to check.

Mr. Chairman ordered that the bells be rung for four minutes.

Mr. Chairman: We now have a quorum; we can proceed.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Two NDPers in the House. Surely there are more than two.

Mr. Cassidy: They are legion, as a matter of fact. We have six nomination meetings going this evening. We have educational seminars across the country.

Mr. Breithaupt: Are there really more than two?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that Donald MacDonald is converting the north mile by mile as he comes back from the Winnipeg convention.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre will please return to the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now that this has been --

Mr. Chairman: Will you please return to the bill?

Mr. Cassidy: On section 1(f), the amendment put forward by the member for Windsor West. For the benefit of those Conservatives, Mr. Chairman --

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Point of order.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: May I ask who called the quorum? I was out of the House.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Thank you.

An hon. member: The one from Toronto Island.

Mr. Cassidy: We had two members when I called the quorum and we have two members now. We have two members on the resources committee, two members in the other --

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: Better ring the bell again.

Mr. Chairman: Will the member for Ottawa Centre please return to section 1(f)?

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): He has been vacationing in Winnipeg for the last three days.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I am responding to the point of order that is made by the House leader. And I am glad the House leader came into the House, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Good reason -- you haven’t been here for two weeks, so don’t kid us.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, I am catching up.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: You haven’t been here.

Mr. Cassidy: I have been working for the people of my riding in this province. I have been ensuring that we get a better government than that bunch of Liberals they’ve got up in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: You haven’t been working for the people of the province.

Mr. Cassidy: What?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: You haven’t been working for the people of this province.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): I beg your pardon, the House leader wasn’t here.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Such righteous indignation.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: The House leader wasn’t here.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre --

Mr. Cassidy: I want to take the government House leader on on this one, Mr. Chairman. The reason that this is such a bad bill is because of his views about depriving civil servants of bargaining rights.

Mr. Chairman: Will you sit down, please?

Mr. Jessiman: How are your tenants on Metcalfe St.? Are they paying your rent on time?

Mr. Chairman: I am going to ask the member to now immediately return to section 1(f), please, and confine his remarks to the contents of that particular section.

Mr. Jessiman: After three weeks of vacation.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: The amendment that has been put forward by the member for Windsor West -- and I will fill in the House leader and others who were not present at the time that this was being debated --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s right. Be sure you cover it all.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Word for word.

Mr. Cassidy: -- removes as retrograde a set of managerial exclusions from the bargaining unit as exist anywhere in legislation, I dare say, in all of Canada -- not just in the Province of Ontario.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Cassidy: And it would conform with suggestions, which are very reasonable suggestions, that have been made by the Civil Service Association of Ontario --

Mr. Deans: Which the minister would never understand.

Mr. Cassidy: -- which would simply bring the managerial exclusions into line with the managerial exclusions which are used for any other group of employees in the province.

Mr. Deans: Which he wouldn’t understand.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, in our view we just simply can’t understand why the government is resisting this. When they give bargaining rights and the right to belong to a union to principals in the schools in the companion legislation to this bill, and when they give the bargaining rights to people who are department heads in universities, why have these exclusions? The reason is because the government wants to deprive civil servants of as many bargaining rights as they can and because they want to continue repressive legislation whenever it comes to civil servants.

The man who is responsible for that, the man who argues for it, I would suggest, is the Chairman of the Management Board. The man who refines to speak up for these civil servants, who are college and community teachers, is the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I deplore the fact that he has put forward a whole pack of retrograde legislation in relation to the managerial exclusions which are covered in this particular section.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I want to go on record right away by saying that hon. member is totally wrong.

Mr. Chairman: We have the amendment now moved by Mr. Bounsall. I am going to put the amendment now. Those in favour of Mr. Bounsall’s amendment will please say aye.

Those opposed will please say “nay.” In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost. Shall subsection (f) stand as part of the bill? Carried. Anything before section 1(m)?

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, section 1(l), Mr. Chairman.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): The Liberals are defying their House leader.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eaton: Don’t you follow your leader over there?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, I really don’t see why in this particular bill we need such a detailed explanation here of persons employed in a managerial or confidential capacity.

Mr. Cassidy: Do you want to go on record about your land dealings in Port Arthur?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Windsor West has the floor, Give him the courtesy of allowing him to speak.

Mr. Jessiman: You won’t be here long enough to live in it.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think section 1(l), with six parts, is at all required to define a person employed in a managerial or confidential capacity. Reference is made to managerial or confidential capacity in a section of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, an Act which in that respect was not changed in the amendments to that Act which were brought forward here last night. In fact, that section is completely sufficient to cover the point which the minister would like to make in this section.

The Ontario Labour Relations Act, in section 3(b), defines a person employed in a managerial or confidential capacity as one who exercises managerial functions or simply one who is employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations. That should be the sole definition for managerial and confidential capacity. We have no need to make this great expansion as to who is confidential and who is managerial as defined in this section of the bill.

Other labour relations Acts in this country allow for the inclusion in a bargaining unit, although it may be a separate bargaining unit, of those managerial persons who perform simply supervisory functions. Therefore, those other labour relations Acts in this country, notably in British Columbia, which make that distinction’, are in direct opposition to subsection (l)(ii), as defined here, where you go further and say he “spends a significant portion of his time in the supervision of employees.” This is specifically omitted, albeit by a different type of wording, in other labour relations Acts in this country.

To take a bill of this kind, and to further outline what is managerial and confidential to the extent that subsection (l)(ii) is worded here, is simply not keeping in line with forward-looking legislation.

It’s a shame; many parts of this Act are steps forward in the same sense that many parts of Bill 100 are reasonable steps forward. Then you run across sections like this, which take giant steps backwards and which are not at all keeping pace -- in fact, they do exactly opposite -- with other labour relations Acts in this country, which have looked at labour relations and have said: “Someone who is in a managerial position but performs only supervisory tasks is eligible for a bargaining unit.” In this bill, you take the exact opposite position and say they are confidential and managerial if they spend a significant portion of their time supervising employees.

It is a real anomaly in an Act, which has some steps forward, to see such a gigantic step backwards, to see such a turning away from the positive measures which have come forward in labour relations Acts in this country.

I am not going to make a specific amendment, Mr. Chairman, to delete subsection (l)(ii) or to substitute that wording in the Labour Relations Act, which should be sufficient to cover all of subsection (l) of this Act, but simply to point out that section (l) of this Act a step backward in its entirety, particularly in point 2 of that section. If one was being forward-looking in this section of the Act, one would have adopted the British Columbia approach to labour legislation and allow a managerial person whose function is supervisory only to be fully part of the bargaining unit.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I don’t intend to be lengthy because the minister has already received a copy of the comments and proposals on this bill from the Civil Service Association of Ontario. They made the recommendation which the hon. member who preceded me made and I would sincerely hope that the minister would reconsider any decision and accept what the CSAO had suggested.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I was hoping the minister would make a comment, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Auld: After you.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you. We intend to vote against subsection (l), Mr. Chairman. The member for Windsor West has indicated that the alternative would be --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: -- simply to draft an amendment which makes section l conform with 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act and leave it up to the Labour Relations Board to define the question of a person who is in a managerial position.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The alternative to voting against it, which is what we’ll do, would be to bring in an amendment which would be similar to the Labour Relations Act.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I wonder if we could let the member for Ottawa Centre carry on.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am trying not to raise my voice. I don’t wish to inflame the House particularly, I just think it is a serious point.

The Labour Relations Board’s hands are going to be tied when it comes to interpreting a managerial exclusions clause because of the very detailed kinds of things put down here. What they will probably wind up doing, if any matters come before them, is that on a practical basis they are going to have to say that black is white and people who have some managerial responsibilities, particularly in relation to sub 1 and sub 2 of this section (l), don’t have those managerial supervisory duties. Otherwise, as I was suggesting earlier, you get a situation where half or two-thirds or maybe even all of the members or supposed members of an academic bargaining unit would be excluded.

What’s going to happen, Mr. Chairman, if you get a college administration which, for various reasons, does not wish to be cooperative and decides to oppose itself to an application for certification before the Labour Relations Board and to base its opposition on the fact that too many of the people signed up by the CSAO -- or whatever union is affected -- are in excluded categories and therefore didn’t have the right to vote? You could have a college administration exploiting the loopholes in this Act to tie up the CSAO for months if not for years, as has been done in the private sector.

I think, to give them credit, that in the applications before the OLRB, both by Carleton and, I believe, by McMaster -- or was it Western?

Mr. Bounsall: Only Carleton has applied so far.

Mr. Cassidy: So far, it seems the university administrations are being co-operative. In the case of Carleton, the matter went before the OLRB and the question about whether certain people should be excluded from the bargaining unit was raised before the OLRB. The economists, in particular, didn’t feel they should be down there with the hoi polloi and they wanted to be on the management side at Carleton.

The university’s intention was to test the law and to make sure that the group as a whole was admissible. It was not to block it in red tape and legalese or to do the kind of job that private enterprise has done so often in exploiting the Labour Relations Act to prevent workers from getting certified. The university’s intention was also to get a clear definition of which academic workers should be included and which should be excluded and that was all.

That’s the way it should work here, too, but it will not work that way -- or it may not work that way -- if you get college administrations deciding it won’t work. One of the problems in the colleges is that their boards are not as strong and as independent of the government as the university boards. They haven’t got the lengthy traditions, they haven’t got the same place in the community in some cases, because it takes time to build up that particular status and stature and sense of independence in the community, and they are much more subject to hints coming down the pipeline from Mr. Sisco or from the Council of Regents about what they had to do -- and for that matter from the government itself.

Anybody examining the legislation or hearing what the Chairman of Management Board or what the Minister of Colleges and Universities has got to say, would be safe to assume that the government wishes it didn’t have to bring in legislation even as stingy as this. Is it possible that some of the boards of community colleges will decide to take their cue from that attitude of the government and, regardless of the law that is put down, will seek to exploit the loopholes? I suggest it is possible, and I suggest this Legislature should not open up that possibility by giving so many managerial exclusions and so many means by which the CSAO or some other trade union can be harassed when it’s trying to set up an academic bargaining unit under this particular Act.

We would, therefore, oppose the section. If the minister wished to present an amendment that changed it along the lines of the Labour Relations Act, we would support that. We would oppose the section as it stands right now and we will make some consequential changes when we get to the schedules.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on this point?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that it is my understanding that there is no definition similar to this in the Labour Relations Act -- that is, having to do with managerial or confidential capacities -- but I understand that the practice of the Labour Relations Board is to exclude this kind of work or this kind of activity. I guess the real change is that having recognised that the people, faculty and support staff of the community colleges are not really in the same position as those others who are covered by the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, we have removed that more restrictive section or sections in the CECBA which used to apply and are now applying something which is --

Mr. Cassidy: It is out of the frying pan into the fire.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- in essence, the practice of the Labour Relations Board.

Mr. Cassidy: is it the minister’s intention to conform with the practice of the Labour Relations Board?

Mr. Chairman: We have section 1 --

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could repeat my question. I understand from what the minister says that his intention is to conform with the present practice of the Labour Relations Board, and I would ask him whether that is correct?

Hon. Mr. Auld: What I am saying is that this definition is my understanding of what the general practice of the Labour Relations Board is under the Labour Relations Act.

Mr. Cassidy: In that case, since the union has indicated that it too would be happy with giving the question of determining managerial responsibilities to the Labour Relations Board, would the minister therefore not be simply willing to leave it to the Labour Relations Board to determine, in what is admittedly an area of some difficulties because of the rather special nature of the work and of management responsibilities, which are more shared within a community college than they are in a traditional industrial plant?

The minister must be aware that, as the member for Windsor West said, the question of determining managerial functions or employment in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations is left to the opinion of the Labour Relations Board in the Labour Relations Act. That’s a fairly sturdy, well-used clause that appears to work fine in the private sector, and apparently from what the minister says the board seeks to apply the kind of principles which are put down here in determining who is a manager and who isn’t. If they can do it quite happily in the private sector without having to be bound up in legalese, and without having to be bound up in a specific definition, and since we agree that it is a matter of judgement, which it is difficult to lay down in words, why not adopt the same words for this particular bill that have been used with reasonable success in the Labour Relations Act?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I suppose, because the Labour Relations Act has to apply to every kind of operation where people are employed in this province. This Act applies to community colleges, which are a specific kind of operation and are more easily defined in the kind of things that they do and the kind of things their staffs does.

Mr. Cassidy: With great respect, Mr. Chairman, I think that the definition that has been used here is singularly inappropriate for the kinds of work that is done by the academic people in a community college, and I would suspect also, because of the reference to support staff and so on, by the support staff as well.

I would point out that in the case of the Labour Relations Act the two exclusions are people who are managers, who exercise managerial functions, and people who are employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

Under the Labour Relations Act, a secretary to a manager is clearly not excluded from being a member of the bargaining unit. That is correct.

Under the definition that is put in this bill, however, a person who is confidential to any person described in subclauses (i), (ii) or (iii) is excluded. That means that anybody who is a secretary to a manager, or a secretary or in some way support staff to a supervisor, is excluded, in addition to the exclusion of somebody who is employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to employee relations. That doesn’t make sense.

The minister has said that he agrees with the spirit of the way in which the Labour Relations Board interprets the Act right now, and yet -- drawing on the expertise of the member for Windsor West -- this is one example: Support staff to management are included in the bargaining unit under the Labour Relations Act and will specifically he excluded from the bargaining unit under the bill we have before us. Could the minister explain that anomaly and is he willing to change it?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I have no further comment really.

Mr. Chairman: We have section 1(l) before us. Shall this section stand as part of the bill?

Those in favour please say “aye.”

Those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it. I declare section 1(l) carried.

Now we have subsection (m). We have an amendment by the minister and we have a subamendment by Mr. Bounsall. Shall I read both at this point?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Mr. Henderson: I wish you fellows over there wouldn’t tell us what to do.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Auld has moved that section 1(m) of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

(m) “strike” includes a cessation of work, a refusal to work or to continue to work by employees in combination or in concert or in accordance with a common understanding or any concerted action or activity on the part of employees designed to curtail, restrict, limit or interfere with the operation or functioning of a college or college including, without limiting the foregoing, (i) withdrawal of services, (ii) slowdown in the performance of duties, (iii) the giving of notice to terminate employment.

Mr. Bounsall has moved a subamendment, that section 1(m)(iii) be deleted.

Mr. B. Newman: What is that again?

Mr. Chairman: That section 1(m)(iii) -- “the giving of notice to terminate employment” -- be deleted. Shall the amendment of Mr. Bounsall carry?

Mr. B. Newman: I wanted to comment on that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Before we actually get down to subclause (iii), I want to question the minister on subsection (m)(i), the withdrawal of services. In your definition of services, Mr. Minister, are you actually referring to what the original concept of the bill was -- and that is, cocurricular and extracurricular activities? Are you referring to voluntary activities that are performed by a community college teacher? I am afraid that you really are meaning that, even though you don’t have that specifically made mention of in the bill, because you say in there:

“A refusal to work or to continue to work by employees in combination or in concert in accordance with a common understanding or any concerted action or activity on the part of employees designed to curtail, restrict, limit or interfere with the operation or functioning of a college.”

There could be a lot of volunteer activities done by the staff at the college, such as coaching various types of athletic teams, even though the individual may not be in the physical education department. Simply because he is doing that on a volunteer basis and wishes no longer to do the activity -- and there may be others in there -- if he wishes to withdraw his services, Mr. Chairman, I think that the individual who is voluntarily donating his services should be able to withdraw at any time. That should not be considered part of a strike.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, that’s exactly why we took the original subsection (iii) out.

Mr. Cassidy: You won your point.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The only people, if I might expand a little, who would be expected to work as part of their regular duties would be the janitorial staff who were operating a gym if a team was playing. If the coaches were volunteers and withdrew their services, they would be quite free to do so.

Mr. B. Newman: Then for any activity that is done on a volunteer basis by any of the members of the staff of the community college, they could withdraw their services either individually or collectively and it would not be considered a strike. Is that right?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Right.

Mr. B. Newman: All right, thank you.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to ask the minister -- I don’t know if he has in fact refused to accept the amendment from the member for Windsor West or not -- why, in addition to the one deletion he is proposing, he would also delete the reference to the giving of notice to terminate employment. I may elaborate in a minute, but the member did already give one or two reasons why we don’t consider that that reference is necessary and why we consider it a bit offensive to the community college teachers. Would the minister say whether he would be willing to accept the member for Windsor West’s amendment?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to accept the amendment by the member for Windsor West.

Mr. Cassidy: Would the minister explain why?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think as my amendment stands it will cover the situation quite adequately. My recollection, in discussing this with the CSAO, is that this was the question they were concerned about.

Mr. Cassidy: Unless the comments that I am sure the minister has had from them mention this specifically, it’s not as central a point as the questions about mandatory exclusions. But the fact is that mass resignations were a technique used by teachers in one particular year because they lacked the right to strike. Mass resignations have not been used as a technique by community college teachers nor is there any prospect that they will be used as a means of trying to get action from the government or from their employers.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Then neither of us should be worrying about it, should we?

Mr. Cassidy: If you are not worried about it, then would you accept our suggestion that, in addition to the exclusion of the former subclause (iii), that the subclause (iv) relating to the giving of notice to terminate employment also be removed? It’s not in the Labour Relations Act. It’s not in any other labour legislation, except the teacher legislation, and it’s the kind of mindless transfer of something that may have some relevance in the government’s mind to teachers. I am willing to grant you that if people in the government are concerned about mass resignations, because they have taken place in the past, then use your votes and keep it in the teacher bill. Why it should be transferred over to the community college bill is really beyond us. That’s why we are suggesting that it should actually be taken out.

Mr. Chairman: We have the amendment by the minister. The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In moving my motion to take out the “giving of notice to terminate employment,” I won’t cover those reasons again except simply to say they weren’t applicable to this group of people we are talking about and should not have been simple-mindedly carried forward. I moved that in the full knowledge that this whole section really should read: “Strike is withdrawal of services pure and simple.” That’s what a strike is. Any other definition of a strike is not really a strike.

Further clauses in this bill, when they refer to a strike, refer to complete withdrawal of pay, implying that that person has withdrawn his services and nothing short of withdrawing his services. A slowdown in the performance of duties is not a withdrawal of services. They’re still on the job teaching their particular courses and it would not involve a withdrawal of pay, which is the only reference made in a later section of the bill to what happens to the employees at the time of strike.

Even section 2 which the minister has included in his amendment is not internally consistent with what is in the rest of the bill and what is envisaged in a later section of the bill. I believe it’s that section in which penalties are referred to or it may be the strike and lockout section. To fancy this up in any way, to define a strike in any way other than purely and simply withdrawal of services, is making distinctions which really do not exist. It may well hamper labour relations.

I know the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells), on this section, found it difficult to understand that what he was looking at was the strike situation which teachers, in their board negotiations, would get into after they got beyond the legal time to strike. He was not looking at that period prior to a strike when some of those things mentioned could lead to the settlement of an agreement. I refer specifically to section 2 of this section (m), a slowdown in the performance of duties.

If there were even some way that a college teacher could slow down the performance of his duties -- I find it hard to envisage, certainly on the academic side, how they could slow down the performance of their duties.

Hon. Mr. Auld: They could show up for a 2 o’clock class at 4:30.

Mr. Bounsall: That’s not a slowdown, that’s a non-appearance.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): That’s a slowdown.

Mr. Bounsall: That’s a non-appearance.

Hon. Mr. Auld: How about 3:15?

Mr. Bounsall: That’s a complete abdication of their duties. For a one-hour lecture, showing up one and a half hours late is just a non-appearance. That’s not a slowdown.

Hon. Mr. Auld: How about 10 minutes late?

Mr. Bounsall: Ten minutes late? You can get everything in in 40 minutes and it’s usually done. You’re going to say that constitutes a strike -- if someone shows up 10 minutes late for a particular one-hour lecture? Come on, be reasonable.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’m not saying --

Mr. Bounsall: Even if you could define --

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’m not saying, Mr. Chairman; I’m asking. I’m asking a teacher, an ex-teacher.

Mr. Deans: Don’t ask him; answer him.

Mr. Bounsall: What you’re saying here, as it applies to the slowdown in the performance of duties by academic staff of colleges can in no way reasonably occur. You either do your teaching duties or you don’t do your teaching duties. You can’t reasonably half do it.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Then we shouldn’t worry about this, should we?

Mr. Bounsall: All right, get it out of the bill. Why crap up your bill with it?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Why not leave it in?

Mr. Bounsall: Why have it there? It just doesn’t make sense.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Just in case there is a slowdown.

Mr. Bounsall: You can’t really give an example of a reasonable slowdown.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You know what a slowdown is.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Bounsall: You can define a slowdown in industrial terms, when members of an assembly line decide they’re not going to screw every fifth nut on the bolts and so on, causing further work required to be done at the end. Or deliberately delaying a particular job so that in most terms it isn’t finished. You can’t find the equivalent in the community colleges’ situation, either in the support staff or particularly the academic staff.

Hon. Mr. Auld: You’re talking about the janitor with no head on his broom; that’s what you’re talking about.

Mr. Deans: What?

Hon. Mr. Auld: That’s a slowdown.

Mr. Chairman: Do you have further points? The member for Windsor West?

Mr. Bounsall: That would be a matter for an individual firing, Mr. Chairman, I would say, and a matter for grievance by the bargaining agent if he leaned on his broom rather than swept with the broom.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think we’re getting close to Friday.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do you know how much it costs if a plumber is 10 minutes late?

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on this amendment?

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, I haven’t quite finished yet, Mr. Chairman. What I’m saying is, even if there was a way to define a slowdown in performance of duties for support staff or academic staff at colleges, this should not be a definition of strike.

Mr. Henderson: That’s repetition.

Mr. Bounsall: It’s an action which could be taken after that strike date has passed and all the steps have been gone through -- the fact finder and the Education Relations Commission has investigated and so on and so forth.

Mr. Henderson: That’s the third time.

Mr. Bounsall: There’s no repetition here. If anything, this should be a legitimate move, if you could find a move of this sort, which these persons could take before what you define as a strike takes place, to try to sharpen up the bargaining positions which are taking place and bring them to a conclusion. It should not be included here. If you could find an action of this sort which is applicable, this is the type of action which would sharpen up negotiations rather than the type of thing which is taken after the particular strike situation has been arrived at.

You have to look at it from the other angle. A slowdown in performance of work is a means which employees use to telegraph the fact that at some time in the future when it becomes legal they are prepared to strike. In that sense, it helps in settling the particular contract and speeding it to its conclusion before that strike deadline is reached. Even if you can find it in this field, it should not be one of the definitions of a strike which should be omitted. That’s the type of action which could be taken by a group of employees to indicate the solidarity of taking the strike situation, being the withdrawal of services at some future date as a means by which one could speed the conclusions of the negotiations of the contract. One should really look at the Act and this clause in that manner.

Mr. Chairman: We have the amendment of Mr. Auld and we have a subamendment moved by Mr. Bounsall. Is it necessary that I read either one?

Mr. Breithaupt: We’ll take the amendment as having been read.

Mr. Bounsall: And pass them both.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Bounsall’s motion will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.

Shall Hon. Mr. Auld’s amendment carry?

Those in favour will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

I declare Hon. Mr. Auld’s amendment carried.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I think it should be noted that Mr. Bounsall’s amendment got two sets of votes.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

On section 4:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, in the interest of expediting things, I will move the amendment to section 4.

Mr. B. Newman moves that section 4 be deleted and the following be substituted therefor so that the clause will read: “Negotiations shall be carried out in respect of all terms and conditions of employment put forth by either party.”

Hon. Mr. Grossman: When the NDP attended the convention in Winnipeg, why did they all dress like lawyers? Here, they all look as if they just came out of a steam bath.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Is there any discussion on this amendment?

The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: The purpose of my amendment is to delete “except for superannuation”, so that terms and conditions of employment would include superannuation. It is nice when one looks in at the auto workers, where every time contracts are negotiated then the pension benefits are negotiated for retirees so that the retiree always keeps up with the cost of living.

In this instance, there could be a similar type of negotiation on the part of the community college teachers as far as their superannuation is concerned. It should also be a negotiable item.

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the minister on this one.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre. Are you speaking to the amendment or to the section?

Mr. Deans: It’s too late; move the adjournment of the House.

Mr. Cassidy: On the amendment, Mr. Chairman: Could the minister explain why superannuation is excluded from bargaining? Does this have something to do with the efforts to protect the government against the dreadful day when the Civil Service Association will negotiate about pensions and about superannuation on behalf of its members who are direct employees of the government of Ontario? Surely that’s the only reason this clause has been put in. Whatever you want to do with the government employees is probably pretty bad, but you shouldn’t extend it to cover this community college service.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: He told me wrong.

Mr. Deans: What do you mean, he has told you wrong?

Mr. Cassidy: You get up and defend it then or else agree with the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Chairman, if he will examine the words of his own leader --

Mr. Deans: No, not at all.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I’m not going to listen to the member.

Mr. Deans: Why?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Because he doesn’t speak for his party.

Mr. Deans: Why?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Let him examine the words of his leader.

Mr. Deans: I do.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: If he’ll examine the words of his leader, he and I -- as I have said many times before -- are not too far apart.

Mr. Deans: Sufficiently far apart that the minister is wrong.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: It’s at the end of the toad where we disagree. I’ll let the minister answer.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I presume at this point that it might be worthwhile for the committee to rise and report, with respect. There are a number of other members who might choose to speak with respect to this bill and as a result I would think at this point it might be worthwhile for the committee to rise and report.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor West.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Chairman, it is with regret, because I would like to finish that argument, but I’ll save it for another day. I will not listen to that member.

Mr. Deans: What does he mean, he wants to finish that argument?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: Doesn’t he understand the importance of this issue?

Mr. Breithaupt: Move the committee rise and report.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I submit to the suggestion of the Liberal House leader. I think that’s the best way out of this argument because I cannot agree with that member.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, I would like to say that for Thursday --

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Stop grinning.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, for Thursday, I would suggest that anything on the order paper for Thursday, we would bring before the House for consideration.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Before the adjournment of the House, I would accept the comment from the House leader of the government and simply say I would trust that the committees would meet tomorrow with the hope that, in all, we would be able to deal with the two bills, particularly before the committees; and that the various other possibly minor situations before us with respect to other bills would be dealt with on Thursday.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, before the House leader responds, I think it is fair to say that while we wouldn’t want to direct the committee --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Ah ha, he is stealing my thunder.

Mr. Deans: Thank you. It would be our wish --

An hon. member: We would encourage.

Mr. Deans: -- that the committees would meet tomorrow and Thursday, in the morning, the afternoon and the evening if necessary; and we would hope it would be relayed to all members of all of the committees that this would take place.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with that presentation. As many times as I have sat in this House over the last four years or however long I have been House leader, I have not wished to interfere with the function of the committees but I would hope that is the case. I would hope the committees would meet tomorrow, maybe even tomorrow morning, Thursday morning, Friday morning; all day Wednesday, all day Thursday, all day Friday -- if required -- to conclude their business.

An hon. member: Saturday?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, not Saturday. On the other hand, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we would leave the consideration of the committees to their disposition, as are the orders of the House. As I have called the business for Thursday, that is how I wish it would be.

Mr. Speaker: Just before I place the motion to adjourn I should say that tomorrow at 1:45 p.m., I will present the address to the assembly, passed by this House on Friday last, July 4, for the appointment of the first Ombudsman for Ontario, to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, in Her Honour’s chambers. Her Honour has asked me to invite any members who care to attend to the music room on the second floor. I personally would suggest that those interested should be there prior to the hour of 1:45.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I would simply rise to say that the members of the House, having committed themselves to the appointment of Mr. Maloney as --

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Who?

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): He has him mixed up with the restaurant.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- perhaps I should say Ombudsperson for the Province of Ontario. I am sure we all appreciate the invitation you have issued, Mr. Speaker. This appointment is accepted on all sides of the House as something of importance to the Province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the House leader of the NDP would concur with that statement.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: How about it? We haven’t heard from the member for Wentworth. Come on.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sure he does.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, so he doesn’t like Maloney, eh?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: I would ask those members who are interested to please pass the word to their colleagues that they should be in Her Honour’s chambers before 1:30, because I shall be appearing about that time and the ceremony will proceed.

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

Motion agreed to.

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