Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Don’t we have a quorum?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): I don’t think so.

Mr. Chairman: Take a second count.

Clerk of the House: No, there is not a quorum present, Mr. Chairman.

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

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, I see a quorum.

PROVINCIAL SCHOOLS NEGOTIATIONS ACT

House in committee on Bill 132, An Act respecting the Negotiation of Collective Agreements between the Provincial Schools Authority and Teachers.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 6.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 6?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Would you just hold on a second, Mr. Chairman? Section 5.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Deans: I’m glad you decided to come in.

On section 5:

Mr. Foulds: I’d like an explanation from the minister on how the negotiating unit for the teachers will be structured, and whether or not there will be, as there is for other teachers, a compulsory membership. Have those questions been dealt with, because it has caused some difficulties in the past?

An hon. member: It certainly has.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The answer, Mr. Chairman, is no, there is no provision here for compulsory membership; and at this point in time we are leaving it up to the organizations to organize themselves into a bargaining group that can bargain with the Provincial Schools Authority.

Mr. Foulds: What I want to determine is whether the unit will have any legal or semi-legal status outside of its function as a negotiation unit with the authority established in the bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think at this point in time, Mr. Chairman, that will be up to the organization. I think we are allowing them a fair degree of flexibility. They will all be bargaining together as one unit, and I think what we really need is a chance for them to get established and operating this way and then see, as I said this afternoon in regard to membership in OTF -- whether that would be a good thing or not -- where and how they should operate under this section. There just wasn’t time to develop any other procedures. I would prefer them to try and see what they can establish and what they might want to come up with and then make suggestions to us.

Mr. Foulds: As you envisage the unit at the present time, teachers from all three ministries are included. I understand there are only six in the Ministry of Health, but traditionally there have been three separate organizations. Presumably all of them will be eligible for this unit, and I understand that they have in the past had up to 95 per cent voluntary membership. There is no way that you, in this bill, are going to provide a checkoff for them. Do I understand that correctly?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, that is right, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 5 carry?

Mr. Foulds: Just one other point: Once they get established and organized for the purposes of negotiations, to whom do they apply for certification? Do they apply to the Labour Relations Board for certification?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No; I think in this bill we are assuming they are going to indicate to the provincial schools authority that they are ready to negotiate. Really in this bill we are accepting the structure they already have established. The three groups have already held meetings with us, last year, and they are ready to negotiate, as I understand; that group, as you say, now represents about 95 per cent membership.

I don’t propose to stand here and tell you that will be satisfactory for all time --

Mr. Foulds: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- but I think it will get us going and it will give them a chance to see how it operates. I would certainly be open to hearing from them then if they want to have some different procedure.

Mr. Foulds: One final question, Mr. Chairman: I assume the minister -- I am sorry -- the Provincial Schools Authority established in the Act will accept the negotiators who have been talking to your ministry with regard to this bill as the bona fide negotiators for the group. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is right. I think I should make it very clear that this bill does group them all together as one group and under Bill 100 they become one bargaining unit.

Mr. Foulds: They become the equivalent of branch affiliates.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s right.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 5 carry?

Section 5 agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Chairman: On section 6, the minister has an amendment.

Mr. Foulds: Did we carry sections 1, 2, 3 and 4?

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): He asked for comments up to that point.

Mr. Foulds: But we didn’t pass them?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, we did.

Mr. Foulds: Did we?

Mr. Chairman: Absolutely.

Hon. Mr. Wells moves that subsection 3 of section 6 be amended by striking out “three” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof “four.”

Mr. Foulds: Before we discuss that particular subsection and that amendment, there is a question which I think I got clarified this afternoon by talking directly to one of the ministry officials. I think it would be good for us to get on the record the reason for the exclusion of sections 60 and 63 of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, 1975. A quick reading indicates that -- I assume these numbers apply to the bill which was reprinted for consideration by the social development committee, so we are talking about the right numbers. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct. We have checked them over and the only change which needs to be made is the one I have proposed in an amendment now.

Mr. Foulds: Right. Could the minister explain the reasons for the exclusion of sections 60 and 63? On the surface, I think it is section 60 -- I can’t lay my hands on Bill 100 immediately as it was reprinted -- I believe that section 60 is on the Education Relations Commission.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s right; portions of that.

Mr. Foulds: As I understand it you had to exclude it from this bill so you didn’t establish two Education Relations Commissions.

Hon Mr. Wells: That’s right.

Mr. Foulds: In fact, the one established in Bill 100 therefore is the one these teachers use; is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is right, it is established -- section 60 is the section which establishes the commission. That is done under Bill 100 and it isn’t necessary for it to be done again, although the commission does have certain duties to perform under this particular statute -- such as the one we are talking about. Section 63 provides the moneys for the operation of the Education Relations Commission; those moneys will be provided under Bill 100 and they are not necessary under this bill.

Mr. Foulds: Fine, Mr. Chairman, that satisfies the question I had on that subsection.

Motion agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 7 carry?

On section 7:

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I can spot it in the Act, but I have one other question that relates to the size of the negotiating unit for the provincial school teachers. The total membership would be somewhere around 600; and given that number of members, the penalties provided in Bill 100 for a violation seem to me to be extreme. For example, if there was a fine of -- is it $10,000?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Up to $10,000.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, I know, but presumably a judge would take into account the seriousness of the offence. For example, in correctional schools or where there are the special circumstances in provincial schools, he might deem an illegal walkout to be an extremely serious offence; yet if he brought in a fine of that amount, he would destroy the entire unit because their finances are extremely thin and because at this stage they cannot be affiliated to any of the affiliates or to OTF.

It is to be hoped, of course, that we wouldn’t get into an untidy situation like that, but we might; and I wonder what provisions the minister or his officials made in that regard. I think we do have special circumstances here with a new and small negotiating unit, a unit without a compulsory membership or a checkoff, and their financial resources would be extremely limited.

I know the clause says up to that amount, but unfortunately the minister cannot make a commitment about what a court or judge would decide in these circumstances.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, the section we put in Bill 100 is fairly consistent with a number of pieces of legislation that have been drafted recently, I believe. I think that while it sets a high amount as a maximum, it allows the judge full, free discretion. I am told by my legal friends who helped us draft these bills that this is the proper way to do it. I think that if an offence was committed and it was being considered by a judge, he would certainly take all these things into account. I really don’t see any need to change that section.

Mr. Foulds: Well, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: I don’t think we should get into any discussion of Bill 100 at this time.

Mr. Foulds: The point is, though, Mr. Chairman, that so much of this bill --

Mr. Chairman: The Chairman has been very generous --

Mr. Foulds: No, Mr. Chairman, if I might --

Mr. Chairman: I want to be generous. We have already carried section 6.

Mr. Foulds: I understand that. I am not speaking on section 6.

Mr. Chairman: Well, you are asking a question on section 6.

Mr. Foulds: I am speaking, if I might, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: You are certainly not speaking on section 7.

Mr. Foulds: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: No, you are not.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, I am speaking on section 7 because it seems to me you can speak about the effect of the bill on the section that deals with the date on which that bill comes into effect. If the bill does not include a clause, a safety valve, there must -- well, I will wait until section 8 to speak on it if you want.

Mr. Chairman: No, go ahead. We want a full discussion on this. If you have anything to offer that will benefit the people of this province, why go ahead.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you very much; now you are indeed being generous.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): He has a great deal that will benefit the people of this province.

Mr. Foulds: I just hope, like the minister, that the judge will exercise discretion in such circumstances; and that when exercising his authority he will take into account the very brief debate and the points that have been made at this particular point with regard to penalties. In the first case, I would sincerely hope that a judge would not only read the legislation, but read the debate that surrounded the legislation when it was instituted. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.

Bill 132, as amended, reported.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY ACT

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

Mr. Chairman: There is an amendment to section 4. Does any member wish to speak about anything in Bill 108 prior to section 4?

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive agreed to.

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

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Chairman, in the absence of Mr. Newman --

Mr. Deacon: We’re here.

Hon. Mr. Auld: What is presently in section 4, of course, includes the words “except for superannuation.” As far as the government is concerned, we’re not prepared to include superannuation in this section at this time.

Mr. Deacon: Would the minister say where the difference is in thinking between this and Bill 100, with regard to the fact that it’s wide open in the other bill?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, of course as far as the colleges are concerned, we are dealing with two different groups. One is covered under OMERS and one under the Public Service Act. At this time it is our view there should not be negotiation, under the legislation, on superannuation, although inevitably it will become, I am sure, part of the discussions. But it will become very complex if we start negotiating superannuation, which is covered, in other legislation, jointly with the other working conditions.

Mr. Deacon: Is the minister stating that because the teachers have a different situation than, say, those employed under the -- I’m not sure exactly what the minister is referring to, because everything is negotiable. Surely contributions, including contributions made to pensions, are negotiable. I just can’t see the difference here, if it’s not one of the exceptions in the other bill. That is certainly a bill where superannuation and the rules all apply now. I don’t understand. You’re not explaining to us the rationale for changing the situation here.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, as those who are covered under the Superannuation Act are covered under that Act, and obviously provisions of that Act are not bargainable under this bill, the same really applies to those who are involved in OMERS, because OMERS is bargainable under the Ontario -- that other Act.

Mr. Deacon: Why do you still have to leave this in here if you don’t have to leave it in in the other bill?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Because the teachers are all covered under the Teachers’ Superannuation Act. In the other bill, the teachers’ superannuation is bargainable or discussed, or whatever, under the Teachers’ Superannuation Act. The other bill provides that any matters covered under legislation other than Bill 100 are dealt with under the other bills.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Chairman, I share the perplexity of my colleague, because I don’t understand what it is, whether it’s a management right fixation the government has when it comes to negotiating terms and conditions of employment that it automatically rules superannuation out. I say automatically because I don’t really go along with your explanation as to why you’re excluding superannuation.

I am at a loss to understand why you are so inflexible on this matter. Surely if there’s a working condition that is important to the people, nothing is more important than superannuation, particularly in the times we’re going through now where people can see their retirement income being eroded so dramatically. I do wish you would reconsider and accept the amendment of the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Perhaps you can make another attempt to explain to us why you are so adamant on this.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, if I may put it a different way, we are dealing with two -- maybe three -- different groups in the colleges. There may be some covered under the Teachers’ Superannuation Act. There are some presently covered under the Public Service Superannuation Act and there are some covered under OMERS. Those negotiations go on constantly. In fact the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet had an amendment the other day which dealt with one of those groups on behalf of the whole group, not just those members who pay into that fund who happen to be in the employ of the colleges. The advice I have from our legal people is that we should leave in “except for superannuation” so that they will carry on their discussions with the government, or negotiations or whatever we choose to call them, as part of the broader group rather than fragmenting them and causing confusion just in the college group.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, I understand what you are saying.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I would like to ask the hon. member which group he’s in.

Mr. Laughren: As a matter of fact, I was going to raise that very point. I still pay into the superannuation fund. When I was at the college I elected to pay into the teachers’ superannuation fund rather than the community college fund.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Rather than the public service fund.

Mr. Laughren: Rather than the public service fund, right.

I don’t see why you are basing your legislation on this; because some people are excluded from it, they already have a group negotiating for their pensions through the teachers’ fund during the teacher negotiations.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Perhaps the teachers’ federation people would not see eye to eye with the CSAO and might be negotiating for different things on behalf of the hon. members.

Mr. Laughren: If I’ve got an argument that I want to be made in order to protect my retirement earnings --

Hon. Mr. Auld: You’ll make it.

Mr. Laughren: -- then I’ll make it to the Teachers’ Superannuation Commission and to the teachers who are negotiating on my behalf there. If I had not chosen to keep in that fund but to go into the public service fund, then I would want to be able to negotiate my pension through that route. What you’re saying to me is that because I elected to stay in the teachers’ superannuation fund I’m protected through the collective bargaining process by the teachers’ negotiations, but that if I had chosen the other route I have no protection and I’m merely at the whim of a rather arbitrary government.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Not at all, Mr. Chairman. What I am saying is that, whichever route the hon. member chooses, the people who act on his behalf along that route will bargain on his behalf.

Mr. Laughren: Who is negotiating for me with the public service fund, saying I was involved there?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I guess that’s the CSAO too; but a different group.

Mr. Laughren: But not the community college teachers.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Chairman, if I can bring to the attention of the minister the companion clause in the education Bill 100; it does not include the last three words, which you have in here, “except for superannuation.” It reads: “Negotiations shall be carried out in respect of any term or condition of employment put forward by either party.” It stops right there. Now with the Bill 108 you seem to have added an exception. Why not be the same in both bills? After all, they are sort of companion bills.

Mr. Laughren: Admit it, it is the fine hand of the hon. Eric Winkler.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville was perhaps a minute or two late before he came in. My understanding from our advisers is that we have three groups in the colleges. We have employees in the colleges who are members of at least two, or perhaps three, different superannuation funds. The teachers are all in one, so it is not necessary --

Mr. B. Newman: That’s the teachers’ bill here.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- to deal with it other than to cover superannuation in Bill 100, because they negotiate superannuation as one group. We are dealing with two or three groups who deal with the government. They pay into OMERS, which is negotiated on behalf of a lot of people.

Mr. B. Newman: Right; the teachers’ bill negotiates solely for teachers, whereas this bill also negotiates for employees other than teachers.

Mr. Laughren: That’s a cop-out.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, should there not be something in this clause that actually names the groups which will be responsible for negotiation of superannuation for those groups? Unless we have these people covered, they are without any opportunity for putting forward the changes they wish to make. They have nothing spelled out as to how they can negotiate for this. I think it should be spelled out in this clause which of those respective three groups will be negotiating superannuation on their behalf, so they’ll know.

Hon. Mr. Auld: If I could have a little assistance from the side, I refer the hon. member to a section in this bill which provides that other legislation covering this kind of thing takes precedence over this.

Mr. Deacon: So there is another clause. Could you tell us which clause covers this? We would like to know definitely that the teachers in these colleges can look to this bill to see where they get protection.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I think I can assure the hon. members that the normal processes will continue under those other Acts. But the point is to make sure that we do not require that all of those other groups have to negotiate under this Act, rather than their own Act.

Mr. Deacon: I see.

Hon. Mr. Auld: But I would like to get the specific section.

Mr. Deacon: It is too bad we are not in standing committee so you can get direct help?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Make this a sitting committee.

Mr. Laughren: Did you write it in Latin?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Naturally, and I can read it.

Mr. Cassidy: Omnia Ontario Victa est.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes, nulli illegitimas carborundum.

An hon. member: Give him a shot in the other arm.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s what’s going to happen in the election.

I just wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, that as far as I’m concerned the reason the government is excluding superannuation here relates once again to the sensitivity of the Chairman of Management Board in particular, in so far as this Act might apply to other civil servants.

An hon. member: Eric Winkler.

Mr. Cassidy: So Eric Winkler’s fine hand can be discerned again, and that is certainly the reasonable reason for distinctions --

Mr. Laughren: Having writ, moves on.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin. That’s what I say to the Conservative as well. That’s the Bible.

Hon. Mr. Add: If the hon. members would bear with me for a moment.

Mr. Deacon: Okay. We certainly would.

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

Mr. Chairman: What do you mean, Mr. Minister, that the amendment is carried?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, the bill.

Mr. Laughren: Sit down.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Look who’s talking. I hope you never die, Floyd. I’ll never be the shortest guy in the world.

Mr. Chairman: As the chairman, I would suggest that we don’t carry section 4 at this time, or the amendment. We’ll move on to other sections of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, could Hansard record the lengthy silence, which is one of the longest I have heard.

Mr. Chairman: Would the member like to take his seat for a moment? We can move on to other sections --

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): It’s almost a pregnant pause.

Mr. Chairman: -- of the bill and then we can come back to section 4 and the amendment. Does any member wish to speak on section 5?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

On section 5:

Mr. Laughren: I am bothered, in section 5(1), by the fact that the month of January is specified. The present clause reads: “Either party may give written notice to the other party within the month of January”. I think that that is an undue restriction on the bargaining process, just as I disagree with a later clause which terminates all agreements on Aug. 31. I disagree with the written notice being required during the month of January.

At any rate, Mr. Chairman, that surely is the reason. It’s simply a policy decision by the government. We disagree with it. We think community college teachers should be able to negotiate their superannuation along with all of the other terms and conditions of employment, and we reject the kind of tortuous reasoning the minister has tried to put forward.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of --

Mr. Deacon: Excuse me, is the minister saying that he will spell it out elsewhere in the bill? Can you tell us where the superannuation problems will be dealt with in the collective bargaining process? Is it stated elsewhere in the bill where each of these three groups do that -- and if so, where? We want to know, before we vote on this amendment, that it is taken care of elsewhere.

Mr. Laughren: Nowhere.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s not there. It’s just in the minister’s mind.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Don’t get me off this, I’m trying to find it.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, if the minister in his reply can assure us that this is taken care of elsewhere then he need not take up the time to look for it.

Mr. Laughren moves that section 5, subsection 1, be amended by deleting the words, “within the month of January in the year” and substituting therefor the words, “six to eight months prior to the month in which”.

Mr. Laughren: I do believe, Mr. Chairman, that should be left flexible in determining how the contract carries on.

Further to that, it seems to me -- and I can’t separate subsection 1 from subsection 2 because one is dependent upon the other -- that having all contracts expire on Aug. 31 places a very severe load on any assistant you wish to bring into the collective bargaining, and that is why I move that amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Has the minister any comment?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, one of the purposes of the Act, as in Bill 100, is to provide for orderly negotiations. Assuming that the school year and the contract year is Sept. 1 to Aug. 31, it would seem reasonable, then, on the assumption that both parties are anxious to reach agreement on every occasion, that either side may give notice, if it proposes to reopen an agreement, at a time which will permit all the other processes specified in the Act to be carried out prior to the time of the new school year. That is the purpose of this section, as it is in Bill 100.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, I understand that, but what you are doing is precluding a collective agreement of, say, 18 months, that would end on, for example, Dec. 31. Why are you precluding that? Surely that’s something that is negotiable between those parties?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I suppose the basis of Bill 108 is Bill 100, and this is the traditional contract year, which applies in the colleges too, I understand, with the faculty if not all of the support staff; this is the traditional period for working on contract in the school year. It seems eminently reasonable to me that if I am a teacher I would want to work for the teaching year, and if I were a student I would certainly want to be taught for the teaching year.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I am very fond of sheep myself, but that doesn’t mean that this is the place where we emulate them. It seems to me that with the community colleges in particular, which are on a semester system, there is nothing sacred in the Aug. 31 date and that Dec. 31 is just as valid a date as is Aug. 31. I believe there are secondary school agreements that have ended on Dec. 31.

Mr. Deacon: But that will stop now.

Mr. Laughren: That will stop now under the new bill, yes. But I don’t see why the minister is locking the college system into Aug. 31, when surely there is nothing wrong with an 18-month contract. Why is the minister so adamant?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, from our point of view I certainly would go along with the idea of having a single date in the year when all these agreements terminate, so that there isn’t continual negotiation going on all through the year with one college down and another one up. We in this party believe that the coterminous type of negotiating is a good principle, but it may be that there is some point behind the member’s argument with regard to the actual date of Aug. 31, particularly if the minister is thinking in terms of using the same commission as with the schools -- the same people, the same members.

Maybe it would be a good idea to have it so that the actual date is three months earlier. As the member mentions, Aug. 31 isn’t a sacred date; a lot of the colleges work on a semester system. Perhaps the minister should give consideration to a different date from Aug. 31, although we would support him in his view that all college negotiations should have a common date throughout the province for the contract so that there is an element of --

Mr. Laughren: Province-wide bargaining.

Mr. Deacon: -- province-wide bargaining at the same time.

Mr. Laughren: But there is province-wide bargaining now. Why not allow it to be 18 months rather than 12?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, the thought is to have the same people or, at least, mainly the same people who would be on the commission; perhaps one or two staff who would deal just with the colleges. On the other hand, the commission under Bill 100 will deal with some 200 boards and 200 sets of negotiations.

As far as the colleges are concerned, there will be only two sets of negotiations, the support staff and the faculty. It would not seem to me that there would be any extra severe load on the commission in dealing with the same expiry dates as in Bill 100. From the point of view of the education system, it would seem to me that to change it to, say, Aug. 1 would create some confusion particularly when some of the staff may well go from one system to the other and back again and would have different contract times.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I point out to the minister that the amendment put forward by the member for Nickel Belt doesn’t require the flexibility in the contract date that both he and I think is desirable -- it is not required. In other words, the minister can accept this amendment without also accepting, if he chooses not to, the flexible contract date.

All the amendment says is that instead of requiring that negotiations begin in January, whether or not people are up to it -- there may be a number of different reasons involved there -- they could begin in either January, February or March if there is an Aug. 31 contract expiry. That, surely, is a very reasonable kind of position.

I’d say particularly reasonable because of this: I think there is a serious problem in province-wide negotiations which are called for under the bill because of the difficulties in getting local agreements to deal with local conditions. How are the people doing manpower training at Algonquin College in Ottawa going to sort out the way in which they carry out those duties and how are they going to sort out shifts for teaching when, let’s say, it’s done mainly in the evening and on the weekends and not during the days?

How are people who are teaching the timber courses at Canadore and at the college in Thunder Bay going to handle a situation where, for practical purposes, perhaps there are only six months of the year when the climate and other conditions are such that they can carry on field work with their students?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Those would be the same six months every year.

Mr. Cassidy: The same six months every year, but my point is, that is something which should be handled between the board of governors or the administration of the local community college and those teachers. I would hope it doesn’t even have to enter into a collective agreement but it may eventually get to that point.

It may well be as a consequence that you want to spend January and February of each year sorting out the conditions of work and local features in the agreement before you launch province-wide negotiations on pay and overall work loads which are the two things that seem to be mainly at issue on a province-wide basis.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Surely it should be possible to do it in December and January rather than January and February because those conditions are going to change each year. There are different conditions, perhaps, for different kinds of staff in the colleges, particularly because of the vagaries of the Manpower contracts with the federal government, but those are discernible well in advance. As far as types of training are concerned, which have to do with weather, those don’t change from year to year because the weather really doesn’t change that much from year to year either. It would seem to me there is a great advantage in having lots of lead time for both sides --

Mr. Laughren: Right. I am not disagreeing with that.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- so that all the steps can be carried out and, as I am sure we all agree, so that there be an agreement at the beginning of the next major school year. There are, of course, some semesters, but I think the hon. member knows far better than I that the vast majority of full-time students are from autumn to early summer.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, that’s very true, but that wasn’t my point. My point was that for most students a full year is from September to the beginning of May, and that there is still a semester system, a natural break, at the end of December in most programmes. We are not suggesting --

Hon. Mr. Auld: But they are coming from the secondary system.

Mr. Laughren: That wouldn’t affect the signing of a contract with a teacher and a board of governors.

Mr. Deacon: That is an individual contract.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that there should not be adequate lead time in which to conduct the negotiations in order to reach a collective agreement. I am not saying that at all; I am not changing that. Perhaps I shouldn’t have emphasized the date of Dec. 31. All I am trying to get across is that you are truly locking the parties in to Aug. 31 when you needn’t do that if you just say that either party to an agreement may give written notice to the other party six to eight months prior to the termination of the agreement. If, for example, the Management Board negotiates an agreement with the CSAO that ends on Dec. 31, then you don’t require a change in the legislation and that therefore is not a restriction on the collective bargaining process. There is no guarantee that that is going to happen. It could very well be they’ll continue the way they are now, the way the bill is now written, but at least you have built that flexibility into the bill if you do that.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I wasn’t really thinking about the differences between this bill and the other one when I was first concerned about the coterminous nature of the situation we want to support the minister on. But the fact is this is province-wide bargaining. There is only one set of negotiations going on right across the province and everybody involved in this situation will be in the same boat at the same time.

Insofar as staff is concerned, moving back and forth between the secondary schools and the colleges, those are private, individual contracts and they wouldn’t be changed. Therefore, I can’t see that it’s necessary to specify the date in this bill the way we did the other one. Maybe the minister would like to specify dates the semesters would normally cease, or just before the semester would begin, but I can’t see the reason for sticking to this Aug. 31 date, particularly when there already will be a tremendous load on the commission at that time. I would think that it might be advantageous to have a Dec. 31 or an April 30 date on the community college negotiations.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Laughren’s --

Mr. Deacon: We want to hear the minister’s further comment.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I have listened with interest to the comments of my hon. friends, but as far as I am concerned, from my discussions with the Council of Regents this is the approach that we would like to take. I would have the section of the bill stand and I would not accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, the minister may be asking for problems. If there are problems in the secondary level and the members of the Education Relations Commission are extremely busy in the province, how do you expect to get sufficient personnel to be able to resolve any problems in the community colleges if the date happens to be the date you are suggesting here?

All contracts are going to terminate on Aug. 31. It would possibly be better to have another termination date to make greater use of the personnel on the Education Relations Commission who might also be on this commission.

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister wish to reply?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I would just simply repeat what I said a moment ago, that there is some transference or movement of staff from colleges to high schools and vice versa. If they are going to have different dates it’s going to make it very difficult for them to move.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Laughren’s motion to amend section 5(1) say “aye.”

All those opposed say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Mr. Laughren: Take out that guttural sound and we would win.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): You will learn; you will learn.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: We will stack, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: I have only seen four members rise so far.

Mr. Cassidy: There were five.

Mr. Chairman: Where?

Mr. Cassidy: There were five a minute ago if you were watching. In fact, there were six.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): You can’t tell when the hon. member for Nickel Belt is standing up.

Mr. Chairman: I am sorry. I recognize five members were on their feet.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Get him to stand on his chair.

Mr. Chairman: You wish to stack this amendment?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, please.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, we will carry on with section 6. Does any member wish to speak on section 6?

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to speak on section 5(2).

Mr. Laughren moves that section 5(2) be amended by deleting “31st day of August” and substituting therefor “at the termination of the collective agreement.”

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I won’t be repetitive, but the reason I say that is it ties in with the amendment to section 5(1), which would leave the termination of the agreement up to negotiations between the two parties.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Laughren’s amendment to section 5(2) please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Shall we stack this one too?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, please.

Mr. Chairman: Okay. Does anyone wish to speak on section 6 of the bill?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

On section 6:

Mr. Cassidy: I just have a comment. We welcome the good-faith bargaining clause. It should be used more often, and we welcome it as we welcome it in Bill 100. I am just struck, as I look more closely at the fine print of this bill, in what bad faith the college teachers have been treated, compared with the treatment that is given to the elementary and secondary school teachers in Bill 100.

We have spoken about the managerial relations clause, and we have had a long tussle over section 4 about the scope of negotiations. Going deep into the bill, I just stumbled across a clause which would prohibit any kind of membership maintenance agreement, despite the fact that all employees, and not just members of the union, will have the right to vote on any proposed strike action. Even those who have said they don’t want to be a member of the union have the right to vote. The government is displaying bad faith, and it is a very bad precedent for it to do that, when it is putting this clause into the bill.

Section 6 agreed to.

On section 7:

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that section 7(1)(c) of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor: “(c) refer all matters remaining in dispute between them that may be provided for in an agreement to.”

Mr. Chairman: Does anyone wish to speak to the minister’s amendment?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I might say that this is similar to the amendment that was made in Bill 100.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, I understand that. I am wondering whether or not the minister has had conversations with his colleague, the Chairman of Management Board -- I don’t know under what other section to bring this up, so I mention it now -- to allow community college teachers to partake of political activity.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I’ve had a number of conversations with my colleague, the Chairman of Management Board. I am delighted to talk about anything in this bill.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the minister’s amendment carry?

Mr. Cassidy: On the point raised on the amendment and the point raised by the member for Nickel Belt, perhaps the minister can clarify whether any portion of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act will subsequently apply as far as the community college teachers are concerned?

Hon. Mr. Auld: If the hon. member would refer to Bill 109, which refers to the present reference to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act in the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act, I think he would find his answer.

Mr. Cassidy: Perhaps the minister could speak less in conundrums and more in clear --

Hon. Mr. Auld: If he would look at Bill 109, it says that subsection 11 of section 6 of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act is repealed, so the answer is no.

Mr. Cassidy: The reason I asked the question, Mr. Chairman, was to discover whether community college teachers henceforth will enjoy the political right of, say, members of the public at large or whether they will continue to be restricted in their political rights in the manner which governs Crown employees and other civil servants of the government.

Hon. Mr. Auld: My understanding is that in that connection they are still in exactly the same position as before.

Mr. Laughren: That’s wrong.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s wrong.

Mr. Deacon: I thought that had been corrected.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I don’t really understand. Certainly the ministry hasn’t proposed that teachers be barred from engaging in political activity nor has it proposed that university academic professors and people like that be barred from political activity. Why is it that it becomes an offence -- what’s so special about a community college teacher that if he or she --

Mr. Laughren: What is so special about them? Most of them are very capable.

Mr. Cassidy: They may be special people in many ways as teachers but when they get out on the street and knock on a door or speak up on a political issue or something like that, why can they not have their freedom of speech on matters which may pertain to the platform of a political party for example? Why can they not identify publicly with the political party of their choice? Some of them might even be Conservatives, you know.

Mr. Stokes: I doubt that.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I won’t pursue that although the hon. member is right, of course. All I can say is there is nothing in this bill which has to do with that aspect of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. If there are to be changes made in that Act, no doubt they will come in some different legislation.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the minister’s amendment to section 7(1)(c) carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deacon: On section 7, subsection 2, in Bill 100 we put in a provision that there is no ability to withdraw once you have made a move to refer matters of dispute to an arbitrator or a board of arbitration or a selector. There is a clause which we included in that about no right of withdrawal; once you have done that, you are in. You can’t pull out because you just don’t like that verdict.

I was wondering if the minister has given some thought to that, that both parties, once they are in, are in.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think that is exactly what this section says, that once there is an agreement to refer matters to --

Mr. Deacon: This is just worded the same way as the other bill, but the other bill was amended to provide for no withdrawal.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Oh, wait just a moment. I think the other bill was amended, not in the early stages but later on.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, it says once that agreement has been submitted or they have agreed to submit the matter in dispute to an arbitrator, a board of arbitrators or a selector. Maybe it does cover it with regard to the action that they take.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes, it’s in section 23, subsection 2.

Mr. Deacon: Oh, fine.

Mr. Laughren: Don’t say no if you’d rather not.

Mr. Chairman: Shall subsection 2 carry?

Agreed.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments on any other portion of the bill? If so, which section? Shall the bill be reported?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 9, if there’s nothing in section 8.

Mr. Chairman: Any comment on section 8?

Section 8 agreed to.

On section 9:

Mr. Chairman: The minister has an amendment to section 9.

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that section 9 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“9. The commission shall appoint forthwith a person as a fact-finder during negotiations to make or renew an agreement if the parties have not referred all matters remaining in dispute between them to an arbitrator or board of arbitration as provided in part IV or a selector as provided in part V and,

“(a) one or both of the parties gives notice to the commission that an impasse has been reached in the negotiations and requests the appointment of a fact-finder and the commission approves the request;

“b) the commission is of the opinion that an impasse has been reached in negotiations; or

“(c) the agreement that was in operation in respect of the parties expires during negotiations between the parties to make or renew an agreement, and fact-finding has not taken place as provided in this part.”

Mr. Deacon: Do we have copies of these amendments?

Mr. Stokes: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes, you got those last week. These are some we made after our discussions with the CSAO.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the changes there are the addition of “forthwith” in the first line, a grammatical correction for arbitration and the transposition of subclauses (a) and (b), so that (b) becomes (a), and (a) becomes (b), to place the prime instigation for requesting fact-finding in the hands of the parties rather than in the commission.

Mr. Deacon: Have you got an extra copy of that? I think the minister should have copies for us to see.

Motion agreed to.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

On section 10:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: I just have one question of the minister. Why have you not provided, after the words in subsection (b), “agree to refer all matters remaining between them” the words “that may be provided for in an agreement?” How have you selected certain clauses to throw in that extra clause to protect you and left it out of other clauses?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, those words were added in section 7, subsection (1)(c). My understanding is that that applies throughout. Apparently that was the decision of the committee in dealing with Bill 100. The amendment that was made in section 7 was not made in section 10.

Mr. Laughren: It’s a sheep syndrome.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 10 carry?

Section 10 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any other section of the bill and, if so, which one?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I have an amendment to section 17 if there is nothing before that.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments prior to section 17, and if so, which one?

Mr. Deacon: Where is the matter of withdrawal from arbitration covered or that procedure where they cannot withdraw from arbitration? You don’t have an amendment to that from your original bill.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes, I’m sorry. It is in an amendment that I will move.

Mr. Deacon: Fine.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think it should have been in the group which you received a little earlier.

Mr. Deacon: I’ve got it here.

Mr. Chairman: Is it agreed that all sections carry up to section 17?

Sections 11 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister shall read his amendment to section 17.

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that section 17 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“17. In inquiring into and ascertaining the matters remaining in dispute between the parties, the fact-finder may inquire into and consider any matter that the fact-finder considers relevant to the making of an agreement between the parties including, without limiting the foregoing,

“(a) the conditions of employment in occupations outside the teaching sector;

“(b) the effect of geographic or other local factors on the terms and conditions of employment;

“(c) the cost to the employers of the proposal of either party;

“(d) the interest and welfare of the public.”

I might just say, Mr. Chairman, that the deletion of “comparable” from paragraph (a) broadens the occupations that may be considered by the fact-finder and expands the occupations that are relevant for inquiry and consideration.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any discussion on the proposed amendment as read by the minister?

Mr. Cassidy: We would agree with it, Mr. Chairman. It broadens the scope for the fact-finder and we’ve maintained from the time when the leader of the NDP proposed this as a means of resolving some of these disputes or giving the public a yardstick by which to judge them that the fact-finder be allowed a fairly wide area for inquiry.

Just for the record, it would be my understanding that the fact-finder can also look into the kind of work that is being required of the individual teacher and such factors as work load and so forth, which may also affect the negotiations over the kinds of salaries or other terms and conditions that are being carried on. He really has virtually got no limit on where he can inquire. Is that not correct?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think that was the purpose of the discussion that took place about Bill 100 and the amendment which was moved there and is moved here.

Mr. Cassidy: Once again, Bill 100 affected a far larger group of teachers, but this bill affects a largish group of teachers who are scattered all over the province, and that problem of province-wide negotiations, in an area which is about 1,500 miles from one end to the other, is going to be extraordinarily difficult. Is it possible at times that the ministry might consider, or that one might contemplate, the employment of more than one fact-finder? Can a fact-finder be plural, and if so, how would that be contained under the Act? It could be a real problem in certain situations.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that there is one fact-finder for a specific dispute. That fact-finder will no doubt have the assistance of the staff of the commission and other people that the commission might decide to second or to employ under contract to assist the factfinder. The fact-finder is the one who decides what facts are to be found, I assume, and decides how to find them. But I don’t suppose that he or she has to do it all himself or herself.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Nickel Belt

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I continue to be bothered by the continual references of the minister to Bill 100, and I do not apologize for saying this again. It is difficult for us to understand how the minister can use Bill 100 as a model and still not provide the community college teachers of this province, for whom he is responsible, free and collective political rights in the Province of Ontario. How long are you going to sit there and say it is not your responsibility, it is the responsibility of the Chairman of Management Board, when you know that the community college teachers are your responsibility? You bring in a whole bill that deals with collective bargaining for those teachers and you leave out one of the most important sections that affects their lives.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, of course I’m responsible for the community colleges and I didn’t say I had no interest in that particular subject. What I said was, there is no provision about political activity in this bill.

Mr. Laughren: There could be.

Mr. Cassidy: There can be; of course there can.

Hon. Mr. Auld: There are no provisions in this bill about political activity. There may well be in some other bill.

Mr. Cassidy: Why don’t you put them in?

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister could tell me then why it is that he continues to use Bill 100 as a model as though it was perfection and then leaves out that one important element that affects the community college teachers? How do you justify that?

That could easily have been part of this bill. There’s no reason at all. You could have made an amendment to the Public Service Act or to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and put it into this bill here. There is no reason at all why that couldn’t have been in this bill.

I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman, but if the minister is going to sit there for tonight and for Thursday and Friday and continue to make references to Bill 100 as though that was the model to which he aspires for the community college teachers without bringing in political freedom for the community college teachers, he’s going to continue to meet resistance from us.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, in what way are the teachers or the faculty members prevented from taking part? I thought this bill was withdrawing the teachers from under an Act that did restrict them. I’m still not quite sure as to how it applies. I thought that, indeed, as soon as we passed that other bill, which takes it out from under the Chairman of Management Board and puts it in under this negotiating system, this in fact did give them the right to participate.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I want to check this, but I think that the provisions of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act had to do with bargaining about wages and working conditions. I think the Public Service Act is the one which has to do with political activity and community college employees are public servants within the meaning of the Public Service Act.

Mr. Deacon: Wouldn’t this Act have to have that clause in it which says they are no longer considered employees under the Public Service Act, to cover that point which I understand the government is in sympathy with and agrees with in principle? Isn’t this the place where this should be covered?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, all I can repeat is what I have said twice -- that there are no provisions in this Act having to do with that particular legislation, the Public Service Act, and when there are changes made they will be brought to the House.

Mr. Laughren: If you’re waiting for the Chairman of Management Board, you’ll wait quite a while.

Mr. Deacon: He’s pretty progressive. He’s going to change it.

Mr. Chairman: Dealing with the minister’s amendment, shall the amendment to section 17 carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 18.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister will read his amendment.

On section 18:

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that section 18 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“18. The fact-finder shall determine his own procedure under guidelines established by the commission and where the fact-finder requests information from the party the party shall, acting in good faith, provide the fact-finder with full and complete information.”

Hon. Mr. Auld: The addition in the amendment is “under guidelines established by the commission.”

Mr. Chairman: Shall the minister’s amendment as read be agreeable to the committee?

Motion agreed to.

Section 18, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other discussion on any other section and, if so, to which section?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment on section 21.

Mr. Chairman: Shall sections 19 and 20 carry?

Sections 19 and 20 agreed to.

On section 21:

Hon Mr. Auld moves that section 21 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“21. (1) Where the commission has given a copy of the report of the fact-finder to each of the parties and the commission is of the opinion that the parties will or are likely to benefit from assistance, the commission may assign a person to assist the parties to make or renew, as the case may be, the agreement.

“(2) Where the commission has given a copy of the report of the fact-finder to each of the parties and both of the parties request assistance from the commission, the commission shall assign a person or assist the parties to make or renew, as the case may be, the agreement.”

Mr. Chairman: Does the committee wish me to reread the minister’s amendment? Is there any discussion?

Motion agreed to.

Section 21, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other discussion on any other section?

On section 22:

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that section 22 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(3) Notwithstanding subsections 1 and 2 where both parties agree and the commission approves the commission may defer making public the report of the fact-finder for an additional period of not more than five days.”

Mr. Chairman: Does the committee agree to the minister’s amendment to section 22, as read?

Motion agreed to.

Section 22, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments or questions on any other section?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Section 24, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Section 24. We agree that section 23 is carried?

Section 23 agreed to.

On section 24:

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that subsection 1 of section 24 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“Where the parties agree to refer all matters remaining in dispute between them that may be provided for in an agreement to an arbitrator or board of arbitration, the parties shall jointly give written notice to the commission that they have so agreed and the notice shall state.”

Mr. Chairman: Does the committee wish the chair to reread the minister’s amendment? Shall the amendment as presented by the minister carry?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I have listened with great care and I don’t know what the minister has deleted from the existing one and I can’t find a copy here. Could he explain that?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’m sorry. What was added there was in the second line -- I’ll read it: “Where the parties agree to refer all matters remaining in dispute between them ... ” there is inserted “ ... that may be provided for in an agreement and then it refers to an arbitrator or board of arbitration.

It may be that the hon. member got an early copy of the amendments which didn’t have the amendment in. I’m afraid that’s what must have happened.

Mr. Cassidy: Some of these amendments appear to be drawn directly from Bill 100, and I guess we haven’t got them here.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Right. I have an amendment to subsection 2 of that same section, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, I wanted to comment on something in this amendment here. It just seems to me to confirm the Indian-giving-- maybe I shouldn’t use that word; I retract that, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The which?

Mr. Cassidy: As a matter of fact --

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am sorry. I missed that.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, it is probably a good thing.

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps the member can expand on that.

Mr. Cassidy: As a matter of fact, it should probably be put on the record that the word itself, which comes out of the depths of one’s childhood, is a complete misnomer, because the most generous people in North America since time began have been our native peoples, our Indians, who are much more generous --

Hon. Mr. Auld: Good for you. That was quick work.

Mr. Deacon: The member for Ottawa Centre is almost as confused about them as the member for Timiskaming.

Mr. Cassidy: -- than the whites, who have given little and taken very much.

Hon. Mr. Auld: That was quick work.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the stinginess with which the ministry is putting forward this particular bill is reflected in the fact that after saying in section 4 that negotiations can be carried out on anything except superannuation, and therefore presumably an agreement should be able to cover anything except superannuation, the minister keeps on insisting on putting these niggling little words into each section where he can find space for them. The facts, as he knows, are that agreements are severely circumscribed for community college teachers. That’s confirmed again and again in the bill.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the minister’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

Mr. Breithaupt: Which ear did you hear it in?

Mr. Chairman: In my opinion, my right ear indicates that the “ayes” have it.

Mr. Breithaupt: All three of them.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that when one voice alone is heard to say “aye” --

Mr. Stokes: A single voice.

Mr. Cassidy: -- and there are not even five Conservatives in the House --

Mr. Foulds: Five in the wilderness.

Mr. Cassidy: -- that it’s incumbent on them to keep at least five people in here in order to stack votes. It shouldn’t always have to be this side of the House that has to do that.

Mr. Havrot: Oh, come on. Don’t be ludicrous.

Mr. Cassidy: That was clearly a vote in favour of the “nays.” At the time of the stacking I am sure that the government side could have carried it, because they have the votes in the House but they have an obligation to keep the relevant number of people in here.

Mr. Havrot: Only five of us.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I would ask whether there is a quorum.

Mr. Chairman: May I point out to the hon. member that it is not the responsibility of the chairman to count the number of members of each party that are in the House at any one time.

Mr. Stokes: How many voices did you hear?

Mr. Chairman: It seemed to me that I heard a very strong “aye.” However, the Chair could be wrong.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. How many voices did you hear?

Mr. Eaton: You cannot tell how many voices.

Mr. Stokes: When the “ayes” were called for, how many voices did you hear?

Mr. Chairman: When voices are speaking in unison they sound as though there could be a lot of them.

Mr. Breithaupt: They sound just like one, don’t they?

Mr. Stokes: Just like one. And that in fact was what happened; there was one voice.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps --

Mr. Cassidy: Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, there are six New Democrats in the House, which means we have enough to stack votes, there are five Liberals, and there are currently four Conservatives, since the member for Welland (Mr. Morningstar) woke up.

Mr. Havrot: All it takes in order to stack.

Mr. Cassidy: I would ask the chairman whether there is a quorum.

Mr. Chairman: Well, I would just like to indicate that it seems to me the hon. member for Welland was thinking at the time; I noticed him there and he was nodding his head in a sense --

Mr. Breithaupt: In agreement.

Mr. Chairman: We will count the quorum if you like.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Sit on him, Ellis. Sit on him.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, there is not a quorum.

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

Clerk of the House: There is a quorum present, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: We have a quorum. Let us return to section 24(1).

Mr. Deacon: We haven’t got a minister here.

Mr. Laughren: Nobody noticed. Who would notice?

Mr. Deans: It is not who would notice but who would care; that is the question.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Is the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development going to step into the breach?

Hon. Mr. Auld: You have to admit it has been a long time.

Mr. Deans: An hour and a half is a long time.

Mr. Chairman: Inasmuch as the minister has attended to an urgent problem, we will get back to the amendment.

Mr. Breithaupt: Satisfactorily, I hope.

Mr. Chairman: As I recall it, before the quorum call, the committee wished to stack this amendment with the others. We will stack that one and deal with them at the end. I believe the hon. minister indicated he had an amendment to subsection 2 of section 24.

Hon. Mr. Auld: This is the one that the hon. member for York Centre referred to a moment ago, I think.

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) Except as provided in section 50, a party shall not withdraw from arbitration proceedings under this part after notice is given to the commission in accordance with subsection 1,”

and that the remaining subsections be renumbered accordingly and that the cross-reference in subsection 5 read subsection 4.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any further amendments to any other section?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Section 33, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments prior to that?

Sections 25 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Section 33. The hon. minister.

On section 33:

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that subsection 1 of section 33 of the bill be deleted and that the following substituted therefor;

“(1) Where the parties agree to refer all matters remaining in dispute between them that may be provided for in an agreement to a selector, the parties shall jointly give written notice to the commission that they have so agreed and the notice shall state that the parties agree to refer the matters to a selector, and,”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other amendments?

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that section 33 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(3) Except as provided in section 50, where the parties give to the commission a written statement in accordance with subsection 2, a party shall not withdraw from the proceedings after the final offer of either of the parties has been submitted to the selector”

and that the remaining subsections be renumbered accordingly.

Motion agreed to.

Section 33, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments, questions or criticisms on any other section of the bill, and if so, to which one?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Section 42, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Are all the sections deemed to be carried up to 42?

Sections 34 to 41, inclusive, agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The minister is providing his own opposition tonight.

Mr. Deans: He doesn’t need any more. He has created enough opposition by himself.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do it. That’s what he said.

Hon. Mr. Auld: No, I just got rid of it all.

Mr. Deans: He would make a good opposition member.

On section 42:

Hon. Mr. Auld: I have an amendment to section 42.

Mr. Deans: What’s the matter. Can’t you read?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He just thought of something.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I just thought of a problem.

Mr. Deans: It is bad enough that you can’t speak, but can’t you read?

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that section 42 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(3) Where any person without lawful excuse

“(a) on being duly summoned under subsection 2 as a witness before the selector makes default in so attending;

“(b) being in attendance as a witness before the selector refuses to take an oath or to make an affirmation legally required by the selector to be taken or made, or to produce any document or thing in his power or control legally required by the selector to be produced by him, or to answer any question to which the selector may legally require an answer; or

“(c) does any other thing that would, if the selector had been a court of law having power to commit for contempt, have been in contempt of that court;

“the selector may state a case to the divisional court setting out the facts and that court may on the application of the selector inquire into the matter, and after hearing any witnesses who may be produced against or on behalf of that person and after hearing any statement that may be offered in defence, punish or take steps for the punishment of that person in like manner as if he had been guilty of contempt of the court.”

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I knew that guy was in trouble.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Deans: Oh, explain.

Mr. Laughren: I am wondering why the minister has apparently toughened up this section. Could he give us an explanation?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, it parallels the powers that are given an arbitrator and puts a selector in the same position as an arbitrator.

Mr. Deans: What powers does the arbitrator have? Would the minister explain that?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The powers that I have just read.

Mr. Deans: Would the minister explain it to us?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He says, “Joe, pay the $2.”

Mr. Breithaupt: Out in the back with a thumbscrew.

Hon. Mr. Auld: By the way, the section that I was referring to when we were discussing section 4, about other Acts taking precedence, is section 49 of this bill.

Mr. Deans: And then there was a silence.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Carried.

Some hon. members: No, no.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member who asked the question left the chamber.

Mr. Deans: No, I am still here. Go on.

Hon. Mr. Auld: If the hon. member will look at section 29 on page 11 he will see that repeated.

Mr. Deans: I’ll see it repeated?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Section 29(2) reads:

“Where any person without lawful excuse,

“(a) on being duly summoned under subsection 1 as a witness before the arbitrator or board of arbitration, as the case may be, makes default in so attending;

“(b) being in attendance as a witness before the arbitrator or board of arbitration, as the case may be, refuses to take an oath or make an affirmation [and so on] the arbitrator or board of arbitration may state a case to the divisional court....”

I know that the hon. member loves to hear my voice.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Would the minister mind repeating that?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I will read the whole thing if he really wants me to.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, it is carried.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment carry as read and explained by the minister?

Mr. Deans: We might accept it as read, but as it has been explained it is hard to take.

Motion agreed to.

Section 42, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further amendments, comments or criticism to any other section of the bill?

Mr. Deacon: Section 54.

Mr. Chairman: Which was that, the hon. member for York Centre?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister has an amendment to section 54. Shall all sections up to that carry?

Mr. Laughren: Section 46, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 43 to 45, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Nickel Belt on section 46.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Isn’t the member supposed to stand up when he makes a presentation?

On section 46:

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, section 46 offends me for the same reason that the previous sections offended me; that is, because of the specific date indicated in the section.

The section indicates that the agreement shall be for a term of operation of not less than one year. Well, that is no problem, and it makes a great deal of sense, but it is explicit --

Mr. B. Newman: It can’t be a year and a half.

Mr. Laughren: -- that it will be either a one-, two-, three- or four-year agreement. In other words, they must be even-year agreements. It is beyond me why he continues to feel that that is a requirement. Surely if the two teams agree that there should be an 18-month collective bargaining agreement, so be it. The length of an agreement can be a very important part of the collective bargaining process, and I would just wish to state our objections to this principle once again.

Mr. Chairman: Does the section carry?

Section 46 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister had an amendment; to which section?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Section 54.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other comment or amendment prior to section 54?

Mr. Cassidy: On 49, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 47 and 48 agreed to.

On section 49:

Mr. Cassidy: I am writing an amendment but I can read it right now. Mr. Chairman, we have raised with the minister on several occasions the position as far as community college teachers and their political rights are concerned. I would point out to him an anomaly, that in the Act respecting the Provincial Schools Authority and its teachers it’s possible -- it’s hard to say for sure -- that those teachers who work for the School for the Deaf and places like that will enjoy the political rights that most normal people, including school teachers, expect to have in the Province of Ontario.

The teachers who work for the Provincial Schools Authority will cease to be Crown employees and their contracts of employment will be vested in the authority when that particular Act comes into force. It leaves them a bit in limbo because it’s not clear whether the authority is a ministry agency or whether it’s autonomous. That’s a consequence of the peculiar way in which you are dodging the issue of giving free collective bargaining rights to all your employees and not just to some of them; or not just to some of them in a very limited way.

Mr. Cassidy moves that Bill 108 be amended by adding a new clause to section 49:

“49. (3) Notwithstanding this section, sections 11 to 16 of the Public Service Act shall not apply to employees under this Act in so far as they relate to the political rights of employees of colleges of applied arts and technology.”

Mr. Cassidy: I think that’s accurate. The sections which are excluded from the precedence of legislation -- which is why we are bringing it forward under section 49 -- are those sections which circumscribe the political rights of community college teachers.

As Crown employees they do not have the right to be candidates, to solicit funds for a provincial or federal political party or to associate their position in the service of the Crown with any political activity. If they are named in the regulations, they will not be able to canvass at any time or otherwise actively work at any time in support of a provincial or federal political party or candidate.

Somebody who is teaching English to manpower training students at Algonquin College and who is a community college teacher is surely not going to bring the structure of government down if he or she happens to be so dedicated to political life in this province and he decides it’s in the best interests of the province to campaign on behalf of the Premier (Mr. Davis) or the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), or even Evelyn Gigantes or me. It should surely be their right to do it or not to do it in the same way as any other citizen in the Province of Ontario.

It’s difficult to get all of the niceties into this particular section, but the best way, it seems to us, would be for the matter to be negotiable between the community college teachers and the council.

The managerial exclusions or the policymaking exclusions are legitimate, as is the exclusion that you don’t go around saying: “I work for the government of Ontario and I think you should vote for Bill Davis or Bob Nixon or Stephen Lewis.” The people who work for these colleges should not be able to associate their position of working for an agency of the government with political campaigning. We don’t disagree with that.

I have put forward a bill which spells out very carefully what political rights civil servants can have or should have and what political rights civil servants and Crown employees should not have. The situation here is a totally ludicrous one. The people teaching English at Canadore, at Thunder Bay and at Algonquin, all across the province, are treated in precisely the same way as the Deputy Minister of Colleges and Universities, who clearly should not have any overt political role because of his sensitive policy-making position.

The position of 98 per cent of the civil servants and Crown employees in the province is not sensitive. If they choose to put up an election sign or give a few bucks or sign a card in one of the parties or go out and support their brother-in-law who’s running for nomination in a particular riding association or whatever, he should have that freedom just like anybody else.

The member for Nickel Belt was present in the committee -- and he’ll talk about it -- when a specific commitment was made by the Chairman of Management Board, and that commitment is being welched on by the government at this time.

I’ll give you the amendment in a minute, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Nickel Belt wish to comment on the amendment?

Mr. Laughren: Yes. What I find so ludicrous, to use my colleague’s term, about the situation that the college teachers find themselves in, is that they are in the only level of education which prevents the teachers from involving themselves in the political process.

If you happen to teach at the elementary school level, at the secondary school level or university level, then you have full access to the political process in this province. If you find yourself moving, as I did, from the secondary school system to the community college system, suddenly your political freedom is yanked out from under you. I’m the same person I was before I moved to the college system. Why then have my rights been taken away from me? Surely my duties as a teacher in the community college system are not that different to what they were in the secondary school system.

In a parallel kind of situation, I have friends who have moved from the community college system to teach at a university, and they themselves, once again, find the reverse -- they suddenly have political freedom they didn’t have before. I would like to know how the minister justifies that.

I wonder, too, if the minister was aware of the comments of the Chairman of Management Board during the debates of his ministry about three weeks ago, when he implied very strongly that legislation to deal with the position of community college teachers was imminent. The implication was there that we shouldn’t really concern ourselves, and we shouldn’t waste the time of the committee in debating that particular night, because really we should just be patient and everything would be fine.

Really, he is the one who’s wasting the time of this House, because surely it was the ideal time to bring in a companion bill. If it required a separate bill, if it required an amendment to the Public Service Act, it should have been brought in as a companion bill at this time. It’s an injustice to the college teachers and it’s an injustice to us as legislators, that we are debating this particular problem of the community college teachers under this particular bill, when there could have been a companion bill introduced. I would urge the minister to see that that companion legislation is introduced on Thursday.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to the amendment? The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, we in this party have always supported the rights of an individual to partake in political activity of his own choice. I just wonder why the minister hedges at this time to accept the basic right of an individual to partake in political activity. We do understand that there are certain categories or certain levels where there might be some hesitancy on the part of government, but when we’re asking for the average community college teacher to have the right to engage in political activity, one of his basic rights, we wonder what the reasoning is behind the minister in delaying giving them that right.

As the previous speaker did make mention, in each of the other levels of educational activity the individual has that right -- elementary school, private, public, separate, secondary school, private, public and/or separate, and at the university level -- but on the community college level you seem to deny the individuals that right. We will support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I was not there when the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet indicated in his estimates certain changes that might be being considered for the Public Service Act. As far as I’m concerned, there is no provision for that amendment in this Act. I will reject the amendment, because it’s my understanding that the whole matter of the public service and political activities is under consideration. It would seem to me that it is appropriate that amendments be made in that Act. It would seem to me that it would be simply confusing if we were to do it piecemeal.

For that reason, while I’m not disagreeing with some of the opinions put forward by the members opposite, in my opinion the proper place for an amendment would be in that Act, rather than this one.

Mr. Cassidy: Don’t you guys talk together?

Mr. Laughren: We don’t have any choice.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, we don’t have any choice but to act in this particular way. The passage of this Act in itself is a recognition that the community college teachers fall into a grey area. Previously, they’ve been under CECBA, the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. Community college teachers are being given the right to strike under many conditions in this particular Act. Their status is being brought more closely into accord with other people who have similar teaching responsibilities, who work for the school boards and who work for the universities, It just seems to me that whatever the government intends to do for its civil servants, it’s going to be some time. It clearly is not going to come between now and the election.

I would suggest that it was time to give community college teachers these rights now. Let them be bargainable; let them be sorted out that way, if you will. If you want to stand the clause and get a better wording for the amendment, or one that you find more acceptable, that’s fine; we’ll stand the clause and wait for it.

I would point out as well, Mr. Chairman, that if you read further on in the bill, under section 66 you find that it says: “Every person is free” -- and the word is a bit laughable -- “to join an employee organization of his own choice and to participate in its lawful activities.”

There’s nothing to stop the carpenters, the cooks and the other support staff in the community college from joining trade unions affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress and which, for that matter, may or may not be affiliated with a political party. You then put them in a position where, through the membership of their local trade union with which they’re bargaining and to which the Act says they have a right to belong, they violate the political rights clauses of the Public Service Act.

That’s a ludicrous kind of situation. Clearly the only way around it is for the minister to accept this amendment, or to stand the clause and come up with some kind of an alternative wording which he and his people find more acceptable.

Mr. Chairman: I might say that I, as Chairman, have some grave reservations as to the propriety of the amendment, but I am prepared to have the committee deal with it at this time.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Mr. Cassidy: We’ll stack it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed to stack?

Are there any further amendments or comments to any other section before the minister’s amendment to section 54?

Sections 50 to 53, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 54:

Mr. Chairman: The minister has an amendment to this section.

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that subsection 2 of section 54 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“Where the Ontario Labour Relations Board is satisfied that an employee because of his religious convictions or belief objects to paying dues or contributions to an employee organization, the Ontario Labour Relations Board shall order that the provisions of the agreement pertaining thereto do not apply to such employee and that the employee is not required to pay dues or contributions to the employee organization, provided that amounts equivalent thereto are remitted by the employer to a charitable organization mutually agreed upon by the employee and the employee organization and failing such agreement then to such charitable organization registered as such under part I of the Income Tax Act (Canada) as may be designated by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.”

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, that amendment corrects the previous omission providing for agreement between the employees and the employee organizations as to the charitable organization to which remittances in lieu of dues would be sent.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any discussion on the amendment as moved by the minister?

Mr. Deacon: That means that the charitable organization would have to be approved by the employee organization, is that right?

Hon. Mr. Auld: No. The amendment is that the charitable organization is one mutually agreed upon by the employee and the employee organization.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I have another amendment to section 56, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cassidy: I want to speak on 54(3) first.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that a kind of Rand formula has been put in here; that is, that the employee who chooses not to belong to the union can opt out. But in fact it’s much broader than that. It isn’t just people who have religious objections, or objections on grounds of conscience; it’s people who just don’t feel like it, who want to be nasty or whatever, who can decide deliberately that they will not take part in the union.

That’s contradictory, if you compare it, say, with Bill 100, because the component units of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation amount to closed shops, and that’s been validated by the province in the legislation which just went through committee stage today. The Minister of Education can tell this minister about that situation. Every teacher in the province is obliged to form part of one of the five teacher federations of the province.

Subsection 3 says: “No agreement shall contain a provision which would require membership in the employee organization.” The matter, therefore, doesn’t even become negotiable, and we object to that. I would like the minister’s comments on that, because once again, among other things, this conflicts with section 4, which says every matter is negotiable, with only the exclusion of superannuation. Section 4 says: “Negotiations can be carried out in respect of any term or condition of employment put forward by either party,” and yet we come to the question of membership and that is not negotiable, because it has been ruled out in advance because of the government.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that until 1972 there were a number of people involved on the faculty who were not members of the association and that was part of the agreement.

I think, subsequent to that time, the rule has changed. However, there are those on the staff who are members of other associations, professional associations and so on, who would perhaps be in conflict with the rules of their own professional associations, even though they are part-time or full-time members of the faculty. As I say, and say very briefly, this provision is part of the agreement. I’ve just forgotten the percentage, but it’s a very small percentage of people who are not included, but that is the present situation.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, subsection 2, which we just had another look at, says that an employee can direct his dues or contributions to a charity if, on feelings of his conscience, he doesn’t want to pay them to the union. That’s fair enough. However, subsection 3 seems to indicate that if an employee just doesn’t want to pay his dues at all and doesn’t want to make any kind of contribution he has that freedom and can simply be a freeloader on the union.

Later on, in other subsections, the reference is constantly to the employees who have to vote on strikes, terms of settlements and that kind of thing and not to the membership of the union. At the very least it seems to me that to be consistent with this subsection 3, people who are not members of the union should not have the right to vote on any collective agreements which are being proposed to be made between the colleges and their employee organizations.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should clarify what I just said. My understanding is that prior to 1972, membership dues paying was not compulsory. It presently is under the provisions of subsection 2, with that opting-out clause as far as religious convictions and so on are concerned. However, in the current agreement those who joined the staffs prior to 1972 are still not required either to pay dues or to join the union. However, in the case of a vote, all those who pay dues whether they are members of the union or not, have an opportunity to vote.

Mr. Cassidy: The way the minister is going, though, he is allowing people not to pay dues at all and is therefore making an attempt to weaken the unions.

Hon. Mr. Auld: It is continuing the existing agreement as it applies to those who joined before 1972 and that is correct.

Mr. Chairman: Shall subsection 3 of 54 carry? Carried.

Section 54, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments, questions or amendments to any other section?

Mr. B. Newman: Section 56(1).

Mr. Chairman: Section 56?

Section 55 agreed to.

On section 56:

Hon. Mr. Auld: I have an amendment to subsection 10.

Mr. Chairman: We have a comment prior to subsection 10. The hon. member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have been concerned about the importance of having appointments to this commission that not one of the three parties involved here could have any question about. I know that was the intent of the minister and of the legislation but in order to be sure of this I feel that clause 1 would have to be changed.

Mr. Deacon moves that section 56(1) be amended by the addition of the following words: “But such appointment shall not be confirmed if challenged by any of the parties.”

Mr. Deacon: I feel it is important, Mr. Chairman, that a procedure such as this -- it is a procedure used in the appointment of juries to be sure there is no question by either party that the members of the jury are objective and will give a fair decision. We want to be sure, in the same way, that there is no question in this case; that all members of the commission are going to be objective and will not look upon each question as if they are representing one side or the other. I don’t think that’s the way this commission should be made up or that there should be any suggestion of that.

I know there will be difficulties in doing this, particularly when it’s a cabinet appointment, but I think we should have something in here which would lead the ministry to check out the appointment with the parties in advance to be sure it is a completely respected group of people. The ministry could maybe make 10 suggestions and ask, “would any of these suggested names be objectionable to you?”

In that way we can be sure that when those people are appointed they have the confidence or should have the confidence of all parties. I would urge the minister to give consideration to this amendment to clause 56, subsection 1, to provide for that type of panel selection.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I see a difficulty with the Liberal amendment. I’m sorry it’s worded that way. I think it would have been much better to have proposed an amendment which would have had the Lieutenant Governor in Council appoint two of the members of the Education Relations Commission, the employee organization appoint two members of the commission and a fifth member be someone mutually agreed upon, in which case you have a more direct say by the College Relations Commission. There can then be no argument that a commission has been struck by the government, and therefore it is a biased commission. I think we all know the problems that were caused by the tribunal that was established to arbitrate the dispute between the colleges last year. Mr. Chairman, I want to propose another amendment. Can I do it after the Liberal amendment has been dealt with?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, I will entertain another amendment after the Liberal amendment has been dealt with.

The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, if I may make a few comments on this and support my colleague in the suggestion he made. I can recall when we first debated Bill 100 in the House on second reading that I had made such a suggestion. With the ministry selecting all five, or having two selected by each of the two parties, and then the chairman of the commission or the fifth party to be selected by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, with that type of an approach you have all the responsibility shifted on one individual; whereas if you have a panel of, say, 10 individuals who have been selected and then each of the two sides come to an agreement, or attempt to come to an agreement on five individuals, you do have the complete complement for the College Relations Commission as it is called here.

I think you would have more objectivity in five, rather than just having the one individual, mutually agreed upon by the two parties. It would be better to have five neutral people rather than having only the one neutral individual.

I hope the members of our party to the left seriously think this over, because I think the suggestion by my colleague is a good one. It could resolve a lot of the problems.

Mr. Deacon: Perhaps the minister would comment on this.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to comment on this?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it’s a very interesting proposal and one that has considerable merit. I think we are in agreement with the philosophy behind the commission.

Mr. Deacon: There is no question.

Hon. Mr. Auld: It would not be two representatives of the two so-called partisans, with a so-called neutral chairman; it is to be five neutral people.

Mr. Deacon: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I can’t accept the amendment at this time for this reason, that it would be possible for an interminable discussion to go on in terms of getting five people who are mutually acceptable.

Mr. B. Newman: You do it for juries all the time.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am not saying that it would happen, but I am saying it is possible. Furthermore, I can’t believe the government, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, will not be anxious to find people acceptable to both sides. I think the government will be anxious to do so in this kind of an experiment. That’s what it is, and I think a very good one.

I think that the Minister of Education perhaps has a more difficult situation to deal with than I inasmuch as there are three parties rather than two. Generally --

Mr. Deacon: Well, you have some different groups also.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I guess three and four, you might say. It is really quite a departure, and one in which I think there is great possibility of success. I would hate to see at the beginning a situation where we might have our hands tied in getting a group together. I can only say in rejecting the hon. member’s amendment that I think I can assure him the government will be anxious to find people who are acceptable to both sides, even though there may not be the technical right of veto.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I can see the problem that actually writing this into legislation presents; I can agree with the minister in that. The fact is that I think it is really vital that an informal procedure be carried out whereby the government is assured of the agreement, of all parties in this case, to the people who are being appointed. It could destroy confidence in the whole procedure of good-faith bargaining which is emphasized all the way through this bill if we don’t have these appointments made in the manner I’m suggesting.

Whether it be informal or formally done, it should be done in some such manner because the commission has such an important role. In many, many areas it’s the commission’s decision that’s going to have tremendous bearing on whether or not the negotiations are successful. This requires a tremendous amount of confidence in the objectivity of the commission.

I’m so anxious to be sure, and I’m sure the minister is too, that this commission be made up of five really and truly objective people. I can understand the minister’s problem. I feel that this amendment would not unduly tie nor delay the appointment of this commission and it would provide the assurance to all parties concerned that the appointments are people who are objective and can be relied upon to give a completely objective view, opinion and decisions on the matters presented before them.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: The section of the Act now has the appointment of five. Our suggestion is that, if you were to appoint a larger number and then let the two parties select five mutually agreed upon between the two of them, you would resolve the issue. You would have five individuals who would be completely impartial in their approach to the problem and it would satisfy both sides.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I would urge the minister to reject that kind of Liberalism in its entirety.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I just want to say that I agree with the purposes of what the Liberal amendment tries to achieve but certainly not with its means. It seems to me that there is a long and worthwhile practice of bipartite boards in Ontario labour law as in most labour law in the continent. The Labour Relations Board, the public service labour relation tribunal, the grievances boards under CECBA, which is what governs these college teachers before this bill is passed, have all been based on the formula of two plus two plus the jointly-agreed-upon chairman.

It is a means by which you can guarantee and show to both parties concerned that you mean what you say when you talk about good-faith bargaining. The way the ministry is proceeding with it, however, is once again eroding the principles of good faith which should be the cornerstone of all labour relations legislation in the province.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Deacon has moved that section 56(1) be amended by the addition of the following words: “but such appointment shall not be confirmed if challenged by any of the parties.”

All those in favour of Mr. Deacon’s amendment will please say “aye”.

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Shall we stack this amendment?

Mr. Laughren moves that section 56(1) be amended by deleting all the words after “composed” and substituting therefor the words, “five persons, two who shall be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, two by the employer organization and a fifth to be a person mutually agreeable to both parties.”

Mr. Laughren: I don’t know whether it is parliamentarily correct, Mr. Chairman, but I would also move that section 56(2) be deleted because it would not be necessary since we intend that this amendment will pass.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the committee will deal with the amendment and then we will deal with any possible need for any further amendments to deal with subsection 2 later.

Mr. Laughren: Certainly.

Mr. Deacon: I would like to say that much as we like to support this party on our left on occasion, in this case we can’t go along with it because there has been a singular lack of success in many instances in situations of the traditional method of appointments. So often minority decisions occur and in this bill we are trying to achieve a new approach to negotiations which hopefully would result in fewer breakdowns and much less work stoppage than we have seen in this province particularly in recent years.

I don’t think we have an enviable record in this country when our work stoppage record is second only to Italy in number of days. I would think we would be looking for methods of improving the relationships and decreasing the breakdowns which have been occurring in recent years.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, that is an incredible red herring to draw into this debate. If this amendment does not pass, it’s not because it would cause any deterioration in relations between the community college teachers and the Management Board. It’s because the two old-line parties are unable to cast off their management bias.

Mr. Cassidy: Might I just add, Mr. Chairman, that not only are some of my constituents descended from Italian people --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Man the barricades.

Mr. Cassidy: What’s that?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I said, man the barricades.

Mr. Laughren: Sit down.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: This just shows, Mr. Chairman, that the Liberal Party is anti-labour and does not understand good-faith bargaining, which is what this particular --

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the hon. member would return to the amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: -- amendment by the member for Nickel Belt is directed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I often wonder who you think you are over there.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Not the speaker. We know what the government stand is.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Man the barricades.

Mr. Cassidy: From time to time, Mr. Chairman --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: To the barricades.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: -- we have the Liberal opposition --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: -- masquerading as pro-labour but then they order the teachers back to work.

Mr. Chairman: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Man the barricades.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Your mouth is open.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Laughren has moved an amendment to section 56(1).

Order, please.

All those in favour of Mr. Laughren’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Shall this amendment be stacked?

Agreed.

Mr. Cassidy: Stack it.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Stack Cassidy, too.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other amendment prior to subsection 10?

Mr. Deacon: Subsection 2, Mr. Chairman. I feel the committee here should not be denied the right that any legislative committee or most committees have; that is the right to choose a chairman and a vice-chairman from among its members.

Mr. Deacon moves that clause 56(2) be deleted and the following substituted therefor: “The commission shall appoint from among its members a chairman and a vice-chairman.”

Mr. Deacon: In this way, the committee will select a person in whom they all have confidence to give leadership and a substitute for that person. I think it’s important that this committee be given the autonomy the government claims it wants to give it rather than direction from the government. I think this would be a good indication of autonomy for the commission to carry on on its own, including the selection of its chairman and vice-chairman.

Mr. Laughren: Pure Liberalism.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other member wish to comment on the amendment before the minister responds?

The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, at this point in time I hate to do this to my hon. friend but I can’t accept this amendment either. I think it may well be in the not-too-distant future that it will work that way.

On the other hand, I think it’s going to be very difficult to put together the kind of group that I think we agree needs to be done. I would like to see the Lieutenant Governor in Council still have this kind of flexibility in the early instance to be able, hopefully, to select the kind of person -- particularly the chairman but also the vice-chairman who acts in the chairman’s absence -- with the really outstanding capabilities we are going to require.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, in a community college, as the board of governors is set up, does the government appoint the chairman? Doesn’t the board have a right to make its own appointments? Surely this commission should have just as much right as any other commission, any other committee or any other board.

I think it is wrong for the government to say, “We are appointing you, but we have already decided who is going to be the chairman and who is going to be the vice-chairman.”

In effect, the government is giving direction to the committee in a way that I don’t think is going to help it feel as independent and as autonomous as it should feel.

I urge the minister to change his position because this is not all that different from what the government does in many other committees and commissions that it appoints.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Deacon’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Shall the amendment be stacked?

Agreed.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 56(6).

Mr. Deacon moves that section 56(6) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“Each of the members of the commission is eligible for reappointment upon expiration of his term of office for not more than one additional term unless a period of not less than one year has elapsed from the expiration of his previous term.”

Mr. Deacon: The present subsection provides for continual reappointment or no change in the commission. I feel that the government should carry on all the very good practice it has applied to other commissions and committees, where two or three terms is the maximum or there has to be a year before reappointment.

If my amendment is accepted, we can be sure that there is an opportunity for change, but any person who has been particularly valuable after two terms of office could be reappointed after one year. In this way there is not the concern about hurting somebody’s feelings because they are not being reappointed. It provides for new blood. I think the ministry would be wise to have this protection or assurance that there is no embarrassment for change. What I have proposed is very much in line with what is done in many other commissions and committees in other ministries as well as in this one.

I would urge that the minister give consideration to this amendment so that we can be assured and the public can be assured of this change in membership; it will encourage new ideas and perhaps eliminate some conflicts in personalities that could have occurred. We want to be sure that this commission is strong and objective and is keeping up with the times.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to reply if there are no other members who wish to speak to the amendment? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, it is quite true that on a number of boards and commissions which are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor --

Mr. Deacon: Including the Board of Regents.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- there are specific maximum terms. In this case again, at this point in time and with a new and novel approach, it seems to me that we want to keep as much flexibility as possible because we hope we will find very competent people. There will be those who will not want to serve indefinitely. There may be those whom we would want to serve for many years. For instance, I think of the chairman of the Labour Relations Board who served for I don’t know how many years and finally, but not at our behest, went elsewhere for a better kind of position.

I think the kind of people we are looking for in this commission are ones we would certainly want to keep for some years.

Mr. Laughren: In other words, the minister doesn’t want mobile people?

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Deacon’s amendment say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it. I declare the amendment lost.

Shall we stack that amendment too?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other amendments or comments prior to the amendment proposed by the minister in subsection 10? Perhaps we can deal with it before the committee rises.

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that subsection 10 of section 56 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“(10) Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the commission may

“(a) establish job classification and salary ranges and terms and conditions and employment for its employees, and

“(b) appoint and pay such employees as are considered proper.”

Hon. Mr. Auld: The addition of (b) is the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any discussion on the minister’s amendment to subsection 10? Is it agreed that the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair assumes there is considerably more debate on clause by clause in this bill?

Mr. Deacon: Right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, carry the rest.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I have several more amendments, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps we can deal with those on another occasion.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report two bills with certain amendments and progress on one bill, and begs for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 118, An Act to amend the Education Act, 1974.

Bill 132, An Act respecting the Negotiation of Collective Agreements between the Provincial Schools Authority and Teachers.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, if I may I would like to say that on Thursday we will deal with the items remaining on the order paper for discussion, the conclusion of the bill that we had in committee this evening, Bill 100, and I believe the pension bill -- the one introduced by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Snow) -- will appear on the order paper on Thursday, and anything else that remains there to be discussed.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Speaker, before we conclude, does the minister know of any legislation liable to be introduced on Thursday which the government will try to put through all of a sudden?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: May I be specific, Mr. Speaker? Since the rumours have been rife that the government intends to prance in at the last minute with some kind of -- maybe I shouldn’t use such emotive words. Does the minister know of any intentions to bring in rent review or rent control legislation before the end of this session?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: As per usual, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member’s rumours are unfounded.

Mr. Speaker: As was announced to the House earlier today, the hon. member for Rainy River had given due and proper notice that he was not satisfied with an answer from the ministry, and we will deal with that order of business now.

I deem a motion to adjourn to have been made. I recognize the member for Rainy River.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have taken the unusual step of employing section 27(g) of the standing orders because I have put the question to the Chairman of Management Board on a number of occasions concerning contract employees of the government. What particularly frustrated me today, Mr. Speaker, was that in answer to my question, the minister said: “That requires statistical information. Put it on the order paper.”

I brought to your attention on numerous occasions, Mr. Speaker, that this question has been on the order paper for over a year and two months now. I shouldn’t say it has been on the order paper that long because we’ve had a session in between -- an adjournment, prorogation and a new session; I had to put the question on the order paper a second time. My colleague, the member for York Centre (Mr. Deacon), has a similar question that has been on for some months and has not been answered.

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, the minister replied, in answer to my supplementary, that the Civil Service Commission was responsible for keeping track of the people who are working for the government on a contract basis. I asked the Liberal research department if they would contact the Civil Service Commission this morning before I asked the question. The researcher was told that in fact each ministry kept track of the people who were employed on contract. The researcher then phoned the Ministry of Housing. The personnel officer there promptly told her that the Civil Service Commission kept track of the people on contract.

Mr. Speaker, I originally placed this question on May 9, 1974, over a year and two months ago. The question, Mr. Speaker, originally on the order paper, was:

“Inquiry of the ministry -- Would each ministry provide the number of people employed by that ministry on a contract basis; the gross salaries paid to these people; the length of time the contract is for; and the job descriptions of their contracts.”

With all the civil servants and all the people on the minister’s staff, he hasn’t been able to provide me with that information, although I understand that he has had that information for over a year. Yet he hasn’t seen fit to table it in the Legislature.

I’m getting a little tired, Mr. Speaker, of the arrogant attitude of the people across the way, sitting there and refusing to answer questions and refusing to provide the information to which the people of Ontario are entitled.

I think it’s pure hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, because they made a great deal in their two budgets about cutting down the number of people employed by the civil service. But they won’t provide the information about those employed on a contract basis, where they can hide their figures and refuse to divulge them to the public. I estimate that the number of people on a contract basis, seasonals, casuals or temporaries, comes to something like 9,000 people. I’ll give you an example, Mr. Speaker, partly using the government’s own figures.

In the April 7 budget, the government indicated the public service complement, including OPP, Ontario Development Corp. and the Ontario Housing Corp., was 74,855 people. For the same year, Dec. 31, 1974, Statistics Canada indicates the Ontario government employed something like 83,279 people in full-time, or to use StatCan’s quotation marks, “other positions.” So the government is employing something like 9,000 to 10,000 people, not all of whom are on a contract basis. I understand the total on contract basis is about 4,500. They are employing these people, they are paying them big salaries and they are holding positions of influence; yet the public of Ontario and this House is not allowed to know who they are, what they are, where they are and how much they are being paid.

I tried to elicit this information, Mr. Speaker, during the estimates of the Ministry of Correctional Services. I asked him specifically if he would indicate to me how many employees he had on his staff on a contract basis. The minister promised me that information would be forthcoming. That was a month and a half ago or two months ago.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time is just expiring.

Mr. Reid: I’ll wind up, Mr. Speaker. I think it’s the grossest kind of arrogance that this information, which should be public information, shouldn’t be provided to this House; that it should take the minister a year and two months and that we still should not have the information. I would ask that he provide it before the end of this session.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the hon. member. When I answered today, and I have a copy of Hansard before me, I said this:

“No, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, they are contained within the responsibility of the Civil Service Commission and are obtainable, and I will get them for you.”

Then, on my researching the question, and looking into the Act that governs the unclassified service, I read in Regulation 749(5)(1) that “unclassified service is divided into the following groups....” It goes down to indicate what they are.

The fact of the matter is and, of course, where I was somewhat wrong, is the fact that certain categories of unclassified staff certainly do pass through Management Board when their contracts are of a certain figure. Those are very easily brought forward.

Mr. Reid: Over 22,000.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: But let us have a look at the question as it was posted by the hon. member under whatever date, or whenever: “Would each ministry provide the number of people employed by that ministry on a contract basis; the gross salaries paid to these people; the length of time the contract is for; and the job descriptions of their contracts.” Following the regulation as I referred to it and the information that is requested, it is no wonder that it has taken this amount of time to go into each ministry and find out what each job classification is.

Mr. Reid: Why did it?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Let me tell the member. I listened to him and I didn’t interfere with his discussion.

Mr. Reid: The minister has hired another 1,000 people since then.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I looked at what the government put forth in a public document called “Experience ‘75”. In fact, at this point in time, the summer of 1975, we probably have -- I haven’t got this tied to the floor -- we are probably employing 17,500 people in these categories for the summer months. What’s wrong with that?

Mr. Reid: Come on, that’s a red herring.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: What’s wrong with that? It’s no red herring.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: It’s a fact and I’m telling the member that is a fact. For me to go into every department of the government to get the information he requested --

Mr. Reid: We’re talking about people on contract.

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

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- if he’d boil it down to numbers, accordingly --

Mr. Reid: He is not answering the question.

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

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I need a little benefit here for the time the hon. member is taking with his interjections.

I want to say to him that if he is requesting me to take the time of my departmental officials to have a job description for every one of those jobs which is out right now -- the others on top of this, I might say, though they are temporary in the summer months -- I want to tell him it’s an absolutely Herculean job to supply that information, and we’re at it.

Mr. Reid: That wasn’t the question and he knows it.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I got the sheets this afternoon and they are not complete. If he wants a job description of every one of them he is going to have to wait for a while yet.

Mr. Reid: Only just the people on contract.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we’re dealing with these jobs exactly as we’re dealing with every other job in the Civil Service Commission, in accordance with the budgetary statement made by the Treasurer, and they will be dealt with that way. They will be subject to the same cuts. As soon as I have the time to provide the member with those figures and those job descriptions, he will most certainly have them. I don’t want him to think that he’s being avoided in any way.

Mr. Reid: It won’t be --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: And we’re dealing very fairly and honestly with these people in accordance with the desires of the CSAO. We’ve complied with their requests, and I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that so far as his question is concerned --

Mr. Reid: Oh come on now; he has not.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- when I have the time to produce those figures and those job descriptions, he most certainly will have them.

Mr. Reid: More words than action.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I didn’t tell the member what the federal civil service is doing.

Mr. Reid: The minister never answered the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. I deem the motion to adjourn to have been carried.

The House adjourned at 10:45 o’clock, p.m.