The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

SCHOOL BOARDS AND TEACHERS COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: When the committee rose at 6 o’clock, we were dealing with an amendment by the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) to section 51. The hon member for St. George.

On section 51:

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will be brief and will try not to cover what has been said before. First of all, when we were in committee -- and the minister may be able to give us the figures, but since our committee was not recorded and I did not make a note of them, I don’t have them before me -- my understanding was that the preponderance, and a significant preponderance of contracts do terminate within the scope of what is provided in this section.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I think once in a while we have to bring into line a piece of legislation such as this, with all of the problems which face municipalities today, and certainly we hope that this particular piece of legislation will ensure that there will be very few strikes in this province in this field. Accordingly, if the agreements can be negotiated at this time and settled within this period, it gives to municipalities an opportunity to fix their tax rate at a much earlier time than they could under the provision of this amendment.

If we want to be of assistance to municipalities we should encourage every means to enable them to ascertain their costs as early as possible, so that they can take advantage in their work programme of the off seasons in order to ensure that their contracts may come in at a lower rate than if they had to compete in the market at the peak season for construction work. So, having in mind all of the arguments which have been made in this matter, I certainly support the position taken by our critic in this area.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): I’m interested in the figures asked for by the member for St. George, because I think they would, in fact, be very instructive. As I recall, she is right in her argument about the large preponderance of agreements ending at the end of August. As I recall, I think it was something like 125 versus 23.

Mrs. Campbell: I thought it was 144 to 22.

Mr. Foulds: Well, that’s exactly why it would be useful to have the actual figures. But a couple of things have arisen in the discussion on this particular clause that I would like to comment on. One is the matter -- and I think it’s a legitimate matter -- raised by the member for York Centre about the possibility of whipsaw. I am not sure what the phrase means but if I understand it correctly it means that one board comes to an agreement, say, in August which is substantially better than other contracts and then in December other people shoot for that, if you like. And vice versa -- in December some agreements are better. I am not sure that won’t happen in any event; the only difference will be instead of a six-month period it’ll be over a year.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): It is just once a year.

Mr. Foulds: I think that is a legitimate concern but it could and should be balanced by the added flexibility it would give negotiators, arbitrators, mediators and so on in arriving, hopefully, at agreements which would be acceptable to both sides. It would give them the flexibility, as I indicated earlier, of going to an 18-month or a 30-month contract in some cases. That seems to me to be, in terms of the negotiations and the procedures set down in the bill, a kind of flexibility worth shooting for.

The other thing I said earlier -- and I don’t want to go on too long -- is I really think the workload of the commission could be evened out because it does seem to me that if it were recognized that the two terminal dates within the procedures were Aug. 31 and Dec. 31, there would be perhaps more inclination, both on the part of boards and of teachers, for some of them to go to the December date. It may depend on local conditions. Because it then falls within their calendar year and, I think, their fiscal year, it might be more acceptable to them, given the orderly procedures in the bill.

I think the desire for the school year contract traditionally has been because (a) it was tied to the individual contract of the teacher; and (b) it coincided with the school year and that school year helped to give an orderliness to the proceedings when this bill was lacking. That’s the major reason I suggest this flexibility.

As I said earlier it’s not a principle I think anyone is really prepared to go to the stake for but I think it’s one worth quite serious consideration by the Legislature. If the House doesn’t accept my proposed amendment at this stage perhaps, as we see how the bill works, sometime in the future it would be an amendment worth thinking about bringing in.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, briefly, I want to say another point which I felt was important and which I may not have mentioned in my remarks was that if at the beginning of the year there is a breakdown, the students wouldn’t be as unfavourably affected as far as taking grade 13 is concerned as they would be later on in the year. There is time then to catch up; a lot more time to catch up. That is one of the things I like about dealing with any breakdown early in the school year.

Mr. Foulds: That is a valid point, I think, and it’s something I haven’t sorted out in my own mind. I think what you have to balance there, if there is a breakdown early in the school year, is whether people particularly in the senior grades of high school who have been earning money over the summer might not return to school. That’s sort of a terrible option. I know the problem if you get into a dispute particularly when there is a breakdown in the crucial months. I would say from April onwards particularly is crucial for the --

Mr. Deacon: One often finds that a year out of school for youngsters like that is a good thing.

Mr. Foulds: Sorry, pardon me?

Mr. Deacon: One often finds that a year out of school for youngsters like that is a good thing. They’ll come back when they are ready.

Mr. Foulds: I tend to agree that the option of a student dropping out for a year may be a valuable one in terms of human experience and educational experience. The difficulty with that is, even though the lip service is there and we have made some progress, the opting-in process and provisions aren’t as free as they should be to work in the way that you are envisaging it.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, in the original bill that we presented here on collective negotiations some 18 months ago, one of the sections provided for school-year contracts as the bill does, plus a minimum length of time on the contract of two years. In the process of consultation that has gone on since that bill was introduced, we talked to a lot of people about this particular section. The teacher presentations to us were that we should have the contracts for a minimum of one year, allowing for longer contracts if either of the parties wished, and that we shouldn’t stick to the school year as the mandatory time for all the contracts. Trustees would have liked to have kept the two-year mandatory contract and also wanted to have the contracts on the school-year basis.

Upon consideration of this matter, it was our feeling that the intent of this legislation could best be served by having contracts all terminate on Aug. 31, with one year as the minimum length of time for a contract but a longer time of two years, three years or whatever the parties might wish, if they wished to negotiate longer contracts. The reasons for this were, first, the school-year contract meshes with the teachers’ contract; it meshes with the work year of the teacher from September to June. It means that that teacher working for that board knows the terms and conditions of employment under which he will be working for that complete year. There will not be a change in the middle of the year. It means, hopefully, that the financial matters will be settled before the board strikes its budget for the next calendar year and, while it won’t know for sure what its total requirements will be for the full year, it will know for a larger portion of the year than if it was negotiating during the calendar year and then perhaps not settling the contract until after its budget was well in place or it had to submit its budget to the municipality for apportionment and levy.

I think there is also some validity in the argument of my friend from York Centre that in the event that some type of dispute does take place the chances are that it will take place early in the school year rather than later in the school year. Another compelling reason why we inserted the section as it is here was that the greatest number of boards at the present time are on the school-year arrangement. The latest figures that I have got of calendar-year agreements terminating at Dec. 31, 1975, are seven public, eight secondary and seven separate. In 16-mooth agreements which terminate at Dec. 31, 1975, there are two public, three secondary and eight separate. In 16-month agreements that don’t terminate until Dec. 31, 1976, there are one public and one secondary. The rest of the agreements in the 72 public and secondary bargaining units and 49 combined Roman Catholic separate school boards terminate on Oct. 31 with one secondary and one separate school board each having agreements that terminate after 20 months on Aug. 31, 1976.

Mr. Foulds: Excuse me, did the minister say Oct. 31 at one point in the second last example he gave?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I said 16-month agreements terminating Dec. 31, 1975, and then terminating Dec. 31, 1976.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, and then the next one.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Then I said terminating on Aug. 31.

Mr. Foulds: I thought I heard October.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am sorry. If I said October, it was a slip, because the agreements of 72 public and secondary school units and 49 Roman Catholic separate school boards terminate on Aug. 31 and the agreements of one secondary school unit and one separate school board terminate on Aug. 31, 1976. As the hon. members know, there were amendments put in the bill to allow the small number of boards whose agreements terminate on Dec. 31 at the present time to negotiate either eight-month or 20-month contracts as the case may be and whichever they wish; they are not forced into negotiating one or the other. Eventually they will be on stream with their contracts meshing into the school-year contract period that the bill provides for.

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

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): I would like to comment on one of these matters. I am not sure whether it has been brought to the minister’s attention before or not; I suspect it may well have been raised during the long committee hearings.

Forgetting about the committee having to deal with all the particular board-teacher problems at once, the thing that strikes me about this Act, which lays out a very careful procedure to strike, is that in the board-teacher relationships where that might be coming up, the Aug. 30 date virtually assures they will be put in a strike position.

With the requirement of the vote, with the requirement of so many days after the fact-finder having reported and so on, and with July and August being months in which you cannot get the teachers together -- unless something is done in June, we are virtually assured of a strike situation having arisen.

That’s what worries me about this fixed date in the bill. You are virtually assuring that any board and teacher group that does not get settled by the third week in June, at the latest, is going to be in a strike situation, because nothing can take place over the summer.

I am not encouraging strikes, nor am I encouraging the strike situation to arise, but if you had some flexibility on the date and some contracts came up in December, if that was the choice of the teacher and board groups as a result of their collective negotiations, then in fact you would have a much better chance of avoiding the strike because they would have that fall period in which to finally get things sorted away. But you cannot get teachers together in the last two months of the year, because they are not there in many instances, and that is going to put them in a strike situation position. That’s what worries me about the Aug. 30 date.

I don’t like a fixed date in any event, but if you were going to have a fixed date, Dec. 31 would be preferable to Aug. 30 because of the dead two months immediately prior to Aug. 30. That’s what strikes me most about this bill and that’s what strikes me most about the reasons as to why the amendments put forth by my colleague from Port Arthur are good.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I don’t accept that premise at all. There are negotiations going on at the present time where there is no settlement. There are negotiations going on in the summer. The requirement to give notice is in January. There’s all the period from January to June. If an agreement hasn’t been arrived at, the option is open to work in the summer.

As I say, there are negotiations going on now between the Metropolitan Toronto secondary school teachers and the Metropolitan Toronto boards of education throughout the summer, and it may be under these provisions that there will be some change in pattern of when negotiations carry on.

Mr. Foulds: The point of my colleague, the member for Windsor West is a point that had not occurred to me; I think it is a very powerful point that although the negotiating can continue to take place --

[Applause.]

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): What brought that on?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): You have never done that for me, Eddie.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): With good reason too.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): That’s a first.

Mr. Foulds: I have been upstaged many times in my life, but never so brilliantly as when the member for Grey-Bruce just implanted a marvellous, affectionate kiss on the member for St. George. I think that’s a first in the Legislature. Where was I? What was I saying?

Mr. Henderson: What brought that on?

Mr. Breithaupt: I don’t know that it matters.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bounsall: Where’s the gallantry of the member for Lambton?

Mr. Henderson: You should keep an eye on the member for Grey-Bruce. He upstaged you there.

Mr. Foulds: I just said that. That’s what I just said. I don’t know if the member for Lambton was listening, but --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would return to the more mundane things before us.

Mr. Bounsall: You’ll have to remind him where he was, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, the point made by my colleague from Windsor West I think is a very powerful one. It is true, as the minister says, that negotiations can continue over the summer months relatively easily, because the negotiating team from the teachers has the commitment to do the negotiating. However, if they’re getting to the point where they want to report back to their membership for the acceptance or rejection of an offer, that will be very difficult over the summer months. It might lead to some unnecessary rejections that might not otherwise occur if we had this flexibility of dates. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Foulds moves that section 51(1)(b) be amended by adding the words, “or the 1st day in January,” in line two after the word “September,” and before the word “in.”

Mr. Foulds further moves that section 51(1)(c) be amended by adding the words, “or on the 31st day of December” in line 1, after the word “August” and before the word “in.”

Mr. Foulds further moves that these amendments apply mutatis mutandis to the remainder of the Act.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Foulds’ amendments will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Shall we stack this?

Is there any further discussion prior to section 60?

On section 52:

Mr. Foulds: Just a very brief comment, Mr. Chairman, about section 52, subsection 2. I’m very pleased that the minister was able to introduce in committee that amendment that met the concerns of the separate school trustees. I’m also pleased that the separate school trustees and the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association worked together on the proposal for the wording of the amendment that was acceptable to them. I think that that is a mark of the kind of work that was done outside of committee and in committee on this Act. I’m just very pleased that the minister was able to do that, to bring that wording in.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Chairman, if I might just make a comment on that as well. I think that it was a proper amendment made in committee. When we discussed it, it was not all that clear from section 52(1) that when we were talking about a provision of an Act or regulation which should prevail over any agreement or any provision for an agreement between the teachers and the trustees, that such statutes as the British North America Act would be one of the statutes considered.

I think it’s to the credit of the minister and the members of the committee, along with teachers and the trustees, that agreement was reached to bring in this type of legislation. There is now no doubt in the minds of the people in this House, nor of anyone else looking at this legislation, what the intent is. I think it’s an amendment which certainly will avoid any type of challenge in any court. I don’t think this amendment could be any clearer.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to say at this time that I’m very pleased at the co-operative effort that was shown by the Ontario Separate School Trustees’ Association and the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association, which got together and through some process were able to work out a wording that was acceptable to both of them, for which I was very appreciative. I’m happy that they did this.

The separate school trustees have made this point to us ever since we started discussing collective bargaining legislation for school boards -- the protection of the specific powers under the British North America Act that they enjoyed in regard to the employment of teachers. I think that at one point in time there was a very real concern on the part of the English Catholic Teachers’ Association that they would perhaps find themselves without the full rights of other teachers in this province because of some sections that might be put in this bill. Indeed, some of the sections that were suggested to us early in our committee hearings were far too limiting upon the things that could apply to those teachers who were employed by separate school boards.

I think the wording that we finally have accepted -- and it was arrived at by the separate school trustees and the English Catholic teachers together, and agreed to by both associations -- is a very acceptable wording. I’m glad it came along and that we were able to include it in the bill.

Sections 53 to 59, inclusive agreed to.

On section 60:

Mr. Deacon: On section 60, subsection 1: In my remarks on second reading, I expressed concern about having assurance that appointments to the commission were acceptable to both sides by some manner or means. Since then, in discussions on the parallel bill in regard to the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology, I recognized there was a real problem in having appointments made in accordance with a jury-system type of panel arrangement. I have drafted an amendment which I hope the minister will consider.

Mr. Deacon moves that section 60, subsection 1, be amended by adding the following words after “Lieutenant Governor in Council”: “after consultation with the council and the federation.”

Mr. Deacon: This would mean that the ministry would check its ideas with the council and the federation. It doesn’t have to be bound by them but it would be aware of any concerns they might have about appointments that the ministry is considering. I would think that would be one way of assuring the people who are appointed to this commission truly have the support of both parties -- or at least that they would have the confidence of both parties and there would be no lack of confidence or no reason to lack confidence.

We support the minister’s wish that there be five members of this commission who are trusted by all parties; five members who can take objective points of view so that we don’t have a situation where everything turns upon the chairman who has been appointed by two representatives of either side. I think it would make a much stronger commission. In adopting this amendment, the minister would have in the legislation a little addition which would indicate that he has, at least, consulted with both the council and the federation. I hope the minister will give favourable consideration to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you. I just have a question of clarification of the mover of the motion, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know how you do this in the legislation but, presumably, “council” in the amendment means “council” as defined in section 1 of the bill.

Mr. Deacon: That’s right.

Mr. Foulds: It could be a little confusing because it comes right after the wording “Lieutenant Governor in Council.” I don’t know how you get around that problem. I don’t really know how you can legislate consultation by the ministry and the Lieutenant Governor in Council. To give this minister some credit -- and occasionally I do; not often, but occasionally -- certainly on this bill there has been enormous consultation, I know, both with the trustees’ council and with the federation, and I know that any minister in that portfolio, if he’s going to keep his pulse on education in the province, has to engage in that. However, having said that, I think we would certainly support the motion. Any government that appointed a council without that kind of consultation would really be heading for trouble. It seems a pity that it is necessary to put it in.

Mr. Deacon: I am sure the minister would do it anyway.

Mr. Foulds: This minister would, but we might not always have this minister, if this government continues -- and I’m not sure even if I’m in that particular seat that I shouldn’t have this kind of safeguard on me.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Mr. Chairman, I too would like to put it on the record that I support very strongly the amendment as proposed by my colleague, the member for York Centre, because if the minister has tried to do anything in this bill it has I been to restore order to the relationships between teachers and school boards.

The bill, as we’ve all said, is a good bill and it attempts to set up a relationship between the teachers and the boards which everybody in Ontario wants and which everybody in Ontario recognizes is very possible to achieve. But I think where the minister is forecasting difficulty for us is in the way section 65 has been written, and his proposed amendment for section 65, in my opinion, doesn’t do much to correct the problem that he’s going to create with section 65. Therefore, if we are going to achieve this very special and delicate relationship between teacher organizations and their boards, I think we should introduce this additional protective device to restrict the introduction of politics into the operations of the commission, and for that reason I strongly support the proposed amendment to this section.

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

Mrs. Campbell: I just would like to rise to support this amendment, particularly as in this case the whole bill and the whole scheme of the bill really evolves about the commission itself, and we should ensure as far as possible the acceptance of these members by both parties.

I too would like to say that I believe this minister has had tremendous consultation in bringing forward this bill, but it could be that at some future time we would not have someone who was as concerned in charge of this ministry. Therefore, it seems to me that by putting it into the legislation we are ensuring that degree of consultation which will make this commission work. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I just want to give the House the assurance, as I did on second reading and in the committee, that it is our intention to appoint an impartial, highly competent, high profile, Education Relations Commission that I hope will enjoy the confidence and trust of the teachers, the trustees of this I province and the public. I note that in the amendment of my friend he suggests consultation with only two groups. I would suggest if I was to sit here --

Mr. Deacon: Don’t you represent the public?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Certainly we represent the public, but I think we also represent the teachers and the trustees of this province who are part of the general public. We represent all the public.

If I was to sit here and jot down in the next few minutes some of the groups that could be added, if we were to add a list like this, I could perhaps add the Ontario Home and School Association, perhaps some of the parent-teacher groups, perhaps business officials of this province; there are many groups. I think we really don’t need that kind of an amendment. Certainly in any of the responsibilities that I have had in recommending appointments to a commission by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, I think they have been of the calibre that was expected. I won’t ask you to name the members of the Languages of Instruction Commission of this province, because you may not have them at your fingertips, but I would say to you I think they certainly enjoy the respect and esteem of the francophone school community of this province.

So, Mr. Chairman, I don’t think we need this amendment. I assure the House the kind of commission I have talked about -- an impartial, high level commission that can carry out and complete the purposes of this bill -- will be appointed by this government.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the minister that this is a different type of commission from the one to which he is referring in that there are two major parties concerned and referred to throughout this bill and they are on opposing positions; that’s what the whole bill deals with.

I would feel the minister, representing the public at large, would have his own ideas. But just as a matter of common sense, because of the very nature of the work and the responsibility of the commission and since the whole bill, as my colleague from St. George says, revolves around the competence, the impartiality, the objectivity of that commission and the confidence the two parties in particular have in that commission, the minister should realize that in this particular type of commission it would be important to have checked with each party, because a situation could arise where one of those appointed was openly criticized right from the beginning.

Points of view or background could be brought up that would detract from that person’s ability to serve effectively. Because of that I wish the minister would consider changing his position. What we are suggesting here is not a difficult thing to do; I would think the minister will do it anyway in the ordinary course of his appointments, because he would want to be sure that every appointment had the full confidence of both parties.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Let me say this, Mr. Chairman. I think that by putting the kind of amendment in that has been suggested by my friend you could start down the road to the very kind of commission he suggested he doesn’t want; that is a commission that really is a saw-off between a person recommended by one of the parties and a person recommended by one of the other parties. This minister, and certainly any minister in this government, consult with many people when we are making appointments to these various bodies.

I just have to say again that I am giving you my assurance of the kind of commission that will be appointed. I might also say that I am afraid my friend really doesn’t show a very good understanding of the Languages of Instruction Commission insofar as its work is concerned, because its work is concerned exactly with the same kind of problem --

Mr. Deacon: I realize that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- reconciling differences between two groups where they seem to be irreconcilable.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, the minister has a good point, that there is a continuing situation there. I recognize that, but it is not quite as critical as in this case. I would point out, though, that the minister’s suggestion that this is going back to a similar situation in which we have two sides represented on the commission, with an impartial chairman mutually agreeable, is completely off base. I am surprised he would suggest that, because I am recommending a procedure that is really based on what is done in the selection of a jury, where both the Crown and the accused have an opportunity to have maximum assurance of objectivity on the part of all members of the jury. It is not a jury made up of some representatives from each group with a judge sitting in the centre; it is, hopefully, 12 people who have competence and at least aren’t challenged by either party. For that reason I think we would not have any similarity and I suggest to the minister his point is rather irrelevant.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor: Would the hon. minister entertain a question? Would he not agree that by going along with the idea of legislative consultation with the two important parties to the negotiations with respect to the appointment of the commissioner, he would be substantially reducing the chances of criticism of those appointments by those two parties?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I wouldn’t agree with that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: I am not sure I entirely understood the last speech by the member for York Centre. I would like a point clarified, because, if I did understand it, he just talked me out of supporting his amendment.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s right. He got back to the jury business and the veto power.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, that’s the thing that worried me. Does the member envisage this consultation including, as he indicated about the jury -- that was the thing that really brought it to my mind -- that one side or the other would have the veto power over the appointments? No?

Mr. Deacon: There has to be consultation. Either side might suggest a name, and the other side might say, “My gosh, we don’t want to have him,” and explain why they didn’t want to have him.

Mr. Foulds: I think we have to leave some discretion here, because there is a real danger in adopting a strict attitude that says, in effect, “if one side or the other rejects, therefore the Lieutenant Governor in Council rejects.” The real danger is that you could get a commission of nonentities who were acceptable to both sides. That worries me.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, in my amendment to the previous bill, Bill 108, I had suggested that procedure; but recognizing the problem of going through a jury challenge procedure, I suggested the word “consultation.”

Mr. Foulds: It is relatively meaningless and harmless.

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 we stack this vote? Agreed.

Mr. Deacon moves that the section 60(2) be deleted and the following substituted therefor: “The commission shall appoint from among its members a chairman and a vice-chairman.”

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, section 60(2) of the bill now states that the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall designate the chairman and vice-chairman. In his introduction to this bill, and all the way through it, the minister indicated the independent nature of that commission. He has indicated that he wants to be sure that commission is not subjected in any way to the ministry’s interference or influence. He wants them to be independent in every way.

My amendment would leave the commission appointees free to decide who among their numbers they would wish to make the No. 1 person and who would be the substitute. I think this would ensure a greater independence of approach and mind on the part of the commission.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I must reluctantly disagree with this amendment. I think we have to envisage the type of commission that it is. It is a permanent commission and not a commission like an arbitration board, a six-month commission or a commission to examine a specific problem. It’s a commission that will have a high impact upon education in the province, and I think that the leadership and the characteristics of the chairman, particularly of the first chairman, will implant their stamp upon the office and upon the commission. I have a feeling that the government of the day, no matter which it may be, even though it’s a Conservative government at this date, should probably at this time have the freedom to select that chairman and vice-chairman.

I think it is probably important and probably significant that, although all the members of the commission have a prestige and a calibre in the community, the chairman should have an overriding prestige that is visible throughout the province to teachers, to trustees and to all kinds of educational administrators. Therefore, I prefer the wording of the original subsection 2. I will have a moment of consultation with my colleagues before the vote but my instinct is that we will reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Stormont. I am sorry, the member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, as we pointed out earlier, I think you have difficulty in seeing us on this side at this angle.

I’m surprised to hear anyone take the position that these very fine people who will be members of this commission would be incapable of recognizing in the democratic process the capabilities of the persons who shall be elected by them as chairman and vice-chairman. This commission is a permanent commission but it’s interesting to find, if one looks at subsection 4 where we have the provision for the appointment of the members of the commission on varying terms, that it is indicated that as nearly as possible one-third of the members shall retire each year.

I would assume, therefore, for example, the commission members initially would in all likelihood elect from their members one of those who is elected on a three-year term in order to ensure that kind of continuity in the commission chairman. Note then that the government itself has made certain provisions for the members on this rotating basis. I would assume, therefore, that the members would elect from that group. Surely to take away any doubt at all that there is any political overtone in appointing the chairman and vice-chairman -- and, goodness knows, we’ve seen the criticism in the appointment of chairmen municipally -- I would urge the members of the NDP, if not of the government, to take another look at what they’re saying. I am supporting the amendment as proposed.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Stormont.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): I must say, first of all, I find myself lacking any strong feelings on this amendment either way. Frankly, I find myself underwhelmed by the logic presented by the member for York Centre. I do have certain reservations about the idea of how acceptable the chairman and the vice-chairman would be to the teachers, to the trustees and to the general public, if they were appointed from within. If they had certain unique or outstanding or forceful individuals, I could see it working quite well but because of the tremendous possible political controversy involved and the political problems which could result from very biased appointees, I think that prospect is somewhat dim.

It depends on a variety of factors we don’t really know about here now, but overall I would think in the past the procedure has been that someone else would designate the chairman and vice-chairman. It has worked reasonably well. I would assume this minister and his successors will operate in the best interests of the community and I fail to see enough logic in the amendment to warrant support, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Mr. Foulds: I’ve just a comment. I think of the Workmen’s Compensation Board where the chairman is appointed by the government; that has led to bad appointments and to good appointments. The difficulty, it seems to me, if the chairman is elected from within the commission, is if you have a bad one, so to speak, under the amendment it is impossible to remove him. That would seem to me to be a serious drawback in the amendment.

If you have an incompetent in for a year that could do enormous damage in a bad year of negotiations.

Mrs. Campbell: But we are going to have such great people.

Mr. Foulds: I think all our intentions are to have a commission of very first-rate people, hopefully. I mentioned names of some possibilities on second reading -- which I won’t repeat -- but all of them have feet of clay; all of them are human beings. Some of them can fall seriously ill.

Let’s take an extreme example. A man or a woman can become incompetent physically and mentally. They do not recognize that incompetence and their colleagues on the commission may be unwilling to remove them under those circumstances. Yet it may be in the best interests of education in the province to remove that person and perhaps the government should have that freedom in the appointment. I don’t feel really strongly one way or the other. On balance I tend to side with the present wording, with the government’s wording.

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

The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Chairman, I wanted to support the amendment presented by my colleague. I would hope that in his appointments the minister would have selected five outstanding people; that he wouldn’t come along and select only one and that all of them would be extremely capable and honourable people. I would think the amendment does make good sense by having them appoint one of their own members to be chairman and a second to be vice-chairman. I urge the minister to reconsider his decision and accept the amendment as proposed by my colleague.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I have to reject the amendment. I think the general procedure followed on appointments of very important commissions like this is that the Lieutenant Governor in Council usually appoints the chairman and vice-chairman. Certainly everyone appointed to this commission will be of very high calibre, but in selecting and getting agreement to serve on this commission, special consideration usually has to be given to the chairman. His job becomes more onerous than the others.

It’s not just a case of someone being picked from among the group to be the chairman of a meeting, as is the case in many clubs, organizations, committees, and so forth when chairman are elected from time to time. This is a case in which one person is going to have to assume a special leadership role and his or her designation for that role usually has to be talked about when the appointments are proposed or the desirability to get them to serve is mentioned. When we discuss with them whether or not they are willing to serve these things usually have to be discussed. Therefore, I think the section, as it applies in the bill, is in order and the amendment is out of order -- not out of order but unacceptable.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the minister there is a possible way out of the problem I see in the appointment of the chairman always being made by the government. It could be that because of the onerous position the initial appointment would be made by the minister and the minister would leave the subsequent appointments, as was done in the case of regional government chairmen, to the council; in this case the commission.

In that way we are getting away from the tendency we have seen in regional chairmen to have an overwhelming influence on the balance of the council because of their obvious in, their special place of favour with the government. It seems to me this is something we don’t want to have in the commission.

The minister has indicated time and time again his wish for the commission to be independent. I can see, perhaps for the first term of office, that the chairman be one designated by the minister. Certainly I think he should add here something which would indicate that following the first appointment of the chairman and vice-chairman, the commission itself would choose the subsequent chairman and vice-chairman from among its members. Would the minister comment on that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, Mr. Chairman, I don’t accept that suggestion. I think the section as it is presently printed is in order.

Mr. Deacon: Boy, you sure want to keep that commission dominated by yourself.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Not at all.

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.

Stack the amendment.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman --

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

Mr. Deacon: Subsection 6 of 60. I am spending a lot of time on this clause 60 because this is such a vital part of this whole bill, having in mind a commission -- and I am sure it is so in the minds of everyone here -- a very strong commission, one that reflects changing ideas, is up with the times and has the confidence of the whole province is vital.

I am concerned about the present clause 6 which indicates that the members of the commission can continue, on reappointment, ad infinitum. I think it is important there be no implied criticism of a member if he or she is not reappointed. I think it is important that there not be I that pressure upon the Lieutenant Governor in Council for reappointments. If someone is not entirely as strong or not proving as well as they might they might hesitate to change that person because it is a public slap in the face not to be reappointed.

In other legislation this government has introduced it has introduced a limit to the number of terms a person may serve consecutively without any interruption. It is that way in the Council of Regents, in the appointment of regents of colleges. I think it is a good practice and therefore I move an amendment.

Mr. Deacon moves that clause 60, subsection 6, of Bill 100 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. Chairman: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think once again, reluctantly, we will not support this amendment. Once again I think we have to think of the complexity of the commission and its work. The field of collective bargaining in education, collective bargaining between the two parties in education, is a field in which there are not that many people who have either the expertise or the interest or the capability of understanding the complexities of both collective bargaining and the whole business of educational financing and educational formulas, per pupil grants and all that kind of thing. It seems to me that if, on the commission, we start out with a commission of very capable people, they will still have a heck of a lot to learn. They may have expertise in one field, say collective bargaining, or they may have expertise in education but not in collective bargaining, and it seems to me it would be a pity to waste that expertise by limiting their appointment. You might, for example, be able to attract a relatively young man, say in his mid-30s, who is very capable --

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Say in his late 30s.

Mr. Foulds: Or even in his late 30s.

Mr. Breithaupt: Early 40s.

Mr. Foulds: Early 40s.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Late 50s.

Mr. Foulds: No, no, the example of a person from his mid-30s to his mid-40s --

Mr. Breithaupt: They are fighting you.

Mr. Foulds: -- who gives up a developing career for this particular job, develops well in it, develops an expertise in it, has to devote his full time to it, unlike the Council of Regents -- the Council of Regents is not a full-time job; this basically would be -- and then in his mid-40s to mid-50s can no longer carry on. Now, he is valuable and he would be capable of getting work in other fields, but it might be very worthwhile for him to continue in this one. So I think, on balance, we will stand with the legislation as it is written rather than asking for an amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, We have in the last few minutes heard the minister’s arguments for not removing all these appointments from the political arena, and for that reason alone, plus a number of others that I won’t take the time to enunciate because of a shortage of time here, I think the amendment is eminently sensible.

It provides for the return, it provides for the gentle removal, if you like, of people for a breathing space of a year. That alone saves them the embarrassment of being removed from the commission for whatever reason. Their term has expired; therefore they go hack. If they are that valuable, they can then be invited to return. As I said a moment ago, this amendment makes it possible to counter-balance the element which, as we have said so often, we cannot control in future Ministers of Education and that is, the risk of political appointments or appointments of people who, in the eyes of the educational community in Ontario, just don’t measure up. For that reason I support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Stormont.

Mr. Samis: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that there’s enough protection in section 4. I can see some merit to the arguments advanced by the member for York Centre --

Mr. Foulds: Subsection 4.

Mr. Samis: -- subsection 4, I am sorry -- but I don’t share his fears to the same extent and I don’t find the argument sufficiently convincing to support it.

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

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I would not accept the amendment. I believe the section is good the way it is, and I think that some of the reasons have already been stated and I don’t need to restate them. I think it should stay the way it is.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that it seems to be assumed by those who have spoken that the people originally appointed are the best possible people and therefore no change is needed; and we certainly are unlikely to see changes being made unless there is this type of clause. I can assure you, if you look through other appointments, unless there is some means whereby people’s feelings aren’t hurt, the same people are reappointed almost every time.

I think it’s important that there be the opportunity for a change in ideas and that at the same time we don’t lose completely the opportunity for good people to come back on. But this is not likely to be and it should not be a full-time occupation as a member of this commission unless we have a tremendous breakdown, far more than I can foresee, in the relationships between boards and teachers in this province. I just think we’re assuming too much when we indicate it will be terribly difficult to find excellent people, first-rate people, to replace those who have served six years in this office.

It doesn’t take years to gain experience in this work in order to make a contribution to it. I think a person’s year in office, especially during the period of negotiations from January to August -- one season of that -- would give any new member a great deal of insight as to what the realities are and what could be done as a commissioner to help the situation.

I really am disappointed at the attitude, particularly of the minister, in this case because his colleagues in other instances have adopted the type of provision in legislation to ensure new blood and new ideas as well as continuity and the ability to retain the best of the old.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I wasn’t going to speak on this, but my friend starts talking about things like injecting new blood and that there are people who come along with new ideas. Certainly people come along with new ideas. The way you handle that situation is by making the appointments for term appointments. If we didn’t want new blood and if we wanted people to be on here and have a sinecure for the rest of their lives, we’d appoint them at pleasure with no term, as used to be done on commissions. In this way, everybody’s term of office comes up at a certain time and they have to be reappointed.

The very real problem that you get into if you accept the kind of amendment that you’ve suggested is that if you do get a competent, able person who’s doing n great job and whom everybody wants to stay but the legislation says he can’t have any more than two terms, you’re completely hamstrung. I think that on balance it’s far worse to be stuck in that position than it is to talk in general terms about the injecting of new blood. Everybody’s term of office comes up at a certain time -- three years, two years or one year. At that time their appointment will be looked at and they’ll either be reappointed or someone new will be appointed.

Mr. Deacon: No one is indispensable.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): It happens in the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If anyone was indispensable, as I said, we’d appoint people at pleasure for life to these commissions and we would suggest that they never be reviewed.

What we have suggested here does exactly what you’re suggesting.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that nothing in the bill prevents new appointments. New appointments are quite logical. If you’re afraid of hurting somebody’s feelings and, therefore, will reappoint them, then it seems to me that you don’t have the capacity to govern. We in this party vote on clauses as if we would support them or bring them forward if we were the government. And if we were the government --

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): It won’t happen.

Mr. Foulds: -- we would be willing to de-appoint somebody if that is necessary, reappoint them if they were good and fire them if it were necessary.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Chuck them all out.

Mr. Foulds: That’s the way this clause is designed in the bill. For those reasons we would support it.

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): Famous last words.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Let me tell you that you’ll never find this government wanting when it comes to not reappointing a person who doesn’t deserve to be reappointed.

Mr. Deans: Ask George Garthercole.

Hon. Mr. Wells: You even have a colleague sitting to your right who was not reappointed by this government. He isn’t there right now.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Deacon’s amendment to section 60, subsection 6, will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

It sounds like a bunch of donkeys.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, on a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Bounsall: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, why did you say that about the “nays” when this is the first time the NDP has nayed tonight, as opposed to the other times?

Mr. Chairman: In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Shall we stack this amendment?

Is there any further discussion on section 60?

Sections 61 to 64, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 65:

Hon. Mr. Wells moves that section 65 of the bill as amended by the social development committee be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“(1) A principal and a vice-principal shall be members of a branch affiliate.

“(2) Notwithstanding subsection 1, in the event of a strike by the members of a branch affiliate, each principal and vice-principal who is a member of the branch affiliate shall remain on duty during the strike, or any related lockout, or state of lockout, or closing of a school or schools.”

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

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I’m disappointed that this amendment to the original clause really does nothing more than give the principals and vice-principals an opportunity to vote on a strike in which they cannot participate. I don’t think that’s any opportunity; it’s a contradiction. I think that it is certainly one of the most disappointing amendments the minister could bring in under the guise of an improvement.

I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, where it would be that we could bring in an amendment to section 65 as proposed by the minister. Where should we do that? At what period should we do it? We can’t vote on this one because, otherwise --

Hon. Mr. Wells: Just vote against it.

Mr. Deacon: We want to put in our own amendment to clause 65.

Mr. Chairman: I would assume that you would vote on the minister’s amendment first.

Mr. Deacon: If it carries, we have no further opportunity.

Mr. Chairman: If it’s defeated -- I would assume that your amendment takes an opposite position to the minister’s amendment.

Mr. Deacon: My amendment moves that there be an alternative section 65 to the one proposed by the minister, which would be deleted.

Mr. Chairman: Your amendment is to delete?

Mr. Deacon: Right, and substitute another clause.

The amendment I move is: “be deleted and the following substituted therefor.” It would, therefore, be a complete change from the clause which the minister put in.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps we can deal with this as a sub-amendment then.

Mr. Deacon: Shall I put it now as a sub-amendment?

Mr. Chairman: You can put it as a sub-amendment and then we’ll deal with it.

Mr. Deacon moves that Hon. Mr. Wells’ amendment to section 65 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“(1) On the first day of the five-day period referred to in clause 64(1)(f), the branch affiliates shall register with the education commission a list of affiliate members, one per school, who will act as liaison officers among the teachers, parents and students for the duration of the strike.

“(2) Each affiliate member who will be named must

“(a) hold a permanent contract with the board;

“(b) possess a permanent teaching certificate;

“(c) have served on a staff of the school for which she or he is named for at least one year.

“(3)(a) It is a duty of the liaison officer to be in a school during normal school hours to act in her or his capacity as a liaison officer,

“(b) It is the duty of a liaison officer to perform such other liaison duties as determined by the education committee.

“(4)(a) The liaison officer shall not be paid by the board;

“(b) The board may assign its own supervisory officer, or officers in lieu of one or more of the liaison officers.”

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is that an amendment or a new bill?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, that certainly isn’t an amendment to my motion.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s a new bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It’s a completely new section 65, and I would submit it certainly couldn’t be tagged as an amendment to the one that I’ve presented.

Mr. Ferrier: I’d let the Chairman rule on that one.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With a firm hand.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): And a loud voice.

Mr. Samis: The donkeys will be proud of him.

Mr. Ferrier: We’re looking for some direction from the Chair.

Mr. Foulds: Give him time to read the new bill.

Mr. Deacon: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could deal with the minister’s amendment and then the section will stand as amended; then we have the right to amend the minister’s amended clause, which will mean a deletion.

Mr. Chairman: I think it’s out of order, but if it would expedite things we could be a little out of order.

Mr. Foulds: Are you ruling it out of order?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member’s amendment is certainly not an amendment to my amendment at this time. Are you suggesting that perhaps we be a little out of order and take his motion as an amendment to my motion?

Mr. Chairman: It was my intention that we should deal first with your amendment to the section. Then we could see if the committee wished to --

Mr. Reid: No. Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the parliamentary procedure is to deal with the sub-amendment and if the sub-amendment does not carry then the amendment does carry, as I understand it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Only if it is in order.

Mr. Reid: If the sub-amendment, of course, is in order, which I believe it is, we have to deal with the sub-amendment first before we deal with the amendment of the minister.

Mr. Foulds: I am going to present you with another conundrum, Mr. Chairman. I too have an amendment that is, I must admit, substantially different from the purported sub-amendment, which I think the minister, on the point of order, is correct on.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Rule they are both out of order.

Mr. Ferrier: Let’s just delete the section.

Mr. Foulds: Why don’t we just delete the section, yes.

Mr. Reid: We will vote for that.

Mr. Foulds: The other thing is, I want to see what you rule on this, but while you are ruling you should be conscious that if you rule this one in order I’ve got one to go too, and then --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is that a threat?

Mr. Foulds: -- you are really going to face a problem, because if the sub-amendment to the sub-amendment is defeated, does that mean the sub-amendment is carried?

Mr. Reid: No.

Mr. Foulds: Oh.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps at the present time we might have some debate on the minister’s amendment, while the Chair reaches a decision on considering the sub-amendment.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, we can’t do that. That’s a very nice compromise but we can’t do that. Either the sub-amendment is in order or it isn’t. If it is, we have to debate --

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): You have to debate it then vote on it.

Mr. Reid: Under the parliamentary rules we have to debate the sub-amendment. I would suggest to you, sir, this sub-amendment is in order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You just happen to be biased, that’s all.

Mr. Foulds: I think we should have a five-minute recess while the chairman sorts it out.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why don’t you give the chairman time to think about it?

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, what I suggested was that we deal with the minister’s amendment and then treat it as if that is the original clause that is presented to the committee for consideration. Then we have the normal opportunity we would have had if the minister had presented his amendment earlier; we would have had the normal opportunity to amend it in this form.

Mr. Chairman: If the hon. members of the committee will bear with me, I am looking at the amendment moved by the minister. It refers to principals and vice-principals. Upon reading Mr. Deacon’s amendment I find no reference to principals or vice-principals, and consequently I would think that his amendment would be out of order on this section.

Mr. Foulds: Good ruling, Mr. Chairman. I would, therefore, move a sub-amendment that --

Mr. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Ferrier: You can’t challenge the ruling.

Mr. Chairman: The chairman’s ruling is not debatable.

Mr. Reid: It is, Mr. Chairman. I respectfully say that in the committee of the whole House the chairman’s ruling is challengeable.

Mr. Chairman: It’s challengeable, but not debatable.

Mr. Reid: All right. We rise then, Mr. Chairman, to challenge your ruling.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, in challenging this I want to point out to you that were the minister to --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I again suggest to you that the chairman’s ruling is not debatable and I would, therefore --

Mr. Deacon: I would like to be able to state why I am challenging your ruling. The reason I am challenging it is --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please, there is no debate on the chairman’s ruling. All those in favour of the chairman’s ruling --

Mr. Reid: No, Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the only thing that is not challengeable is the Speaker’s ruling.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please; there is no point or order during --

Mr. Reid: The chairman’s ruling is challengeable.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The vote is being taken.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

An hon. member: He ought to be able to challenge it.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Well, challenge it.

Mr. Reid: All right.

Mr. Foulds: He can challenge the Speaker’s ruling.

Mr. Reid: The chairman’s ruling is challengeable.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

The committee divided on the Chairman’s ruling, which was upheld on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 47; the “nays” are 10.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the ruling upheld.

Mr. Deacon moves that subsection 2 of clause 65 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“(2) On the first day of the five-day period referred to in 64(1)(f) the branch affiliate or affiliates shall register with the Education Commission a list of affiliate members, one per school, who will act as liaison officers among the teachers, parents, students for the duration of the strike.”

Mr. Deacon: I would also like to add a new subsection, as subsection 3 --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Perhaps we could deal with the amendment that the member for York Centre has moved --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s in another bill altogether.

Mr. Laughren: Does the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development want to take part in this debate?

Mr. Chairman: -- to delete section 2 of the minister’s amendment. Then if you wish to introduce that as a new section that would be dealt with that way.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Better introduce a new bill.

Mr. Deacon: I will just move to delete this subsection 2.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port Arthur on a point of order.

Mr. Foulds: I believe the member for York Centre has an amendment to subsection 2. I have an amendment to subsection 1.

Mr. Reid: It is too late.

Mr. Foulds: No, it is not. And I would ask you --

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Not to challenge it.

Mr. Foulds: -- to consider it and you can make a ruling on it.

Mr. R. K. McNeil (Elgin): Make a ruling and then consider it.

Mr. Foulds moves that section 65 as proposed by the minister be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“A principal and vice-principal shall enjoy all responsibilities and privileges of membership in an affiliate and shall have the right to take part in a strike vote and a strike.”

Mr. Samis: Good amendment. Right to the point.

Mr. D. H. Morrow (Ottawa West): Let’s get to the heart of the matter.

Mr. Reid: That’s right, this is out of order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other member wish to speak to the member for Port Arthur’s sub-amendment?

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: I don’t want to rule on it until I read it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Maeck: It doesn’t really matter. We’re going to vote it down anyway.

Mr. Chairman: This proposal by Mr. Foulds is contrary to the minister’s amendment and it would seem that all that you have to do is vote to defeat the minister’s amendment.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, you don’t have to vote against it. The sub-amendment is out of order.

Mr. Foulds: If the member for Rainy River would listen --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. That’s what the Chairman said. I was referring to the minister’s amendment.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, you have ruled the amendment that I proposed out of order and I accept your ruling on that. I would therefore deem it not to have been put. Therefore, I would move that in section 65(2), as moved by the minister, the words “or an alternate person designated by the Education Relations Commission” be added in line 4 of section 65(2) after the word “vice-principal” and before the word “who.” That, I believe, is in order, as it is a genuine amendment to the amendment.

Mrs. Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I suggest you cannot accept that sub-amendment when you already have a sub-amendment before you.

Mr. Deacon: On a point of order. My sub-amendment is that section 65, as introduced by the minister, be amended by the deletion of subsection 2.

Mrs. Campbell: That was placed first.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. It would seem to the Chair that we should vote on Mr. Deacon’s amendment to delete subsection 2. Then we can deal with any amendment to substitute or make any addition in its place, which would then be the one that I have just been given.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, can I have a word of clarification from the member for York Centre? Is it his intention to substitute anything else or just delete the section in its entirety?

Mr. Deacon: Just delete the section.

Mrs. Campbell: And subsequently he gave notice.

Mr. Deacon: When I first introduced this, Mr. Chairman, I indicated that I wanted to substitute other subsections, and it was your view we should vote on the deletion first --

Mrs. Campbell: And then you would have the right --

Mr. Deacon: -- and then I would have the right to introduce these replacement subsections.

Mr. Reid: That’s according to the rules.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Only if his motion to delete is carried, but it is unlikely to be carried.

Mr. Reid: You never know.

Mr. Chairman: It would seem that if you are successful in deleting subsection 2, then you would have the opportunity to propose your subsections; bet I think we have to deal first with the amendment to delete the section.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, all I want to know is what procedure will be followed. I have suggested an amendment as well, which I believe you have accepted. Now the member for York Centre has an amendment. If his amendment is carried, then my amendment is gone. Is that correct?

Mr. Drea: That’s right.

Mr. Foulds: If that is so, surely you should put the sub-sub-amendment, i.e., the one that I put to you first.

Mrs. Campbell: You can’t put a sub-subamendment.

Mr. Foulds: Why not?

Mr. Reid: It’s not in the rules.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to say that if the intent of an amendment is to eliminate the section and that amendment carries, then of course a substitute section could be introduced. If the intent of the amendment is to eliminate a section and that amendment is defeated, that is the end of the debate on that section. I would therefore ask you to consider whether an amendment to actually amend the existing section is not, therefore, more in order -- it would leave the section still there for debate purposes -- than an amendment to eliminate the section altogether.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s practically a new bill.

Mr. Deans: An amendment to delete the section is no different from voting against the section entirely.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, let’s vote on the damn thing.

Mr. Deans: Let’s find out; I’ve got to know.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let’s vote on it without prejudice to setting a precedent.

Mr. Deans: My understanding is that if a person doesn’t want a section to remain in the bill they vote against it.

Mr. Samis: That’s correct.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: Could I please have the chairman’s attention?

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Deans: My understanding of the rules is that if a member doesn’t want a section to remain in the bill, you do not vote to delete it but rather you vote against the section and that eliminates the section. The move to delete is not therefore an amendment. An amendment has to leave the section substantially intact; not amend the principle but rather amend other matters related to the principle. An amendment to delete the section is not, in fact, an amendment at all. The only way you can delete a section is to vote against the section in its entirety.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do you mind repeating that?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. It is my understanding that you can’t move an amendment to delete a whole section but you can for a subsection. It would seem to me that we have to deal with two things: No. 1, Mr. Deacon’s amendment to delete the subsection. If that amendment is lost then we can deal with Mr. Foulds’ amendment to add words to the subsection.

Mrs. Campbell: We have one to add, too.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, when I first moved that subsection 2 be deleted I substituted a series of clauses which you felt I should not proceed with at that time. What is going to happen now? We are going to vote on the deletion of the subsection, are we? And then I will have an opportunity to put another in.

Mr. Chairman: It was my understanding -- and I would repeat what I said -- that we should deal with Mr. Deacon’s amendment to withdraw subsection 2, or cancel subsection 2. If this amendment is lost, Mr. Foulds could move an amendment to add the words to the amendment as it stands.

However, it seemed to me at the time when we were speaking earlier that your section should be considered a new section because it doesn’t deal with principals and vice-principals.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, the reason I felt it belonged here was that what I substituted was, in effect, substituting what the minister has put in here dealing with remaining on duty. As I understand it, the purpose of this section was to ensure there were people available to remain on duty during a strike in any school. The subsection I had to replace subsection 2 provided for that and that’s why I felt it belonged in that particular section.

Mr. Chairman: I have indicated how I intend to proceed and deal with it. I think the hon. member should deal with it as a new section and renumber it.

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.

Mr. Deacon: We don’t have to vote; stack it.

Mr. Foulds: This presents a very real problem. You cannot stack this particular vote, because I have an amendment that I wish to put.

Mr. Henderson: Call in the members.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Foulds: And you have just ruled previously --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Foulds: Excuse me. Could you bring some order to the committee, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Sit down.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: You have just ruled previously I could put my amendment if this one was defeated. We will not know whether it’s defeated or not until the vote is actually taken.

May I suggest to you, we have all of the members in the House who are going to be in the House if the division is called and we take the vote now?

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): How do you know?

Mr. Foulds: You’ve already lost some.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, it’s somewhat impractical, but I would suggest that if the House could agree to accept the comments of the member for Port Arthur on this particular item, which might prove to be a sub-amendment, if, when the times comes, the amendment as put by the member for York Centre is lest, then the matter could be dealt with -- at least the debate could be concluded with at this point.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Foulds: I’m net quite satisfied.

Mr. Chairman: I think the hon. House leader for the official opposition had indicated that, if, when the votes were stacked, Mr. Deacon’s amendment was lost, then we would deal with it at that time.

Mr. Foulds: Then we could put this one?

Mr. Deans: But you will accept the sub-amendment as being put and then, when you come to that stage in the voting, if that vote is lost, the sub-amendment will be put.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Shall I read Mr. Foulds’ sub-amendment to section 2?

Mr. Foulds: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: It was moved that in clause 65(2) as moved by the minister the words “or an alternate person designated by the education relations commission” be added in line 4 of clause 65(2) after the word “vice-principal” and before the word “who.”

Mr. Foulds: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I will speak very briefly on this. I would have preferred the original amendment I suggested, which was ruled out of order. I spoke at length on clause 1(h) about the whole matter of principals and vice-principals, so I will not repeat those arguments.

I believe that they should be full members of the affiliate with full rights in the affiliate. The amendment that I proposed at this time is a last ditch and, I’m afraid, a lost cause. But I want to put it because it does represent a position of compromise that was almost achieved last Monday night in the standing committee outside the House.

This would meet some of the objections that have been put by the various teachers’ organizations about the isolation of the principal and the vice-principal from their colleagues. I don’t intend to go on at length about what these arguments are, but it would mean that the principal or vice-principal would not automatically he excluded from taking part in a strike if a substitute, or alternate person, was designated by the Education Relations Commission to take care of those necessary custodial functions in the school.

The basic point is this. Mr. Chairman. I admit that there are some functions that are necessary. I do not think they are essential for the health and safety of the community. It is only in those cases where the health and safety of the community are in danger that we should refuse the right to strike to any working group, even if they are principals and vice-principals.

This compromise that I have suggested in this amendment -- and I suggest it reluctantly and very much as a compromise and not what I would like to see as an ideal, means that those necessary custodial functions that have been particularly argued and that are necessary at the elementary level could take place. It would mean that the principals and vice-principals would continue to view themselves primarily as head teachers, that their colleagues would do the same, and that the community and the students would view them primarily as principal teachers. It would not, as I say, break the development towards collegiality that has taken place between the principals, vice-principals and their staffs and would show those principals and those vice-principals, who felt as a matter of conscience that they should, to take part 50 the strike and should allow someone else to assume those responsibilities during the term that they are locked out or they are striking.

I said earlier in the debate that I was going to read into the record the duties of the principal and vice-principal. I won’t do that, but there are three or four things in regulation 191 which is the basis: the minister has used for designating, if you like, specifically principals and vice-principals as not going out on strike.

Let me first say there is no quarrel that the principals and vice-principals have some administrative function, there’s no quarrel about that. The quarrel is over whether they are managers and management, or whether their principal function is an educational function as head or principal teacher. We would argue that their principal function is an educational function, that of head teacher.

In their duties as principals spelled out in regulation 191, section 4, are such things as this: “A principal shall make recommendations to the board respecting additions or alterations to the school building.” Is that essential during the term of a strike or a lockout? No.

“The principal shall inspect the school premises regularly and report promptly to the secretary of the board any repairs required and any lack of attention on the part of the caretaker.” Is that essential during the term of a strike? And I think the answer must be no.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): Wrong.

Mr. Foulds: “A principal shall instruct the pupils in the care of the school premises.” Is that essential during the term of a strike? And so on. I think you could go through them and find that essentiality does not apply to any of those duties during the term of a strike.

Among other duties -- and I want to make a comparison here -- the principal is responsible for devising budgets, delegating duties to the vice-principals, department heads and so on. He is responsible for “calling meetings of the teachers to discuss matters relating to the management and organization of the school”; and he is, “responsible to submit to the board an annual budget for supplies and equipment.” Those things are not only not essential during the term of a strike, but they are very similar to the duties outlined for a head of department who is not included, who can go out on strike. A head of department shall, for example, Mr. Chairman:

“…assist the principal, in co-operation with the heads of other departments, in the general organization and management of the school. The head of a department shall assist the principal in planning additions or alterations to school buildings and assist the principal in recommending appointments to the teaching staff of a department under his jurisdiction. The head of a department shall be responsible to the principal for the organization and direction of his department. He shall supervise the preparation of details of courses of study. He shall supervise the preparation of the examinations for his department.”

In other words, his duties on a smaller scale are very similar to the duties of a principal. I think it is inconsistent that the principals and vice-principals should be included as not having the right to go out on strike when heads of departments do, and rightly so.

The minister has made the right decision about heads of departments. I would hope that he would make the right decision about principals and vice-principals and allow them at least the flexibility the amendment suggests.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Scarborough Centre and then the hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against the amendment to the minister’s amendment.

Mrs. Campbell: But this isn’t an amendment.

Mr. Drea: Well, sub-amendment -- or whatever it is.

Mr. Foulds: The member for Scarborough Centre is right.

Mr. Drea: It’s an amendment.

The member for St. George lost track in view of some of the romantic endeavours here tonight; and I can hardly fault her.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh no, we didn’t lose track.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Will the hon. member return to the amendment?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, I rise to voice my opposition to the amendment to the minister’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in the minister’s amendment, it seems to me that in the field of labour relations, and particularly in this aspect of it, in the educational field, the minister has taken due recognition of the fact that there is a distinctive difference between the manner in which the principal and the vice-principal operate within that system compared to what a foreman and a sub-foreman or a supervisor or a vice-supervisor would operate within the terms and meanings of the Labour Relations Act.

It has been brought to the attention of the members of the Legislature by the principals and by the vice-principals themselves that they are deeply concerned about the fact that to deny them the full meaning of their procedures within the affiliates to which they belong would be building a wall that might indeed impair in the future the growing trend towards collegiality within the school system.

Notwithstanding that, Mr. Chairman, there is the principle that a principal in a school system, and a vice-principal, are paid higher than teachers and higher than department heads. They have specific duties and specific obligations. To allow them to participate in a physical strike -- and I say physical strike where all the services are withdrawn since I’m not talking about the work-to-rule -- would really be an infringement of the role of the principal because he is not just a teacher and he is not just an administrator, he is the liaison between the school system and the parent and the community. Somebody has to be there in the event that the other teachers are exercising their rights under this Act to withdraw their services totally.

By the same token, Mr. Chairman, if this was conventional labour relations it could be argued that the principal and the vice-principal do indeed exercise supervisory and managerial functions and, therefore, should have no role in the determination by the bargaining unit as to what their course of action would be. Again, it has been amply demonstrated, both in committee and in private sessions with the people directly involved, the principals and the vice-principals, that in the educational field there is a difference. One of the differences is that they are compelled by statute to belong to the affiliate. Therefore, since the statute requires them to belong to an affiliate, it would seem to me a denial of their rights if they were not permitted to participate fully in all of the activities and in all of the determinations of the affiliate, except if the occasion arose that a physical walkout or a physical withdrawal of services formally took place.

Mr. Reid: How do you resolve that contradiction now?

Mr. Drea: I think in his amendment the minister has resolved it very well. He is saying on the one hand you can exercise all of the prerogatives, all of the decision-making in the affiliate, and the reason for that is you are compelled by statute to belong to the affiliate. On the other hand, if the ultimate takes place and there is a physical withdrawal of services you, by virtue of your job --

Mr. Reid: You are not arguing authorities.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: -- have an overriding sense of duty and obligation to the community and you will serve as a liaison person. I think that is a very effective way of dealing with a particularly novel situation in formalized labour relations. I don’t think it would really be applicable to any other field except perhaps as a part of education.

Mr. Reid: You can’t name one where that obtains. Where else?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, before I was so rudely interrupted by someone who obviously is making his farewell to the Legislature tonight --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Will the hon. member return to the subject at hand?

Mr. Drea: In the particular field of education to which I am attached, at the university level, the Labour Relations Board of the province has just ruled in a very positive way concerning collegiality where the department head --

Mr. Foulds: What are you talking about?

Mr. Drea: I am talking about the Labour Relations Board decision involving the university teachers at Carleton University -- that’s at a higher level of education.

Mr. Samis: Why don’t we stick with this?

Mr. Reid: How are you attached to the higher levels of education?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the hon. member return to the point at hand?

Mr. Drea: I am saying, Mr. Chairman, and I think is perfectly valid in the case, that in no other field, except the field of education, could such a situation arise. I am drawing a comparison at the level of colleges and universities where the impact of collegiality and decision-making has been recognized formally by a decision of the Labour Relations Board. I think in this particular area the minister has recognized, in the amendment, the very difficult determination as to where the principal and the vice-principal fit when the final aspect of a labour dispute in the system comes about.

The reason I oppose the amendment is because I think, on principle, there is a difference between a principal and a vice-principal and the rest of the staff in the educational institution for 365 days of the year. To allow the Education Commission to designate whether it will be the phys ed teacher or the principal or the vice-principal who will serve as liaison erodes and destroys not only the traditional but the present role of the principal and the vice-principal within the school.

I think the amendment put forward by the minister makes much of the feelings put forward by principals and vice-principals in this province, concerning their role, not just in labour relations but within the entire educational system. I think it recognizes, too, that the bill we are debating tonight, while it is labour relations, is different and distinct from what is contained in the Labour Relations Act and in various other labour statutes of this province. Therefore, while opposing the amendment because I think it erodes the particular position of the principal and the vice-principal, I think the minister’s amendment covers the situation very adequately.

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

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I had had any doubt as to the validity of what the opposition is saying in this regard, they have certainly been wiped out by the remarks of the member for Scarborough Centre as usual. If one looks at the amendment as proposed by the Minister of Education to section 65 and the section that was proposed in the original bill, any fair, normal, rational-thinking human being would be amazed, if not amused, at the essential contradiction that is proposed by that amendment. On the one hand, the minister says they are part of the bargaining unit and, on the other hand, he says they are not allowed to take part in the operations, manifestations, programmes or whatever of that bargaining unit.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, that doesn’t say that.

Mr. Reid: That’s what you’re saying in your amendment.

Hon. Mr. Wells: You are so dense.

Mr. Reid: We can accept that kind of argument from the member for Scarborough Centre who is usually confused at the best of times but the Minister of Education has thousands of civil servants behind him who can give him rational advice. We accept what the member for Scarborough Centre --

Hon. Mr. Wells: You are showing your stupidity.

Mr. Reid: -- says because he doesn’t know any better but you’ve got competent people in your ministry. What does the amendment say? It says, “65(1) A principle and a vice-principal --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gilbertson: We have heard it for a month. Why doesn’t the member sit down?

Mr. Drea: There is just one thing here; the guy is going bye-bye, I can’t get mad at him.

Mr. Gilbertson: You are not telling us anything new.

Mr. Chairman: Let the hon. member for Rainy River continue.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, if I was running against the member for Scarborough Centre, I would merely --

Hon. Mr. Wells: They love him in Scarborough Centre.

Mr. Reid: -- send his constituents copies of Hansard with his remarks in this House. I would be sure that that alone would defeat him.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Let the member for Scarborough Centre not be too confident.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the hon. member return to the amendment to the amendment, please?

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I’m saying that subsections 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive. The minister moved that section 65 of the bill be amended to read: “65(1) A principal and a vice-principal shall be members of a branch affiliate.” If we stop at that point, most people who have anything to do with labour relations in the Province of Ontario would assume that the vice-principal and the principal in those circumstances would be members of the union, if you want to call it that, or whatever you want to call it, and members of the bargaining unit and they would have the full and proper responsibilities and privileges of any member of that bargaining unit. That’s the first point.

Hon. Mr. Wells: And that they have.

Mr. Reid: And that they don’t have.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They have.

Mr. Reid: They don’t have. How can the minister say that when he says in subsection 2 that they do not have the right to go on strike?

Hon. Mr. Wells: You said the full responsibilities of any member and they have got that.

Mr. Reid: I would put it, Mr. Chairman, to any member in the House, if we did away with clause 2 and if I went up to any member, not only of the Legislature but any member of the public and said --

Mr. Gilbertson: You have been away for two or three weeks.

Mr. Reid: -- Joe Blow, principal of a high school or a public school, is a member of such and such teachers’ bargaining unit and by subsection 1 of section 65 of the bill he has the full rights to be a member of a branch affiliate of any bargaining unit,” and then if I were to say to him, “What does that mean?” I am sure any member of the public would say, “Well, that means that he is represented by that bargaining unit. He has the right to be represented by that bargaining unit in labour negotiations, in salaries, fringe benefits, working conditions and anything that the collective agreement provides for.”

If I said, “Does that give him the right to go on strike?” in the Province of Ontario, 99 out of 100 people would say, “Certainly that follows, because if you’re a member of a bargaining unit under a collective agreement, and in the Province of Ontario we do not restrict people from going on strike, if he is a member of the bargaining unit then it obviously follows that he has a right and a privilege to go on strike.”

Mr. Drea: Civil servants --

Mr. Reid: As a member of the bargaining unit, that’s one of his rights and privileges.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Reid: Now, if the minister or the member for Scarborough Centre or any of these people who pound their desks in the rump can tell me of different situations, I’d be glad to hear them, but there aren’t any.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Read subsection 2.

Mr. Reid: I have read subsection 2, and what you are saying in subsection 2 is that they shall not go on strike.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We had a good debate until you started.

Mr. Reid: You have changed the wording, but it doesn’t mean anything different from what it meant in the original bill. The principal and the vice-principal do not have the full privileges of being members of that bargaining unit because they do not have the ultimate weapon, which is to go on strike. Now, that is just a logical argument.

We don’t have to get into the other arguments. But it flows from subsection 1 of section 65 that they are frill members of the bargaining unit. They have the right to ha represented. They have the right to have somebody negotiate on their behalf. It’s concomitant to the rest of it that if they don’t like what’s bargained for them, or what the board of trustees presents, then they have the ultimate right to go on strike because they don’t like what’s offered to them.

Regardless of the merits of whether they should or shouldn’t, if the minister is going to propose subsection 1 of section 65, then obviously the rest follows.

Now, I spoke on this section on second reading of the bill. I think I put my position, but obviously it needs putting again.

Mr. Samis: No, it doesn’t at all.

Mr. Reid: But the problem is --

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Oh, come on.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We unanimously agree it doesn’t.

Mr. Reid: All but one, in that case.

Mr. Riddell: If the truth were known, the minister agrees with him.

Mr. Reid: If the minister --

Hon. Mr. Wells: Even your colleagues dis agree.

Mr. Reid: No, no, my colleagues didn’t. These people on the left who agreed to pass this bill with the minimum of fuss --

Mr. Turner: Oh, come off it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ferrier: You should have recorded the debate in standing committee.

An hon. member: You are wasting time.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

An hon. member: He’s been doing it all evening.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mrs. Campbell: You are getting to them.

Mr. Reid: The member for Port Arthur is so concerned about this bill, it’s rather strange to hear him complaining about somebody who is taking up the position of the vice-principals and the principals. If he is not in favour of them, he is going to have, Mr. Chairman --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Foulds: Mind you, it is good to see you in a position firmly on one side for a change.

Mr. Reid: Ah, Mr. Chairman, if that particular member is not prepared to stand up for these people, well, we are. And I am only reiterating --

Mr. Foulds: The only reason you are prompted to stand up is because you had a little too much stimulant tonight.

Mr. Samis: You’re regurgitating and you know it.

Mr. Reid: I am only reiterating, Mr. Chairman, the remarks I made on second reading on the principle of the bill.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: It surprises me, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has seen fit to change section 71 dealing with the voluntary and involuntary business of extracurricular activities; he has gone that far. One could philosophically find some agreement with the minister, Mr. Chairman, had he said at one point or other, “All right, the principals and vice-principals are not part of the bargaining unit.” That would be a clear and defined and logical position. But when he says in section 1 that they are part of the bargaining position, or of the bargaining affiliate --

Mr. Samis: We heard this three weeks ago.

Mr. Ferrier: The member is getting repetitious.

Mr. Reid: -- then it follows automatically and logically --

Mr. Foulds: Let him go on. I think he has got his feet firmly planted on both sides of the fence.

An hon. member: You are right, too. You are right.

An hon. member: The member for Rainy River is getting to them.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Will the hon. member for Rainy River continue?

Mr. Samis: Speak to the sub-amendment.

Mr. Chairman: And speak to the sub-amendment.

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and if you could keep this barracking down from those who have very little to say on the amendment, I would appreciate it.

Mr. Ferrier: Your speech is like the margin note in the preacher’s manuscript: “Argument weak; shout like hell!”

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, the whole question boils down to this: In section 65(1) the minister has said very distinctly that principals and vice-principals shall be members of a branch affiliate, which therefore gives them the rights and privileges of belonging, let us say, to that bargaining unit or union.

Mr. Turner: You’ve said that three times already.

Mr. Reid: In section 65(2) the minister turns around and takes away the rights and privileges of the principals and vice-principals to belong to that bargaining unit and to come under that collective agreement.

Nowhere else, to my knowledge, in any collective agreement in the Province of Ontario or, as the Premier (Mr. Davis) is fond of saying, in any other jurisdiction, do you give people these rights and privileges on the one hand and take them away on the other hand.

What the minister has done by section 65 has made the principals and vice-principals neither fish nor fowl. We have gone through the arguments about why the principals and vice-principals wholly and 100 per cent should be members of the bargaining unit, with all the rights and privileges thereto.

Mr. Samis: That’s not the way the agreement was.

Mr. Reid: All right. You didn’t want to hear them earlier; you are going to hear them now. The first argument of course, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Drea: You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Mr. Samis: Come off it.

Mr. Reid: Well, I listened to the member for Scarborough Centre ad nauseam, and I would hope he would be prepared to listen to me.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): We really didn’t know what the term meant until you stood up, but go ahead.

Mr. Deans: Move the committee rise.

Mr. Reid: No, we are not going to do that.

Mr. Deans: Then we will finish it as a standing committee.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Reid: We are not having any problem --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the hon. member return to the debate on the amendment to the amendment?

Mr. Reid: I just want to reiterate two things.

First of all, the principals and vice-principals -- particularly the principals -- have indicated time and time again that they consider themselves part of the teaching profession and therefore past of the bargaining unit, part of the branch affiliate. They do not consider themselves -- to use the term others have used -- as part of management. That is the first thing.

Psychologically, they see themselves as principal teachers, completely and inextricably interwoven with the teaching profession; and many of them, as principals, will return to teaching.

We all know what happens within a strike situation. As I have said before, Mr. Chairman, I have great sympathy with the problems of the boards in this regard in that they feel the principals and vice-principals should be management people. Had the minister come down firmly one way or the other it would have made everybody’s problem simpler. But he comes down in section 65(1) and says they are going to be members of the branch affiliate; that in itself makes it crystal clear that therefore they are entitled to the rights and privileges of any other member of the branch affiliate, which includes their ability to go on strike.

I say to you most respectfully, Mr. Chairman, that section 65, subsections 1 and 2, are contradictory and the whole section should be deleted.

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 progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, as I announced earlier today, tomorrow we will proceed with the business as it was called. By agreement with the House leaders of the other parties, I shall move a motion tomorrow morning that we will sit until the business of the House is concluded.

I would move the adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Before I place the motion, we didn’t quite reach our objective tonight, regarding the invitation which was extended by myself earlier this afternoon, I think we will carry on with it this evening. It’s in room 228. We will be pleased to see any and all members who can attend, as well as members of the press.

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

Motion agreed to.

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