Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, could I take this opportunity to introduce grade 10 students from Cameron Heights Collegiate in Kitchener under the direction of Mr. Rickert? Would the members join in welcoming them?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I would like to rise on a point of privilege which I believe the members would wish me to raise on their behalf. It concerns a news item carried on page 5 of yesterday’s Globe and Mail and later on page 86 of the Toronto Star dealing with the allowances paid under the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act and the amendments that I introduced in this House on Tuesday.

The press report, brief as it was, contained a number of inaccuracies which should be corrected without delay. No reporter spoke to me about the bill after I introduced it. I can only assume, therefore, that the errors have resulted from an incomplete reading of the Act passed in 1973 and a failure to examine carefully the new bill and what I said about it at the time of first reading.

The 11-line item carried by the Globe and Mail on Wednesday contained at least three major errors and another point which could be misleading. The basic pension entitlement of members does not change in any way under the new bill and I would like to point this out, Mr. Speaker. The new bill merely provides authority and an approval mechanism to adjust the allowances paid to members already retired, many of them many years ago, or their surviving spouses.

I was very careful to point out at the time of first reading that while the government will propose a certain formula for this adjustment, it will be up to the Board of Internal Economy to make such a determination.

I mentioned three per cent for every year since retirement of a member prior to Dec. 31, 1973. This is three per cent of the existing pension, not three per cent of the salary as was suggested in the article. It should be stressed that neither the bill nor the suggested formula will change the pensions of any member now in this House. The present basic pension of 4.5 per cent of average salary received, as the Globe and Mail put it, is only applicable if a member who was a member prior to the enactment of the 1973 Act, elected to stay on the old plan. Part II of that Act passed in 1973 provided an option of which most members availed themselves and which applies to all new members.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, under part II of the Act, the contribution by the member was seven per cent of his salary and the pension is four per cent of annual average remuneration for the first 10 years of service. The percentage drops to three per cent for the next 10 years of service and to 2½ for the next two years, for a maximum of 75 per cent. A basic pension of 4.5 per cent of salary will apply to a few present members and to most ex-members, but not to anyone who came into this House after 1973. It will be a much lower percentage for most of the present members in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, from the three errors drawn to your attention up to this point, you will see that it is completely incorrect to state that the members’ pensions will now be 7.5 per cent of their average salary, times the years of service.

The next item is perhaps less serious. It concerns the age of pension eligibility. The statement in the Globe and Mail said “55 years [of age] after five years of service.” This could only be true for those who retained the old plan. Under part II of the existing legislation, the qualifying number is 60 years when adding age to years of service. Fifty-five years of age plus five years of service could qualify a member for pension; of course, 40 years of age with 20 years of service, or 50 years of age with 10 years of service would give the same qualification. However, there has to be the minimum of five years’ service.

Mr. Speaker, I felt it was important to set the record straight lest the public be left with a completely unwarranted impression about the government’s proposals in respect to pensions of the current members. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The member for St. George.

CONTINGENCY RETAINERS

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): My first question is of the Attorney General.

Mr. Good: The minister has had it.

Mrs. Campbell: I may have missed his reply to the question put by my colleague, the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer), on the matter of the lawyers in this province acting on a contingency basis. Has the Attorney General addressed himself to that question? Is he prepared to give a statement in this House at this time?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, the member’s colleague, the member for Downsview, I believe asked that question of me some two weeks ago, perhaps as long back as three weeks ago. I had not at that time turned my mind to it and he pressed me as to my personal views. At that time I said I was not supportive of it, and that has been reported in the media that I personally was not supportive of it. I have not had any conversations with anyone on behalf of the Law Society with reference to this particular matter. I am not anticipating that they will consult me on it. There’s no need for them to do it. But I have not had any conversations with the treasurer or the secretary of the Law Society or anyone else, and I am not anticipating that they will approach me. I don’t know what stage it’s at insofar as the Law Society of Upper Canada is concerned.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the Attorney General undertake to advise the Law Society of Upper Canada directly and not via the press as to his position on this important matter?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would question the propriety, Mr. Speaker, of my being presumptuous enough to advise the Law Society of my personal views. If called upon, I would express them as I have here in the House. Until such time as that occurs, I think it might be inappropriate for me to advance gratuitous advice to those learned members of that profession.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Supplementary: In view of the minister’s own personal opinion and in view of the problems caused by the contingency fee, does he not feel that as a minister of the Crown and as a member of the government in this province that he should do all in his power to discourage the profession which is actively considering this contingency fee and that he should make his views known to them? In fact, the minister should even consider what steps he might take if a contingency fee is brought into this province.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would have to turn my mind to what proposed steps I might take. Again, I think this is a matter of conjecture. We are all assuming that the Law Society is going to permit contingency fees.

Mr. Roy: They’re discussing this.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It may well be discussed, but that doesn’t mean that it will be permitted. I would think that a substantial number of the profession would very seriously oppose the contingency fee arrangement, which seems to be very inconsistent with the background, I think, of those of us who are members of that society in this House. I haven’t talked to any member of this House who is a solicitor who has endorsed it even in private conversation. While we may not be reflective of the profession as a whole, I think we represent a pretty good cross-section. I just don’t think the Law Society would move in that direction without exploring it very much in depth and very responsibly. I’m not going to anticipate what the Law Society is going to do until such time as I learn of its decision with reference to that matter.

Mr. Roy: If I might have one further supplementary on this: In view of the minister’s answer and in view of his concern about it and the concern of all the members, as expressed by my colleague the member for Downsview, therefore, now that he has addressed himself to that problem and to that question, even hypothetical though it might be, is he saying to us here today that he has no contingency plan and he has not discussed at all with his colleagues what he might do if a contingency fee type of billing is approved by the Law Society of Upper Canada?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think that would be most conjectural on my part in this particular instance. The matter may be turned down by the Law Society. I don’t visualize my role as Attorney General being that of one offering gratuitous advice to the Law Society of Upper Canada. If the hon. member would welcome gratuitous advice, perhaps we could meet after the question period and I’d be glad to give him some.

Mr. Roy: Unfortunately it has been given.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question. Since the Attorney General is by virtue of his office a member of the benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada, does the Attorney General intend to participate in the discussions of the benchers of the Law Society with respect to the question of whether or not the society will change to a contingency fee basis and if not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, Mr. Speaker, I don’t propose to attend a meeting of the benchers of the Law Society and address myself to it, because I would like to keep my functions completely separate in the event that I may take a position contrary to that shared by my colleagues who sit as benchers of the Law Society.

Mr. Speaker: This will be a final supplementary.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Why doesn’t the minister admit that he’s operating under the old pilot’s maxim?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The old what maxim?

Mr. Sargent: The old pilot’s maxim: There are old pilots and bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots. When in doubt, don’t. The Minister of Government Services will agree with that, won’t he?

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): What is the member for Grey-Bruce?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Doesn’t the minister have any answer for that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No. I always operate under the maxim of doing what my mother told me. She always told me to fly low and slow.

Mr. Roy: The minister has been doing that.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Certainly slow.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George.

WELFARE PROGRAMMES

Mrs. Campbell: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Community and Social Services. In view of the fact that the disparity in income between a senior couple and a mother with one child ranges from $183.94 per month for a mother and young child on general welfare assistance to $144.94 for a mother with an older child on family benefits, what is the minister going to do to adjust this disparity?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to look into this disparity.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister has known these figures, as we have, for some time? Has he not already looked into it, since it was drawn to his attention during estimates?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t aware of the disparity specifically that the member refers to. As I indicated, I will be pleased to look into the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

OIL AND GAS PRICES

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Premier, in the absence of the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough). In view of the fact that Gulf and Imperial Oil have announced that in this province, where controls have been imposed beyond Aug. 15, an increase of five cents a gallon which they are now putting into effect will be even greater by reason of that imposition, what is the Premier’s position on it?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would reply to, I assume, the acting leader of the Liberal Party today on this momentous occasion, that unlike her colleagues in Ottawa we have done something about it.

Mr. Sargent: Get off that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What does the member mean, “get off it”? It is true. They are the ones who have put us in this position right across this country.

Mr. Roy: The Premier is really upset.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I only say, Mr. Speaker, that we intend to maintain the price freeze. We are looking forward to Mr. Isbister’s report as it relates to this whole question and, unlike the federal government of this country, we are quite prepared to take whatever action is necessary to protect the consumers of this province.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): This government hasn’t proven that in the past. There has been no evidence of that in the past.

Mr. Roy: The Premier is beginning to sound like “Wacky” Bennett.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York South with a supplementary.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): A supplementary question of the Premier: Since the province has the constitutional power, as is being exercised by both British Columbia and Nova Scotia on this issue, and since the leaders of the industry have reaffirmed that they are going to take an extra three cents for these mythical losses during the 90-day freeze, what is the Premier going to say now with regard to their proposal to add the three cents and to pick up those losses in perpetuity?

Mr. Renwick: Yes. Either the Premier answers that or I’ll have to answer it for him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Riverdale wants to answer that question. I am quite prepared to have him answer it.

Mr. MacDonald: I prefer to have the Premier’s answer.

Mr. Renwick: Nothing -- nothing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, don’t count on that.

Mr. Deans: Nothing, because it will be after the election.

Mr. MacDonald: I have had no answer to my question. Since the province has the constitutional responsibility and the heads of industry have reaffirmed they are going to take this extra three cents for their mythical losses during the 90-day freeze period, what is the Premier going to do about it and why doesn’t he say now?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think there is any purpose in prejudging what Mr. Isbister may or may not recommend. I would only say to the hon. member that if the oil companies are suggesting at this point that they are going to have a greater increase in this province than has been the case in other provinces of Canada, they should do a little rethinking of their position.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce with a supplementary?

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the cost of gasoline is a most important factor to a man driving to his job --

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Especially in a white Cadillac.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): What’s the question?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: -- and in view of the fact that applications for rate increases by Bell Telephone and gas companies have to come before hearings, why doesn’t the Premier make the oil companies justify their applications for increases in gasoline prices?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I tell you this, Mr. Speaker, I wish there were some way of making the federal government justify its 10-cent-a-gallon increase. It would be very relevant if we could.

Mr. Renwick: The Tories are on a losing team and they know it.

Mr. Sargent: Ontario’s tax is 10 cents a gallon --

Mr. Roy: The Tories think they have found an issue.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know we have.

Mr. Speaker: Order! A final supplementary. The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question of the Premier: Can the Premier back up the bombast of his threats about what he might do about petroleum prices after the 90-day period with any concrete evidence of any time in the past when the Ontario government has lifted a finger on behalf of the consumers of petroleum products?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member has been away for the past two or three weeks.

Mr. Sargent: Where has the Premier been?

Hon. Mr. Davis: My recollection is that not too many days ago we imposed a price freeze on petroleum products in this province for 90 days --

Mr. MacDonald: That is phoney; that is a hoax.

Mr. Cassidy: Never once before; the government has sat idly by.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Which is something that the member’s socialist colleagues out west haven’t had the intestinal fortitude to do.

Mr. Cassidy: The government has sat idly by, year after year.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is all political baloney and the member knows it.

Mr. Renwick: This is the government House leader’s last day here. It is mine too.

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

BLOORVIEW HOSPITAL

Mrs. Campbell: My next question is of the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware of the many criticisms of Bloorview Hospital, including the deficiencies in the new building? For example, the elevators are too small, there are no “Hold” buttons, so children can push themselves in, and so forth. If he is aware of it, what does he propose to do about it? If he is not aware of it, would he look into it?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I’ll look into it.

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recognize the fact that sometimes it’s difficult to get down to a knowledge of these things if one is warming the bleachers at a baseball game; but I wonder if the minister could tell this House whether he is concerned that the programmes at Bloorview are custodial in nature rather than rehabilitative and community directed? If so, what does he propose to do about that?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I was prompted to rise on a point of personal privilege at the introduction of that second part of the question.

Mr. Roy: The minister can’t play baseball.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I was just kept on the bench in that baseball game for fear of showing up the other players. I want that understood. Secondly, the press gallery agreed that they should win. Isn’t that true? I look up above me.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): What is the minister’s batting average?

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): There’s a lot of bench to warm there.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I will look into the questions raised by the member and, rather than reply to them now, I’ll have more information when I talk to her about them.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): The minister just has to keep his chin up.

Mr. Laughren: Fly low.

Mr. Stokes: He’ll see that butterfly from there.

Mr. Renwick: It won’t help him to keep his chin up.

NORTHERN ONTARIO CONSTRUCTION STRIKE

Mrs. Campbell: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the situation which seems to be developing in northern Ontario, as reported in the Globe and Mail yesterday morning, could the minister advise what steps he is taking in the matter of this threatened strike; whether he has had his mediators in or what is he doing about it?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I assume the member is referring to the pulp and paper industry. I was speaking to Mr. Dickie in regard to the matter this morning. He tells me the situation up there is major, there’s no question of that. A strike would certainly appear to be involved.

Mrs. Campbell: We’re talking about construction.

Mr. Reid: It’s a construction strike.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): The minister is on the wrong strike.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We are going to do everything we can to get the parties together but, as members know, the Labour Relations Act of this province permits lawful strikes. If people cannot get together by unanimous consent then certainly labour has the right to go on strike and I’m not about to suggest that I interfere with that.

It appears as though there will be a relatively large strike in the paper industry. Our services are available. We are presently doing what we can to get the parties together and will continue to do so, but it is following the normal course, as I said on Tuesday to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon).

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: I was referring to the construction labourers in my question. Is the answer the same there?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes, Mr. Speaker, with some limitation. I don’t regard the construction situation as quite as large a scene as I do the pulp and paper industry; but, yes, we’re certainly working on that one on the same basis.

REMOVAL OF SALES TAX FROM AUTOMOBILES

Mrs. Campbell: I would, again in the absence of the Treasurer, ask the Premier if it is a fact that the government is refusing to extend the sales tax rebate to foreign-built cars, having in mind the fact of a number of people employed in that industry in Canada whose jobs will apparently be affected by this decision?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the member for St. George, in the absence of the Leader of the Opposition who I assume would ordinarily have asked this question --

Mrs. Campbell: He usually does.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- the Treasurer met with representatives of the industry yesterday in Peterborough and the position of the government has not changed.

The Treasurer did indicate to the people who were there that we obviously were not unsympathetic to their problems and that we would be prepared to meet with them when they did a more thorough analysis of what they think the potential problem is.

I met personally with a group myself this morning and gave them the same assurance. Of course, Mr. Speaker, we are sympathetic to the potential problem that may be created in particular for the dealers of the imported cars. But it also must be stated that our objective at the same time is to stimulate the production of domestic vehicles in this country. That is the prime thrust of the government’s position.

However, as I said, Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer did assure the group that met with him yesterday that we would be prepared to discuss the issue with them in a period of time when there is perhaps some greater amount of statistical data that could relate to their problem.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Prior to the cabinet’s decision on this, did the Premier have any discussion on the matter with Ontario Hydro? Hydro’s vice-chairman, the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Evans), said that he hoped the Treasurer of the province would change his proposal to give the five per cent discount on foreign cars as well. His comments were sent out on Hydro letterhead. I wonder if the Premier might answer whether it is a fact that the rebate cheques sent will have the Premier’s signature on them? Is that so?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Who is the member for Ottawa East -- Jungle Jim?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t comment on the first part of the question -- and I know the member for Ottawa East is eagerly looking to the gallery, as is his custom, as he’s waiting for my answer to the second part of it.

Mr. Roy: Just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Where is the whip, Jungle Jim?

Hon. Mr. Davis: They have missed the member looking at them the past couple of weeks; or they’ve missed looking at the member.

Mr. Roy: I have been here more than the Premier -- and they haven’t missed him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say to the member for Ottawa East that to the best of my knowledge my name has not appeared on any government cheques in the past four years.

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Not for $15,000 anyway.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think that it has -- that’s subject to correction. Certainly, there is no plan that we would alter that with respect to the rebate cheques. Mind you, I have to say this, if you have not seen my signature it is doubtful that anyone would recognize it anyway. That’s totally irrelevant but it’s doubtful, it’s doubtful.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Roy: The Premier is right.

Mr. Renwick: Is the Premier printing any money with his picture on it?

RENT CONTROL

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I have a final question of the Minister of Housing. In view of the fact that this session is now rather well along, would the minister be prepared today to advise the House as to his position --

Mr. Roy: Is the minister sitting on tacks down there?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Is the member for Ottawa East being paid $15,000?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for St. George is placing her question.

Mr. Deans: Why is her colleague heckling her so?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is all he knows how to do.

Mrs. Campbell: He is being provoked by the Premier, Mr. Speaker -- if I’m being asked that question.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): I can hear the member for St. George so far.

Mrs. Campbell: Right. Is the minister prepared at this time to tell the House the position of this government on the matter of rent review?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, no I am not prepared to do so at this particular time. I have stated that I hope to be before the House adjourns. I’m not sure whether it will adjourn this week or next week; but in any event the government has discussed the matter very seriously and fully in the last two days. I’m expecting to make a statement very shortly.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary questions: Is it true that the government could implement some form of rent review or rent control without bringing in any legislation?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’m not a lawyer but I would suggest there is that possibility, yes.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: Is there already any provision in statute to allow the government to implement rent review or control without the House sitting and passing judgement on a bill?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, let me determine first of all the terminology of rent review or rent control in some areas we have a rent review board.

Mr. Cassidy: He is playing games with tenants again. He throws dice with people’s lives.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have other places where they have rent control. I would think that rent control would have to have the permission of the House --

Mr. Cassidy: There is no sensitivity at all. The people are prisoners of an economic system.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- but I would ask the hon. member to ask the Attorney General, who is quite knowledgeable in those affairs, which I am not.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary; the member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: Can we have the minister’s undertaking that this will not happen prior to the election; that he will not present some form of rent control as election bait?

Mr. Roy: He’ll probably give the member an undertaking that it will.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, we never worry about elections because we know we are going to win the election anyway. All we want to do is to make sure we do the best for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Sargent: This is the last day for all those fellows over there, I’ll tell them that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think perhaps it’s the turn of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre for his supplementary and then a final one from the member for St. George.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Housing not agree that the single greatest failure of this government over the last four years is its failure to lift a single finger on behalf of the millions and millions of tenants over the province?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think the single greatest failure has been on the part of the NDP in not understanding what really is happening in the Province of Ontario.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If there ever was a government in Canada that has done more than the Province of Ontario in the last few years I don’t know where it was.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The Province of Ontario has led the way at all times.

Mr. Renwick: The minister has just written his epitaph.

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary. The member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I suppose we should commend the minister for his modesty but could the minister, since he now seems to indicate that he can bring this in in the absence of the House --

Mr. Cassidy: He has set some kind of a low as minister.

Mr. Yakabuski: Has the member for Ottawa Centre got rent control in his building?

Mrs. Campbell: -- would he tell us by what road he would go to do that? How would he bring it in -- by regulations, is that the suggestion? And regulations attached to what?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, all I indicated was the government was discussing the supply and demand situation in regard to housing for Ontario. We have taken very definitive action in regard to the supply.

As to the other answer, that will be decided at a future date. I don’t expect it will be decided today. How we’ll do it will depend on what we decide to do and that will come out in due course.

Mr. Sargent: Who is he going to ask?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

SYNCRUDE AGREEMENTS

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Energy: Does the minister intend to table the Syncrude agreements?

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, when the question was raised the other day I said I would consider it and discuss it. I haven’t had the opportunity to do so. If there is time in the session --

Mr. Cassidy: And he carefully waited until the session ended.

Mr. Renwick: Come on, give us the agreement. The minister doesn’t have to consider it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you. Knowing full well that there is going to be no time from this day on during this session to table the agreements, why is the minister hiding those agreements from the public?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There is no hiding, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Renwick: Of course he is -- $ 100 million.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There is no hiding. I just said I would consider it. I don’t know whether the House is rising today or a week today, whenever.

Mr. Sargent: Neither does the Chairman of the Management Board (Mr. Winkler).

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If there is time, and my colleagues agree, it will be done.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: Will there be a report before the House?

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

MORTGAGE MONEY

Mr. Deans: Could I ask of the Premier, in the meetings already held between the Premier, the Treasurer and chartered banks, insurance companies and trust companies in the Province of Ontario with regard to mortgage money and interest rates, have any agreements been reached with regard to additional amounts of mortgage money being made available? If so, by which banks, trust companies or insurance companies, and at what reduced interest rates?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have had meetings with representatives from the banking institutions, the loan and trust companies and the insurance companies -- I don’t believe the meetings covered representation from every insurance company, for instance. We put before them the proposal that was outlined in the Treasurer’s statement of a few days ago, whereby we were anxious to have additional funding from the private sector -- basically, the lending institutions -- as part of our programme whereby there would be a mortgage interest rate subsidy. In other words, the proposal is that the lending institutions would go by the existing interest rates and there would be a form of mortgage subsidy which would, of course, be to the benefit of the purchaser of a home.

We outlined to them, in general terms, the objectives as far as the dollar amount was concerned. They are receiving, today I believe, or tomorrow, a more detailed outline of how we see the process -- its administration -- working. I think it is fair to state, Mr. Speaker, that the impression I gained -- and, I believe, the Minister of Housing and the Treasurer did as well -- was that the institutions were really quite -- at least I was quite encouraged as to their reaction.

Quite obviously there is some degree of homework to be done; they have to assess just what their lending capacities are over the next six or eight months. However, I was quite encouraged by their response and I am optimistic there will be additional funding, but I can’t give any amount here as it relates to our mortgage interest subsidy programme because I don t have that information from the lending institutions.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Is the Premier in a position to tell us which of these institutions the Premier and the Treasurer have already met with, since the Treasurer said the other day that they hadn’t yet met with the insurance companies and the trust companies, only the chartered banks?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I assumed the hon. member was familiar with it, because I think I’ve read it, at least. We met with the loan and trust companies, either the end of last week or beginning of -- no, we met with both the loan and trust companies and the insurance companies, I believe, on Monday afternoon. We have met with all three groups.

Mr. Deans: At what point does the Premier feel he will be able to make a definitive statement with regard to the amounts of additional funding to be available for housing in the province and what interest rates he is setting? What is the actual interest rate he is discussing with these companies?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it can’t be simplified in that form. A certain part of it will depend on what date the lending institutions will make available the funding; at what time the application is made by the people seeking the mortgage funds; and what the interest rates are on that particular occasion. As I said to the hon. member, we are sending to them today -- or the Ministry of Housing is, I believe, today or tomorrow shall we say a detailed proposal, partly relating to the administration of the programme, whether it should be administered by the lending institutions or by the ministry. They already know the rough amount we are seeking and the Minister of Housing could give the member that figure -- $300 million and some, I believe; I forget the exact figure. We will know, I would think, in a very few days the reaction from the various lending institutions and I just repeat that I was encouraged by their response at the meetings.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary, the member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: Recognizing the fact that homework needs to be done, is there anything the Premier can tell this assembly as to a time frame on which they are working?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think this was stated by the minister and by the Treasurer. We are looking at ways and means to expedite some of the existing proposed agreements under OHAP and we are looking at a time frame -- for one aspect of it -- of the end of this calendar year and no later than, I believe, March 31. That is the time frame in which we expect the funds to be flowing.

As far as concerns getting some word back from the institutions, I expect we would have it within a week or ten days; perhaps at the latest two weeks.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary questions: Specifically, did the Premier and the Treasurer and the Minister of Housing discuss with the life insurance companies the very substantial fall-off in the investment by the life insurance companies in residential house mortgages?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we raised a number of items with them. We did point out to the insurance companies that there had been a shift in terms of their mortgage financing from residential to, shall we say commercial or perhaps industrial. I don’t think we had it broken down. There is also some shift from new mortgage financing in the residential area to mortgage financing on existing homes.

We pointed out to them that we recognized that, unlike the loan and trust companies which can go into the market and borrow almost daily, the insurance companies -- and I’m making no brief one way or the other -- are in a somewhat different position in that their cash flow and their funding is available, shall we say on a rather stable but progressive basis. This is why we are consulting with them now, because they go by way of block funding with some of their customers and we were anxious to have this proposal put before them before any commitments were made as to their expenditures in the next calendar year. That fact was pointed out to them along with others.

It’s a question of trying to reassess their priorities. I personally suggested to them that we did not want to discourage commercial or industrial development by any means, but because of the social need for housing and the impact we felt it would have on the construction industry -- although there is still the impact if it’s commercial or industrial -- that was perhaps one area they might look at to resolve what is a problem internally for them, unlike the loan and trust companies and the banks which do have access to -- well their amounts are more fluid and they can go into the market; they can sell trust certificates, etc., to accumulate money which the insurance companies cannot.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Renwick: By way of a further supplementary question: Is it not up to the government to indicate to the life insurance companies that the present level of investment in residential mortgages is unacceptable and that even a modest increase in the part of the life insurance companies, of say 10 per cent additional moneys into the residential housing mortgage market, would make a substantial contribution to the relief of the housing industry in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I don’t recall the 10 per cent as a figure being used, but I did point out to them -- I forget the percentages, I don’t have the tables here as to the amount going into commercial or industrial -- that a shift from there to residential -- particularly new residential, not existing residential -- could help resolve the problem.

The other point that I think has to be made, and I’m sure it is known to the hon. member is, that mortgages I think, are at about a 72 per cent factor as a percentage of the investment portfolios of institutions. I could be wrong in that figure.

Mr. Renwick: Not the life insurance companies.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No; but the life insurance companies have a higher investment in mortgages than do the banks, quite a bit higher.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? I think we have explored this question quite thoroughly and we’re running out of time.

ACTING MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

Mr. Deans: One question of the Premier, he can probably answer yes or no: Has he appointed an acting Minister of Agriculture and Food?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not appointed an acting Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I should clarify that. Under the procedures of the government, and perhaps this isn’t known to the hon. members, there is already an order in council, that is always there rather permanently, whereby in cases of illness or what have you, there are, I believe, either one or two other ministers who are listed as the acting ministers for purposes of signing orders in council and so on. But there hasn’t been, shall we say, an appointment in the sense of the word that a particular person is acting minister.

Mr. Deans: Who is the acting minister?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I believe it is the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman). I don’t know whether he is first on the list.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Does he know?

Mr. Sargent: Another $6,000.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not sure whether the Minister of the Environment is first on the list; there are two listed. I’ll find out for the hon. member who does sign the orders in council.

Mr. Renwick: He is fanning himself.

Mr. Deans: Yes, I don’t doubt that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He doesn’t want to assume the problems, I tell the members that.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO FOR MANPOWER

Mr. Deans: Is it true that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. McNie) in charge of manpower has resigned his responsibilities?

Mr. Sargent: He should.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton West has not resigned from the cabinet.

Mr. Sargent: What has he done?

Mr. Deans: Does the Premier have any indication of what the hon. Minister without Portfolio in charge of manpower has been doing over the last six months with regard to the manpower question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have some very specific knowledge of what the hon. minister has been doing.

Mr. Stokes: Supplementary.

Mr. Deans: Does the Premier think it would be possible to share that information with the public and indicate what actions might be forthcoming from the government with regard to the major unemployment problems that confront a great number of people?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister has been involved, actually, with two policy fields over the past, I believe, six or seven months. A fair amount of documentation has been undertaken in terms of the manpower situation -- the question of employment; the question of further initiatives, particularly by the federal government in terms of the manpower retraining programmes; the relationship with industry; actually, the documentation is rather full.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): What does that mean?

Mr. Speaker: Further questions.

Mr. Cassidy: That is a bit hard to believe.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well it is true. The member may not believe it, but it is true.

Mr. Cassidy: Well let’s see the results from it.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Premier indicate who is going to assume the role of a manpower co-ordinator, particularly in northwestern Ontario where we have over 1,500 jobs waiting for people to fill them along with a potential of 15,000 jobs over the next five years? When is the government going to retrain people and provide the necessary infrastructure for these 15,000 people who will be coming on the labour market in the next five years?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know that we’re thinking of, shall we say a manpower co-ordinator. We know of the potential that exists because of the potentially very significant developments created by the private sector of this province, which the hon. member, when he is not in this House, so enthusiastically endorses, as he did at the cabinet meeting in Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: I do it wherever I go.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Right on.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He does? Well I am delighted to hear it. I mean, I can think of platforms where I would like to have him say some of the things he said in Thunder Bay, and I can assure the hon. member that --

Mr. Stokes: We think the government should step in when private enterprise abdicates its responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh that; I don’t want to get into a debate. I can quote the member a few passages where he and his people were ready to move in -- like yesterday they were ready to move in!

Mr. Reid: Tomorrow starts yesterday.

Mr. Sargent: Offer him a cabinet post.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Tomorrow; and we start paying for it yesterday or something.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): That is the free enterprise section speaking.

Mr. Cassidy: We have been paying for this government for 32 years.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say to the hon. member if he says that the people have been paying for this government -- all of us here -- for the past 32 years, I just want him to look at just what this province has accomplished for the people in the province in the last 32 years.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: They are getting great value.

Mr. Cassidy: They are not saying that about the Premier out there.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member opposite was very anxious to find out. Actually, both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) are listed as those ministers who can sign orders in council for the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart).

Mr. Roy: Both of them?

Mr. Renwick: That’s the first time we knew about it.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Wentworth have further questions?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have another question? We are running out of time. There is indication of many new questions.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have only taken 12 minutes. My colleague was asking a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I realize that.

An hon. member: Why didn’t the member for Wentworth tell his colleague it was four minutes?

OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Deans: May I ask the Attorney General if it’s his intention to appoint a committee of the House that will come up with the rules and procedures to be used by the Ombudsman; and if so, when?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes to the first question; and within the next few days to the second.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, since it is evident to all of us that the session ought not to go beyond 10:30 tonight, when does he propose to appoint that committee?

An hon. member: The member for Wentworth is driving the girls mad.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Within the next few days, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Are there further questions from the member for Wentworth?

CRIME CONFERENCE IN TORONTO

Mr. Deans: I have one final question of the Premier; it’s not the last one, but it’ll do. Has the Premier received a petition, signed by over 100 people, with regard to their concerns over the Palestine Liberation Organization being permitted into Canada; and if so, what further representation does he intend to make to the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know that I can refer to that specific petition. I have had a fair amount of correspondence from people who are interested in this particular situation. The members opposite are fully aware of the letter that I sent to the first minister of Canada. I am sure the members opposite are also aware that I have had an acknowledgement of that letter, but I have not had a reply as to what the intent of the federal government is on this issue.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing.

RAILWAY RELOCATION

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Has there been a decision made on where the moneys will be provided for railway relocation studies in the province? Has he received the recommendations of the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee; and if not, when does he expect to receive those recommendations and when is a finalization of the decision to be made?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: First of all, Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made as to the municipalities which will be studied. Secondly, I guess I’d have to say that I haven’t received a recommendation from the PMLC. We had asked them to make such a recommendation, as we had committed them to do. They took the names of the eight municipalities that were listed and sent them back to me, asking me to pick them. We haven’t done that as yet, because we have now to discuss it with the federal government to see how many municipalities we can study within Ontario and what funds will be available. So no decision has been made as yet.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: We just have about four minutes left and there are many, many new questions.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Mr. Speaker, this is the last day of the sitting too.

Mr. Sargent: Just add 10 minutes; that’s okay.

Mr. Speaker: I’ll allow the member one supplementary.

Mr. R. S. Smith: One short supplementary: The decision is then up to the minister and this government. The PMLC is now out of it. Is that right?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that from the last communication I have had the PMLC in essence has abdicated its responsibility. They have suggested we make the choice. We cannot make that choice on our own. We will have to discuss it with Mr. Danson, as we have done in the past where we had three-level discussions. We now have to go back and tell Mr. Danson what the situation is -- although I am sure he is aware of it -- have a discussion with him and then try to select the municipalities.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

STAFFING AT PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I have a question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister decided that his new policy of just having one attendant on many psychiatric wings throughout the province is in error? Particularly, is he able to give a statement on the death while on duty, of the one attendant in one of those wings in the London Psychiatric Hospital last week, which was discovered when the next attendant, a Mrs. Jeffrey, came on at the end of the shift? Is there any explanation; and is he changing his policy in view of this tragic incident?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for a full report.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East.

COMPENSATION FOR HOME OWNERS

Mr. P. Taylor: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Housing. Can the minister say whether or not he is considering compensation for those people in the Coulbourne HOME project who could not wait any longer for action on the sodding of their properties and who have gone ahead on their own, at their own expense, to sod their properties? Can he say whether there will be compensation for them now that the resolution of the problem for the other 30-odd homeowners seems to be progressing rather well?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with this particular area as it happens to have some interest as far as I am concerned. In any event, the problem referred to by the hon. member is not as he has explained.

In the first instance, the builder entered into an agreement with the homeowners, but the overall agreement between the Ontario Housing Corp. and the builder and the owner determined whether there would sodding or seeding. In the master agreement it was determined it would be seeding in this case. I expect that in the future, as far as I know, there will be sodding in all cases, but in this particular case it was seeding. The ones who went ahead have done so properly and those who have not should go ahead right away to seed and make their homes look as good as the other homes are at the present time.

Mr. P. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to prolong the issue but the minister is wrong.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

TRANSFER OF LAND FOR INDIAN RESERVATIONS

Mr. Stokes: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Why has it taken his ministry five years to effect the transfer of land from the Province of Ontario to the federal government which would allow the seven satellite communities of the Big Trout Lake Indian Band to get reserve status? Why five years?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that it has taken exactly five years. I think the hon. member is aware there have been many discussions both at Ottawa and in the field with the various bands. It is not an easy thing to bring together those various groups of people who have broken away from the Big Trout Lake Band and set themselves up at Sachigo, Muskrat Dam, and a few other places. These things are being worked out. It is my understanding that the surveys have been completed and all we are waiting for now is the paper work.

Mr. Stokes: When?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

PUBLIC HOUSING RENTS

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing, if I could get his attention, In order to assist public housing tenants improve their conditions, and possibly to save sufficient funds to get out of public housing, is the minister considering exempting the spouses’ and/or the children’s income in calculating the amount of rent to be charged?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I had a policy meeting this morning. In the very near future I expect to have a government statement which will determine the actual facts in relation to the amount of rent paid by public tenants.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister considering using an income tax formula when a certain amount of the income is exempted?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, at this time I can’t divulge to the members of the House what we are suggesting. It has to be a matter determined by the government in general; but I say again we are reviewing the present policy and will have it fully discussed. I expect a statement will be issued by myself in the very near future.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister will succumb to the industry again.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired. I realize there were several questions yet to be asked and some answers to be given, but they will have to await another day.

Petitions.

Mr. Foulds: Let’s have unanimous consent to extend the question period, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, can I move unanimous consent for an extension of 10 minutes?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Presenting reports.

Mr. R. K. McNeil from the standing resources development committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 111, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

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

Mr. Good: Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House? So ordered.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I can’t get on at any other time, I suppose I will get on under bills.

PUBLIC HOSPITALS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Roy moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Public Hospitals Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, these amendments to section 50 of the Act restrict the right of appeal from the hospital appeal board to the Supreme Court on questions of law. Previously, the right of appeal extended to questions of both law and fact, and the purpose of this legislation is to restrict the incessant appeals by hospital boards, which have unlimited funds; for instance, as in the Schiller case. It would limit their appeals to strictly questions of law.

Mr. Speaker: Just before the orders of the day, as is customary when we near the end of a session we read the names of the pages, the young people who have been serving us so faithfully and so well over the last six or seven -- in this case, eight -- weeks. Many of the young people had to leave earlier because of parental holidays and so on, but we still have a good nucleus here and I want to express our appreciation to them.

For the record, I would like to read their names and where they are from: Stuart Bundy, Toronto; Chris Clark, Windsor; Anne Cresswell, Scarborough; Hugh Duthie, Toronto; Carolyn Egerton, Weston; Peggy Grainger, Chatham; Jennifer Harper, Goderich; Monica Hoefert, Waterloo; Greg Hollyer, West Hill; Doug Kissick, Islington; Melanie McCann, Willowdale; Gillian McCulloch, Oakville; Vicki Mitchell, Toronto; Patti Mummery, Burlington; Donald Purser, Lakefield; Paul Reilly, Sault Ste. Marie; Peter Schnell, Scarborough; Stephen Skrilec, Thunder Bay; Bill Slavin, Mississauga; Shelagh U’Ren, Brockville.

Orders of the day.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, just before we proceed, so that all members are informed of the way the balance of the items will be called, No. 9 on the order paper will be called first and then, in committee of the whole House, Bill 108, Bill 100 and Bill 111. The first item, No. 9.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moves second reading of Bill 146, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act, 1973.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Wentworth wish to speak on this?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Just briefly.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Deans: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, what I have to say bears on this bill in this way, I think it makes a lot of sense that we should have some form of escalation clause for members who served many years ago and whose retirement allowance is considerably below what they might need for normal day-to-day living in 1975. My concern goes a little further than that. I hope that this is the forerunner of government legislation which will afford to all of the people who ever worked for the government an escalation clause which will be adequate to meet their needs -- not just an escalation clause, but an escalation clause that will be adequate to meet their needs.

I also hope that it will become an example for the private sector of the economy, so that they will understand that what may well have been adequate at the time of retirement, very rapidly, given the rate of inflation, becomes totally inadequate. I would be interested to know from the minister in charge of the bill, the hon. Minister of Government Services, when he intends to place before the Board of Internal Economy the formula that will be discussed and adopted or amended by that board for the purposes of the implementation of this escalation clause?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, in my statement on first reading of the bill I outlined that formula and what the government’s recommendation would be. It is now up to you at your convenience, Mr. Speaker, to call a meeting of the Board of Internal Economy where this can be discussed.

Mr. Deans: On a point of information if I may, I don’t want it to go to committee, but will there be a formal presentation made by the ministry to the Board of Internal Economy with regard to the formula and the way in which it was arrived at?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I think it was quite explicit in my statement on Tuesday.

Mr. Deans: We don’t deal with the minister’s statements.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t really feel that it’s my position to put forward any decided recommendation. Basically, I am individually prepared to recommend what was in the first report on the Legislature as done by the Legislature commission. It recommended three per cent per year for each year from the member’s retirement, up to the end of 1973. As I said in the statement, I would recommend that the 1974 escalation be eight per cent, which was the escalation that has been approved for the public servants and for the teachers of this province. That is my recommendation to the Board of Internal Economy.

My further recommendation, Mr. Speaker, will be that future escalation be on a basis similar to that provided under the Act introduced by the Chairman of Management Board and passed by this House a week or two ago.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I concur in what the minister has introduced here, except that I think there should be an improvement. What does disturb me concerning many of the fellows who have retired in the past is that they retired at an abnormally low rate of income. As a result, the pension provided to them, even with the escalating factor written in, doesn’t provide them with the same type of a pension as that of an individual retiring now with the same number of years of service in a similar capacity.

I think, Mr. Speaker, you have to progressively increase the pension allowance to the retirees, so that regardless of when they retire they have a pension equivalent to the individual who retires in the future. In other words, if an individual today is receiving $3,000 a year as a pension, 10 years from today he would only get $3,000, plus the various escalating percentages written in, whereas in my estimation he should be receiving a pension equivalent to the pension of an individual retiring at that future date.

I don’t think that this is really fair to those who retired some years ago. I can recall one particular individual whose pension allowance was, at the time of retirement, considered fairly satisfactory; but under today’s cost of living escalations it is not in keeping with what we, as members of the Legislature, should provide for him.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, replying to the member for Windsor-Walkerville; sure, I guess it would be very nice to go back to every retired member of the Legislature and give them the same pension as those who are going to be retiring in the next month or two or three -- or whenever it may be. That would be very nice. But, on the other hand, I don’t think that would be very reasonable on behalf of the taxpayers of this province.

Mr. B. Newman: Industry does it, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I don’t believe they do. Many members are former colleagues who retired some years ago. Some of them are getting escalation, quite considerable escalation now. I realize their pensions are very, very low in some cases. That’s why I have brought forward, and the government has brought forward, this bill. The bill is really an enrichment, to a degree, of the recommendations of the Camp commission, which was an all-party commission.

I guess one of the members representing the member’s party was on that commission, and is one of the pensioners who’s going to benefit from this recommendation -- and well he should. But on the other hand, some of the members who retired a number of years ago when the duties of a member of the Legislature involved five or six weeks a year --

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Those were the good old days.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- compared to the time and hours that it involves today, and you are quite aware of that difference, Mr. Speaker.

I am not saying this formula is the end-all, but it certainly does give escalations to some of these who are on very low pensions. There are, I believe, some 41 former members now receiving pensions of one degree or another and 11 widows are receiving pensions. I really feel that if anything some of the widows’ pensions are something that perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the Board of Internal Economy might take a special --

Mr. Good: And another 41 members over there not on pension who should be.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know what the hon. member is referring to but this is something that the board can look at. The bill as we have it allows the Board of Internal Economy to look at this whole matter and make revisions as they see fit.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 146, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act, 1973.

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

COLLEGES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Chairman: When the committee rose the other evening we had completed section 56, I believe, but before we go on perhaps we might deal with Mr. B. Newman’s motion that section 4 be deleted and the following substituted therefor: “Negotiations shall be carried out in respect of all terms and conditions of employment put forward by either party.”

Mr. Minister, I believe that was discussed, was it not, by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman)? Would you like to reply at this time and comment?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): That is correct, Mr. Chairman, and I gave in general the situation and the problems that change would create. I have the details with me today, though, and I will give them to the hon. members of the committee.

As I said on Tuesday night, college employees participate in two plans. There is the CAAT pension plan, which has OMERS as trustees, and it is a contributory plan with perpetually guaranteed benefits. In the event that this were to be made negotiable in the sense that was suggested by the hon. member, the government obviously would have to remove the guarantee if the plan were to be negotiable. Otherwise, the government responsibility for solvency would be inconsistent with negotiators determining the investments.

Of course, as I also mentioned, employees other than members of the bargaining units participate in the plan and there is a consultative committee regarding superannuation composed of all the interested parties, and this was introduced through direct negotiations and is presently operative.

Second, the teachers’ superannuation plan covers some CAAT college employees and it is enshrined in legislation and is therefore not negotiable. Section 52(1) of Bill 100 effectively prevents negotiation of superannuation since the Teachers’ Superannuation Act prevails, and CAAT teachers, participating in the plan are also effectively prevented from negotiating their superannuation, as I mentioned on Tuesday night, by virtue of section 49 of this bill.

There is further information, but I think that really sums up the reason for the position I’m taking that the superannuation part of section 4 must remain.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Do you have an extra copy of your explanation?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes. I will send it to you.

Mr. Laughren: Good, because the verbal one was not sufficient to clear the cobwebs out of my mind on this issue.

Hon. Mr. Auld: It will be well enshrined in Hansard, but I will send you a copy.

Mr. Laughren: I admit I don’t understand what you just said, but what bothers me is a very uneasy feeling that you’re using a bureaucratic method to get around allowing the college teachers to bargain for superannuation.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay”.

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Is it the wish of the committee that we stack this with the other amendments?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Is there any further discussion on any other section of the bill from section 57 on?

On section 57:

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 57(1)(h).

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment on section 57(1)(c).

For some time now, as perhaps the minister will recall during the various debates of his ministry’s spending estimates, I’ve raised the whole question of open budgeting within the colleges, because it seems to me that we will never arrive at a situation in the colleges where the people who are doing the work there feel comfortable or satisfied that the funds allocated to that particular institution are being spent in a proper way until they have access to all the information describing the way those funds are spread within the college.

Section 57(1)(c) states: “It is the duty of the commission ... to compile statistical information on the professional activities and salaries of employees.” It seems to me that we are just perpetuating the same kind of administrative bias that is in the colleges now. What we should be doing is saying: “Let’s open up the budgeting within those colleges.” That means opening up the budgeting to indicate how the money is being spent within that college; to what extent money is being spent by the upper echelons of the administration; how much is being spent on travel, for example; how much is being spent on public relations; how much money is being spent in all areas of the college. They are public institutions and the information as to how the money is spent should be public.

It doesn’t seem right to me that the duty of the commission, as outlined in this bill, should be to compile information only on the employees’ salaries and not on what’s happening in the rest of the college. You could have a tremendous imbalance of expenditure of funds at the administrative level in the college and, therefore, have a very small amount left over to spread among the employees of the college, the members of the bargaining unit. Surely that is wrong.

Mr. Chairman, if there was more time, I could show you administration charts from some of the various colleges and the tremendous differences in organization in the various colleges across the province. If you look at their organizational charts some of them appear to be tremendously top-heavy and others appear to be very lean and very efficient in their organization. I suspect that’s true.

I think that as long as we are compiling information -- at least, as long as the commission is compiling information of this nature -- it should be given the power and indeed the duty to compile information on all the moneys within the college and all ways in which that money is distributed within the colleges and not just among the employees in the bargaining unit. I think that’s an important distinction.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item (c) carry?

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, it is not going to carry until the minister responds and tells us why he won’t do that.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry. I’m informed this matter came up when we discussed the bill with the representatives of the Civil Service Association and at the time I indicated there was authority in the Act and in this section for the commission, if it deems it necessary to assist in negotiations, to get any information --

Mr. Laughren: Well, put it in there.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- on employees or those not in the bargaining unit. I’m informed it wasn’t necessary to amend this and that authority is within the Act. It’s partially in subsection (f) and partially in (a) and (b) and it may well be implied in (c).

Mr. Laughren: It seems strange you are allowing it to be implied as regards the administrative staff but you are putting it in as a duty of the commission with regard to the bargaining unit staff. I wasn’t kidding the other night when I said the crux of this whole bill was the management bias which shows up in sometimes subtle and sometimes not so subtle ways. We know the minister is fully aware that if there is one area, one level, of education in the Province of Ontario which is elitist and discourages participation of the faculty members and the students in the operation of the institution, it’s the community colleges.

To this day we do not have students or faculty members as voting members of boards of governors. All you are doing is perpetuating that kind of system by drawing a very clear line between the administrative staff of the college and the teaching staff. You are wrong; dead wrong.

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

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Mr. Chairman, I would like to support my colleague from Nickel Belt in his comments. Certainly one of the problems of any institution of education, be it the high school or elementary system where you are dealing with boards -- although I think in many cases they are somewhat better -- is the transfer of information. It is certainly true at the colleges and universities level.

It is very difficult to determine in either area the information which is germane and important to people whose livelihood is teaching and making that institution work. Here we have a clause in the bill which concerns statistical information on supply, distribution and professional activities and salaries of the employees, something which it is, perhaps, germane to obtain? I’m not too sure this is all that important. I’m not too sure at all to what use this is going to be put.

Certainly, to those employees the suggestion is that, for the college, as a whole, you provide and compile and be able to publish the information on matters relating to the rest of the personnel -- that is, the salaries of those excluded under schedules 1 and 2 -- in particular the allocation of those budgets should be a matter of public concern and certainly of public information. That should be in this bill and that should be a standard procedure which occurs in all the colleges and the universities of this province.

Mr. Laughren: Well said.

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

Mr. B. Newman: Yes, I do support the comments of the two previous speakers. I think everything should be placed on the table so that, as a result of comparison, you can arrive at an equitable solution to sometimes a probably extremely difficult problem.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item (c) carry? Carried.

Does the minister have an amendment to item (h)?

Mr. Bounsall: I have a few comments on (g) first, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: All right. The hon. member for Windsor West on item (g).

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, this is the section which makes it the duty of the commission to determine the manner of conducting and of supervising votes by secret ballot pursuant to this particular Act.

I really don’t think it is a proper role of this commission to indicate to the members of the two bargaining agents -- in the province-wide nature of their negotiations -- that their ballot on a given issue should be secret and it should be supervised. I think the union, the CSAO or the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, is quite capable of conducting its own ballots, of presenting the material that’s germane to the ballots which they are being asked to fill out. It is really a bit of an insult to both categories of employees under this Act to talk about supervision of their balloting and that a secret ballot be taken.

I have nothing, per se, against the taking of a secret ballot, but it should be a decision of the employees at the time. Certainly the conduct of that secret ballot -- which I would assume in most cases they would take -- is a matter for the employees’ organization, and not a matter to be thrust upon them.

If this clause remains in the bill, do I gather that the commission will be paying the cost of the taking of that secret ballot? They should if it remains in the bill, because they are foisting a particular system on the colleges. They are saying it is to be a secret ballot and that the commission is going to conduct it.

Now, maybe I should be a little clearer here. There will no doubt be a hall rented and a ballot taken on any offer, but the commission is going to determine the method of conducting the ballot. If there is any expense involved by the commission in deciding how that ballot is to be conducted -- people flying down or other groups getting together, and so on and so forth -- that part of the expense should be borne entirely by the commission. It’s the government’s system that is thrust upon the colleges. Those costs should not be borne by any college or any number of those colleges, or by the bargaining agent representing them.

The other main point: Is the government bearing that portion of the expense that will be involved in its method of conducting that secret ballot when the commission conducts that secret ballot? That’s important. That’s very important. That’s an expense which has been thrust upon them under this system in this Act.

The government should bear that particular cost. The cost of the balloting, the cost of the rental of the hall or what-have-you, would have been done anyway. In the normal course of events it would have been paid by the college group or the particular bargaining agent. But the government’s particular and peculiar method of conducting that secret ballot should be paid by and be an expense solely of that commission. I would like to hear the minister comment on that portion and, of course, say yes.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would be interested in the minister’s comments on how these ballots will be collected and how they will be counted. On the ratification vote on whether employees were to join the CSAO, I believe the balloting was done at each college separately and then the ballots were all brought together in one location before they were counted.

I would say to the minister that is surely rather an unusual procedure. It should be necessary public information that when you conduct a secret ballot, which might be at all the colleges, under the supervision of the commission and so on, that those ballots be counted at that location. In fact, the results at each location could and should be released as public information.

There could be a delay of some days while all those ballot boxes were collected in one spot in the province and then the ballots counted; it has happened in the past. This seems to me to be quite an unusual and unnecessary procedure, as well as an unnecessary delay, and open to criticism.

Now, I know there probably wasn’t any fiddling with those ballot boxes, but we are not dealing with the situation such as an election within one particular city. There, ballot boxes are at various places where it might be possible to get them all in one spot within an hour or two, but have those ballot boxes followed by the people concerned with running the election to the place where they are to be counted and for the counting to start. We are talking in this case, according to the way the last vote was taken, of a matter of days before those ballot boxes are assembled. There was a time delay in that and, of course, by the central method of counting, there was no identification of from which college those ballots came.

I would like the minister to comment on that and I would hope that when this secret ballot is taken and conducted by the commission -- for example, on the Council of Regents’ last offer -- the counting would be done on the various individual campuses and, moreover, the campus-by-campus results announced. I would hope that would be the method of doing is rather than any sort of return to what was just done, the central collection of all these ballot boxes from the 22 different locations in the province.

Mr. Chairman: Shall subsection (h) carry? Subsection (g), I’m sorry.

Hon. Mr. Auld: In connection with the points raised by the hon. member first of all, I was interested in his comments that the union should carry out the balloting. I am not suggesting for a moment that the CSAO would not carry out a proper secret ballot but J airs reminding the hon. members that it is not unknown in the past for there to have been ballots conducted by some organizations which were less than secret. In fact, I recall one, without specifying it, where it was totally secret; there were two ballot boxes and you voted “yes” in one and “no” in the other.

I think the purpose of this provision is to make it quite clear that justice is being done and justice appears to be being done and that it is a totally non-partisan, perfectly secret, untamperable ballot. As far as the cost is concerned, as the hon. member said, there would be some cost to whoever is doing it. It is not specified in this bill but as the hon. member knows the intention is that the cost, the normal cost, will be borne by whoever calls for the vote, whether it be the union or the Council of Regents. Any extraordinary costs -- I must say I don’t know what might be entailed; I don’t know what might be entailed in extraordinary costs -- I assume the commission in its own wisdom and in its work to achieve harmony and settlements would absorb them.

The third point -- I am sorry I have forgotten what the hon. member asked.

Mr. Bounsall: Central collection of ballot boxes.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Here again, this is not specified and I would assume that the commission will decide, perhaps in the case of specific votes, what is the most efficient and the best way to do the counting and to announce the results. It is again not specified. If it turns out that it is something which is being done and is totally unsatisfactory to either party, I am sure the commission would take that into consideration.

Mr. Bounsall: Speaking to the point again -- on the last point -- you would have no objection yourself, as minister, if on a ballot conducted in all the colleges on a given matter, those ballots would be counted on each college site and the result announced college by college? You would have no objection to that?

I gather what you are saying is this is one of the duties of the commission and the commission will decide this sort of thing. That’s quite legitimate if we are going to have this sort of system at all but I am interested in the minister’s comments on that. You would not be against the ballots being counted on site -- it’s under the supervision of the commission anyway -- and the results announced site by site?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to make any comments on it for fear somebody would accuse me of trying to bias the commission one way or the other. I think the section is written so they can use their best judgement on how to go about this and it does not specify in detail how a ballot will be conducted.

Mr. Bounsall: You are completely neutral on this topic, as far as your own feelings go? I could have said you have a “couldn’t-care-less” attitude but I’ll say neutral.

On the other point though, on the financing, my contention is that if rejection or acceptance of a contract is placed before a group of employees, under normal circumstances the employees would rent a ball, some place which is large enough for the facts to be presented, and the balloting take place and so on, and that cost would be borne by that group. This is the normal procedure.

My additional point is the cost under this system, where the conducting of that vote is to be supervised or could be supervised by the commission. That supervision may mean that they phone up one of their friends in Windsor, for example, if there is a vote at St. Clair College, and say, “Would you go out and we’ll pay you 10 bucks to see that it is supervised properly,” or they may be sending somebody down from Toronto, or there may be travel expenses involved for that person engaged in that part of this Act, in which the commission is taking up its supervisory role in that balloting.

This is a new and different type of provision that does not occur in normal labour relations. It’s that part, the cost of the supervision of that ballot, which I’m saying should not be borne by the council if it’s a vote that the council has to take of all its boards of the colleges. Nor should that cost be borne by any of the colleges per se or the college administration per se; nor should it be if it’s a vote that must be taken of the two different groups in the bargaining process; nor should that cost be borne by the employees individually on the campuses, or their bargaining agent, because it’s an additional cost which the commission occurs by deciding the particular method of conducting that ballot.

That’s the expense which I see the commission and none other than the commission bearing, over and above the normal costs of renting a hall and balloting, the costs associated with the supervision by the commission. We want to be very clear that that particular cost, this addition to this bill in that regard, be borne by the commission, therefore, and no one else.

Mr. Chairman: Does clause (g) carry? Carried. The hon. minister has an amendment to clause (h).

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that clause (h) of subsection 1 of section 57 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“(h) to advise the Lieutenant Governor in Council when, in the opinion of the commission, the continuance of a strike, lockout or closing of a college or colleges will place in jeopardy the successful completion of courses of study by the students affected by the strike, lockout or closing of a college or colleges.”

Hon. Mr. Auld: I may say, Mr. Chairman, that this is, again, following the amendment to Bill 100.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other member wish to comment? The hon. member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, I have a couple of questions of the minister. I wasn’t able to attend many of the sessions on Bill 100 because of other labour bill duties elsewhere, so possibly this question has been covered in the discussion on Bill 100: What is the reason for advising the Lieutenant Governor when, in the opinion of the commission, etc., etc., according to this bill, the strike or lockout will affect the completion of a course of study? What then takes place? What do you envisage taking place? What do you envisage the Lieutenant Governor in Council doing in that situation? It’s a bit of an unusual section; it involves a little bit of a different duty than all the rest which we give the commission.

The rest of the duties we give the commission are all sort of technical things, the facilitative roles and so on. But this one is a little bit different. They are making some political judgement here. Having looked at a given situation and said, “The students aren’t going to be able to complete their courses because of this particular strike or lockout,” they have then advised the Lieutenant Governor in Council as to that attitude. It’s a different type of decision they are making. They reach the conclusion that it will affect the completion of the course of studies of students and they inform the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

I find the whole arrival at that decision rather an interesting one, rather an unusual one. When they inform you, what is the purpose of that? What do you then do? What does the Lieutenant Governor in Council do with that information?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, as I say, this is the same provision in Bill 100 for the duties of the commission. I don’t think the council is making any political judgement. It is making a subjective judgement, I assume, on the effects of a strike or a lockout.

What the government will do on receipt of that report, I don’t know; but I think it’s quite proper that the commission, which in a sense is really the arbiter, should inform the government as to its opinion of the effects of a strike or a lockout. It doesn’t say when they do this; they might not. It would depend on timing.

I really can’t speculate what the government would do, because I really don’t know exactly what the commission might report.

Mr. Bounsall: The commission reports on whether the strike or the lockout will place in jeopardy the successful completion of the course of studies of the students involved. That’s all they are reporting on at that particular point under this section. It strikes me that what you have here is a very political section; it is the means by which the government can say, “We are going to not allow that strike to take place

Hon. Mr. Auld: Or the lockout.

Mr. Bounsall: Or the lockout, but we know there are going to be more strikes than lockouts, I would think, if there is any of either in this particular situation. They are going to use the commission as the reason by which you are going to come back into the Legislature and force them back to work. You can do that anyway, I know, but this is only there so you can say, “We are not really doing it on our own hook; the commission has recommended it. It’s our commission, so we have to support the commission.” Rather than seeking another and good way of ending that strike, you are going to be able to use that commission’s report as the means by which you force these people back to work, and that I profoundly disagree with.

Mr. Chairman: The hon member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the section. I think it makes good sense. The commission is really appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, as I understand it, following the similar provisions of the bill dealing with teachers, Bill 100.

This commission reports on matters of fact and ultimately, if a situation develops where there is the concern and conclusion that students will lose their year because of the continuing strike, then I think it is the duty of that commission to report as a matter of fact to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, which is the cabinet or the government of this province, with which body the responsibility ultimately rests.

If that means, as my friend no doubt surmises, that special legislation would be necessary to rectify an otherwise insoluble problem, then that’s a decision that would have to be made by this government. I further think that at that stage it would be a matter of public concern where all parties would be advised, where the public would be informed and where action would have to be taken. The ultimate responsibility, I repeat, is with the executive council and I think that is where the reporting should be. Accordingly, I support this section.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment proposed by the minister to section 57, subsection 1(h) carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other discussion on any other section of the bill and, if so, which one?

Mr. B. Newman: I have on section 57(2).

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I have two further amendments to section 57.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the hon. member will listen to the amendments of the minister before we continue the debate.

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that subsection 2 of section 57 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“(2) The commission may request an employer to provide information necessary to compile the statistical information referred to in clause (c) of subsection 1 and an employer shall comply with such a request within a reasonable period of time.”

Those last few words are added complementary to the same amendment to Bill 100.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I was going to make such an amendment so we will accept what the minister has said.

Mr. Chairman: Does any hon. member want to comment before I put it? Perhaps he can comment and then I will move the amendment if he likes. The hon. member for Windsor West may make his statement and then I will read the amendment.

Mr. Bounsall: It is the old argument we had in the debate on the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and those time limits supposedly placed in there. We talked about reasonable times and so on and so forth and there hasn’t been that great a speed-up in hospital disputes arbitration under those Acts. At the time we asked the then Minister of Labour, the former member for Stormont, what he meant by reasonable times and from occasion to occasion he was able to give what he meant by it and what he hoped would be a reasonable time. I would like to ask this minister that same question with respect to what he envisages to be a reasonable period of time.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I suppose it would depend on what was involved in getting them the information. In some cases it might be two days and in some cases it might be two months. It would depend on what would be involved on the part of the employer to dig out the information.

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

Motion agreed to.

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

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that section 57 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(3) The commission shall annually prepare a report on the affairs of the commission for the preceding year and the port should be tabled in the Legislature.”

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

Mr. B. Newman: That is in keeping with the amendment to Bill 100.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Windsor West wish to comment on the amendment?

Mr. Bounsall: Yes. I support this amendment so far as it goes, Mr. Chairman, but it would be much better, and we could have supported this with much more enthusiasm, if you had added the few additional words which found their way into the Workmen’s Compensation Act with respect to reporting. Particularly it is important with this new commission and this new method of operation.

The words which would have made me very happy to have seen added to the end of the minister’s amendment would be “and the commission shall report annually to a standing committee of this Legislature,” so that the members of the Legislature would be able to query the commission about its operations and about the various bits and pieces which it finds in the annual report of that commission. And, of course, it is a very positive step forward to be able to do that.

There is no suspicion about the operation of the commission. If there has been, the commission chairman and members are there to answer for the various ways it operated, why it operated in a particular circumstance of that nature and so on and so forth. It’s a great educational opportunity, on behalf of this commission, for the members of the Legislature and the public to know why it operated in that particular way. I would hope the minister would be as broadminded and enlightened as the former Minister of Labour and accept my suggestion that the commission should report annually to a standing committee of this Legislature.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment. I think the fears of the member for Windsor West may be allayed somewhat in that the report will be tabled in the Legislature. That means hopefully it will be available when estimates are considered by standing committee and accordingly can be scrutinized; those persons responsible in any way can be interrogated as is customary in connection with estimates of any ministry. That report would serve that purpose and I believe meet the objections of the members of the House.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to what the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox said. It is my understanding that a standing committee of this House can call any government agency before it. Quite aside from the point the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox made -- in my view it really isn’t necessary to add this but I will. I don’t propose to amend the amendment at the moment but I will consult about that and if it appears it would be necessary, I would certainly consider an amendment the next session.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Windsor West wish to comment before we carry the amendment?

Motion agreed to.

Section 57, as amended, agreed to.

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

Hon. Mr. Auld: Section 58, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Section 58; the minister has an amendment.

On section 58:

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that section 58 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“No member or person employed or engaged by the commission shall be required to give testimony in any proceeding under this Act before a court or tribunal with regard to information obtained by him in the discharge of his duties as a member of or person employed by the commission.”

Hon. Mr. Auld: Again, this is complementary and protects persons employed or engaged by the commission from being required to testify. It is necessary to protect the confidentiality and function of the person concerned.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any discussion on this amendment? Shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 58, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any discussion on any other section of this bill?

Hon. Mr. Add: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment for section 60(1)(b).

Mr. Chairman: Anything before 60?

Section 59 agreed to.

On section 60:

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that clause (b) of subsection 1 of section 60 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“Notice of desire to negotiate, to make or renew an agreement has been given by either party.”

Hon. Mr. Auld: Again, this is complementary to an amendment in Bill 100.

Mr. Chairman: Any discussion on this amendment? Shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on any other section of this bill?

Hon. Mr. Add: Mr. Chairman, section 60(1)(c). I may say there are amendments to 60(1)(c) and 60(1)(e).

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that clause (c) of subsection 1 of section 60 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“(c) All the matters remaining in dispute between the council and the employee organization that represents the employee have been referred to a fact-finder and 15 days have elapsed after the commission has made public the report of the fact-finder.”

Mr. Chairman: Any discussion on this amendment? The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: I think the decrease from 30 days to 15 days is a good move, Mr. Chairman, and we would have no problem supporting that. That is a reasonable, short period of time, 15 days, and we would support that. The only difficulty I have with that -- with writing anything like this directly in the bill, rather than the minister stating what is a short time -- is the inflexibility it gives, in this case, in effect the fact-finder having completed a report, this is a reasonably short time, but quite adequate for the fact-finder to give it. We would support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Amendment carried? The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to make mention that that was in keeping with the amendment to the companion Bill 100.

Mr. Chairman: Fine. The amendment is carried.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that clause (e) of subsection 1 of section 60 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“(e) The employees in the bargaining unit have voted, not earlier than the vote referred to in clause (d) and not before the end of the 15-day period referred to in clause (c), in favour of a strike by a vote by secret ballot conducted under the supervision of and in the manner determined by the commission; and”

Mr. Chairman: Any discussion on this amendment? Shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 60, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on any other section? The hon. minister.

Sections 61 and 62 agreed to.

On section 63:

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that section 63 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“(3) Where the Ontario Labour Relations Board makes a declaration under subsection 1 or subsection 2, the board in its discretion may in addition direct what action, if any, a person, employee, employee organization, council or employer and their officers, officials or agents shall do or refrain from doing with respect to the unlawful strike or unlawful lockout.

“(4) The Ontario Labour Relations Board shall file in the office of the registrar of the Supreme Court a copy of a direction made under subsection 3, exclusive of the reasons therefor, whereupon the direction shall be entered in the same way as a judgement or order of the court and is enforceable as such.”

Mr. Chairman: Any discussion on this amendment?

Hon. Mr. Auld: That is complementary to Bill 100.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: I have just one comment, Mr. Chairman. I received from the minister a sheaf of amendments on this bill. I don’t have that particular one. That came out later, I presume. Do you have any idea where that went, and could we have copies of it?

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): There is a copy here you can have.

Hon. Mr. Auld: That was one of the ones that came out on Tuesday.

Mr. Bounsall: Came out on Tuesday?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I guess it was as a result of the amendments that were made on Bill 100 earlier on Tuesday. You got them, or should have got them, at about 5:45 p.m.

Mr. Bounsall: In the House here?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes; well no, I gave them to the House leader --

An hon. member: You gave them to me.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- at about 5:55 p.m.

Mr. Bounsall: That would be nice to have.

Mr. Chairman: Any discussion on this amendment?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Just wait until he gets a copy, Mr. Chairman. Do I you think we are rushing the judgement here?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Our list of the amendments is not complete.

Mr. Chairman: Any discussion on this amendment? Shall this amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 63, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any discussion on any section before section 82? The hon. minister.

Mr. Bounsall: Before 82? I have one before 82.

Mr. Chairman: Section 82 is the next amendment by the minister.

Mr. Bounsall: I’d like to speak to section 64.

Mr. Chairman: Section 64, right. The member for Windsor West.

On section 64:

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, it seems rather strange, having introduced amendment after amendment after amendment comparable to those amendments which the committee in its wisdom placed on Bill 100, that the amendment on section 69 similar to the one on Bill 100 was not brought forward here. It is indeed a fine amendment and simply adds the same onus on the employer as has been placed on the employee under section 64. Therefore, if that section is to remain in the Act, and we have just passed section 60, subsection 1(d), that says:

“The offer of the council in respect of all matters remaining in dispute between the parties last received by the employee organization that represents the employee is submitted to and rejected by the employees in a bargaining unit by a vote by secret ballot conducted under the supervision [and so on] of the commission...”

Then the same identical provision should pertain to the employer with respect to a lockout.

Mr. Deacon: It wouldn’t be a secret ballot, though, in that case, would it?

Mr. Bounsall: You would have it in public. In that regard, Mr. Chairman, I move an amendment.

Mr. Bounsall moves that section 64 (1) be amended by adding a new subsection (e) as follows:

“The council shall not lock out or declare a state of lockout to exist or close a college or colleges unless and until the proposal of the employees’ bargaining agent in respect of all matters agreed upon by the parties and in respect of all matters remaining in dispute between the parties last received by the council is submitted to and rejected by a vote of all the college boards in public sessions.”

Mr. Chairman: Is there any discussion?

Mr. Bounsall: Speaking to this, in all fairness if you are going to retain that section under 60, this section under 64 should be included. I would suggest that the reason you have it under 60 -- and I am not at all enamoured of the commission conducting that ballot and that it should have to be a secret ballot and so on -- is the suspicion that the employees do not know what the offers have been and that before they take a strike vote and so on or before they engage in a strike all of them are fully aware of the matters remaining in dispute particularly and what has been achieved. That is the reason that I see that in terms of just general informational knowledge, and one might find that hard to argue against.

Therefore, it is only right that before the council gets engaged in lockouts or in some particular situation -- perhaps we are talking about only an individual college engaged in a lockout -- the members of that board be fully informed as to the matters that are in dispute, the matter that have been settled and be allowed to vote -- in fact, must vote -- on whether they are going to engage in a lockout with regard to all the matters in the dispute that have been laid before them. It is only right that an opportunity should take place to educate the members of the board thoroughly as to the issues that are dividing the two parties, placed before them by the Council of Regents, who are acting on their behalf as their negotiating agents, before a lockout can be completed.

No one likes a lockout any better than a strike. That action may have to be taken or may be deemed to be appropriate at some point by the Council of Regents, but it’s only fair that that decision by the Council of Regents, negotiating on behalf of all the colleges, and all those matters dividing the parties, should be presented to all the members of the boards of all the colleges. There is no reason, at that point, why it can’t be held out in public view. After all, they are a public board and that should be done.

If that’s the only aspect that the minister objects to, then perhaps it could be done by secret ballot, as long as we’re assured of it. But by simply changing the wording to reflect a 22 colleges-Council of Regents-CSAO situation, this is the same amendment that was passed by the committee outside the House when they were considering Bill 100. It was a good amendment there. It’s an even better one here.

I feel that when we are having the Council of Regents negotiating issues on a province-wide basis, and the members of the boards of 22 scattered colleges may not know all the issues involved, they should have a chance to hear each and every one of them and make their own determination as to whether they support the suggestion of a lockout.

In the school board-teacher situation, it’s also important, but at least in virtually all cases you’re dealing at the local level, where the issues are likely to have been known and thoroughly discussed as the situation has proceeded.

Here, we have a province-wide situation, and in that event it’s very important that the information get back to the members of the boards of governors at the various colleges and that they have a chance to say “yes” or “no” before lockout action is contemplated.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, the member for Windsor West brought up this point in this bill because it does seem even more important here than it did in the other bill for the reasons he stated.

Certainly it should cut both ways that people should be accountable. In the case of the faculty, they’ve got a private, secret thing, and that’s important; but where we have public representatives, people who are appointed on behalf of the public, they should be like ourselves, accountable in an open manner and in a meeting open to everyone to see what the arguments and disclosures are.

I hope the minister will agree to this amendment. We certainly support it on this side.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on this amendment? The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Chairman, I would just like to support my colleagues on this. I recall that a similar amendment was made to Bill 100, and I say that what we have to keep in mind is that we are dealing with public institutions, responsible to the public; and before we get into a lockout situation, responsibility has to be taken and decisions accepted on a responsible basis.

It seems to me that this type of amendment, like the similar amendment to Bill 100, is the type of amendment that will spread this responsibility so that the matter is fully discussed by the board or council before a lockout does take place.

It seems to us on this side of the House that this is the type of amendment that the minister should accept, as his colleague did on Bill 100. In my opinion, it should be in this bill. As one of my colleagues remarked earlier, we have all sorts of steps prior to any strike action being taken, the purpose being to give the parties full opportunity to have complete discussions and to consider the situation. I think it’s a drastic step when we talk about a strike, and I think it’s just as drastic a step when we talk about a lockout, especially when we are talking about a college that serves a community.

It seems to me that this is exactly the type of an amendment that any community would fully support in the sense they would be satisfied that before a lockout takes place, that decision has been fully discussed and that the members of the board or council who are supposed to represent all sections of the community in which they sit or which the community serves or which the college serves would have an opportunity to have some idea first of all of what the lockout is about, what the issues are and that before you come to such a drastic decision all matters have been fully considered. I really think, Mr. Chairman, the minister should give serious consideration to accepting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion? The member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I hardly think the amendment is necessary because what the speakers are presupposing is that the board of governors’ meetings are not open to the public and that a decision would be made prior to discussion of the entire situation by a meeting of the board of governors.

Surely there is a duty on the part of any board to keep an educational institution open; that’s the purpose for their existence. Any action which would result in a lockout surely would not take place without discussion by the board and, presumably, at a meeting of the board. I would think that procedure would be implicit in any decision to lockout.

I might comment as well that I question whether a lockout really is the reverse of a strike, I know it’s the counterpart: If you can strike you have to provide for a lockout but I really wonder how meaningful a lockout is in terms of labour relations negotiations for educational institutions.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, very briefly I agree with the previous speaker that before --

Mr. Foulds: Oh?

Mr. Laughren: I am going to put a condition in this; you can rest assured.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Nickel Belt; order, please.

Mr. Laughren: When the two of us agree on something, you can be sure it’s a conditional agreement.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Will you address the Chair.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): There is something wrong.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, when the member for Prince Edward-Lennox and I agree on anything you can be sure it’s a conditional agreement.

I was going to say I agree that before a lockout would occur there would certainly be a meeting of the board of governors. If there is going to be a meeting anyway and if it’s going to be discussed in a serious way why not put it in the legislation that it must come to a vote? It doesn’t make sense not to have it that way.

I’m not satisfied with legislation this government brings in and says that certain things are implicit in the bill. Quite frankly we have every reason to suspect that kind of argument on the part of the government. We’ve seen it in action too many times, particularly when it comes to a management-labour dispute. We know what happens and where the government stands.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, and through you to the minister that before we could accept the bill the way it is now -- it’s the reason, of course, we have the amendment -- we don’t see why it should be that different from Bill 100 which requires that action.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion before the minister speaks? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, first of all, of course, there is a very significant difference between the two bills inasmuch as Bill 100 is dealing with negotiations between 200 school boards which are --

Mr. Laughren: Why are all your amendments copied from it if it is that different?

Mr. Foulds: Don’t you think the province should know what is going on?

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- acting on behalf of local taxpayers as well as the provincial funds which come through the grant structure.

In this case the Council of Regents, as indicated in section 2, subsection 3, is the bargaining agent on behalf of all the boards. The province funds the colleges directly and consequently the Council of Regents does the bargaining. It’s quite a different situation.

The section referred to in Bill 100 is obviously required because the local board is the one that sets the mill rate and raises the local funds and everybody should know exactly what is going on. But as far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, I’m afraid I cannot accept that amendment, for the reasons that I have given.

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

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Shall this be stacked with the others?

An hon. member: Stacked.

Mr. Chairman: Anything now before section 82?

Mr. Foulds: Funny that they wouldn’t accept a parallel clause.

Sections 65 to 77, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 78:

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, section 78.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall moves that section 78(1)(c) be amended by adding “76” before “77” in the third line.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, in this Act we have a very fine section 76, one which should appear in any Act regulating employer-employee relationships. The section deals with interference with employee organization being prohibited and interference with employees’ rights being prohibited.

The problem is that not at any place in this Act do you find a means by which section 76 can be enforced. That’s the real problem. Section 76 is a fine one and one can point to that. But what happens if an employee organization is interfered with by the employer, either in the initial organization or with the rights thereto?

Section 78 -- the one we are on -- is the one which allows the Ontario Labour Relations Board to appoint investigators with authority to inquire into complaints that have been made under two other sections. These are 77, which deals with the duty of the employee organizations to represent their employees fairly; and 81, where the rights of witnesses are protected.

This is the appropriate place where these rights should certainly be protected. Certainly, quite clearly in the Act there should be sanctions against an employer doing what section 76 specifically and in some detail forbids the employer from doing -- that is, interfering with the organization, or with rights once organized.

It’s a bad omission in the bill not to have this covered under this section, which gives the Ontario Labour Relations Board the right to appoint an investigator and inquire into the complaints.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on this amendment?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I am informed that no amendment is necessary, because the matter is covered by the general right to prosecute in section 90.

Mr. Laughren: 90?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes. I also note that protection against employer interference, as in the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, section 27, and the Labour Relations Act, sections 56 and 58, apply to section 76 and basically to sections 77 and 78. I would reject the amendment, Mr. Chairman, passed to him -- in the sense of what that note does indicate. Sure, under section 90 one can be taken to court by a contravention of this Act. But that’s the game the lawyers play, you know, of getting into the labour relations field and getting the courts involved in it --

Mr. Laughren: Tell the minister not to let them play those games.

Mr. Bounsall: -- when one wants to alleviate, surely in every other way, any actions before the court and find another way of resolving any dispute and looking into any complaints. In normal labour relations that is what the Labour Relations Board does. That’s what happens in arbitration boards where, hopefully except in cases of natural justice, bias or jurisdiction, those items do not get to the courts, and the decisions of the Labour Relations Board likewise are only given with some difficulty. The Labour Relations Board is empowered here to look into employee organizations which haven’t represented their members fairly, and that is the appropriate body to look into that.

In section 76 they should have the right to look into unwarranted interference in a manner in which it does not find its way to the courts. This is an amendment. The remark that you have made is one that I wouldn’t have been surprised to have received in this House had you been a lawyer. Surely you must feel the way most of the non-lawyers feel in this House when it comes to getting things before the courts. There are other and better ways to solve those situations. The best way is to keep them out of the courts.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The best way is good faith.

Mr. Bounsall: That is going to happen in the entire rest of the bill, with respect to the member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: You can’t beat good faith.

Mr. Bounsall: You sure can’t have good faith if there is action under this section.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Your party wanted to take it out in Bill 100.

Mr. Bounsall: No, we didn’t. You certainly can’t have good faith if there has been employee interference with employee organizations.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, I believe the minister shouldn’t be taken in by the note

Mr. J. A. Taylor: You have to have faith.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Bounsall: Then good faith hasn’t pertained there. The member for Prince Edward-Lennox obviously wants to sit next week, Mr. Chairman. The Ontario Labour Relations Board is the appropriate body before which to go. It is the appropriate body to make that investigation, not the courts. Keep them out of the courts, keep that cost down, keep those delays down and keep these matters before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. That’s the body that should be making the investigation here.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Then function in good faith.

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

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Stack this also.

Anything before section 82?

Sections 79 to 81, inclusive, agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that section 82 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

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

Hon. Mr. Auld: This broadens and reaffirms the power of the Labour Relations Board to review and determine the status of persons excluded from the bargaining unit.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any discussion on this amendment? The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Of course, Mr. Chairman, on the face of it, the amendment is an improvement over the present section 82 in the Act. I object to the inclusions of the specific persons -- chairmen, department heads, directors, foremen and supervisors -- as to whether they should be in the bargaining unit. Quite clearly, at the university level persons in the academic sector -- chairmen, department heads and directors, up to and including everything under a dean but including the vice-deans -- are clearly defined as in the bargaining unit. These equivalent persons in the college field -- the chairmen, the department heads and the directors, for example -- are specifically excluded here except for giving the board some discretion. It shouldn’t be necessary to have these persons mentioned in this section of the Act because they should automatically be part of the bargaining unit.

On the other side, on the matter of the support staff, here again we are now having increasing numbers of applications before the Ontario Labour Relations Board to certify that persons who are working in a non-managerial but supervisory capacity. There is one there now -- the Chrysler foremen from Windsor are presently before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

This matter should not be before the board. There are other provinces in this country which have deleted the blanket clause which excludes foremen and supervisors under the Labour Relations Act. This should have been done, of course, in this bill so that one can have a determination if you like. What should clearly be in this Act is that all supervisors who are not performing a managerial function should clearly be in the bargaining unit. I regret, just as much for the support staff, that you have foremen and supervisors per se included in this particular section because I suspect they should all be clearly part of the bargaining unit.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on this amendment? The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: I support my colleague from Windsor West because it strikes me that this particular section has not followed the parallel example in Bill 100. In Bill 100, nefarious though it is, only the principals are excluded from two steps of the bargaining unit.

Department heads of departments in high schools, who often run departments as large as those in the colleges -- with as many staff and as many students -- are given full privileges of the bargaining unit. So are directors of the commercial branches of the schools and directors of the vocational branches of schools. I point out once again the inconsistency of this government’s legislation.

It is not applying the same principles of fairness here as it does in the secondary and elementary school sector, nor in the university sector as my colleague from Windsor West pointed out, to the people in the CAATs. It’s one further item in which the inconsistency of this government is readily apparent because it is excluding people who should rightfully be in the bargaining imit. I regret very much that the minister has let the clause stand even in this modified form.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, having taught at bath levels -- secondary school and community colleges -- I agree with what my colleague from Port Arthur says. I believe the line should have been drawn at the dean’s level. Deans and above you could exclude from the bargaining unit but certainly not the chairmen of the various divisions.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on this amendment?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’ve one comment. These provisions are really based on the present agreement and in cases of dispute it can be sorted out now by the Labour Relations board.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Auld’s amendment please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 82, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on any other section of this bill?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 93.

Mr. Chairman: Is there anything before 93?

Sections 83 to 92, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 93:

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that section 93 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause

“(c) The person employed in a position confidential to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities or the Deputy Minister of Colleges and Universities.”

and that the remaining clauses be relettered accordingly.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on this amendment? Shall the amendment carry?

Mr. Bounsall: No, just a minute on this, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor West, section 93(c).

Mr. Bounsall: Here you’ve added a section of the Act which talks about confidentiality with respect to the Minister and to the Deputy Minister of Colleges and Universities and that they’re not appropriate to the bargaining agent. In this whole area of colleges and universities, the only thing which is really confidential until they have been reviewed and therefore eligible for release are the marks of the students. Nothing else is confidential. We are talking about employee-employer relations. Perhaps a person who is dealing with and assisting in the material on behalf of the employer in the matter of labour relations is confidential, but nothing else is. Here we have an amendment which allows the minister and his deputy minister to designate which of his staff are in a confidential capacity, when the definition of confidential is far too broad. So what is going to happen is, I suspect, virtually everybody in the ministry or in the deputy minister’s office is going to be designated as confidential when there is really no valid reason why they should be.

An hon. member: They are confidential now.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on this amendment? The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have just one brief comment. The principle embodied in this particular clause is a principle that I think we in this Legislature should object to very strongly. The member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) brought forth a bill about public information. It’s been the practice of this government to withhold legitimate information from the public time and time again. We had it in the day-care foofaraw, because the reports on which that decision was based were not made public. It seems to me that in this section --

Mr. Stokes: What about tar sands?

Mr. Foulds: Well, Syncrude --

Mr. Stokes: Even Syncrude.

Mr. Foulds: The Syncrude agreement was not made public. It seems to me that that principle is being extended in this bill, and as my colleague from Windsor West points out, I can see the minister indicating that everybody in the ministry is a person employed in a position confidential to the minister. After all, the office boy who carries the reports from one office to the other could be named, and it just seems to me that the government is becoming unduly paranoid about reports that get to the public, and that the public objects to, and that the government does its best to keep confidential. Both in this legislation and in this clause and in government as a whole, we have to open up the windows of legislation and open up the windows of government and let there be a truly democratic access to public documents and public information. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Laughren: Well said.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could take 30 seconds to explain how and where in the domain of the expenditures of public funds in educational institutions there is a need for (a) confidentiality in the first place, and (b) the designation of a body or a person as one being employed in a confidential position. Could the minister just take a few seconds to help us accept this?

Mr. Chairman: Before he does, the member for York Centre is next.

Mr. Deacon: No, I would like to hear the minister.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I don’t think the hon. member opposite can really be serious when he thinks that the minister would even attempt to designate, or would be able to get away with designating everybody in the ministry as his own staff. My own staff is three or four, I guess; the deputy’s, I think, is three. It seems to me the reasons for this section are quite obvious -- that there can easily be frivolous subpoenas and that sort of thing. You don’t subpoena the minister for actions done by, say, a council and that sort of thing; you deal with the people who are actually involved. My advice is that this section is comparable, and that the reasons for it are quite obvious, that it prevents frivolous action. The Labour Relations Board and other tribunals can still get all the information they require from the people who are actually involved in the negotiations.

Mr. Bounsall: Are they all confidential?

Mr. P. Taylor: I thank the minister for that explanation, and I wonder if he would be prepared to give us a little more protection here by indicating the numbers of persons in each category? In other words, he said there are two or three in his office and two or three in the deputy’s office. Why don’t we say that right in this clause and indicate who they are?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, as I say, I don’t think it is necessary. It would be impossible. I simply cannot say that a person is confidential because he or she is on my staff, without being able to give some reason. Just look at the estimates, as far as that goes; they show, not by name but by salary, which is easily sorted out, who is in the minister’s office and who is in the deputy minister’s office.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: Is the minister telling us that in terms of this amendment he is thinking of those people who are listed in his office, including the deputy, and not beyond that, as people who are confidential?

Hon. Mr. Auld: It is simply the personal staff, the people who would be dealing with confidential matters in the minister’s office and in the deputy’s office.

Mr. Deacon: I think it is quite helpful to know that’s what is in the minister’s mind here. We have difficulty in understanding the definition of “a person confidential.” Should we add something in the definition section to indicate that what is meant by “a person confidential” is the personal staff of the minister and his deputy? As it now stands, there could be many others, as was outlined. That is the concern people have. So often it is easy to just include everybody.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I asked this very question myself, and I am informed that is the interpretation any court would take. I don’t think it is really necessary to say “as indicated in the estimates,” because I am informed that is what it means.

Mr. P. Taylor: One point of clarification on this section, Mr. Chairman. At any given point there could be a situation in which the minister would want to prevent someone from appearing in court and giving testimony. What would prevent the minister from designating any person in his entire ministry as confidential?

Hon. Mr. Auld: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I guess I would have to get the complement in my office and the funds to pay them --

Mr. P. Taylor: That’s the point, Mr. Chairman. It says “a person employed in a position confidential to the minister.” That could be anyone in the whole department. They are all employed by the minister.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I wonder if we can let that stand down for a moment and deal with the last two amendments, which relate to the schedules, while I get a little advice to assure what I have said is totally correct or whether there could be some amendment that ties it more directly to the minister’s and deputy minister’s staff.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

On schedule 1:

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that subparagraph (vii) of schedule 1 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor: “(vii) counsellors and librarians employed on a part-time basis.”

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

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I might say this is an amendment that come about as a result of the discussions we had with the Civil Service Association about the bill.

Mr. Bounsall: My question is just for information. What does one mean by “on a part-time basis?” I assume that is something different from 24 hours a week.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The question came up that some people working part-time might be working 10 hours and others might be working more, so we agreed we would take out “24 hours” and put in “on a part-time basis, which means anybody who is other than full-time.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the subsections of schedule 1. I won’t place all of the arguments I made the first day we debated. Section 1(f) with regard to schedule 1 and who should and should not be included in it. I refer the minister to the remarks I made at that time and I am sure he remembers them.

I am not happy with schedule 1. I think these could at best be determined by negotiation between the parties. The minister has twice now, heard my thoughts on the inclusion of chairmen, department heads and directors in the academic bargaining unit and he knows my feeling well.

I will save any remarks for schedule 2 until we get to schedule 2. I really would have thought and would have hoped under the schedule 1 amendments you would have included some phrase which included many of these persons that are specifically omitted in schedule 1 and that are specifically not members of the unit as outlined in schedule 1 to be in bargainable positions. Certainly I would have hoped most of those persons in the initial parts of the bill -- the chairmen, department heads and directors -- if you insisted upon keeping a list of some sort rather than what you did in schedule 2, would be specifically deleted on the basis of all the arguments I made the first time this came before us on section 1.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the amendment. Shall the minister’s amendment to the schedule carry?

Motion agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments on schedule 2 or any other parts of the bill?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I have an amendment for schedule 2, Mr. Chairman.

On schedule 2:

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that schedule 2 to the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“The support staff bargaining unit includes the employees of all boards of governors of colleges of applied arts and technology employed in positions or classifications in the office, clerical, technical, health care, maintenance, building service, shipping, transportations, cafeteria and nursery staff, but does not include foremen; supervisors; persons above the rank of foremen or supervisors; persons employed in a confidential capacity in matters related to employee relations or the formulation of a budget of a college of applied arts and technology or a constituent campus of a college of applied arts and technology, including persons employed in clerical, stenographic or secretarial positions and other persons employed in a managerial or confidential capacity; persons regularly employed for not more than 24 hours a week; students employed in a co-operative educational training programme undertaken with a school, college or university; a graduate of a college of applied arts and technology during the period of 12 months immediately following completion of a course of study or instructions at the college by the graduate, if the employment of the graduate is associated with a certification, registration or other licensing requirements; a person engaged for a project of a non-recurring kind; a person who is a member of the architectural, dental, engineering, legal or medical profession entitled to practice in Ontario and employed in a professional capacity; or a person engaged and employed outside Ontario.”

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, what that amendment does is delete the specific classifications included in the unit and sets a generic description of function that broadens the unit so that similar or related classifications that occur in the future will be automatically covered. The exclusion of persons involved in budgetary matters is confined to those formulating budgets, rather than both their formulation or application as was previously set out in the bill. This amendment conforms to the existing bargaining unit description.

Mr. Bounsall: On this schedule 2, let me ask assurance of the minister that the general terms that he has employed in the first paragraph of his amendment does in fact cover everybody that he had outlined under numbers 1 to 27 in his previous outline. It does include all those designated numbers 1 to 27 in the previous schedule -- your generalizations in that first paragraph includes them all.

Hopefully, it includes more than those numbers 1 to 27. It’s certainly an improvement. It allows titles to change. Various new persons who come into the general categories, therefore become members, automatically, of a bargaining unit, without being numbered or a new category: No. 28, revised and so on.

Again, I spoke at some length on schedule 2 when we were debating clause 1(f), which dealt with the first-mentioned schedule 2 in the bill. My same remarks now apply with respect to foremen and supervisors. I won’t go through that argument again, Mr. Chairman; I’ve made it here today on another section as well.

I am very disappointed the minister did not lead in the field in labour relations, for a change. One might have expected that members of your ministry, dealing in the rarified atmosphere of colleges and universities, might have persuaded him to so do -- to take some real steps forward in the attitude towards who should be part of collective agreements and who should be part of bargaining units. But that has not taken place.

I’m disappointed. I would have hoped that this would have been the case. I can just say that my former remarks all still apply. I think foremen and supervisors, except where they do perform a very definite managerial function, should be part of the bargaining unit.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the minister’s amendment to schedule 2 carry?

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: I believe we have one more amendment to deal with.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes, it deals with confidentiality, in section 93. I am informed that the incumbent in a position must actually be performing confidential functions. If this is challenged, the fact that he or she was performing confidential functions has to be proven before a court in order to free the party from compellability as a witness. Confidential means confidential to the minister. The court would have the final determination as to who would or would not be employed in a position confidential to the minister. The minister doesn’t designate such a person. It would be argued before a court that the witness was not compellable or was compellable.

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

Mr. P. Taylor: Is the minister saying that this means people in his own office and on his own staff, and the same for the deputy?

Hon. Mr. Auld: That is what I had said earlier. On the other hand, it would appear that if there is somebody within the ministry whom I have designated to do a specific thing, confidential to me, and I could prove it, that person also would not be compellable.

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

Section 93, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This concludes the debate on the bill. The Chair understands there have been some conversations among the House leaders. It was agreed that the divisions of this committee at this sitting, on all the bills, will be deferred until all the bills in committee have been dealt with. Is this agreeable?

Agreed.

SCHOOL BOARDS AND TEACHERS COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS ACT

House in committee on Bill 100, an Act respecting the Negotiation of Collective Agreements between School Boards and Teachers.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps before we start to deal with the bill clause by clause in committee, the minister might indicate his intentions on any amendments or changes?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I’d be happy to indicate that to you. I have only two amendments I propose to move. Do you want me to --

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps you could indicate to which sections?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Section 65 and 69.

Mr. Chairman: Sections 65 and 69. Is there any other discussion prior to section 65?

Mr. Deacon: Yes.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister wish to indicate what the amendments might be, for the benefit of the committee, or do you want to deal with them as they come along?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will be happy to indicate them to the members of the committee. I am moving 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 the school or schools.”

That, Mr. Chairman, although it took me a little longer than I had hoped, is the exact intent of the sum-up wording which I said was our intent of section 65 in this bill. I think that perhaps this words it a little more clearly than the original section 65.

The other section, Mr. Chairman, is in 69(5)(c). I am going to move that (c) of subsection (5) of section 69 of the bill, as amended by the social development committee, be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“(c) The school in which he is employed is closed pursuant to subsection 4.”

It is really just a clarification; I think it is what we meant anyway.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any discussion on any section of the bill, and if so, which one?

Mr. Foulds: Section 1, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Section 1? The hon. member for Port Arthur.

On section 1:

Mr. Foulds moves that section 1(h) be amended by deleting the words “other than the principal and vice-principals” in lines 2 and 3; after the word “teachers” in line 2 and before the word “in” in line 3.

Mr. Foulds: I have two other amendments, Mr. Chairman, that are related to the same matter in later clauses of the bill. If I could give them now I would be pleased to do so. I await your ruling.

Mr. Chairman: These are other amendments that you are going to introduce?

Mr. Foulds: Yes, but they relate substantially to the same matter.

Mr. Chairman: We listened to the amendments the minister was putting, so we will with you too.

Mr. Foulds: Well I would move that section 65 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. Deacon: I think I agree with that.

Mr. Foulds: That deals with the same matter as in 1(h).

I have a further amendment in section 69(1); that 69(1) be amended by deleting the words “other than principal and vice-principals” in lines 3 and 4; after the word “members” in line 3 and before the word “of” in line 4.

Now taking all those three together, Mr. Chairman, we would deal with the whole matter of principals and vice-principals, if we could do so at this time. I await your ruling.

Mr. Chairman: We have heard the indication, but I think what we should do is we should deal with each section as we go.

Mr. Foulds: Well they are complementary and it might speed up the discussion.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It would help the members, I think, Mr. Chairman, to know what amendments are coming, but I submit to you that I would feel my amendment to section 65 should come first.

Mr. Chairman: I agree.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Then we have to decide whether any of the other amendments that have been presented are legitimate amendments to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Mr. Foulds: All right, Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to abide by your ruling and I would like to speak on my amendment to 1(h) if I might.

Mr. Chairman: We assume that the other subsections have carried. The hon member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps I should read the amendment before you speak.

Mr. Foulds: I think there are a half dozen copies. There are probably enough for the members of the House.

Mr. Deacon: I have a complementary one there but I just thought the wording would be a little briefer.

Mr. Deacon moves that section 1(h) be amended by the deletion of all words after teacher” in the second line to “vice-principal” in the third line.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port Arthur had his in first. Does either one of you wish to withdraw your amendment?

Mr. Deacon: They’re complementary.

Mr. Chairman: They’re complementary yes.

Mr. Foulds: I think they’re repetitive, Mr. Chairman, and substantially the same.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Then you should be lodging your questions with the official opposition.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): On a point of order.

Mr. Bullbrook: Never mind the point of order. Wait until I’ve finished for a moment. The custom of this House is to do that.

Mr. Deans: No.

Mr. Bullbrook: The custom of the House is to do it. I suggest to you, frankly, you give the official opposition who have prepared certain amendments the opportunity to digest their amendments first.

Mr. Deans: On a point of order, the custom of this House and the custom of all Houses is to recognize speakers in the order in which they rise to their feet during the committee stage of any legislation. Therefore, the member who rose to his feet first is the member who moves the amendment. That has been the custom of the House for as long as I have been here.

Mr. Bullbrook: I wonder if you would read me your citation on the customs of the House.

Mr. Deans: I would like you to give me yours, since you were the person who rose on the point of order.

Mr. Bullbrook: I’m saying that if you want me to speak to it, I’ll speak to it.

Mr. Deans: I’m still on my feet.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member for Wentworth will speak at the moment, then the hon. member for Sarnia might follow.

Mr. Bullbrook: Then don’t address questions to me, if you don’t want responses.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, without addressing any questions to the hon. member for Sarnia, I would point out that I cannot address questions to the hon. member for Sarnia because he’s not able to answer them. The fact of the matter is that, as the procedures of the House have been followed over the period of time that I’ve been here, as has the member for Sarnia, it has been the member who rose to his feet first and was recognized by the Chair during any debate in the committee stages of any legislation that has been given the opportunity to move whatever amendment he or she had intended to move. I wouldn’t want you to set a precedent here today that is completely out of character and out of practice with what has occurred heretofore.

Mr. Chairman: If I can review the procedure that I’ve followed at this point, I had asked if there were any comments, questions or amendments to any section. The hon. member for Port Arthur rose to his feet and indicated that he had an amendment to the section which he indicated.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): So did the member for York Centre.

Mr. Deans: No, he didn’t.

Mr. Chairman: I think the hon. member for Port Arthur rose first. I’m not trying to show any preference but as has been indicated by the hon. member for Wentworth, normally the Chair has been recognizing the speakers as they have caught the eye of the Chair. Certainly, it wasn’t the Chair’s intention to slight any member of the official opposition.

Mr. Bullbrook: When you get that type of response, I want to speak to that. In no way am I inferring, sir, that you or any other person who occupies that chair slights anyone. It has become a traditional aspect of the carrying on of the parliamentary process that the official opposition catches the eye of the Speaker and the Chair. That’s understood throughout every Parliament.

Mr. Deans: If they rise.

Mr. Bullbrook: Are you saying I lie?

Mr. Deans: I said if they rise.

Mr. Bullbrook: I’m sorry. That’s the only point I’m making to you.

Mr. Chairman: I think this is correct. This procedure is followed in the question period and also in the debates.

Mrs. Campbell: That’s correct.

Mr. Chairman: However, if they didn’t catch the eye -- and I didn’t notice that the hon. member for York Centre had stood --

Mr. Deacon: I sort of rose and I saw he was up and I must say I gave up. There’s no sense in arguing about it.

Mr. Chairman: It certainly wasn’t the intention to vary from any parliamentary procedures or slight any member.

Mr. Deacon: I’m too modest.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask this question? In view of the fact that this occurred and in view of the fact that as a result of that you have accepted amendments from the member for Port Arthur in advance of giving the opportunity to the official opposition to move them, may we then take it that we will deal only at this time with the amendment to section 1(h) and not to sections 65 and 69?

Mr. Chairman: That’s correct. I think I indicated earlier that we were going to deal with them section by section.

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, but I take it that will allow the official opposition to put an amendment which can be considered to take priority over the amendment presented by the member for Port Arthur in those cases?

Mr. Chairman: I will agree with the hon. member with the reservation, of course, that if the hon. minister has an amendment that would take priority over that, too. I gather that we will deal first with the amendment of the hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Laughren: An excellent amendment, too.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope the official opposition has other amendments to bring forward, particularly on clauses 3 and 9, which they feel as strongly about, at this time.

Mr. Roy: We had amendments throughout committee.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, we had some amendments throughout committee, that’s true.

Mr. Roy: You weren’t running the whole show yourself.

Mr. Foulds: You are being very sensitive tonight, aren’t you?

Mr. Roy: No, just trying to get the record straight.

An hon. member: He’ll be extra sensitive tonight.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: You are trying to straighten out the record? It is so uneven, is that it?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, let me speak to the intent of my amendment in 1 (h). As I indicated when I rose to my feet it is related to the matters in 65 and 69 (1) as well, and it has to do with the whole business of principals and vice-principals. According to this legislation -- and it first comes up in this particular clause -- principals and vice-principals do not have the same rights and privileges as do their colleagues, even though they are members of the same affiliate.

We had many long arguments about this whole matter during the standing committee of the Legislature outside the House. It is indeed a great pity that those debates were not recorded because I, for one, would have been happy to dispense with this stage of going to committee of the whole House, in any event. We probably wouldn’t have had the jockeying we’ve just had because this debate in committee of the whole House is being recorded.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That is the reason; the ulterior motive.

Mr. Foulds: I think we could have saved the House about three hours of debate -- and most members would have been very happy about all of that -- if we’d recorded.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Put everything on the record; everything.

Mr. Foulds: However, during that debate -- it was an excellent debate and an excellent committee outside of the House. We sat solidly, I think, every sitting day and some Wednesdays when the House didn’t sit from June 19 until very recently, last Tuesday.

An hon. member: Fifty hours.

Mr. Foulds: If I may be immodest, Mr. Chairman, during that entire time I think I was absent for no more than five hours.

The most fundamental point which came to us again and again was the point about principals and vice-principals which first raises its head in this sub-clause. Throughout the debate the essentiality of principals and vice-principals was not demonstrated by the minister. Although he has moved in the amendment he has proposed or indicated or foreshadowed to us, he has not moved enough, in our opinion.

I might as well confess my bias, Mr. Chairman. My bias is for working men and women, whether those working men and women are principals and vice-principals or whether they are single parents who have children going to the schools.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Aren’t we all?

Mr. Foulds: That is one of the reasons I found this particular principle, embodied in this particular sub-clause and in the other sections I indicated, a very difficult one to wrestle with. There was a very powerful argument put forward by the trustees and by a number of parents about the necessity to keep someone in some of the schools, for single-parent families in particular, for what we call the custodial care, particularly of children in the elementary schools. We argued that surely some other mechanism could be found to fulfil that function.

At the last minute the OTF made a compromise -- I think it was proposed by Mr. Richardson on behalf of the OTF -- whereby the Education Relations Commission could have designated some or all principals and vice-principals as essential upon application of the school board. Unfortunately that was rejected by the minister. It seems to me that proposal showed the commitment of everybody concerned to the welfare, health and safety of the children. By his unwillingness to accept it the minister indicated the government’s willingness to deprive a small group within a larger group -- that is, the principals and vice-principals within the teaching profession -- of some of the rights of their colleagues.

It seems to me and to this party that to deprive a group of such rights one must have very serious reasons and background. Those reasons and that background have not been given by the government and the government party, and their unwillingness to accept the compromise proposal put forward by the OTF indicates that health and safety in essentiality are not the major basis for their objection.

That’s why one must say, reluctantly, that it is included in this for which the minister has indicated he will bring forward later. One must say reluctantly that the exclusion of the principals from the right to strike is a political decision and is inconsistent with the tone, the principles and the objectives of the rest of the bill. It is inconsistent because it takes them out of the process for only one step of the negotiating process. According to the proposal the minister has given us they will be allowed to vote on the strike but they won’t be allowed to strike and they will be allowed to ratify any agreement arising out of it. It is inconsistent also because the bill does not exclude department heads who have some of the same administrative functions as principals and vice-principals. I could read all those into the record from regulation 191 but I will probably do that later.

It seems to me there is a grave danger, Mr. Chairman. Beginning with section 1(h), along with section 63 and section 69(1), these sections unfortunately emphasize the administrative role of principals and vice-principals and that emphasis will continue and be embedded in their own consciousness and in the consciousness of their educational colleagues, both teachers and board officials will become the lowest rung on the educational management ladder instead of the highest rung of the educator ladder, that of head teacher.

The second grave danger put to us was that this particular mind set will set in so that eventually, as the trustees admitted to us in committee outside the House was their original objective, the principals will be excluded from the bargaining unit altogether. As I said, many principals and vice-principals and interested citizens talked to us about these sections.

I want to conclude that I suppose the minister has gone as far as he can go, politically, with his own colleagues, with the trustees and with his cabinet. I give him enormous credit for trying. I want to say, on the record, I give him enormous credit for bringing forth the bill he did.

As I said in committee outside the House, this is a good bill. If the sections I have been referring to just now were corrected along the lines I have suggested it could become an excellent bill. It is unfortunate that in the dying days of this Parliament this government misses the ring and brings forth merely a good bill instead of an excellent one. It would have been nice to have been in a Parliament of which all of us could have proudly said, “We had one excellent piece of legislation.” Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Deacon: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We certainly support this amendment -- it’s worded a bit differently from our own -- because basically we cannot see the reason for principals and vice-principals being treated in a manner which we feel will contribute to the breaking down of relationships with their fellow teachers. In a strike situation it will contribute a distraction from the real issue, which is solving the grievances which caused the strike in the first place.

In our view it will do nothing to help the students in the situation and will just add confusion and do a great deal to split loyalties. I think it will embroil the students in a way which is not helpful at any time and I urge the minister to support this amendment.

I know we have had full discussion on it but I want to be sure the points we made in committee are emphasized and given further consideration by the government in connection with this legislation.

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

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to belabour this and I shall be addressing myself to our amendment to section 65. Of course, if we are to have an amendment in section 65, as we related to both the lockout section and section 65, we have to speak to the principle that principals and vice-principals shall not be schizophrenic under this legislation but rather they shall have full rights up to and including the right to strike.

One of the things which is so important in this particular situation, as was pointed out by many of the speakers at the committee, is that the principal s and vice-principals tend to have a moderating effect on the teachers. They are a part of the team in the school. It is vital that teamwork should carry on in the schools because it transcends the one factor of keeping a principal or a vice-principal in a school when there is some question of his or her having something of concern to take care of.

One of the most moving positions taken by the trustees in this situation was their concern for the safety of children. I think that can be resolved without taking these particular steps. May I point out that there are many schools in a clustered situation; you have one principal over several schools. We were advised at the committee, for the benefit of those who weren’t there, that some of these schools are as much as 30 miles apart. If one is looking at the question of protection of children in that situation -- we were further advised there are no vice-principals in these clustered schools, only one principal and, in each case, a teacher designated as a head teacher -- if your concern is for the safety of the children, and as I say, that can be overcome in other ways, surely it is ludicrous that the person who is in the position of a head teacher and who does exactly the same work as a vice-principal should be in the position of being permitted to strike while vice-principals cannot.

I am not suggesting we should extend the exemption to head teachers but rather that we should include principals and vice-principals for the full purposes of their membership in the affiliation. I shan’t speak longer on this particular point at this time, Mr. Chairman, but shall indeed enlarge upon it in a later section of this bill.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Stormont.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to make a few brief comments. First of all, I agree with my colleague from Port Arthur that essentially this is a good bill. The minister, I think, has moved things forward considerably from the legislation which was attempted almost 18 months ago, and I share the regret of my colleague from Port Arthur that the minister is unwilling to compromise or to bend on this issue.

I don’t claim it’s an easy one. A variety of good arguments, pro and con, were brought out in committee and the thing that saddens me is that the principals and the vice-principals, first of all, are being denied certain rights their colleagues will have yet they have to work with these colleagues in the same schools. Secondly, I think we’re going to have serious problems in certain schools when a strike situation does arise. These people have enough problems coping with the type of society we live in -- the militancy of the students; the complexity of the curriculum; the demands of the community and the parents -- that to give them this added problem, which will create obvious staff problems in every school in Ontario in the future, I think, is very unfair to the principals and vice-principals.

The amendment proposed by the member for Port Arthur would solve that problem and I regret the minister is unable to support the amendment. I wholeheartedly endorse the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I think that first I should say I cannot support the amendment because the amendment is not consistent with the rest of the bill and the revised section 65 which I have indicated I will introduce when we arrive at that point. I think I will limit --

Mr. Foulds: It wouldn’t be if you accepted my amendment.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- my remarks at this point to what I have just said and I make my remarks later, as to the intent of section 65 and the reasons for it -- which I think I made very clear and very explicit, although my friends opposite may not agree with them. I don’t think they can say I didn’t prove my point. I don’t think they proved their point and I will make that argument when I present the amendment to 65. I cannot accept this amendment.

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

All those opposed to Mr. Foulds’ amendment will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Mr. Deans: We will stack it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: We’ll stack the amendment.

Mr. Deacon moves that clause 1, subsections (k) and (n) be deleted.

Mr. Foulds: Before that Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 1(1).

Mr. Chairman: Would the member for York Centre repeat what section -- the Chair was signing the amendment we just stacked. Would you repeat which section you were on again?

Mr. Deacon: Yes; that subsection (k) of clause 1 be deleted. I was also going to have a motion that subsection (n) be deleted, but if you have to do it in order I thought that --

Mr. Foulds: Yes, take (k) and (n) together.

Mr. Deacon: That (k) and (n) be deleted.

Mr. Chairman: Your amendment was on the same matter?

Mr. Foulds: No, mine is on a different subsection, Mr. Chairman; mine is on (f). It’s just that if we take (k) and (n) together, I am quite agreeable to doing that, but I want it understood that (1) and (m) have not gone. Do you follow me?

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I move this because I feel that this is consistent with our position on the principle of this bill as outlined in the previous amendment that was proposed, and which also will be shown later on in the bill. We do not feel that principals and vice-principals should be segregated in this bill. It’s not necessary, therefore these definitions are not necessary.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I support the amendment put forward by the hon. member, because if the amendment which I suspect he is bringing forward and that we are bringing forward are very similar, these two sections would be redundant. Therefore I would support the move to have them deleted at this time.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Deacon’s amendment to subsections (k) and (n) say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Shall we stack this?

Mrs. Campbell: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Foulds has an amendment to section 1(1).

Mr. Foulds: Section 1(1), Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Foulds moves that section 1(1) be numbered 1(l)(1) and that the following subsection be added:

“1(l)(2) Nothing in 1(l)(1) should be interpreted as prohibiting teachers, either individually or in concert, from withdrawing voluntary extracurricular activities such as, without limiting the foregoing, the supervision of a drama club, stamp club, students’ council, etc., but would include in the term ‘work to rule’ the withdrawal of assistance to students requiring extra help with any subject being taken in the curriculum for credit.”

Mr. Foulds: I think that if there were two sections in the bill that caused the most debate and the most controversy, it’s section 65 and the related clauses -- the principal, vice-principal matter, and the whole business of what is called voluntary services. Unfortunately that got caught up here in the definition section in the definition of “strike,” because what has happened in this bill is that included in their definition is working to rule, which relates to anything limiting or interfering -- “limiting or interfering” are the key words, I believe, of the preamble -- “with the operation or functioning of a school programme or school programmes or of a school or schools...”

That essentially means that what have been traditionally voluntary extracurricular activities cannot be withdrawn, in concert or together by teachers, without it being defined as a strike. The minister has made his stand very clear on it; he considers that to be a strike and he doesn’t want there to be any intermediate sanctions.

There is a second flaw in the bill; that there is no allowance in the bill for all of its good procedures -- and the fact-finding and the mediation and so on are good procedures -- there is no provision in the bill for any intermediate sanction even after the life of the contract. I am talking about using the sanctions after the life of the contract. I am talking about those instances where the teachers may want to use a rapier rather than a pole-axe to speed up negotiations.

I know the argument has been put that the withdrawal of after-school activities causes more hard feeling among the students and parents than perhaps the disruption of the school curriculum and programme. That immediately makes me think, what a sad commentary on our educational system, and perhaps what a sad commentary on our society, that the emotions surrounding teacher/board disputes -- and they have been very few in the past, Mr. Chairman -- are aroused as much, if not more, by the withdrawal of a stamp club, a drama club or football practice as they are by the withdrawal of reading, writing, mathematics, algebra, Latin and so on.

Mr. Samis: Français.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you. It seems to me that the major thing we want to do and the major aim of this legislation, is to keep the schools open. This is one way in which the legislation is very good; it has devised the collective bargaining process that will keep the schools open more often than perhaps they have even been in the past. It seems to me to be consistent with that principle, and the principle enunciated in the Act in clause 2 to promote harmonious relations between boards and teachers, that it might be valuable to have an intermediate sanction to be used after the contract expires, such as work to rule.

What I am predicting, Mr. Chairman, is that the work to rule definition will, of course, not be used. If people decide to strike they will go all the way, because they are subjected to the same penalties and the same procedures. If you use the work-to-rule definition as a strike in this Act after a certain period of time, you may have to strike anyway. I am afraid that the inclusion of it as a definition -- either alone or in conjunction with other things, under the definition of strike and not taking it out and defining it separately as a usable sanction -- will mean it is not used at all and our schools will be altogether closed down -- closed down altogether may be better grammar; closed down altogether, completely, more often than they might otherwise be if we had defined work to rule as a sanction usable after the termination of the contract but not as a strike.

I am afraid teachers will view an infringement on their right to withdraw what have been and what are voluntary services, as an infringement upon some civil liberties, if you like. It will mean that these services, where they are undertaken, will be undertaken on a mandatory basis rather than on a voluntary basis. We will lose a good deal of the spontaneous goodwill which has been built up in the school system through provision of voluntary services by teachers. What also bothers me -- and I hadn’t thought of this point until this afternoon -- is that it may very well lead to atrophy in what are now called extracurricular activities because there will be less openness for a teacher to take an initiative to start a new extracurricular activity which has not existed in the school before.

Mr. Samis: Right.

Mr. Foulds: It may be something relatively creative. It may be a little offbeat which the teacher has a great interest in and a dozen or so students have a great interest in but they don’t know whether it will work. Let me take a really offbeat example -- the collection of Egyptian coins or something like that. If they want to try that and it’s tried in three, four or five different schools --

Mr. Deacon: That’s section 71.

Mrs. Campbell: That is covered in the Act.

Mr. Foulds: -- if they want to try that and then not the individual but the group of them want to withdraw -- a group of them; four or five -- it comes under this definition because there is more than one person and they are acting in concert.

The example I used in committee came from when I was teaching in Thunder Bay and about eight or 10 teachers got together to decide to put on extracurricular -- well, we called them creative drama classes. There were eight of us involved from different schools. If we wished to withdraw after initiating the programme because for various reasons it didn’t work out -- maybe the organization didn’t work out -- if the eight teachers wished to withdraw, they would be acting in concert.

Mr. Deacon: That was also covered --

Mr. Foulds: The principle which bothers me is that they will be inhibited from taking the initiative to start that kind of programme, not that they won’t be able to withdraw.

They are covered under 71, as my friends from York Centre and St. George say. The initiative which has been possible in the past, as it is always possible in voluntary things, will somehow be atrophied because there will be a little bit of unease with the legislation and that possibility.

It’s that inhibition of the initiative on the part of the teachers to start something new, in a voluntary way, which worries me. I want to say that I hope the minister will relent and accept my amendment because I think section 1(1) as it is presently defined runs contrary to what is basically the conciliatory nature of the rest of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Deacon: We, in this party, had great misgivings about amending the bill before, especially after the amendments brought in by the minister with regard to 71, but after discussion with my colleagues, we feel this amendment does cover the matters which were of great concern to us with regard to purely voluntary matters which weren’t affecting the students’ regular curriculum work. Therefore, we certainly would also like to urge the minister to support this amendment as it does really cover the matter which has concerned all of us with regard to this aspect of the legislation.

It’s discouraging volunteer work. I know we have had long discussions in the committee as to the liability of teachers if they do withdraw services such as the member for Port Arthur mentioned -- a group collecting Egyptian coins or something like that. I think the counsel for the ministry gave us an explanation that this wouldn’t be a problem, but this would certainly clarify it. Maybe the language has to be shaped up a little bit legally, but it covers the intent and the understanding, as far as we have, of what we want to achieve here.

We don’t want to discourage voluntary activity. We don’t want to hurt the students whatever happens by the definition of work to rule. We feel that anything that would affect the curriculum and the studies of the students in that way would definitely constitute a strike if it’s done in concert.

But at the same time, we don’t think that we should be interfering with the right of those who have volunteered to do something to withdraw their services and do it in concert, if it doesn’t affect the students actual curriculum work.

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

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I’ll be brief. We bad a long discussion on this matter, and it was quite clear that we were concerned about inhibiting of any voluntary services.

The whole fabric of our society, it seems to me, must continue to encourage the voluntary acts of people in the community.

As the member for York Centre has said, we believe that section 71 -- the amendment which was brought in by the minister -- covered it for the individual teacher. After our discussion as to what would happen in the case of a group, it seemed again that the matter of good faith would, of itself, correct the situation. However, as my colleague has said, we are prepared to support the amendment for the reasons given.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. B. Newman: I wanted to make a few comments. But before I make my comments, I realize that this has been well discussed both on second reading of the bill and also in committee.

The area that does disturb me most, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that a teacher going into the profession now, with a clause such as is presently in the bill, would very seriously think of not engaging in any extracurricular activities for the fear that the withdrawal of his services, combined with other of his colleagues who may withdraw their services at the same time may be considered in the eyes of the legislation as being a strike.

Now, I’m not only concerned with the fact that we will discourage the volunteer teacher to engage in the development of additional programmes after school hours that may add to the well-rounded educational betterment of the student, Mr. Chairman, but that by the amendment you are actually discouraging the volunteer teacher. Or you’re going to have a condition arise where the teachers are going to request that their extracurricular activities be paid for, and you’re going to be adding to the overall cost of education.

I would hope that the minister would seriously reconsider the amendment as proposed and accept it.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion? The hon. member for Stormont.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I think that the main benefit and value of this amendment, as just alluded to by the member for Windsor-Walkerville, is that if a teacher does get involved in voluntary or extracurricular activities there won’t be any cloud of suspicion, doubt, hesitation, or any possibility of alienation from the staff or anyone else in the possibility of a conflict or dispute.

I think the amendment should be supported. It continues the tradition that we have in this province of teachers getting involved because of their interest in the particular activity, the subject, the endeavour, or their genuine concern for developing the student’s overall personality beyond the confines of the classroom. I think this amendment continues that tradition and deserves support.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to say, and has been already stated, we went over this ground very extensively in the committee, I want to say very emphatically that there is nothing in this bill that discourages voluntary activities by teachers or the development of extracurricular activities. I believe that the initiative to develop new activities will occur just as it is occurring in the schools across this province. This will not have any effect on that.

What we have here is a bill concerning collective bargaining between teachers and school boards that is breaking new ground in the public sector. In breaking that new ground we are pioneering some new methods in this bill. One of those methods or differences from existing legislation is in the definition of “strike”; the definition of “strike” here includes “work to rule.”

The real question that must be asked is, why does it include “work to rule”? It includes “work to rule” because this technique has been used as a bargaining tool against various boards, over the past few years in particular, with fairly severe effects.

I would submit to the members that if anyone was concerned about the effect on voluntary services, they should have really been concerned at the time that the work-to-rule technique was first used very extensively as a bargaining weapon in this province. I don’t know about the experience of some of my friends in this House, but I have found, from teachers I have talked to in areas where this bargaining technique has been used, that it is usually the teachers who don’t do the voluntary services who vote 100 per cent for working to rule, while those who volunteer their services would rather that this technique were never used as a bargaining tool.

That would be my position. I would rather that it never be used. I must say that the member for Port Arthur probably has been the only honest one in the House when he suggested that we amend this bill so that it can be used as a minor sanction, because that is really what we are talking about here; we are not talking about the discouragement of voluntary services or anything like that. That, I would submit, is a red herring in this particular matter. We are talking about a technique that has been used as a bargaining tool or a bargaining sanction. I guess the difference between my opinion and that of my friend from Port Arthur is that I view it as a major sanction, while he views it as a minor sanction that perhaps should be used under some different context than what we lay out in this bill.

Our submission is that the work-to-rule technique that has been used in the past, particularly in the past two or three years in this province, has caused major disruption in the school systems where it has been involved. It has caused an alienation between parents, students and their teachers -- an alienation as serious as an actual strike, according to my discussions with these people. Therefore, in developing this bill we would have been irresponsible if we hadn’t come to grips with this problem.

In the bill we have defined this particular sanction, along with the others, in a different type of definition of strike. We do not ban working to rule, we do not forbid its use as a bargaining sanction, but we say in this bill ii it is to be used it must be used after the procedures of this bill have been followed. That means having had a fact-finder, having had a vote on the last offer of the teachers, and having had a vote to go to strike. It is then possible for work-to-rule sanction to be used and then for the teachers to move to a full strike if they wish.

In order to guarantee to the teachers of this province that we are not in any way attempting to interfere with the individual rights of a teacher to withdraw his voluntary services, we inserted amendment (b) to section 71, which says: “Nothing in this Act precludes a teacher from withdrawing a voluntary service in good faith on an individual basis.” I think that, together with the amendment to section 69(5), which provides that if teachers use the work-to-rule technique as a bargaining tool or sanction, they are still entitled to be paid by a board unless a board votes to lock those teachers out, which a board does have the right to do under this legislation.

I think these correct some of the minor flaws in our first draft of the bill. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I can’t accept the amendment. I think the section should stay as it is.

Mr. Foulds: I have just two quick points if I might underline them. I want to put it clearly that I do view work to rule as a legitimate sanction. I do see it only being legitimately used as a sanction after a contract has expired. I also want to say that I do see it as an intermediate sanction not having the full effect of a total work stoppage and closing down the school. That’s where I disagree with the minister and that’s why I think it should not be defined as a strike. I don’t want to repeat all the arguments which I have already made.

One other point: The minister may say -- and he has, I am willing to grant him, a certain amount of validity on his side when he says -- that the business about voluntary services is a bit of a red herring. It is only a bit of a red herring because the reality is -- and we have to deal with realities and their effect upon the perceptions of people out there in the province -- that a large number of teachers genuinely feel inhibited about volunteering for extracurricular activities next year. That’s very widespread throughout the entire province. A number of them have already written their boards indicating that they will not volunteer for extracurricular activities next year until the whole matter is sorted out.

It does seem to me that this section has had that inhibiting factor on people volunteering. It may work itself out in two or three years, but I know it is a perception that teachers have out in the province. There may be a lessening of those extracurricular activities.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): It should be on the bargaining table.

Mr. Foulds: It may not only be on the bargaining table but it may wither. There’s a danger of it withering and dying and not occurring and we will simply have 9-to-5 schools.

Mr. Chairman: Do you want to reply to that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will again emphasize the point that I made. If my friend is worried about 9-to-5 schools, which I certainly wouldn’t want to see and I know he wouldn’t want to see, somebody should have thought about this when the whole idea of work to rule was developed as a bargaining sanction. We’ve got into this particular situation now, and as I say, my submission is that it’s as serious a sanction as a strike. The disruptive effect that it can have on the educational system is serious. Therefore, I think it must remain as part of the general definition of a strike.

I would just like to say that I have indicated that if this was a concern to the various teacher groups, if we could work out some agreement that would have some legal status so that it could be completely wiped out as a sanction, then we could take it all out of the bill. But no one has come forward with any offer to suggest that that could be done.

Mr. Foulds: One final point, if I might, Mr. Chairman. The fact is when it has been used in the past it has been used without the benefit of this bill which regularizes teacher-board negotiations. It regularizes them in a way that it hasn’t before.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s my whole point.

Mr. Foulds: You should have taken the step to define it as a sanction to be used at the determination of the contract since basically the disruption really occurred when it was used before a contract expired. The minister and I agree on one point; we agree that it should be able to be used as a sanction. He wants to call it a strike and give it that full status. I want to see it as an intermediate one. We’ve argued it through before and that’s all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to be drawn into the argument but I would just like to make out one or two points. I agree with the member for Port Arthur that we may well have 9-to-5 or 9-to-4 schools because of this section. Rut also I can foresee under section 9 that it is going to be one of the things that is going to be put on the bargaining table rather quickly. The cost of providing extracurricular services is going to be an additional cost to the taxpayer in this province.

So there are two things: First of all there is the curtailment of services that will follow until it becomes a bargainable thing and is put on the table. Then, of course, the school boards will have no other alternative under section 9 of this bill but to bargain with the teachers on that basis of extracurricular activities. The costs are going to come back on the taxpayer. In the interim, however, the costs are going to be to the student, who is going to lose out greatly.

An hon. member: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I’d like my friend to try and explain to me where there is going to be any loss of activities. The only loss of activities will be if those whom this bill has been brought in and is being passed for, choose to not act in good faith. Because I submit there is nothing in this bill that suggests anything different should happen when school opens in September than has been happening last year or the year before, insofar as extracurricular activities and voluntary services are concerned -- not one thing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: There is no legislation, Mr. Chairman, to cover any type of voluntary services outside of what’s in this bill. So what’s in this bill is the only mention of extracurricular services in any type of legislation. Because of what’s in this bill, there is going to be a change in attitude of the teachers towards extracurricular activities, and the minister fails to understand this.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I don’t fail to understand it; I would just be very sorry and saddened if that kind of thing happened, because it doesn’t have to happen.

Mr. Deacon: Well, you are asking for it.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Well take it out of there.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The teachers have got a great advance in this bill. I would be very saddened to think that, having this piece of advanced legislation, they would take that picayune point and choose to act in bad faith on that point. I’ll tell you one thing: I have more faith in them than you, because I don’t think they will act that way.

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

All those opposed say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Mr. Foulds: Stack.

Mr. Chairman: Stack; agreed?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: On section 2.

Mr. Deacon: Section 60.

Mr. Chairman: Does any member have anything for section 65?

Mr. Deacon: Section 60.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for York Centre. Do all previous sections, except those with amendments to be dealt with, carry up to that point?

Mr. Foulds: No, Mr. Chairman, I want to speak briefly on section 9.

Mr. Chairman: Section 9; the hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: I don’t have an amendment, but I want to speak briefly on it.

Mr. Carruthers: Don’t you want to speak on section 3?

Mr. Foulds: Did you want to speak on 3?

Mr. Carruthers: No, I thought you wanted to speak.

Mr. Foulds: I’m surprised there haven’t been any speakers on sections 3 and 9 before, because these are the sections that deal with management rights.

Mr. Laughren: Wasn’t Mr. Carruthers a principal at one time?

Mr. Chairman: Section 9 of the bill; the member for Port Arthur.

On section 9:

Mr. Foulds: Thank you. I am quite surprised that the member for York Centre hasn’t brought forward his amendment from committee -- his management rights clause --

Mr. Laughren: Yes, what happened to that?

Mr. Foulds: -- that added the words “shall not contain any terms regulating the selection of teachers, administrational instructional duties of the teachers, the nature and quality of the instructional programmes, and the hours of school in the school year.”

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Is that your amendment?

Mr. Foulds: No, that was not my amendment. That was the amendment of the member for York Centre. I’m surprised it hasn’t been brought forward to keep the balance that the Liberal Party has always tried to do with this bill.

Mr. Chairman: Would you like to combine it with section 9?

Mr. Deacon: Have you an amendment for it?

Mr. Foulds: I have no amendment. I just wanted to say that luckily the government and our party defeated that amendment in committee outside the House.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It was never put to a vote.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 9 carry?

Mr. Laughren: We’ve saved Ontario from the Liberals again.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 60?

Mr. Foulds: I have a more serious thing on section 53, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: On section 9, the member for York Centre has the floor.

Mr. Deacon: I certainly have been concerned with --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Deacon: On 53? Okay, I want to make the comment that with regard to section 9 and management rights, there were things which concerned me, as they concerned other members of this House. The reason I withdrew my amendment was that we could not come to a definition of management rights which really covered the situation properly. In the end we were persuaded that the minister’s feeling that it had to be wide open was a correct one.

Mr. Chairman: Is section 9 agreed to? The member for York Centre -- was it section 60?

Mr. Deacon: Yes, section 60.

Mr. Chairman: Does any member want to speak on any section before section 60?

Mr. Foulds: Section 51.

Mr. Chairman: On section 51, the member for Port Arthur.

Do all those sections up to 51 except those which have amendments, carry?

Sections 9 to 50, inclusive, agreed.

On section 51:

Mr. Foulds: I have an amendment to section 51, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Foulds moves that section 51(b) be amended by adding the words “or the first day of January” in line 2 after the word “September” and before the word “in”; and that section 51(c) be amended by adding the word “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. Foulds: I wanted to speak very briefly. For the chairman’s benefit the latter phrase I learned -- I must say I have learned many things; you pick up a lot. It’s a very educative process going through education Acts for the Legislature and picking up things like my colleague for Nickel Belt does.

Mr. Laughren: Good thing you added that.

Mr. Foulds: The phrase simply means that those necessary sections in the remainder of the Act be changed.

What I am trying to do in this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to add some flexibility so that contracts, instead of being locked in merely to the end of August, could be at the end of the calendar year as well as the end of the school year. I don’t think anybody in Ontario is really going to go to the stake over this principle but there is a serious consideration, which I expressed on second reading and which I have for the immediate future. That is twofold. If we allow the flexibility of contracts ending at the end of August or the end of December there is a possibility that negotiations could reach an agreement on an 18-month contract, say where they couldn’t on a one-year or two-year contract. The flexibility should be allowed to the negotiators for both parties if they want to agree to that.

The second reason I put forward this amendment, and spoke on second reading on this point, is that it really does seem quite serious to me that at the beginning of September, 1976 -- that is, a year from this coming September -- every single contract in Ontario, between boards and teachers, according to this legislation, will be up for renewal. There are something like 200 boards -- we cut the number down for various reasons -- but in terms of contracts with their secondary and elementary teachers, there will actually be between 300 and 500 agreements that will be up for renewal of September, 1976. It is to be hoped that very few of them will get to the crisis stage, but with this bill they will need fact-finders, mediators and conciliators, and you are going to put enormous burden on the Education Relations Commission staff and its structure.

It seems to me there is a possibility -- I hope it’s remote -- that the bill itself, and the Education Relations Commission in particular, runs the grave risk of being discredited in September, 1976 -- not through any fault of principle in the bill; not through any fault of capability on the part of the personnel of the Education Relations Commission, but simply because the Education Relations Commission may very well be overburdened with work that they can’t cope with in the three or four months leading up to September and the two or three months after. There may very well be a breakdown there that could be avoided, not only in 1976 but in future years, if this flexibility were allowed.

An hon. member: Good point.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I made a faux pas in the introduction of my amendment to section 9, where I couldn’t get something that would work.

This amendment, I think, would not contribute to orderly negotiation. We feel very strongly that the idea of co-conterminous negotiations right across the province is a beneficial thing, and we certainly want to support the minister in this particular section. We also feel there are great advantages to the students and that there is little likelihood of the commission not being able to cope with the situation because there will be bargaining all across the province. At the same time, there will not be the tendency to whipsaw that we might see otherwise. I am certainly pleased the minister is deciding that if there is going to be a termination of a contract, it should be right at the beginning of the school year and not part of the way through it. I am sorry we cannot support the member’s amendment.

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

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, if I might, I continue to be amazed at the flexibility of the member for York Centre. It was just on Tuesday night, when we were debating the college teachers’ negotiation bill, that the member for York Centre supported the amendment we put forth, which would have made Dec. 31 the termination date for the contract as well --

Mr. Deacon: That’s a different situation.

Mr. R. S. Smith: It is a different situation, and the member knows it. They negotiated on a province-wide basis and these don’t.

Mr. Laughren: No, there is not a significant difference.

It being 6 o’clock p.m., the House took recess.