Hansard Transcripts 1976-Jan-15 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There will be someone with a question, I’m sure, if the hon. member who is standing doesn’t have one. Does the hon. member have a question?

Mr. Nixon: Let’s try the Leader of the Opposition. I will bet he has got a question.

An hon. member: Hurray!

Mr. Singer: Well done!

Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Lewis: I had assumed the provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) might wish to table the document he signed with Ottawa, or make a statement -- he indicated that -- and I wondered if that is coming.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It is my understanding that the Treasurer had to go on this anti-inflation tour of his --

Mr. Cassidy: It is a political junket.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- and that he will make available a copy of the agreement to all members later on this afternoon, in their mail boxes.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: I then have a question of the House leader, if I may, as the opening question. Does he think it’s appropriate that the Treasurer should sign a document which commits the Province of Ontario to a specific course of action 48 hours before he knows that the Legislature will be in session and that there is such contempt amongst the executive council that there is no attempt before the orders of the day to explain why he did it, under what auspices he did it and what he intends to do from here on?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, without commenting on the editorial aspect of the question, the Treasurer acted quite properly on behalf of the government with respect to the agreement. The hon. Leader of the Opposition would recognize that it was agreed that the only order that would be called at this time would be the oral question period.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I will allow a supplementary to the member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Could the House leader tell us if either his colleague, the Treasurer, or the Premier (Mr. Davis), or anyone on the government side, ever got the opinion of the law officers of the Crown insofar as the legality and the vires of the ability of the government of Ontario to enter into such an agreement by virtue only of an order in council?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: Further supplementary: Can the minister undertake to table those opinions? And if the Legislature isn’t in session when they are available to either the minister or the Treasurer when he comes back from his tour, that these papers be made public, since there is a large body of informed opinion that believes that this transference of authority cannot be on the basis only of an order in council?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give such an undertaking on behalf of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) or the Premier. That question may be redirected later when the Premier arrives.

Mr. Singer: Nonsense!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Secondly, I am here to tell the members that the Treasurer will see that copies of this agreement are given to all members later on today in their mail boxes.

Mr. Singer: Not the agreement, the legal opinions.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Is the minister responding by saying that he cannot guarantee to the House the provision of the arguments, which presumably accompanied the cabinet decision to do this by way of order in council?

Mr. Singer: As well as the opinion of the law officers of the Crown.

Mr. Lewis: Do we not have a right to share that?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am saying that I don’t feel I can give that undertaking on behalf of some other minister. The Premier will be here; the member can ask the Premier when he arrives.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Singer: Boy, in what contempt the minister holds this Legislature; what contempt!

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Sarnia.

Mr. Cassidy: Where is the Premier? Why isn’t he here?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am wondering if the House leader could advise us under what statutory authority the provincial minister was authorized, pursuant to order in council 48-76?

Hon. Mr. Welch: If the hon. member will give me the opportunity, I’ll get him an answer to that before the question period is over?

Mr. Bullbrook: Fine.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Yes. I would like to ask the House leader if the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) is coming to question period?

Hon. Mr. Welch: My understanding is he is, yes.

Mr. Lewis: Does the House leader know whether he is on his way?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think he has been tied up with a certain American senator who is here.

Mr. Lewis: Oh yes.

Mr. Bullbrook: Does the House leader mind a point of order, a point of clarification?

Hon. Mr. Welch: No.

Mr. Bullbrook: Thank you. Was he asking me to deliver something to him?

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, no.

Mr. Singer: How about the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. MacBeth)? Does he know anything about this? No, he just sits and agrees.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of Opposition with his question.

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

Mr. Lewis: Because of time factors I want to move to other subjects. I assume we will get back to the Anti-Inflation Board now that the Premier is here.

May I ask the Premier: How did the government and the Ministry of Health arrive at and justify the decision to close down the Goderich Psychiatric Hospital -- let me deal with them one by one -- without any advance warning whatsoever to the community or to the staff of the hospital? And what is more, to do it on the morning of Dec. 19, with the Legislature adjourning on the evening of Dec. 18?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can answer the last part of the question. The Minister of Health is here and would be delighted to answer the first part of the question.

I can only tell the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister of Health had scheduled a meeting with trustees and hospital administrators for Dec. 19. That meeting had been laid on for some period of time. It was not related to when the House might or might not finish its business. The Minister of Education had laid on a similar meeting, I guess two days before the House concluded, but that was also done without really knowing when the House was going to finish. There was no relationship between the two. As to the first part of the question, I am sure the Minister of Health would be delighted to answer.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Has the Premier been made aware of the enormous public anger and consternation throughout the community of Goderich, the universal objections of the whole medical profession through Huron county, and the general state of anxiety over the closing of that hospital; which was highly regarded in every single report made by the Ministry of Health? Is it possible that the cabinet might reconsider what was done, since it seems as though there won’t even be a saving of money?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, these matters are always difficult whenever a government or a ministry is endeavouring to effect economies; and this is true in the health field as well as any other, there is no question that it causes some difficulties. I have had some representation made to me from people -- I think I can say in Goderich although they may be just outside of Goderich -- related to this matter. I would not want to hold out any hope there would be a change in decision or policy, but these representations have been made to me.

Mr. Riddell: A supplementary: Is the Premier aware that 10 or 12 years ago this government stood for equality of opportunity -- whether we are talking in terms of medical health care or education -- and that the closing of this hospital is setting rural Ontario back another 10 or 12 years? Why were these hospitals built in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly answer the first part of that question -- does this government believe in equality and opportunity. The answer to that is, very simply, yes.

Mrs. Campbell: For whom?

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Health if I may: Is the Minister of Health aware of the astonishing and almost unprecedented tributes paid to the Goderich psychiatric facility over the years by the various councils on health accreditation, and the feeling that it was a model of its kind throughout this province? Why does he choose that facility to close down when it has probably greater community alcohol and drug addiction adolescent treatment and geriatric facilities than any institution of comparable size perhaps in this country?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, first, I am aware, yes; and secondly, I would suggest that one needs to read the tributes paid to other facilities as well.

It is an excellent hospital; that is not the issue in the sense of its choice. We were looking around the province realizing that over the past few years changes in the type of psychiatric treatment had gone on. Many people who were in effect chronic patients in the past had been moved out of the hospitals, reducing them to roughly half the inpatient levels they were at previously.

We have 15 institutions around the province, most of which are very fine hospitals, most of which are running somewhere between 50 and 60 per cent of their original designed capacity. It seemed that we had one of two alternatives: either we could cut the entire system back, prorating a certain number of beds at every hospital, in which case a certain number of dollar savings would be achieved, or we could elect to close one or two or more hospitals totally as units and thereby effecting many more dollars in saving per bed closed.

Many of the services the member talked about, which are very fine, are not necessarily dependent upon a person being in the institution. The record of this particular hospital shows it has a very active outpatient treatment programme. The alcoholism programme, which is in limbo right now, I will be first to admit, in terms of need or where it should go, is there based on inpatient treatment. In Timmins, it is basically outpatient treatment.

One could argue whose philosophy was better. I am not going to get into that argument. I think it is a medical one rather than mine. I simply say that when we looked at the sector of the Province of Ontario we had four psychiatric hospitals in the southwestern region, two of which were very large and obviously we didn’t have the ability to close them -- St. Thomas and London -- two of them were twins, and they were Owen Sound and Goderich.

Mrs. Campbell: Owen Sound and Goderich, yes.

Hon. F. S. Miller: In that case, after very careful consideration months ago, not within the last week or two or three --

Mr. Lewis: Not shared by the community.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I won’t argue that with the member right now.

Mr. Lewis: The minister didn’t tell anybody; that’s no way to do things.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We can argue that; and I will admit to certain culpability in this area, okay?

Mr. Lewis: But what he does to the community in the process is something to behold.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is very difficult to deal with some of these things with the community in advance of the decision being made, and I admit there are better ways to do it than I did. I have learned a lot about doing it in this particular case.

Mr. Lewis: I should think so.

Hon. F. S. Miller: A lot. The next time around I think I will do it a little differently.

Mr. Lewis: I should hope so.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Don’t forget this is a provincial institution versus a public hospital. Don’t forget that the employment picture in that community is not being dramatically altered in total. Don’t forget that the buildings will continue to be used for a need that this House recognizes as essential, and those things were done following our decision to close the hospital and rather than building on a new site somewhere else. Those factors were all taken into account, and consciously; I thought we had done that bit.

Had I the opportunity to do it again, I would go personally. I would talk to the staff in advance of a public notice.

[2:15]

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary: Could the minister tell me what authority the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) has to take it upon himself to disclose information to certain Tory repugnants in Huron-Middlesex riding --

Mr. Singer: That’s a good word, a good word.

Mr. Moffatt: He’s the leader of them.

Mr. Riddell: -- about the closing of this hospital when it was agreed at a cabinet meeting that nothing would be released until either the Minister of Health or the Premier released it? What business has he got in sticking his nose in it?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Somebody has got to represent them.

Mr. Riddell: Well?

Mrs. Campbell: Well?

Mr. Singer: Well? No answer.

Mrs. Campbell: It was a political decision then.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: On a point of privilege, that was not a political decision. I have three parties against me.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East with a final supplementary on this.

Mr. Roy: In view of the minister’s answer to the Leader of the Opposition about the fact that maybe the approach the minister took in Goderich might not have been the best one, is he prepared to share with us now the list of other hospitals that he has it in mind to close; and again the criteria under which he is closing them? Is he prepared to do that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have been going around the province -- and had it not been for this session I would have been in Windsor today -- divulging to public meetings the criteria used to close hospitals; but not specifically the hospitals to be closed, for several reasons.

Mr. Singer: Lorne decides that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: But I have made a promise, knowing that many hospitals in this province are sitting in a very nervous state worrying about whether they are to be closed or not to be closed. That arose from our debate on Chesley, if the member recalls, when I was asked a specific question. I answered it honestly. Perhaps one should never answer a question honestly, I don’t know.

Mr. Roy: You didn’t give us a list then.

Hon. F. S. Miller: But I did admit there were other hospitals.

Mr. Roy: Right.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I was asked that question and I answered it. There are.

Mr. Roy: Why didn’t you go all the way?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The promise I have made to the hospitals of Ontario is that during the month of February I personally will visit any hospital board where we are considering closure. It will not be an ultimatum. It will be a discussion during which we state why we think that hospital should be closed and there will be a chance to study the reaction before the decision is made. I personally am going, not other staff. At the end of the month, all being well, if my timetable stands up, no hospital will need to be worried if it hasn’t been visited by me.

Mr. Roy: You are not going to be invited.

Mr. Reid: “The Happy Hangman.”

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can suggest that no one wants to receive a call from the Minister of Health for the next while.

Mr. Roy: You are a good fellow but we don’t want you in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: We can silk-screen some banners saying “Miller Is Coming.”

Can I ask the minister, given the questionable saving of money, the response in the northeastern psychiatric hospital area in Timmins-South Porcupine, the reaction he has had from Goderich and his admission that the way it was done was perhaps inappropriate, is it possible for him to reconsider the situation or to provide the rationalization document, which I gather he has, on which the decision was based, because I have never seen communities so up in arms as they are about their psychiatric hospitals?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to very thoughtful arguments from the Goderich area on several occasions. The book isn’t closed yet. I think the member heard the Premier say a few moments ago he did not want to give anybody any hope that their decision would be changed.

Mrs. Campbell: Nobody has hope who enters here.

Hon. F. S. Miller: But certain promises have been made to listen to a few more arguments; those promises will be met and honoured before the decision is final. I personally will be in Timmins on the night of Jan. 19 and the morning of Jan. 20.

Mr. Reid: Not the kiss of death, the visit of death.

Mr. Nixon: Just like the Black Plague, your progress about the province. No wonder you sent the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Henderson) there.

Hon. F. S. Miller: In any event, I will be meeting with people from the community then and I will be discussing their specific concerns. What I’m trying to emphasize though are the positive parts: You know, 15 locations in the Province of Ontario have a psychiatric facility.

Mr. Lewis: Not too many.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Hundreds do not have. Psychiatric care is now being given more and more in the general hospitals of the province rather than in the provincial institutions. We need to let the public recognize that our approach to care has changed, that the physical presence of a building does not necessarily mean the physical presence of good care.

Mr. Riddell: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, we’ll allow one more supplementary.

Mr. Riddell: Did I understand the minister correctly when he said that further arguments will be listened to, and that the decision is not final as yet to close the Goderich Psychiatric Hospital, as is the Northeastern Hospital?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Let me say this, my decision was final -- but there were promises made to see some people who felt they had the right to be heard, individuals not representing any group. They will be heard.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary and then I am finished. Why does the ministry say these kinds of things when the Ministry of Community and Social Services is already issuing press releases announcing the transfer to a mental retardation resource centre, when the minister has members of his staff interviewing the employees at the Goderich hospital for transfers -- they have a form called a surplus staff form -- and when everybody knows they’re moving and he constantly suggests these glimmering hopes? Is the minister or is he not final in his decision about Goderich?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, what I said was true.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier if he would table for this House, or make available for the members if the House is not in session, the legal opinion from the law officers of the Crown which supported the decision of the government to enter into an agreement on wage and price controls with the government of Canada, supported only by order in council 48-76?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give an undertaking on behalf of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) in whose area this responsibility lies --

Mr. Bullbrook: Why not?

Mr. Shore: You can give an undertaking on behalf of anybody.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- but I’m quite sure he would be prepared to share with the members of the House the legal advice we have received and upon which we have acted.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, since this is a matter which is going to be revealed this afternoon, and is of great concern to an awful lot of people in this country and many members of the Legislature, could the Premier perhaps arrange today to make available to us the legal opinion? It’s a matter of the most serious importance in so far as it concerns the affairs of the Province of Ontario --

Mr. Bullbrook: And the teachers.

Mr. Singer: -- and the teachers -- and we would like to be made privy to the kind of legal advice the government purports to act upon.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if I may? I could provide the member for Wilson Heights and the member for Sarnia with the opinion of the Attorney General of Ontario, who furnished it to me some time ago.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am not prepared to accept in this matter or any other matter --

Mr. Lewis: Well, that’s just pique!

Mr. Singer: -- the opinion of the member for Riverdale as being conclusive. I would like to know the basis on which the Premier has formed his own opinion.

Mr. Renwick: If you meant the opinion of the Attorney General, I’ve got it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will not table the legal opinion prepared by myself.

Mr. Reid: That’s wise.

Mr. Singer: Or by him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will only say this, the member for Rainy River or wherever says that’s wise; I agree. However, I think it might stand up with the legal opinion of the members for Sarnia or Wilson Heights. It just might.

Mr. Roy: Don’t be too sure.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I wouldn’t be sure. I haven’t been practising as recently as they have.

Mr. Reid: Just setting yourself up.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We have no reluctance. I really don’t know how it relates to the matter for which this session was called, but if the member for Riverdale has a copy I will endeavour to get it from him or from the Attorney General’s office, send it over to the member for Sarnia to peruse and the member for Wilson Heights.

Mr. Bullbrook: I didn’t ask for it, he asked for it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, the member for Wilson Heights? Delighted to.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary.

Mr. Renwick: I have it here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There it is.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary: The Attorney General is not here; the member for Riverdale is somewhat less than helpful by saying that he has the information because --

Mr. MacDonald: He has it.

Mr. Nixon: Fine. You can table it.

Mr. Deans: We all can.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, speaking to his point of order, he has a letter from his good old classmate, Roy McMurtry, everybody’s friend -- even Darcy McKeough’s friend, we understand -- but what we are interested in is the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on whom this government has based its decision to enter into an agreement with the government of Canada.

Mr. Renwick: Here it is.

Mr. Nixon: This surely should be a tabled piece of information, since the result of the legislation which we are presently considering at this special session will depend specifically on the legality of that agreement. That’s why we feel it’s essential that the information be made available.

PAPERWORKERS’ STRIKE

Mr. Nixon: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask her for a report to the House on the situation pertaining to the woodworkers.

Mr. Samis: Pulp and paper workers.

Mr. Nixon: Pulp and paper workers, yes.

Hon. B. Stephenson: We have been meeting throughout the period of time during which we have been absent one from the other. I have met with some regularity during the Christmas vacation --

Mr. Deans: Since early this morning, you mean.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- again with the officers of the unions, or talked to them by telephone almost daily, and with the officers of the paper companies. --

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s not a legal opinion; it’s a letter to the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick).

Mr. Singer: What a sellout for the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Labour has the floor. Order, please.

Mr. Singer: Absolute misdirection.

Mr. Nixon: The NDP giggles --

Mr. Singer: Principal Renwick.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk have any further questions?

Mr. Nixon: Sorry, Bette; please go ahead.

Mr. Speaker: Could we get on with the question period?

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order. It’s a “Dear Jim” letter.

Mr. Speaker: Right. Thank you.

Mr. Bullbrook: I have never yet seen a legal opinion that started, “Dear Jim.”

Mr. Singer: Deliberately misleading the House.

Mr. Bullbrook: It started, “Dear Jim.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has a further answer.

Mr. MacDonald: You are interested in the form, not the subject; that is your problem.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as you know, there have been at least four votes taken on the latest offers of the paper companies since we last met, and all of those votes have been rejected by the unions. There is a set of negotiations going on right at the moment in the Province of Quebec which may be of some assistance in Ontario. A set of negotiations was to begin yesterday in all of the E. B. Eddy plants in the Province of Ontario, and the CPU Ontario branch asked for their deferment. They have decided they wish to wait until there is some possible settlement of the negotiations in Montreal. That’s where we stand at the moment.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary: Can the minister give us any indication if there have been any special steps, or if there has been any progress made in negotiations with Abitibi, to get them back to the table?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, we have made some progress with Abitibi, as I am sure the hon. member knows. The one bit of progress we did make was --

Mr. Haggerty: Backward.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- to persuade Abitibi to pay the extra vacation pay just before Christmas. I am assured that Abitibi is willing to return to the negotiating table. I have not as yet been made aware of the date at which they are to return to the negotiating table. I think it will be in the very near future.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: I would like to ask the minister if she can tell the House just where the inventories of the paper companies stand, because I don’t believe the strike is going to be anywhere near settlement until those inventories are down to zero.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I don’t have precise knowledge of the inventories of the paper companies. I gather that they have been depleted.

Mr. Cassidy: You should have.

Mr. Laughren: The companies have not provided good-faith bargaining.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I know that certain materials which they ordinarily supply in fact are being imported from other countries to supply the companies to whom the paper companies usually sell. I really don’t have complete knowledge of the present state of their inventories. I do have knowledge, unfortunately, of the human state of some of the families of the workers in the CPU.

Mr. Reid: Well get the companies back to the bargaining table.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk have any further questions?

ELDORADO DUMP AT PORT HOPE

Mr. Nixon: Yes, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Health. Are we correct in assuming, from reading recent press reports, that the situation in Port Hope having to do with radiation pollution is far more serious than was indicated by the original reports when the House was still in session, and is the minister going to accede to the request from the local member, and others, that there be a full investigation to pinpoint the sources of the radiation and to undertake a planned cleanup?

[2:30]

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it depends upon how one interprets the word “serious.” If one means in terms of the health of the people, as far as I can tell there is no serious problem there yet. It may be very difficult to convince anybody of that, but my experts tell me that is so. If one talks about the number of places where radioactive materials have been found, there are quite a few more than were originally known when we last sat in this House. Members may recall my saying at the time that it was our intention to borrow some equipment from Atomic Energy and to scan the town, in a sense, to locate whether there were other high radiation sites. This did show a number of dwellings in particular that had a radiation count above the normal atmospheric count.

I understand we have told any private home owner of our findings. We haven’t seen fit to make them public. I’m not sure whether that’s legal or illegal. I think one could argue it either way and I would probably need several lawyers to come up with a consensus. I do think though that morally our responsibility, just as a doctor’s is to a patient, is to the people occupying a private residence, where we tell them what their levels are, what risks, if any, we would think they are faced with and what steps should be taken.

It has not just been found in fill; it has been found in other materials. There would seem to be some evidence that not all of this fill or material was taken with the knowledge or permission of the company. I think what they hang their legal argument on is are they responsible in every case. Lumber, for example, that appears in people’s walls apparently has a high radioactive level. So we would say in general terms that we know of no public place where a hazard exists. We have located a number of private homes with reasonably low but still above-normal figures. We have told the people and we’re continuing our work.

As far as the investigation goes, I’m not averse to one. I think the question is whose responsibility is it and how should it be handled at this point.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: A public place would be that school. Does that school remain closed?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I made the statement before we broke up that the school should remain closed until we remedy the problem. I would have to take advice from those people who know more about the problem. In my own heart, I don’t think it would hurt the students to go back but I don’t think the community is prepared to let it happen. I would have to side with the community, having discovered that --

Mr. Deans: That is a change.

Mr. Lewis: What about Goderich? That is a community too.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It’s a little different problem. The analogies aren’t quite fair and I think the member is bright enough to figure that out.

Mr. Moffatt: Supplementary: Since the minister seems to be more concerned with the responsibility than with the liability of those people and with a health hazard which may or not may be present, as he has admitted, is it possible that the minister will attempt to gather some sort of factual data with regard to the health of the people so that we’ll know whether he is just taking an educated guess or in fact is basing it upon scientific information?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have had great exposure to people telling me how one would do that and one doesn’t just simply do it today. It requires what they call an epidemiological study. In other words, one watches them through their lifetime and sees how many of them finally die of lung cancer. That’s ridiculous. Our problem isn’t to see what happened, academic though it may be; it’s to prevent further contact, if we can. This is where my staff have carefully documented the estimated exposure figures and the estimated durations and have said that, statistically, no one should end up with lung cancer because of it.

Mr. Godfrey: Supplementary: Can the minister table the number of birth defects that have occurred in the vicinity of Port Hope during the last five years?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’m sure I could and the member is welcome to peruse the information and see whether there are any other abnormalities. As a non-medical person, I obviously have to depend upon the advice coming to me from those people knowledgeable in medicine. I was intrigued to see that tests were being done yesterday on people, when in fact I’m told no tests are available for the symptoms.

Mr. Lewis: Bone marrow tests.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, but that is not for radon gas problems. I think one must get into this. I’m now trying to find out whether those people were sent because their doctor thought they had been exposed to radon gas and had some symptoms related to that or some other problems. At this point, that’s private between that doctor and that patient and they have no intention of telling us. The press impression is that it was related to the radon gas. My experts tell me there is no known way that it is related.

Mr. Moffatt: A supplementary: On the last day of the previous session, it was agreed to by the Premier (Mr. Davis) that a study would be convened involving various ministries, including the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the federal agencies, to do a thorough study of that particular situation and, indeed, expand it into a study of radioactivity throughout the province if necessary. Has that been started yet at all?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, if there is one area where we have a fair amount of accumulated knowledge it is in this field. I’d like to say I will be pleased to do anything useful.

Mr. Martel: It’s a disaster area.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Let’s agree on what’s useful. To date, no one has been able to show me what studies are going to remedy the problem except to get down to the nitty-gritty and get rid of exposure in the future.

PIONEER VILLAGE

Mr. Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, I feel the question I have to ask today is of urgent importance to the whole culture of the Province of Ontario. I am speaking about a problem that exists at the present time at Pioneer Village, run by Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority over the last year.

Mr. Deans: Ask it.

Mr. Hodgson: The question I would like to ask the minister at this time is, would he have a meeting with the officials of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority --

Mr. Singer: He answered that on the radio this morning. He said, “Tough.”

Mr. Hodgson: -- and the members who are interested in keeping this facility open --

Mr. Reid: Thanks for the warning, Bill.

Mr. Hodgson: -- with a view, and this is where the crunch comes --

Mr. Singer: He said “No” this morning on the radio.

Mr. Roy: That was a vicious question, Bill.

Mr. Hodgson: -- with a view to helping these people out of their financial difficulties at the present time with the Wintario funds?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, there has been a tremendous amount of interest generated with respect to this wonderful activity in Metropolitan Toronto and I’m getting a considerable amount of mail on the question.

Mr. Nixon: The door is never closed.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I’d be very happy to meet with the officials of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority --

Mr. Singer: Yes, but not to give them money.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- in order to review government policy and to indicate to members of the authority and to others just how generous this government has been over the years.

Mr. Singer: Yes, but not in the future. That was in the past.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We’ll allow one supplementary.

Mr. MacDonald: How can the government have its annual -- and I’m sure it’s going to be annual since they held it before the last election -- visits of all those senior citizens to Pioneer Village if we don’t keep it open?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I don’t think there is any question about it closing. I think there has been some suggestion that because of the increase in operating expenses they might have to have a more modified programme there, but certainly not a closure.

HEALTH OF COKE OVEN WORKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware that the Ontario health protection branch is currently doing threshold limit studies at the coke ovens at the Hilton works and that the union is objecting, at the moment, on the basis that there is a severe cutback in production in that department and it’s going to mean tests which will not be accurate on which he might base his recommendations?

Mr. Martel: What else is new?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’ll be glad to look into it.

DRINKING DRIVERS

Mr. O’Neil: I have a question of the Premier in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). Has the Attorney General’s department had under review the recent decision of Judge Glendenning of the city of Belleville, where first-time offenders for impaired driving have been sentenced to jail?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t answer for the Attorney General on that specific question. I will endeavour to get the information for the hon. member and pass it on to him.

Mr. O’Neil: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I would ask your indulgence on this. The Belleville area has a very excellent rehabilitation programme for first-time offenders.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, is there a further question? I think not. One final supplementary from the member for Wilson Heights.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, when the Premier is considering that with his Attorney General, I wonder if the suggestion could be made that it really isn’t up to the provincial judge on the criminal side to effect changes in the provisions of the Criminal Code; it’s up to the Parliament of Canada?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I could only say this on behalf of the Attorney General, I have rather complete confidence in his knowledge of the criminal code of this country, how it is amended and how it is administered.

Mr. Singer: Some of the judges may not be as aware of that as they should be.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Once again without being provocative, I would suggest that he is somewhat more knowledgeable in that field than the rather extensive knowledge of the member for Wilson Heights.

Mr. Roy: Don’t be too sure.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I am very sure. In that field.

MUNICIPAL GRANTS

Mr. Swart: In the absence of the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), I would also like to direct my question to the Premier. In view of the extreme concern expressed by all local government bodies with regard to the likely cutback in services and the increased property tax rate this year, could he tell the House whether the Treasurer or any branch of the government did any studies? If so, what are the results of those studies to determine the degree of cutback in municipal services that would be necessary if the province sticks to an eight per cent limit and if the municipalities go by the 10 per cent guideline increase in taxation? Were any studies done -- and what were the results of those studies?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t answer that in the particular sense for the Treasurer. I think part of the answer at least would lie with the municipalities. I think a lot depends on those areas where the municipalities themselves attach priority, where they decide to make their cutbacks; I think from my own discussions with a few municipalities that they want this opportunity to make their own decisions.

As to any study of a detailed nature, municipality by municipality, I can’t say whether the Treasurer or his ministry has done this. I am sure there has been some study as to the overall figures and the impact, but I couldn’t say whether it was broken down by each municipality -- because here again you get into what the decisions and what the priorities of those municipalities may be.

Mr. Speaker: I will allow a supplementary here.

Mr. Swart: Is the government prepared to see property tax increases on the average far in excess of 10 per cent this year and still stick to the guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is the intention of this government to stick to its policy on the amounts of money available by way of transfer payment to the municipalities, the school boards and to the hospitals. The question of the increase in mill rate will depend, to a very large extent, on the municipalities and the kind of priorities that they give in their recognition that we are in a rather tough period and certain programmes will have to be curtailed, reduced, or in some cases perhaps temporarily eliminated.

Mr. Cassidy: Like day care and children’s aid.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We don’t minimize for a moment the impact on the municipalities or the boards. But there is just no point in holding out any hope to the members opposite that we are going to increase the figures that we have announced. We will never solve the economic problems this province and this country face if every time we feel the heat we give in -- and so in that way there is no solution to the problems that we face.

Mr. Roy: That’s what you have been doing for the last 10 years.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We will allow a final supplementary, because the time has just about expired.

Mr. Lewis: It is your mismanagement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If those guys were running the store it would be so badly handled that we wouldn’t even have to worry about that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Rainy River with a final supplementary.

Mr. Reid: I would like to ask the Premier if he can give the House any indication of the financial and economic impact of the cabinet and the Treasurer going around the province meeting with local school boards, the cost to the province of these trips, and the cost to the local municipalities, in view of the fact that he could have sent a letter and told them what he was going to do?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That question is not supplementary to the original one. I’ll hear a question from the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is that what your leadership candidates are saying?

BROWNDALE OPERATIONS

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health: Is the minister aware of the problems in the Haliburton-Peterborough region of Browndale (Ontario), the recent firings and the possibilities that homes in that area will be closed down? Will he make public his own ministry’s reports on the Browndale operations there? Will he consider a full investigation of the situation?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the problems. I believe they are internal in nature.

Mrs. Campbell: Internal or external.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I believe it results from Mrs. Debbie Brown changing certain key staff. We are watching the programmes, because our real concern is whether the children are being properly treated. We realize that there will probably be a number of relocations of children in most cases back to other communities closer to the ones from which they came. We are watching it very closely.

As far as revealing internal documents is concerned, no.

[2:45]

Mr. Speaker: We will allow one supplementary.

Mr. Eakins: Does the minister agree with the apparent Browndale practice of having one of its operations rent, lease and sell properties and services to another part of the organization? Is it not true that his ministry has told other operators that they can’t operate in that fashion and yet the minister has continued to allow Browndale to do this?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know that we have ever told anybody else that. Secondly, we don’t pay them on the basis of the cost of a home, we pay them for a per diem charge for services rendered the same as we pay all other organizations now. I don’t care whether they are in a palace or whether they are in a modest home, that is their business.

CANADIAN SKI PATROL SYSTEM

Mr. McCague: A question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation: In view of the financial condition of the Canadian Ski Patrol System and its essential role in this province, would the minister consider financial support to the work of the patrol in the province?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member I am very aware of the splendid work that is being done by the Canadian Ski Patrol System, but I am advised that the financial problems to which he refers are those of the Canadian association. The president of the Ontario division tells me they have sufficient funds to carry out their programme and we do, incidentally, provide an annual grant of $5,000 to the Ontario section to assist with the cost of training their ski patrol members.

Mr. Speaker: We can have a brief question from the member for Cornwall.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Samis: I will try to make it brief, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Singer: That’s long enough.

Mr. Samis: No no. I listened to you, Vern.

Can the minister tell us why the announcement to increase the minimum wage was made after the Legislature was adjourned before Christmas, why the increase doesn’t take effect on Jan. 1 instead of March, and why the minimum wage in Ontario, even with the increase, is still below that of the federal government, the Province of British Columbia and the Province of Quebec, both of which will be increasing them again this spring?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the minimum wage was announced, I think, on Dec. 22 because that was the date on which it was finalized. Secondly, it was an incomplete report, as I am sure the member is aware, because we haven’t as yet finalized the student wage, the wage for agricultural workers and the wage which is being considered for those people who work within the hospitality industry. It has been finalized as the general minimum wage and the construction minimum wage.

The second question I believe the member asked was, why was it not effective on Jan. 1. Because we feel that it is more responsible to give the employers of this province at least a three-month lead time so that they can in fact establish their budgets for the next year on the basis of their foreknowledge of the increase in the minimum wage. As I told the member before, we hope this will be done in a phased manner and that three- month lead time we felt was necessary for the general employers.

The third question the member asked was, why was it lower than Canada and BC. Because we, in our very responsible examination of the problem of minimum wage, have to look at the industrial mix of this province which is entirely different from any other jurisdiction in this country and particularly from the federal government’s. We have a number of industries which are quite different from those in any other province which are directly affected by the minimum wage. Our competition for the products of these industries is not within Canada primarily, it is with the United States -- with upper New York State and Ohio. I will tell the member right now that our minimum wage is almost double one of those and about two-thirds higher than the other. We have a very real problem with that kind of competition, but we do not adjust the minimum wage in a frivolous manner.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order, before the orders of the day. I want to assure you and the Premier and my leader that the “Dear Jim” legal opinion doesn’t include one of the most manifest objections that we have, and that is that the agreement was not subject to or the result of statutory authority passed by this House.

My point of order is that the House leader said that before the end of the question period he would give me the statutory authority --

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would try; I haven’t got it yet.

Mr. Bullbrook: I thought the question period was over.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It is over. I said I would make an honest effort to do it.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 1, An Act respecting the Metropolitan Toronto Boards of Education and Teachers Disputes.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO BOARDS OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTES ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. Mackenzie: This bill is a disturbing one for many of us. I want to correct a statement made by one of the members across the way that the purpose of this bill, compulsory arbitration, has been unanimously accepted by all three parties in the House because I don’t think that’s the case. It certainly doesn’t show much awareness of that member of the labour position of this party and its non-acceptance of compulsory arbitration.

Mr. Speaker: There is too much noise in the chamber. Will you cut down on your conversations, please?

Mr. Mackenzie: I also want to respond just briefly to some of the accolades that were tossed to the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells). I am not trying to criticize him in any personal or bitter way. I think he has got a pretty serious department, a pretty major department to administer and while I may be a new member in this House I recognize some of the problems and responsibilities that go with that kind of a job.

But I do want to say as a trade unionist and a new member in the House that I sat quietly, although at time it was very difficult to do, over a period of several weeks prior to this teachers’ strike taking place and heard the leader of my party, and the leader of the Liberal Party after him, speak day after day about personally intervening or bringing them together or sitting down with them. I heard him -- and I don’t have the Hansards in front of me -- say on more occasions than one that he didn’t think it would be helpful, that there wasn’t the immediate need, that they were dealing with it and that the parties were together. We couldn’t seem to get through to him what was going to happen in this situation. Quite frankly, while his job may be done well in many areas, I don’t think he did a particularly good job in terms of a very difficult and a very serious developing strike situation.

It reminds me a little bit of another new piece of labour legislation that was passed about a year ago in this House that authorized, among other things, the setting up of a disputes advisory committee to which we could refer or which would deal with particularly difficult labour situations or strike situations. I don’t know in the year that it has been in that this committee has been used once. I do know that I myself have tried and that others have tried on two or three occasions that I know of or suggested that the disputes advisory committee be used in particularly difficult and sometimes lengthy strikes in this province. We haven’t been able to make use of it. It makes one wonder what the legislation was put on paper for in any event.

I have also heard members in this House say that there was not much point in ordering the teachers back or asking the teachers and the board to go back into negotiations, that the parties had reached a point where there was just no room for manoeuvre. I am not sure that the members of this House have honestly thought out one of the major reasons why those negotiations were not bearing fruit. It is almost impossible, if one has done any collective bargaining, to reach agreement with intransigent management -- and the boards certainly didn’t help in this situation -- if they know, given a showdown and a long delay, they can count on the government moving in and ordering them back to work. Really if you stop and think, Mr. Speaker, there is little wonder there was no real pressure on to settle, particularly also when we couldn’t get the minister involved in the last few weeks.

I also think that one of the things that we have got to come to grips with in this House, and at this time, is what is happening to collective bargaining in this province. This concerns me. Some members said, “Oh, this is not an issue,” or “Really, you’re overemphasizing this issue.” Let me tell you it’s the one issue right now that’s bothering collective bargaining teams or negotiators for almost every union in this province and in this country. There is an anti-labour reaction, there is a reaction about big unions. I don’t think it’s fair; I’m not here to debate that. But that kind of atmosphere is there.

By accepting the federal price and wage control legislation in this country, we have come very close to destroying the whole principle of collective bargaining. That to me is one of the tragedies in Canada, that piece of legislation. It is so bloody unfair and I think people are beginning to see that it’s unfair.

There’s no question people want something done; that there’s a fear of inflation. But it is unfair to bring in legislation, such as that federal legislation, which effectively controls what’s easy to control -- and that’s the wages of people -- without the other controls. They’re not there, Mr. Speaker. It is very unfair to have this provincial government cop out of its responsibilities by buying that kind of a position. That’s what it is in my opinion -- a copout. We are very very close to the end of really effective collective bargaining. How in blazes can you sit down, even if the companies are willing to talk to you, and even if you’re in a behind position with wages -- as many, many workers still are -- when they know that the legislation is there that stops them from getting more than eight per cent, or that says: “Whatever, you get, you’re going to have to before that doggone board”?

With this kind of a scenario there was no way you were going to get effective collective bargaining. That’s one of the things that, even with the position we have on this bill, I find some difficulty with. But I think that we’ve got to understand what we’re doing.

It’s not just the teachers; that’s the other point I want to make. It’s not the teachers at all in this particular situation. We have this concern I’ve talked about -- about free collective bargaining, and whether there’s an attempt to reduce the effectiveness or the possibility of free collective bargaining in this country.

Any move that causes compulsory arbitration or orders a group of workers back to work just adds fuel to those groups -- and there are many, and it includes most management and most business groups -- who do not want to see the prices go up vis-â-vis higher wage contracts. Anything that hits, that effectively stops a group, such as compulsory arbitration, is a threat. Whether you realize it or not, it is being seen as a threat by the labour movement right across this province and right across this country.

I’m constantly amazed at some of the positions I see coming out. I more or less expect them, I suppose, from the party across the way. But I’m amazed by a party that tries to appear friends of labour and by some of my Liberal friends and some of the bills they bring out and some of the positions they’re taking on compulsory arbitration, or in denying the right to strike. This is going to effectively destroy the trade union movement, if that’s the position that carries in this country.

I think for many reasons it is a mistake in legislating the teachers back. This is being watched by all of the organized workers in this country. What the government is doing is going to leave a legacy of bitterness. Let me tell you something else -- some people seem to think that we’re a little bit complacent; that this is not really something to worry about. Compulsory arbitration is one of the most damnable things that can happen in the labour relations field in this country. I think it’s worse than strike breakers and many other areas that we’ve taken on. It does really cut at the guts of your ability to negotiate a good contract -- and we just can’t allow that kind of legislation.

I am also constantly amazed -- and once again I suppose I shouldn’t really be this surprised at the party across the way bringing in a bill as barefaced as this one; a party that usually is talking about private enterprise and individuality and freedom. Why is it -- I’d like an explanation from some of the members -- that when they’re finally going to crack down, it’s always working people or unions that are hit with this kind of legislation? That is what is happening or what seems to be happening across this province.

[3:00]

As an active trade unionist for many years, I took a look at this bill and said to myself, “There is no way I can support compulsory arbitration.” That is the position of my party, and I am not afraid to stand and be counted on that. But I also feel, as an elected member of this House, that I’ve got a heck of a lot of responsibility to a lot of people and to constituents who may have political beliefs with all parties. I am also ready to accept that kind of a responsibility. If there is a road we can go, or a way that is a little better than the minister is suggesting, I am willing to take a look at it. I may not like it -- I don’t -- but at least we are not inflexible. We are willing to take a stand if that’s what we have to do, and I am proud to do it; but we are also willing to take a look at a way out.

Mr. Johnson: Next year?

Mr. Mackenzie: Very frankly, in my opinion, this is not the best way out. But let me tell hon. members that the reasoned amendment we have suggested, while it does contain still one of the most damnable features of the bill -- that is, ordering them back to work -- also says at the same time that they have a floor and that they are going back to the bargaining table. It is not something I am comfortable or happy with but, in the interest of making a positive recommendation, it is something I am willing to support. It makes one hell of a lot more sense than ordering those workers back to work with no say in what is going to happen. It is difficult enough with the AIB, but this legislation provides no say whatsoever as to what is going to happen; it is legislation that is compulsory and really tears the guts out of the whole collective bargaining system. To say that is the only alternative, I think the government, and the Liberals if they support them, are just dumb if that is the position they put. I would ask them to reconsider their position, and I am sorry if I feel that strongly about it.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, over the last few days I have, as have probably many of the members from Metropolitan Toronto and the outlying districts, received phone calls concerning this problem before us today. Considering all the phone calls opposing legislating the teachers back to work, the opposition seems to be predicated upon two premises: (a) that the students have already lost their year; or (b) that legislation would dictate the terms of settlement.

As a result of my inquiries, I am satisfied that the students at this point, if the schools are reopened, can salvage their year. As well, I recognize that Bill 100 has strengths and weaknesses and that its weaknesses seem to be relevant to the fact that it is powerless when there appears to be bargaining either in bad faith or when an impasse has been reached.

Negotiations have been fruitless in the outstanding area of monetary settlement, and there seems to be no alternative in the circumstances of this particular case but to protect by legislation those most innocently affected, namely the students.

Bill 100, while guaranteeing the right to strike, also provides machinery for collective bargaining. In the case at hand, bargaining has been going on for one year almost to the day and the parties are no nearer settlement now than they were when they first began, particularly in the area of monetary settlement.

When negotiations have failed -- and they have -- then compulsory arbitration is the only apparent solution. Even in this regard we can preserve the vehicle of negotiation to some limited degree and we can strive to deprive neither side of its right of input into settlement, even in the area of compulsory arbitration. But we, as legislators, must not remove from the parties in this dispute their duty to negotiate, and it is only in light of this that I can support the legislation before the House which requires both parties to submit finally their agreements and disagreements and to allow an independent third party to assess the fairness of both submissions and arrive at a decision which becomes binding.

This morning, the Premier (Mr. Davis) indicated that if the parties had reached an agreement before this bill was passed, he would have the bill removed from consideration by the House. The very fact that we are here today discussing this may be an incentive to the parties to settle. It seems to me that the parties to this dispute must recognize that they have some responsibility in making the legislation work, and I’m referring to Bill 100, and over the past year they have not been able to make it work.

I am likewise intrigued by the preamble to the government bill, particularly by the verbiage which states “and whereas the public interest . . . requires that secondary school teachers return to and assume their duties”. This statement seems to me to recognize the weaknesses in Bill 101 and at the same time could be read as a warning to other negotiators in other arenas of contention that apparent bad-faith bargaining or continuing inconclusiveness cannot be tolerated, particularly where there is hardship worked on innocent third parties.

As members of this House we accept as part of our responsibility the protection of those who are innocently placed in a position of suffering; and at the same time we must strive to be fair to all parties. My interpretation of being fair does not include the dictating of terms of settlement, particularly in this dispute between opposing factions, but rather I believe that a sense of fairness in these particular circumstances does require that the parties apply themselves in a final effort to come to a meeting of minds; and this be done in making final submissions to the independent third party or the arbitrator who will arrive at an enforceable decision in the areas of unattainable agreement.

We cannot dismiss from our minds that each party involved here has been negotiating for one year and each party knows more of what the other party will accept than even we here. Keeping in mind all of those considerations, it is for those reasons that I give my support to the bill before the House.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are here today is an admission of a breakdown, a breakdown in a process which all parties in this House had entered into with high hopes. We had entered into a process whereby we extended to a large group of employees in the public sector the right to have a say in their wages and their working conditions; and with it the right to withdraw their services, without which we can have no true collective bargaining.

Bill 100 was adopted and put into effect and I think it is unfortunate that in its first year we have suffered the kind of breakdown of that process that has occurred in the city of Toronto. Bill 100 has worked in a great many other board areas, so I think one of the things we should be looking at is why this breakdown occurred here.

As a Metro member, I regret that the breakdown occurred here. I am aware of what it has done to our community, of how many people are concerned about the quality of our education following this breakdown. The parents are concerned about the future of their children. The kids are concerned about what will happen this year and whether they will get their year. The teachers are concerned about whether their just claims for catching up with other sectors of the community will be honoured. The trustees are concerned with what will happen to the tax rates, although in that respect I feel that the pressure on them should be relieved somewhat by the province assuming a much greater share of the costs of education, which would benefit the whole community and not just the property owner; the whole community can pay on an ability-to-pay basis more easily than the property owner.

I deplore the factors which contributed to this breakdown. I deplore the scare stories that came out about the fact that all students who weren’t back by tomorrow would lose their year. I think they were completely unsubstantiated.

I deplore the media’s vilification -- that’s a strong word but I think it seems to categorize some of it -- the media’s vilification of the teachers; their contribution to the misunderstanding of the role of teachers in our community. I deplore the bitterness and the bad faith which was shown in some of the negotiations. I deplore the misinformation which came out in distorted ads. And I deplore most of all the cop-out of the government, the members opposite, on the whole question of the public sector and the Anti-Inflation Board. I think the government is hiding behind the skirts of the AIB in order not to have to discharge its responsibility to see that public sector employees in this province are able to close the gap between themselves and other employees doing similar work in the private sector.

I think the signing of the agreement two days ago before this House met was an insult to the House and that we should have had the opportunity to debate what was going to be exempt, because there are certain sectors that are exempt from the federal application of the anti-inflation regulations. There is no reason why the teachers could not have been included in those exempt sections. In fact, in my opinion the whole of the public sector should be under provincial jurisdiction.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Schreyer doesn’t agree with that.

Ms. Bryden: People may say that when you’re controlling inflation you can’t have conditions that are different across Canada for the same people.

Mr. Foulds: We haven’t got it in this jurisdiction. You just heard the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) say why the conditions were so unique in Ontario. Let’s just argue about Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Wells: A very perceptive fellow.

Mr. Foulds: The Minister of Labour?

Mr. Samis: Peter Lougheed isn’t locked in, though, is he?

Ms. Bryden: The logic as to why the anti-inflation programme for the public sector should be administered by the provincial government is overwhelming. The provincial government is responsible for the supply of funds for most of those programmes the public sector employees serve. The provincial government is responsible for the services those public sector employees provide; education health and so forth. The provincial government is really responsible in the last analysis for the tax policies which finance those public sector operations.

The Anti-Inflation Board is just not familiar with the conditions in each province in these very complicated fields of providing services to people under different provincial programmes. It is also completely bogged down in handling all the private sector contracts that it has. So I think the government is largely responsible for this breakdown in the teacher negotiations. Certainly we all know the intervention of the AIB in December had a great deal to do with the setback of any progress that was being made in negotiations.

Finally the provincial government is doing nothing to see that prices are controlled and it’s prices which are fuelling the demands for wage increases. If prices had not gone up so much in the last four years the teachers would not be as far behind as they are and they would not need as big an increase, but the provincial government has again opted out completely on that and left it to the federal government. And we all know that the federal price control is a complete sham. The province could have set up its own price review board and could have controlled oil prices. It took the freeze off one month after the election. It could have controlled housing prices.

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Two months.

Ms. Bryden: I thought it was a month and a half. I’ll stand corrected.

Mr. Foulds: Don’t be corrected by him.

Ms. Bryden: So we have this breakdown and the question we must face is what do we do about it? We could decide that we will scuttle Bill 100 and that all disputes of this sort will automatically go to compulsory arbitration. Those of us who believe in collective bargaining find that route completely unacceptable because we know for a fact that the employees who are subject to compulsory arbitration in the hospitals and so on slip behind. They do not have the same opportunity to negotiate their own terms as the rest of the private sector.

Why should we have two separate classes of employees -- those who serve the public sector and those who serve the private? On strikes in the public sector one gets much more reaction from the public because they appear to be much more affected. I don’t know how many people realize that the pulp strike is going to have the newspapers closing down in a month or so and that we are going to run out of Kleenex. Until that happens, people aren’t aware that there is a very serious strike going on in the pulp industry, and so the public is not demanding compulsory arbitration there, but they are demanding it in the public sector, because they are much more aware of what is going on and how it is affecting them.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be concerned by the fact that the public is seriously affected, but I think we have to look at the pros for compulsory arbitration and the cons. The pros are, of course, that the community is seriously affected if a strike goes on too long, that the kids are affected and that there appears to be a stalemate. But the cons are also compelling, and we must look at them as well.

There is the whole question of the death of Bill 100. If every teacher strike ends in compulsory arbitration, Bill 100 will be dead. It will be the death of collective bargaining, not just for the teachers, but for the entire public sector because the same pattern will be followed. It will be the death of collective bargaining, not just for the public sector, but for what are considered essential services in the private sector. And then we have to decide what is an essential service.

It will be writing off a year’s attempt at new legislation and a year’s attempt at collective bargaining. It will be writing off the possibility of looking at the breakdown and learning from what has happened and improving Bill 100 to make it work. I think that can be done. In my opinion, the cons are stronger than the pros because they involve the right of people in the public sector to have the same rights as those in the private sector. I think we should restrict to as small a group as possible the people we deprive of those rights. I agree that policemen and firemen probably have to be deprived of them. But we should have as small a group as possible; otherwise we have two classes of citizens.

Since we have come to this impasse, in deciding what we have to do, I think we have to accept certain facts. We have first to accept that if the schools are closed too long the community probably is harmed. If the kids are out too long they are probably harmed, and therefore, some action must be taken.

We have also to recognize that the teachers have a very strong case for a substantial salary increase simply to catch up. Since 1971 -- if we take 1971 as 100, the teachers’ purchasing power is down to 91 by 1975. With the average industrial worker, if we take 1971 as 100, his purchasing power is up to 104.5, so that the teachers have a very strong case just for catch-up. There is also a case for recognition of their contribution to the community. For many years teachers have contributed voluntary extracurricular services; they get no pay for this. They make a great contribution to the community and yet we are not prepared to pay them on the same basis as other people whose jobs require university degrees. I think we have to face up to this and recognize that they are entitled to the same sort of remuneration as people with comparable education in other jobs.

The next factor that we have to recognize is that the teachers should have the same rights as employees in the private sector and that the taxpayers’ load is too great. As I have mentioned before, the way to solve that is for the province to get into the act more.

Since we have decided that this is a breakdown and that we have to do something -- the question is, what do we do? What is wrong with this bill? There are four things that I can see. First, the teachers go back empty-handed after months in the cold and the sleet on the picket lines; after nine months of legal collective bargaining, and exercising their legal right to strike, and after widespread recognition, by people from Mr. Hartt down, that they have substantial claims to increases beyond the 12 per cent in the guideline.

After looking at their entitlement to special consideration under the guidelines, they do fit the various criteria that were set forth for special consideration, such as that the last contract negotiations were prior to Jan. 1, 1974, and other secondary school teachers throughout the province are being paid more.

I think there are 22 boards that are ahead of the teachers in Toronto for one or more categories. The Metro boards are having trouble hiring enough teachers to meet their contractual obligations. These three factors alone entitle them to special consideration, but, there is no special consideration guaranteed to them in the bill.

Second, it is back-to-work legislation of a very unusual nature in that it contains absolutely no minimum settlement, no floor from which the arbitrators start. This is going to put the teachers back in the classroom with a very deep sense of insecurity and a deep sense of injustice that not even their minimum claims have been recognized.

Third, there is no proposal for rehabilitating Bill 100; there is nothing in the bill which will tell us what happens next year. Perhaps we should be looking not only at Bill 100 but at the whole Metro education legislation here which sets up this six-board consortium for bargaining purposes; perhaps that is partly at fault.

These are the flaws in the bill and that is why we brought in our reasoned amendment, to correct them. It seems to me that the previous Liberal speaker should be ready to vote for our bill, because he was calling for back-to-work legislation with resumption of negotiations and that is exactly what we are calling for. We think this is the only way to see that collective bargaining is preserved; that Bill 100 is not buried with this bill.

In summing up, all we are asking the government to do by accepting the amendment is to recognize that this is an exceptional situation that requires exceptional treatment. We are simply giving more time for the resumption of bargaining but at the same time we are ensuring that the schools are opened so that the damage to the community and to the students, if it has been occurring, is not continued.

We are also recognizing that the teachers’ claims for catch-up are at least as great as the final offer of the board, that that is not a ceiling and that negotiations are still permitted. It is also possible under our proposal for the variation of those terms in that in the negotiations the teachers could decide, if they did not like a certain term of the final settlement as well as another one, they could substitute the other one for it but the total package in money would probably amount to about the same. That sort of flexibility is possible under the interim settlement, and I think that should be recognized. That will speed up negotiations, because if there were certain clauses in the final offer that the teachers did not like, I think they could be renegotiated and still come within the interim minimum base floor. That, it seems to me, will speed up the whole process of getting a final settlement.

Finally, after this legislation is passed, I hope that we will take a good look a Bill 100 and the Metro education legislation to see how we can rehabilitate them so that collective bargaining does carry on.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against this bill because I think it is very defective in settling this particular emergency and because I think there is a way to do it and to have the schools open on Monday morning.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House from one of the Metropolitan Toronto ridings, I have been heavily and personally involved in this dispute since day 1, perhaps more than many of the other members of the House.

Since the strike first began, I have been involved in discussions and in receipt of telephone calls and letters from teachers, trustees, students and parents. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that has arisen out of this labour dispute that has amazed me -- and it amazed me at the time we had another rather significant major labour dispute in the Metropolitan Toronto area that severely inconvenienced the public, which was the Toronto transit strike not too many months ago. The thing that utterly amazes me throughout this and that situation is the public virtue of tolerance, patience and understanding that has prevailed throughout. I think this is something that is deserving of recognition and full credit.

It has been suggested by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) that a great deal of hostility has arisen because of this labour dispute. I have to challenge that position, based on my own personal involvement and findings. Most certainly there has been frustration and concern expressed to me by my constituents but without exception, in talking to these people on a one-to-one basis, I have always found that rational, reasoned discussion has taken place. While there have been expressions of concern and frustration, they have not, in my perception, come to the point of outright hostility. I would like, in that sense, to put the matter back into a more proper perspective.

I think, however, we must not here today put the public virtues to which I have referred to the ultimate test and bring them to the breaking point by involving ourselves in a situation where there will be unnecessarily protracted debates and unnecessary delay to deal with an unusual situation, as has been recognized by this House being specially convened today to deal with a crisis situation.

I think, without exception, today I’ve heard speakers bring in the overworked phrase “cop-out” and the overworked criticism of the so-called sweetheart deal that the province has with the federal government in trying to deal with a national crisis situation. Throughout it has been used, I suggest, to put an unfair perspective on this whole debate here today.

We have to recognize that we’re living with a national fact of life and that there is a federal programme of restraint in existence. To use that as a whipping boy in this province for this government in having exercised its responsibilities, along with other provincial governments in joining that programme, I think surely is unnecessarily introducing a side issue that is not germane to the merits of the legislation before us.

Mr. Bullbrook: It’ll be rather germane to the teachers when Mr. Pepin tells them how much they get.

Mr. Williams: I would suggest that the only time I can anticipate hostility arising in the public sector at large would be in fact if this House gave serious consideration to the amendment that has been presented to us today by the New Democratic Party. I think it would be an insult to the public who have exercised this restraint and the tolerance and understanding that I have spoken of, now to have this Legislature impose the base terms of settlement upon the parties to the dispute as a basis for further negotiations. It is totally inconsistent and I think it would be the straw that would break the back of the virtues which I have referred to and that so far the public have demonstrated so well.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) made use of the term “falderal” earlier today in his remarks on this subject. And I can only suggest that if we seriously pursue the NDP amendment as a legitimate alternative, then surely we are engaging in political falderal. I think the public can expect no less of this Legislature today than to deal with the legislation in principle expeditiously and decisively.

Mr. Mackenzie: Hit them over the head.

Mr. Williams: Either we agree, as do our Liberal opponents, that the principle is sound under the given circumstances, or those who oppose in principle the concept of the legislation as being the best of a not too happy experience should simply at this time stand up and be so recorded. But I think it would be inappropriate and disillusioning to the public to now find that the ultimate source of redress, the Legislature of this province, is embroiling itself in an unnecessary and protracted debate and discussion when the issue is so basic and straightforward and clear.

Accordingly, I suggest that this House should forthwith deal with the legislation before us. I am satisfied that with the logic that has been expressed both by the members of the government party and the members of the Liberal Party today, that this legislation will be dealt with expeditiously and brought forward to represent the most equitable and fair treatment that can be imposed at this time under the given circumstances.

Mrs. Campbell: You know, Mr. Speaker, it is always good to sit and listen to debates, because the previous speaker has almost made up my mind that I must accept some kind of ceiling or floor for this particular legislation.

When I hear a member of this government say that we must take this responsibility, I want to know why he wouldn’t have said the same thing about Bill 12 in 1974. In ending the York county teachers’ dispute, it provided an interim salary increase. Or what about Bill 119? We referred to the transit strike, and again there was an award of an interim wage increase. But it is different here, isn’t it? It’s different when we abrogate our responsibility --

Mr. Williams: I must remind the member I was not a member of the House at that time.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for St. George has the floor.

Mrs. Campbell: I have the floor.

Mr. Deans: If her colleagues won’t support the hon. member, we will.

Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Deans: Oh sit down. The member had his chance.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member presently addressing the House that I was not a member of the House at the time the bills she is referring to were introduced and dealt with by this House.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Deans: It is not our fault he is a member now.

Mr. Williams: The speaker was referring directly to the previous speaker, Mr. Speaker; and as such I think I have a right to draw that to her attention.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George has the floor.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, one would hope that a person prepared for this debate might have looked at the precedents before becoming involved in fatuous statements.

Mr. Deans: Absolutely.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, why are we here today? This is the important aspect --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; the hon. member for St. George has the floor.

Mrs. Campbell: We should have been debating this government’s position on the Anti-Inflation Board and on the provisions of the agreement, which should never have been signed. It should have been brought before this house. Instead of that, we are here to discuss the matter of the teachers, and I say to you we are here because of the lack of leadership of the government for a period of years and, recently, the fact that there are governments who prefer to stay in power rather than to exercise courageous leadership --

Mr. Drea: Is that why you are running for leader?

Mrs. Campbell: -- and the fact that this government ducked out and left the authority for the educational processes to the federal government. We recognize the fact too that perhaps we might not have had to be here today if the actions of this government had not so politicized teachers that they, in fact, recognized their own problems with this government in a way in which I’m sure would not have been the case some years ago.

We’re here, too, because the official opposition lacked integrity, voted in favour of political expediency and became the Santa Clauses which they professed they were at the time of the very significant debate on the Liberal amendment to the Throne Speech.

Mr. Good: Let’s hear your applause over there now.

Mrs. Campbell: I want to remind this House that this party and, let us freely admit it, in an interregnum period, was not in the best position to force the government down. But I’m going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the position we took was on a matter of principle and I will tell you now that this government will live to rue the day that they have placed the fortunes of this province in the hands of the Anti-Inflation Board in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Why don’t you say the federal Liberals? Are you afraid to say that?

Mr. Drea: She is running for the leadership.

Mrs. Campbell: I am not afraid to face facts, but the minister is.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Come on, let’s hear you say it.

Mr. Drea: She won’t say it.

Mr. Shore: I’ll say it: Federal Liberals.

Mrs. Campbell: On the eve of the last election, they were worried about those treacherous Liberals in Ottawa; then they got into their pocket and put the teachers right in the pocket with them.

Mr. Shore: No wonder the minister hasn’t been sleeping too well.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I sleep just fine.

Mrs. Campbell: Don’t ask me, am I afraid? I have no fear of speaking what I believe to be the facts and the truth.

Hon. Mr. Wells: You don’t realize the national situation in Canada at all.

Mr. Shore: Did the minister look at his last financial statement? He should look at his last financial statement.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The minister wouldn’t take the five per cent decrease last year. Does he remember that?

Mrs. Campbell: I may not be privy to all of the facts so far as the federal government is concerned, but, believe you me, I am convinced that the federal Liberals have bailed out this government in its profligate spending and its needs to retrench now at the expense of many of our citizens.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is the other way around.

Mr. Drea: When was the last time “Lucky Pierre” did anything for anybody?

Mrs. Campbell: There is another reason why we are here. It is a fact -- there is no question about it -- that initially the teachers, through their leaders, did take an unreasonable stand, having in mind the economy of the day. But we have to remind ourselves that they took all the necessary procedures under Bill 100, including the fact-finder’s report and that, in view of the legislation, they were entitled to look to that report.

One of my deepest concerns about this bill today is that we have seen the almost unanimous condemnation by the news media of the teachers. There has been nothing from the government’s side to alleviate that situation. In my experience, it usually does take two to tango. We wonder about the board’s position in all of this. I just mention that.

I know some of the facts of the teachers in my own riding. When I hear about some of the salaries, and I know what some of them are, it’s an outrageous misrepresentation of the position of some.

[3:45]

In looking at my reasons for supporting the legislation to bring the teachers back in the classroom, I have to say to you, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe, as I think everyone else does, that the time has come when the students must get back into their classrooms. If I did not believe that, I would not be here supporting it in all likelihood. But more than that, I don’t think it is good enough for me to say that I support putting them back unless I am sure that I am putting them back into an educational process.

As long, therefore, as teachers have been held up to ridicule and as long as this bill really is seen to be punitive in some of its elements, I have a grave question in my mind in trying to put myself in a teacher’s place -- and I’m not qualified to teach -- however, let me take it I’m a moderate person, I have been caught in this series of circumstances and I am on strike; in some cases I’m locked out. I start to look at what is being said about me. I look at what students are doing too and I worry about the atmosphere in the classrooms. That bothers me.

I would hope sincerely that some of the suggestions or nuances are not correct, and I’m sure they’re not. No government, I think, would orchestrate any demonstration in front of the Legislature. It just happened to come at a fortuitous time. If we are really concerned about the way in which education will continue, then we must, all together, surely do all in our power to erode the kind of criticism which has been made concerning teachers and the teaching profession; otherwise we are not going to achieve an educational system that will work, because there has to be mutual respect between student and teacher and the desire to get on with the job of teaching.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I don’t believe we can make a teacher teach any more than we can make a mother mother. In the final analysis, it is because I have faith in the teachers, I have faith in the fact that they will go back and they will give it everything they’ve got, and don’t let any member in this House legislate them back unless at the same time they have that belief in the teachers, because then we are just guilty of perpetrating a farce.

There is very little more I can add to this debate. I do point out the precedents and ask that they be considered by the government members. It is very tough really because I felt, as did others here, that it would be unacceptable to legislate teachers back unless there were controls through an anti-inflation board in the province. We fought for that precept and we lost, because the official opposition wanted everybody to have a merry Christmas and I have --

Interjection.

Mrs. Campbell: Usually I sit here and I listen to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) with a great deal of delight. I find him to be a most interesting speaker, although admittedly I don’t always agree with the content. I wish all of those people who recommend, for instance “Go Ask Alice” as a reading book, would bring their students here to hear a person who has a recognition of the beauty of the English language. But I will say this, today I really couldn’t believe what I heard; I couldn’t believe what I heard. Never before would I ever say of this speaker, this delightful speaker, that he was both fatuous and -- oh I could say of other occasions he was expedient, yes I could, but not fatuous, not ever before. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. Moffatt: Now for teacher control.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation proposed by the --

Mr. Deans: Tell us about the travel agencies.

Mr. Drea: -- Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) this morning. I think there are only two salient points to be considered. The first is that the Education Relations Commission has brought down very clearly that there is a situation where the educational programmes, educational opportunity and indeed the educational standing of approximately 140,000 high school students in Metropolitan Toronto, will be jeopardized unless there is a return to normal instruction in the school system; and quite frankly, since that report now is almost a week old, I would say as rapidly as possible.

Secondly, there is no possibility of a negotiated settlement.

Mr. Deans: They didn’t say that.

Mr. Drea: The minister said it, and that is who I am quoting, the minister.

Mr. Deans: They didn’t, and he didn’t say that.

Mr. Drea: He certainly said this morning there is no prospect of a negotiated settlement of this dispute in the immediate future.

Mr. Deans: That is not what the member said.

Mr. Drea: That’s what I just said.

Mr. Deans: I wish he would be more clear.

Mr. Drea: Look, I am not going to be --

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Drea: The member is from Hamilton. I am not going to get picky with him today; now stay out of this.

Mr. Deans: There is the first truthful thing he has said since he stood up.

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

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker those are the two salient points. The educational opportunities of 140,000 high school students are in substantial jeopardy and there is no prospect, immediate or long-term, of a negotiated settlement.

Mr. Davidson: According to you.

Mr. Drea: Anyone who does not believe this, I suggest is putting a very unfair mantle upon both sides in the dispute. Throughout the dispute, the OSSTF and the various boards of education, or the Metro board, whichever you want to refer to, have made it quite plain they did not want compulsory arbitration. They have always said -- and I believe quite honestly -- that they have worked toward a negotiated settlement.

Unfortunately, time has run out and that is confirmed by the Education Relations Commission. Therefore, the only alternative -- and every party in this House today agrees with it -- the alternative is the schools must reopen and must reopen immediately. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that the legislation introduced today by the Minister of Education should be passed extremely expeditiously. We are already at 3:55 p.m. on Thursday afternoon.

Mr. Foulds: Very good.

Mr. Drea: I would very much hate to see a debate continue on through Thursday night and into Friday morning; perhaps into Monday.

Mr. Deans: Actually you are wrong again; we are four minutes to. It is amazing; you can’t even count time.

Mr. Drea: Because we are playing with the educational opportunities of a great many thousands of young people.

It has been mentioned today that the action that will be taken by this House in legislating a return to work spells the death of Bill 100. I think that is an extremely pessimistic view. I think that Bill 100 is just as good a bill today as it was last spring and summer when it was debated and passed in this House. I do not feel that because there was a strike in one particular locality where time ran out, that it means that Bill 100 did not achieve its purpose across this province.

Neither do I feel that the introduction of this legislation today will make compulsory legislation binding in each and every dispute. I do not for the very simple reason that if it is going to be the attitude that compulsory arbitration automatically be imposed on every one of the other disputes that are either now in progress or being threatened then what you are saying is that one of the two sides in those disputes is not going to bargain in good faith because the time will run out and we will have to legislate them back. I for one feel that is far too pessimistic a view.

Mr. Deans: I am saying that you never seek other alternatives than compulsory arbitration. That is the easiest route and that is all you ever look for.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member for Scarborough Centre continue.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, for 59 days, or 36 or 37 working days -- whatever way you want to take it, the duration of this shutdown of the high schools in Metropolitan Toronto -- the Minister of Education and this government have considered every other alternative there is. The simple fact of life is that time has run out. If this was day five -- if the schools had been closed for five teaching days -- then I would agree with some of the positions put forward that this is premature and that negotiations might prevail. But negotiations are not going to prevail. They have been stretched to the very limit. They have been stretched beyond the ability -- and I say this in all fairness to both sides -- to come back now and within a very brief period of time, between now and Monday, reach a negotiated settlement. Surely that’s asking for the moon.

Mr. Deans: Nobody suggested that was possible.

Mr. Drea: Then the only alternative is to legislate a return to work -- an end of the lockout in two of the systems and a return to work by those on strike in the other four -- and that school commence at 8 o’clock or 9 o’clock on Monday morning when it is supposed to; that is simple.

Mr. Deans: We agree. We agree now with what you said.

Mr. Drea: That is what I cannot understand.

Mr. Deans: We have done that now.

Mr. Drea: I cannot understand this. Why the lengthy debate?

Mr. Deans: Well, sit down then.

[4:00]

Mr. Drea: No, I don’t want to sit down and I will tell the member why I don’t want to sit down because I don’t understand it. I want to explain to my constituents exactly why you people are acting the way you do.

Mr. Deans: You won’t be able to because you don’t understand.

Mr. Drea: I don’t want to have to inject further bitterness into this. Two years ago I spoke in this House when the first of these considerations came up. It was long before the York stoppage, just when it was being contemplated. I talked about the fact that the last thing any of us wanted in an educational system was bitterness and frustration and a lot of other things. In 1974 we discussed the return to work in the York regional dispute, and I am going to read some of those remarks a little bit later on.

Mr. Deans: Not to me you are not

Mr. Drea: I said that the last thing we wanted was frustration and bitterness. I suggest to my friend just one picture in a newspaper this morning -- and I am not taking any sides -- indicates to me there is an enormous amount of bitterness and frustration in the school system that’s going to be awfully hard to live down. I suggest that the previous speaker, the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), may have touched upon a very sensitive and a very significant point in all of this, that just a return to work and a return of normal operations in the school system is only the beginning. There is a great deal of bitterness out there.

It is all very well to suggest that the media should be censored. A government does not censor the media. We live in a free country and the media are perfectly entitled, whether we agree with it or we disagree with it, to bring certain points to the fore. Nonetheless, I think it has to be recognized, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto, that there is a tremendous tide of resentment out there and that tremendous tide of resentment has now become part of the environmental situation. Students are going to find it at home where there is resentment and they are going to find it in school where there is resentment. I suggest that in the long run that is an awful burden for an educational system to have to assume.

As someone who has not only students but teachers directly involved in this, I am the last one who is going to bring any rancour or any more bitterness into this. It would be very easy to blame people. It would be very easy to blame statements, it would be very easy to blame positions; but we are beyond that. Time has run out.

I suggest that now is the time to be positive. I don’t think, as I said before, that this is the death of Bill 100 and that this is the automatic introduction of compulsory arbitration into every single dispute.

After all, Bill 100 contemplated that it might fail, and I think that’s why it is a very good bill. It contemplated that it did not have all the answers to the economic relationship between the teachers and the boards of education in this province. Bill 100 didn’t promise a wonderland out there. It didn’t promise an easy, simple solution to every dispute. What it did do, and I think is still doing, is it provided an orderly, stable method of collective bargaining.

And it went a little bit beyond that. It recognized that in this above all, in the essential services field, there is the time factor where time runs out. Bill 100 provided a mechanism through the Education Relations Commission to determine this exactly, in an impartial way.

Those who were in the last parliament will recall that we have been recalled here before for school disputes and there wasn’t an impartial way of really finding out if time had run out. Bill 100 provided that. It provided an orderly mechanism, and in that regard Bill 100 has certainly worked.

I don’t regard the failure of Bill 100 in this case to produce a negotiated settlement within the mechanisms provided in it as the death knell of the ability to total collective bargaining in essential services in this province.

Bill 100 never really contemplated other essential services. That was another part of it. It contemplated the educational system and the particular and peculiar specialization and relationship of the teacher, the student, the board of education and the educational process. As such, I regard it as still intact and still extremely viable.

It is significant that one of the objections is sending back people to work without a basic increase or a floor from which an arbitrator can move forward -- presumably forward; it’s never mentioned that it could be forward or backward, but in our time it’s always forward.

I draw to the members’ attention that in similar situations -- and it did not involve teachers, but it involved something as significant to the life of the total community as the high school strike in Metropolitan Toronto -- the NDP in British Columbia legislated the pulp and paper workers and others back to work and there was no floor for an arbitrator to go on. That step wasn’t taken very lightly out there because the pulp and paper dispute, which is nationwide, had intense ramifications across this country. Nonetheless, in something as significant as that and as recent as that, there was no floor, no built-in floor for the arbitrator from which he could go on.

I suggest to the members that the first time in this province when we introduced compulsory arbitration to legislate people in the private sector back to work -- those in the elevator construction industry -- once again it was a return to work, it was compulsory arbitration and there was no floor, no base settlement by the government from which the arbitrator went on. So this is not a precedent. The precedents are not only here in this Legislature earlier, but in other legislatures across this country.

I suggest to the House in this regard that the Minister of Education has done everything that is humanly possible to stimulate, to hasten and to try to obtain a negotiated settlement. I think it should be brought to public attention that the Minister of Education is not the employer in this case. Sometimes in disputes of this kind where resentments become very deep and very bitter, things such as demarcation lines between the authority of the Minister of Education and those of boards of education are forgotten by the public. There has been intense pressure by a significant minority, or a significant number of the public in this case, for the minister long before this not only to order back the teachers but to get rid of Bill 100 on the basis of something like, “I told you so.” I think it is to the credit of this minister that he has acted as responsibly and with as much integrity and with as much foresight in the case of this first test of Bill 100 as he did in the very prolonged discussions, debates, committee hearings and so forth that produced Bill 100 for this province.

Like the previous speaker, the member for St. George, I want to say to you that the thing that concerns me the most -- and like her, I certainly hope it concerns every member of this House -- is the emotional and the intellectual ramifications of this strike upon the individual student and upon the individual teacher.

Back on Dec. 12, 1973, there was a very interesting dialogue between myself and the then leader of the New Democratic Party, who is now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis). It’s on page 7125 of Hansard:

“Mr. Drea: And once there is a strike in an industry, believe me, nothing is ever the same again in terms of human relations.

“Mr. Lewis: That could be a very useful learning experience, as a matter of fact.

“Mr. Drea: It may be a very interesting learning experience, but I don’t want little kids to find out firsthand about the class struggle and what happens when they get mixed up in things.

“Interjections by hon. members.

“Mr. Drea: They can find out when they are 18, or 19, or 20. That is one of the privileges we ought to leave for a little while.

“Mr. Speaker: Order.

“Mr. Lewis: The kids who walked out in support of their teachers in Northumberland and Durham were learning something about the way society works. It was a useful thing for kids to learn.”

A year later, Mr. Speaker, on March 13, 1974 -- not a year later, in the next session, page 297.

Mr. Foulds: Which volume?

Mr. Drea: If you want it for the record, volume 1. I think the member for Port Arthur will remember; I think he and I were discussing this. On page 297:

“Mr. Drea: I regret that I didn’t hear anybody today, but I understand that the magic words were not uttered today. I’m still floored from December, because the proposition was put forward at that time that a strike is part of the learning process and it will benefit the children.”

Interjections.

Mr. Drea: I would suggest that on the basis -- would the NDP members like me to read some of the replies from their party? We can drag this out. No, I don’t think they do. I don’t think they do.

I don’t want to stand here in 1976 and say “I told you so.” I am one of the people in this party who publicly supported the minister all the way down the line with Bill 100 and I support him in what he is doing today. I am not interested in saying, “I told you so.” What I am interested in is that the time has come where people have to put aside a little bit of this ideology and a little bit of this attitude that “the strike is part of the learning experience,” and to take a realistic, objective, cold, hard look at the situation in Metropolitan Toronto where there are only two issues: One, is the children’s education in jeopardy; and two, is there any possibility outside of compulsory arbitration for a settlement that will produce a return to normal school activity on Monday morning?

Mr. Foulds: And the answer to those questions is yes.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, there is.

Mr. Drea: The answer to No. 1 is yes; and the answer to No. 2 is no. And a combination of yes and no, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you, means that there is no honest vote --

Mr. Samis: What is this, new math?

Mr. Drea: -- except one in support of the bill put forward by the Minister of Education and by this government.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will state his point of order.

Mr. Foulds: In the last sentence that the member has just spoken, he has impugned or imputed dishonesty to anyone who votes in conscience against the minister’s bill.

Mr. Laughren: Shame.

Mr. Foulds: I think that is a charge that no member of this House should lay against any other member, and I am asking you to ask the member to withdraw it.

Ms. Gigantes: It should be withdrawn.

Mr. Kennedy: You are very edgy, very sensitive.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Cornwall.

Mr. Samis: I will make my remarks fairly brief on this --

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, are you ruling on the point of order?

Mr. Speaker: The Chair didn’t interpret that as you did, and I would think that the hon. member doesn’t have a point of order at this time.

Mr. Foulds: He said there is no honest vote except in support of the minister.

An hon. member: Let’s have Hansard read back.

Mr. Drea: I will say it again, Mr. Speaker, in reply to the point of order, I did not intend to impugn either the intellectual capacity or the personal integrity of the member for Port Arthur on this or any other issue. What I said was clearly intended to be that if one accepts that the answer to the first of the theses was yes and to the second was no, then the only honest vote that could be made was in support of the minister, and the member knew what I said.

Mr. Foulds: No, I am sorry, I didn’t follow.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Cornwall.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, now that you’ve arbitrated this dispute, I would like to speak in support of the position taken by our leader this morning, and not in purely partisan terms because I don’t think it is all black and white in this issue. I think it’s a difficult, complex situation and I think both sides in Toronto have to bear their share of the blame for the impasse that we are in, but I think what we have tried to do in very difficult circumstances is work out some solution to the problem.

There is a very real problem that the people of Toronto feel. We have tried to do something in our position to see that the need to reopen the schools and protect the educational interests of the students is answered. Our position answers that particular situation. We would favour having the teachers back in by legislation on Monday. All we are saying is, can the government go all the way in depriving them of their rights in this particular situation?

Our position is obviously a compromise, and any compromise is unsatisfactory at times, but for the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) to allege that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) was fatuous in his stand today I find a little difficult to accept.

Mr. Nixon: She didn’t allege it, she said it.

Mr. Samis: Having been here just a little more than a year and having seen the Liberal Party in operation, I think the number of flip-flops I’ve seen taken by that party in various policies makes someone like Olga Korbut look like an Egyptian mummy in comparison.

That, may I suggest, is only in one year of observation, but there are other members here who have been here a full term and I would suggest the comparison could go beyond that.

An hon. member: Be nice, George.

Mr. Samis: Oh, I am trying to be.

Mr. Warner: Christmas is over.

Mr. Samis: What I am saying, and this is our position, is that it does answer the need of reopening the schools, but at the same time it does protect and preserve the collective bargaining process. It’s a compromise. Obviously, it won’t satisfy everybody, but it’s a reasoned position in answer to a very difficult situation.

[4:15]

I think the government position in a sense is unfair because it is putting these people back to work and it is giving them the two-year clause. The member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) said there is no floor salary condition in previous compulsory arbitration situations. Does that make it right? May I suggest that the situation in BC did have some differences in terms of the overall economic impact of that strike and that situation and the whole bargaining process that preceded that decision. That’s not to justify it, but there are some very obvious differences.

I don’t consider the principle of collective bargaining to be so totally sacrosanct as not to be bereft of some possibility of limitation in emergency situations. But if you want to compromise, the compromise has to work both ways. You can’t just ask the opposition to vote for compulsory arbitration and a return to work at the same time. There is no compromise on the government’s side. It is very unfair to expect the opposition to totally compromise and sell out. Obviously the third party feel quite at home with the government position.

I have the grave reservations that various members on this side in both parties have expressed about the question of the Anti-Inflation Board. I won’t go into the constitutionality of the board, but it just strikes me that the act of the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) yesterday in the impact on this particular situation constitutes what could be the greatest abdication of constitutional authority in the history of Canada.

An hon. member: How do you know that?

Mr. Samis: If you look at the various stands taken by previous Premiers of this province and other provinces on the whole question of provincial autonomy, and if you see how the Treasurer of Ontario signed away our provincial autonomy yesterday totally to the federal government, it really makes you wonder.

Mr. Ruston: You voted for that.

Mr. Norton: What about Saskatchewan?

Mr. Samis: Obviously, there are differences of opinion across the country on this. To suggest that if we had an equivalent provincial board in any way --

Mr. Ruston: You are flip-flopping.

Mr. Samis: -- is giving people an out, I think is not giving due credit to that particular position as adopted by the leader of the Liberal Party as well as our particular party.

I would like to add one other perspective, Mr. Speaker, and I would beg your indulgence in allowing me to make the comparison. This is not the only strike facing the people of Ontario and the government of Ontario. I happen to come from a community where we’ve had a strike for more than four months and a series of other strikes. Let me make a few comparisons with the strikes in the pulp and paper industry. Really it’s not a strike and it shouldn’t even be dignified by that. It’s a lockout by the company and the other companies involved.

Let’s make a little comparison. This particular strike affects over a dozen communities in southern, eastern and northern Ontario. This particular strike involved more than 10,000 employees who have been out on strike. They haven’t been out for 38 days. They have been out in the case of Cornwall for more than four months and in the case in some of the northern communities more than five months. There has been a clear-cut case in this particular strike situation of bad-faith bargaining by one of the two sides, of which I would think in all fairness we can’t accuse either side in this particular situation -- maybe lapses but not a general policy of bad-faith bargaining.

Look at the impact of the two strikes. Compare this Metro Toronto strike with the pulp and paper strike. You start off with a situation, for example, where the wages initially are much lower among the employees versus the teachers.

There is no strike pay whatsoever involved for these men who are out on strike. I reiterate, that they have been out four to five months. They didn’t get 40 per cent or 20 per cent or $15 a day. They didn’t get a bloody thing. They had to stand up and fight for their strike and their rights, and they have been paying through the nose. No welfare, no UIC. They’re not at the stage of cutting out luxuries or goodies or trips or anything of that sort. They’re at the stage of whether they will be able to have meat on the table for the next meal or whether they will be able to pay for basic medicine. That’s the stage these people are at.

I look at these two strikes -- and I emphasize the point that I was a teacher -- and I see what the government is doing to try to solve this one. I do give them credit, they’re doing something, whether we agree with it or not. I contrast that with what they’re doing in the pulp and paper strike. I make those comparisons as to blame, length, impact and cost.

My only comment is that I wish the hell the government would do as much and get as deeply involved in settling the pulp and paper strike as they are in this one; obviously not through the same method, but with the same degree of involvement, because the pulp and paper strike is hurting people far more than this one. Thank you.

Hon. B. Stephenson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. minister state her point of order?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I cannot let the last speaker’s remarks pass without remarking that it is not a lockout in the pulp and paper industry. It is a strike.

Mr. Samis: That is not a point of order.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would remind him that at least five of the locals within the last week have rejected, by vote, the last offer of the companies with whom they were negotiating. It’s not a lockout.

Mr. Deans: You already said that.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, may I say to the minister that I’m not trying to allege she hasn’t done anything. All I’m saying is that not enough has been done and, to me, a Minister of Labour should settle some things.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member did not have a point of order. The hon. member for London North.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Speaker, I will keep my remarks to a minimum, although I will say I don’t quite agree with the second previous speaker, who is walking out of the House just now, when he suggests that time is of the greatest importance, that because it’s 4:05 we should make a decision in a hurry. It seems to me that perhaps we should have been considering that as early as Nov. 12. I don’t think another hour or two is going to hurt anybody and I hope the hon. member will recognize that.

I think one could become very cynical at times to understand why we’re here today. There is no question in my mind that this is a serious matter and that it’s affecting the young people of Metropolitan Toronto. I must also say that the decisions we make here indirectly are going to affect the young people throughout Ontario.

I believe, however, that this bill has to be supported. I believe it’s a compromise. With the greatest of respect I don’t believe, as -- and I’m sure the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) deserves all the marks in the world for integrity and hard work -- but I don’t think he deserves all the marks that were alluded to this morning for a sincere effort in trying to solve the problem, I don’t agree with that.

Without getting into the aspect of debating Bill 100 -- and there is much that can be debated on that -- I don’t believe one had to be too imaginative to realize what would happen once the Anti-Inflation Board came down with its rulings and once this government made the decision -- and we’ll probably be discussing at some future time the constitutionality and all kinds of other legal aspects of that decision -- which I think is the wrong one, to join with the federal government.

Once that decision was made, I think it became pretty apparent, whether or not the government wants to accept it, that Bill 100 could not function in the normal terms in which it was expected to function; we did not have to wait until Jan. 14, 15 or 16 to recognize that. It just seems to me that that became very clear, particularly if we believe in the process of negotiations -- and certainly we should -- and before we prorogued in December, at least, we should have recognized that nothing better was going to come of that and we wouldn’t have had to be here now. I suggest, therefore, that there is nothing that the government has anything to be proud of in that respect. Once we recognized that, we also would have recognized that the whole process was in partial jeopardy.

The government could well have been proud, however, in my opinion, had the minister and the Premier stated to the boards of education and the leaders, as our leader has stated: “Look at the circumstances. The circumstances have changed. The circumstances are not the same. We believe in this Anti-Inflation Board and we’re going to follow it. Let’s not debate that at this moment, but the circumstances have changed.”

Had they, in their wisdom, and I think good judgement, gone to meetings starting Nov. 12 and continuing every day right up until today, they might have been able to do something at least to recognize that there was a circumstantial change.

All I’m saying is that we are supporting this bill. We believe there has been some damage done to the students but I suggest there could have been a lot less damage had the government taken its position seriously at the time that it should have done so.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, it was roughly a year ago when I, as a member of this Legislature, was defending the bill as we knew it then, Bill 274, which removed any vestige of a right to strike in the teaching profession. I felt very strongly at that time that the teaching profession should not enjoy the luxury of the strike weapon where the educational process might be put in jeopardy. Subsequent to that, of course, as we all know, and we have been talking about it for some hours now, Bill 100 replaced Bill 274 and took a different tack altogether, imposing as it does a whole series of procedures and events which must occur one after another before one eventually gets to the stage where the strike, the concerted act of withdrawal of services could take place.

I think it fair to say that it was made abundantly clear by the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) at that time, and by many of us, that we expected the bargaining process that would go on up to the point of, and probably following any strike action, would have to be responsible -- responsible action by the representatives of the teachers involved and responsible action on behalf of the boards of education.

I must tell the House, Mr. Speaker, that it came to my attention as early as July of last year -- that makes it six months ago now -- as early as July that there were people saying there was just going to be a strike, that it was inevitable.

Now I am not going to stand in my place today and suggest that that was a deliberate attempt by either of the parties to take the process right through to the 37-day period we have just seen. Or whether, on the other hand, it was more a form of defeatism on the part of the parties, or some of them, that regardless of the various steps in this mechanism that had been built into the process by Bill 10, all of those factors would still lead us down to the inevitable position of a strike. All I know is, as we all know, that we did see a strike come about.

We anticipated the possibility of a strike with the appointment of the Ontario Education Relations Commission and instructed them to advise us when they considered that any further continuation of the use of the strike weapon would be to the irreparable prejudice and damage of the students.

Mr. Speaker, they have now told us that. It is essential that we get the educational process back to shape. And I am pleased to see that all parties have recognized that this is the case.

I think in the last two or three weeks the views of at least my constituents -- and I suspect that it is far more widespread than just that -- seem to have polarized. Recently I have been in receipt of a number of telegrams, a host of letters and scores of telephone calls. I suppose it is also fair to say that some of those people who communicated with me have urged that we do nothing. Let the teachers freeze, so to speak.

But we did not feel that was the way to go. I think that all members here have concluded that in the interests of the students -- since their interests are paramount in this -- that we must legislate the teachers back. Indeed, I know there are some teachers who have spoken to me as recently as today, but over the last few weeks, who have been urging that course of action too.

There have been some who have suggested, though, that by going this route we are caving in; and 1 am suggesting that that really is not the case. I think the legislation proposed by my colleague is very firm legislation. There will be no more professional development days for the balance of this year. That gets, as I understand it, at least another 10 days or so of active teaching. That is equivalent to two full weeks.

I think that all the students -- certainly all the conscientious students -- and all the conscientious teachers are going to welcome that. They are going to consider that these are important days and it is imperative that the time be caught up. The legislation is going to get things back in time and I am confident that it will get it back in time to salvage the year for all the students.

[4:30]

There is one other point too you must recognize, Mr. Speaker, and that is that we are proposing this for a two-year term. There has been some suggestion that perhaps it should only be for one year. I suggest to you that the parties themselves were bargaining on the basis of a two-year term and it was only the latest offer from the board which was for a one-year term at a little over 24 per cent. It seems to me it is pretty obvious that a two-year term would carry with it a great deal of stability and would be welcomed by everyone. I think when the teachers’ representatives have had a chance to resolve the issue over the next 30 days with the arbitrator and have been to the AIB they too will be satisfied that they have labour peace for two years and not just one.

When we recognize that they would have to start as early as a couple of weeks from now, perhaps earlier than that, with next year’s negotiations if we were to legislate this on a one-year basis, we can see how seemingly futile this would appear to so many of us who would see as close at hand as next September another strike looming on the horizon, and we just don’t want that. Two years is a very reasonable period of time for this legislation; and as I have emphasized, it happens to coincide with the period the teachers themselves and the boards were bargaining for in the first place.

In closing, I just want to say that I am heartened by the reaction I have heard today and I sincerely hope, and indeed I expect, that the teachers and the students, once this is history and they get down to work on Monday, will get right in there and will make up for the lost time before the end of the year so that the students will not have been prejudiced one iota in their learning experience.

Mr. Laughren: I rise in opposition to this bill which will impose compulsory arbitration and legislate the teachers in Metropolitan Toronto back to the classrooms.

I think that this step by the government looks attractive in the short run, and indeed it probably is, but I think that in the long run it will do more harm than it will good.

I know the short-run arguments that collective bargaining has ground to an impasse and that the students’ education is in jeopardy, and I partially agree with that. But I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask yourself what kind of educational system do we have where an interruption of two months places the educational career of the student in jeopardy? I would ask you too what kind of educational system we have where we have young people, young adults who have spent nine, 10, 11 or 12 years in the system and who are indeed young adults -- as a matter of fact, most people seem to be mainly concerned about those people who are going on into post-secondary education -- but what kind of education is it when those people are so dependent upon their teachers that they cannot pursue studies on their own for a relatively short period of time?

I have always thought that a secondary school education was supposed to prepare students for a post-secondary education. As a matter of fact, it is a small percentage of students -- less than half, certainly -- who actually do go on into post-secondary education. I never thought that a secondary school education was to give students a predetermined package of information which would allow them to cope with life. I have never believed that and I don’t believe it here and now.

I know that the utterances of the media and by people here today would lead people to believe that was the purpose of our secondary school system. I happen to think that students are more resilient than we give them credit for. I think they have a greater capacity to be challenged than the system presently challenges them and I think that should be kept in mind.

I have taught at the secondary level and at the post-secondary level and I have never been impressed by the theory that there was a set body of knowledge that had to be imparted to students while they were in the secondary system. I don’t believe that is true. I think it is the educational experience that really is the key to whether or not one has successfully educated people in the secondary system, not a set body of knowledge. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that at the post-secondary level it is certainly the capacity to learn and the will to learn and the inquiring mind that determines success or failure at that level of an academic career. The set body of knowledge is not nearly as important as many other factors which I think are being ignored by the government.

I find it passing strange that the government moves to save the academic careers of students after 38 days when they have had 32 years to remove the influences of poverty from the ability to learn for students in this province. Is there anyone who would deny that there is a very direct relationship between the economic conditions in the home and the success of those people in our educational system? The government hasn’t concerned themselves with that in 32 years, but in 38 days they literally froth at the mouth because of a strike.

Mr. Speaker, it is an absurd solution to a very serious problem. We know that the teachers in Ontario are dissatisfied, not just in Metropolitan Toronto. There are problems on the horizon elsewhere in the province, and maybe the government should start to ask itself why it is that there is this dissatisfaction. Is it simply a case of not being able to live on the salaries that they are earning now in the educational system? I don’t think that’s the reason. It is not the reason at all.

This government will not address itself to the more comprehensive problem. Secondary school teaching is a very difficult life. It is a very difficult job. I am sure I have heard the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) say himself that teaching in our school system is very difficult I do not believe that either the legislation that forces people back to work or legislation that imposes a settlement is the answer. Neither one is the answer.

I wonder if this government really understands the trauma of a strike, what it is that strikers go through when it is a prolonged strike. The problems of finances, the family problems, the whole question of security of the family unit is at stake in a prolonged strike and strikers do not prolong a strike unduly.

A couple of minutes ago the member for York East, the Minister of Revenue for this province (Mr. Meen), referred to a strike as being a luxury. Well, I wonder when was the last time the Minister of Revenue was on strike and enjoyed the luxury of living either on strike pay or no pay at all; and it’s obvious that he never has.

I think if the government thinks that the strike was about to be prolonged unduly, they should ask themselves why. Was it not because of the noises this government has made now for many a week that they were about to legislate the teachers back? That, of course, in itself is destructive to the collective bargaining process. If the teachers and the boards realized that there was no legislation around the corner, I would suggest the dispute would be resolved very quickly.

As a matter of fact, just this morning the chairman of the Metro Toronto board indicated that a settlement was possible. We know that the two sides are not that far apart but if there is going to be legislation imposed on them momentarily, there is very little incentive to settle.

I would ask the minister what he thinks the effect of this legislation is going to be on those other disputes across the province, disputes that are just coming up now? There is Kirkland Lake, Sault Ste. Marie, Algoma; and probably others that I am not aware of. I would ask the Minister of Education what he thinks the impact of this legislation is going to be on those disputes? If he thinks that it is not going to have any effect, I would suggest he is sadly mistaken.

What happens if a strike elsewhere goes 38 days? What if it goes 40 days? What if it goes 42 days? What does that say about the government’s concern for those students as opposed to the students in Metro? This is setting a very bad precedent. The minister is laying a foundation for Bill 100 that is on shifting sand if not quicksand.

I think he is going to do irreparable damage to Bill 100. I think that Bill 100 is not a bad bill, and there was very real effort in that bill to make things work, but I think that he has given up too soon. There was no limit in the bill on the length of a dispute or a lockout or strike, and what in effect he is doing now is establishing a limit. It’s obvious one couldn’t put a limit in the bill, that would be ludicrous. But now the government doing the same thing, in effect, by legislating the Metro teachers back after 38 days.

I am opposed to this bill for two reasons. One, it legislates people back to work; and two, it imposes compulsory arbitration upon them.

I would say that collective bargaining is in enough trouble in this country without any assistance from the Ontario government. There is no other protection for workers other than collective bargaining. One need only listen to the utterances of the Minister of Labour in Ontario (B. Stephenson) to know that the workers in Ontario have precious little protection from the government. Now we see this further erosion of collective bargaining in the province.

I’m saying to the government that it should not be legislating these teachers back and it should not be imposing compulsory arbitration upon them at this time. It’s no accident that the Anti-Inflation Board is making rulings now that are unpredictable, and I would suggest terribly unfair. Do we really think, considering the fact that in the last 10 years the bottom 20 per cent of income earners in Ontario earn less now than they did 10 years ago, that this is the time -- I’m not talking to the Minister of Education now but to the whole principle of the Anti-Inflation Board -- that this is the time to rule on that bottom 20 per cent? That’s what we call distorting the distribution of income, and a pox on the federal Liberals for that.

I would say, given the rulings of the Anti-Inflation Board, given what it does to collective bargaining and given the lack of protection for our workers in the Province of Ontario, it’s hard to stomach the obsequious subservience of this government to the Anti-Inflation Board. We know that the arbitration in this case is going to go to the Anti-Inflation Board and that they’ll be the final judge.

In closing, I stand, as I said at the beginning, adamantly opposed to this bill because it imposes compulsory arbitration and because it legislates working people back to the job.

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to begin by reminding myself that the purpose of second reading of a statute is to discuss the principle of the bill. I understand the principle of this legislation to be that we will deprive the Metropolitan Toronto secondary school teachers of the right to strike that we gave them under Bill 100. I understand that, at least on a temporary basis, we are legislating -- since the minister negatives by the shaking of his head -- at least on a temporary basis we are depriving them of the right to strike or at least to continue a legal strike, a right we had given them under Bill 100. Would that be more correct? I’m wondering if I might address the minister through the Chair.

Hon. Mr. Wells: To open the schools; to take the necessary steps to open the schools.

Mr. Bullbrook: To open the schools. Well then, perhaps realizing that the minister doesn’t want dialogue, to open the schools and direct the teachers by law to undertake their professional responsibilities. I characterize that, perhaps improperly, as depriving them of the right to withhold their services, which I characterize, perhaps improperly, as the right to strike.

The point I want to make here is the obvious anomaly that should come to the attention of every member of this House, that is that the teachers in Metropolitan Toronto will be at least on a temporary basis deprived of what we considered a fundamental legal right that they had under Bill 100; and yet at the same time their colleagues in their professional responsibility throughout the remainder of Ontario will continue to have the so-called right to strike.

The point I want to make to you, Mr. Speaker, is this isn’t an amendment to Bill 100. The fact of the matter is, we had better understand now that eventually we are going to have to come to grips with the extension of Bill 100 throughout the Province of Ontario, because either there is essentially in their professional undertakings or there isn’t essentiality.

[4:45]

I have had colleagues of mine in my caucus talk to me in the past relative to Bill 100, that essentiality of the provision of education to our youngsters is a question of time. It’s really not going to hurt them if they only miss three days’ school, or five weeks in Windsor. The fact of the matter is, we’ve come to the conclusion today that at some time we must make an arbitrary decision as to when students are being adversely affected.

I want to say, as the parent of a grade 13 student at the present time on the semester system in the city of Sarnia, I don’t know how she could possibly qualify in any way for admission to post-secondary education in the Province of Ontario, having missed that length of time on the semester system and having been deprived of that right to know under the semester system.

The Education Relations Commission says that that now, I suppose, is in jeopardy. The fact is, it was in jeopardy from the very beginning. We who attempt to rationalize our responsibility otherwise do ourselves a great injustice; but more important, we do them an injustice.

I want for a moment to talk to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and try to explain to them why I cannot accept their reasoned amendment. I compliment them on the mental gymnastics that they must have gone through. There must have been significant blood on the floor of that caucus room yesterday, I am absolutely certain of that. But on the other hand --

Mr. Renwick: Absolutely none.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- it shows a great ingenuity and a great integrity of purpose. I am not going to adopt the words of the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Davis) that they try to come down on both sides of the issue. I don’t think that is the motivation. It is a happy collateral circumstance that they do come down on both sides of the issue, but that I truly believe is something that happened not as a result of their intention.

The fact is that it sounds good to speak for a half an hour about the sanctity of the collective bargaining process, which, perhaps improperly, I understand to be that you are entitled as a matter of right to withhold your services from your employer and the employer is entitled as a matter of right to withhold any payment for those services. The problem that we have, of course, in this particular situation, and in most public-sector collective bargaining situations, is that there is a third party involved -- namely, the public; and so directly in this one, the students. But there is that reciprocity.

I couldn’t focus on the difficulty until the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) spoke about the NDP amendment. He used the phrase, quite properly, “the resolution of the problem.” The essential problem here is negotiation. The essential problem that faces the teachers, as I understand the problem to be, is the question of their remuneration and their benefits, and the other obligations that they have from a professional point of view. Although we put them back to work we don’t resolve that problem, and I see -- perhaps in error -- but I see from the little knowledge I have had of the collective bargaining process, that there is a certain fracturing or imbalance there, it’s a precedent I certainly wouldn’t want to see ever involved in the private sector. I surely wouldn’t want to say to a union, “Go back, and settle while you are working,” because were I management I would just wring my hands with joy for that type of proposition. Because I would never settle in good faith, may I tell you. I would never settle in good faith in that situation.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s what Barrett said.

Mr. Bullbrook: One has to dispose oneself, I think a little too generously and charitably, to the school boards of Metropolitan Toronto, to think that they might come to an equitable and just conclusion in those circumstances, when really the problem has been solved by the Legislature of Ontario. That’s why I see the necessity, if the government is going to put the teachers back to work, there must be some attempt at an objective evaluation of what remuneration and other rights and duties are to be concurrent with that return to work. That brings me of course to the essential and from my point of view, the most fundamental aspect of our discussion, because we are not, Mr. Speaker, doing that.

The NDP amendment is forthright in this respect; it doesn’t attempt to do it. But we attempt to do it. We go through a charade of appointing under this statute a compulsory arbitrator who has no ultimate power; that’s the charade. That’s why for 10 weeks I’ve been vitally interested, not only from the point of view of the teachers, but from the point of view of the police, from the point of view of the firemen, from the point of view of the municipal employees.

More important -- and I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) touched upon this three months ago -- more important from the point of view of the public servants of the Province of Ontario, the people who must directly negotiate with this government, on behalf of the people of Ontario, for their just reward, because of an agreement executed two days ago we now abdicate that responsibility in connection with all the people who serve us -- “we” being the people of Ontario.

We did it through an agreement that we entered into two days ago with the government of Canada, executed now by the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. McKeough) which in effect says -- and the public must realize this and the teaching profession better realize this -- that no matter what the arbitrator says, it will be Jean-Luc Pepin at Ottawa who decides what the teachers of the Province of Ontario eventually and the teachers of Metropolitan Toronto immediately will receive for their remuneration Yet it’s our constitutional responsibility under sections 92 and 93 of the British North America Act that we make those decisions, that we delegate those powers, that we retain control and, most of all, that we accept the responsibility.

Just think of the absolute chicanery of what we’re doing. We’re saying to teachers, “You’ve got to go back to work”; and we’re saying, “We’ll go through charade of compulsory arbitration, but eventually it will be Monsieur Trudeau and his men who will make the decision as to what you’re paid.” I’m not prepared to do that

With the teachers, I say that we must have complementary legislation, we must have complementary administration; we must have supplementary legislation and supplementary administration. It’s our responsibility so to do. We cannot abdicate that responsibility to Ottawa unless we want to say to Ottawa and the House of Commons, and to my colleague from Sarnia, let him undertake the responsibility of putting the teachers back to work. If he’s going to tell them what they’re going to be paid, let him put them back to work. But I tell you, Mr. Speaker, if I have to do it, as I have to for the benefit of the students, I want to make sure that it is within my responsibility, that I retain that jurisdiction. That’s all I’ve asked for, that’s all I continue to ask for and I think that’s the only reasonable thing. We can’t have it both ways, but I’m very much worried about the whole question of the agreement itself.

We had some byplay this afternoon with our colleague, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), who is without a doubt -- and I don’t embarrass him I trust -- a person of extremely great knowledge in matters generally of law and also in matters generally of the constitution and I know in very scattered --

Mr. Singer: Wait. Wait for the next line.

Mr. Renwick: I’ll wait.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- very scattered discussions that he feels more deeply I’m sure than I do about the matter, because he has given us the benefit of a letter that he wrote on Oct. 30, 1975, to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and on Oct. 30, 1975, he got an opinion from the Attorney General. It was interesting, of course, today in the question period, we asked for an opinion from the law officers of the Crown. We didn’t ask for the opinion of the Attorney General. The Attorney General is a very good lawyer; I know him by reputation to be extremely capable counsel. I don’t think he’s a constitutional lawyer; no more than am I a constitutional lawyer. I sought advice on this matter from others much more knowledgeable than I. But as I look at that “Dear Jim” epistle, I must say I had to say to you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I’ve never seen a legal opinion, even though my name is the same as his. I’ve never seen one come to me: “Dear Jim”; never. Not even the bill comes to me “Dear Jim.” They just send it in the most dispassionate, objective fashion as lawyers always do.

Mr. Renwick: That’s how we constitutional experts deal with each other.

Mr. Singer: So that’s what you were doing this afternoon.

Mr. Bullbrook: I see. Isn’t it marvellous? I want to say to the House when Lewis is romancing Davis and Renwick is romancing McMurtry, we really feel like the jilted third party over here. It’s getting to be an almost incestuous relationship between these two. I mean, who in his right mind a year ago could envisage a true establishment man like Darcy being part of a government that would pass that rent review legislation? Could anyone in his wildest mind think of Darcy doing that? Goodness gracious. I imagine the people in Chatham won’t let him inside the city gates.

If I might digress for a moment, that rent review legislation has to be really something. I had 22 calls on Monday; 22 of them. They say to me, “Who do we complain to?” I said, “I don’t know. Lorne hasn’t appointed anybody as a rent review officer.” I told every one of the 22 callers, “I want to bet you something. Whomever he appoints will be from Petrolia. He won’t dare appoint somebody from Sarnia. He’ll get one of those real knowledgeable urban persons from Petrolia to come in and tell us what the Sarnia rents should be.”

I don’t know what was going on this afternoon about the psychiatric hospital in Goderich. I didn’t know Lorne was involved in that, either internally or externally. I had no idea; believe me I didn’t.

Mr. Reid: He knows it from the inside out.

Mr. Bullbrook: He knows he has power in southwestern Ontario. There is no doubt about that. I thought it was just my bailiwick he ran. They gave him a testimonial dinner about a week ago and I read about it on my way back from a short vacation -- an unduly short vacation, but I read about it. He was saying, he was “very proud of the growth of his riding to 117,000 people.” I don’t know whether that’s a Freudian slip or not. He even included my riding with his riding.

Mr. Eaton: He looks after it for you.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s right, and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, he does one heck of a job. I won first by 1,200; then 6,000; then 8,000. If he keeps this up for me I’ll break the 10,000 bracket. He’s just great.

I want to stop and I haven’t begun. My colleague, the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer) is going to be more specific, but I’m going to say this, if I may. I believe the agreement to be illegal. The agreement is illegal. The best they can hope for is to rely on the peace, order and good government clause in a section of the British North America Act to legalize, in the most peripheral fashion, the signing of this agreement. I want to say that that is the only hope they’ll have before a court -- the only hope they’ll have. They’ll rely on the national capital case.

I don’t want to be dealing, as I might be, before the court of appeal in citing these, but let me say this: In the preamble to Bill C-73, the federal government in its great wisdom wrote as follows, if I may, Mr. Speaker:

“Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that inflation in Canada, at current levels is contrary to the interests of all Canadians and that the [and this is interesting] containment and reduction of inflation has become a matter of serious national concern.”

What they were trying to do there, I believe, is attempt in a very peripheral or collateral fashion, as I say, to invoke the possibility of constitutional vires under the peace, order and good government clause.

But aside from an expansion of the matter from the point of view of case law, I want to say this: There has been an expansion, by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, of the right of the federal government under this section of the British North America Act to somewhat invade provincial powers. In the national capital case I speak of, they felt that that legislation was intra vires of the federal government to give it the right to expropriate at the national capital. But the key ingredient there, from the point of view of the court decision, is that in every decision on which the hon. Attorney General and his law officers rely, the provincial jurisdiction was at best concurrent. In essence, sir, I want to say, if I may, the pith and the substance of the legislation did not in any way invade the provincial jurisdiction. Here it does, without reservation; in the private sector it does without reservation.

[5:00]

But let me point this out to you, Mr. Speaker, if I may. Peace, order and good government for the sake of public awareness could be best exemplified by going to war. We declare war. And I tell you, when we declare war, what we don’t do. We don’t let Quebec opt out. We don’t let Ontario opt in. We don’t let Alberta opt out and let Nova Scotia opt in. But that is what this statute does.

If it is going to be peace, order and good government on which they rely, why do they put a section in that permits the provinces to opt in or opt out? How they are going to be able to validly argue that before the courts I don’t understand.

But more important than that aspect of it, right in their statute, they exempt the provincial public sector. They exempted that sector from the application of the statute.

In effect what they are saying is: This is a national emergency and you can get in if you want to or get out if you want to, but also it is such a national emergency that no provincial jurisdiction, no municipal jurisdiction -- for example, no fireman, no teacher -- will be subject to this unless the province wants to make them subject to it.

I am going to quietly say this to you in my respectful opinion, as I said before, the best that they can hang their hat on is peace, order and good government and they are going to have to come up against those particular arguments -- I trust very shortly by CUPE -- because I trust somebody is going to take this matter to court and have the courts interpret it.

The second thing is this: the question of delegation. And the Attorney General in his “Dear Jim” letter says this isn’t a question of delegation. I want to read to you for a moment, Mr. Speaker, the covenant in the agreement. On page 4, section 2, of the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the Province of Ontario it reads as follows:

“Canada and the province hereby agree that the federal Act and the national guidelines shall apply to the provincial public sector.”

Well, it is absolutely trite law that you can’t delegate your authority. What they tried to do is this; they tried to get around it. It has the Spencerian hand of Rendall Dick in this agreement, believe me it does.

Listen to this. This is a recital, and I want to tell you, as a lawyer, recitals are not taken into consideration in the interpretation of a document by the courts, but they decided that they would sneak this in:

“And whereas it is understood that neither Canada nor the province shall be deemed by reason of having entered into this agreement to have surrendered or abandoned any of the powers, rights, privileges or authorities vested in it under the British North America Act, 1867, and any amendments thereto or to have impaired any of such powers, rights, privileges and authorities.”

They put that in. What they are saying is: By the way, as we are going along here surrendering all our power -- for example, the power to establish, the obligation to establish, the duty to establish, a just payment to the teachers of the Province of Ontario -- while we are abdicating that, we are really not abdicating it. That is what the recital says. But the fact of the matter is the section I read to you before is not an administrative section.

The third thing is this -- may I just reinforce this? There is no equivocation in what I say. The body of case law -- basically the Nova Scotia interdelegation case -- but the body of case law is without impairment in this respect. You can’t delegate your authority. The federal people can’t give us their authority. The Province of Ontario cannot give its authority to the federal government.

It can be assimilated into a provincial statute. This is what I want understood if I can. If the government wants to do that which it feels it must do -- and that is, not accept its responsibility -- it is again absolutely paramount that it enact legislation and adopt, if it wishes, the general guidelines into a provincial statute and then appoint the Anti- Inflation Board in Ottawa to administer, and administer only, the provincial statute. The key word is “administer.” The government can’t give over to Pepin the right. All it can do is give him the ability to administer.

But the government hasn’t done that. What provokes me more than anything else, before I sit down, is the arrogance of this -- more than anything else, Mr. Speaker, the arrogance of executing that document pursuant to an order in council. During the question period I asked, and you were here, I asked under what statutory authority was that order in council passed. My friend the House Leader said, “I will get it for you.” I still don’t have it, because it ain’t there.

Mr. Singer: Of course not.

Mr. Bullbrook: There is no statute. But I close in saying this -- to the public, to the teachers, but more important to my colleagues here: This happens to be a parliamentary democracy, and we as a Legislature are part of a parliamentary system, and we don’t go around surrendering basic constitutional rights; we don’t go abdicating basic constitutional responsibilities, legal or otherwise.

Forget about whether the opinion given to me is correct or not. It is absolutely fundamental that the government understand that we are not in the United States of America. There are 125 of us, Mr. Speaker -- you included -- who have a responsibility to make a discussion available to the public, to decide whether we want to opt in or opt out. It was stupid of the federal government ever to put section 4 (3) into that Act. They never should. If it was a national emergency it was a national emergency and they had an obligation to direct from Ottawa and not play footsie.

I record this: The arrogance of the Prime Minister of Canada to call the 10 Premiers on Thanksgiving afternoon as if it was some type of ad hoc arrangement, as if he was going to announce somebody was getting married, and to say to them, “Have some lunch. Here’s what we are going to do.”

Well I don’t think you operate a cooperative federalism that way; I hope you don’t. It causes me great concern that we acquiesce in this type of executive order. We are a legislature and we demand our right to legislate. The government should have come to us and said, “Now, here is what we feel is necessary.” If it was a question of confidence, so be it. Nobody wants an election; obviously I don’t. I don’t know whether Lorne does or not, but obviously I don’t.

Mr. Stong: No way.

Mr. Bullbrook: I ask that if it happens again -- because I think the government is going to lose in court and it is going to have to come back here and give us our shot anyway -- but I ask that if it happens again, if matters of this nature come up again, I ask all colleagues to recognize that it is our right to debate; it is our right to decide whether we want to administer.

It is very important. One other speaker -- I don’t recall, but it might have been the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) -- touched upon this. The reason we are able to supplement --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I think this is out of order.

Mr. Bullbrook: Did you say I am out of order? I am sorry, did you say I was out of order? I am just about finished.

Mr. Singer: Who said that, the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy)? Was that the Minister of the Environment?

Mr. Bullbrook: I will only be about two minutes more. Why be offensive at the end of the speech? It is only at the beginning that you are offensive.

Mr. Singer: He used to have one of the justice portfolios for a while, didn’t he?

Mr. Bullbrook: I am very serious about this. I am very serious in this respect, that if this ever happens again I invite, truly, the members of the cabinet to persuade the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Davis) and whoever otherwise misguides him, to recognize that legally or not we should have the right to make a decision.

I want to close by saying this, so that the teachers understand and the public understand: We are better equipped than Ottawa to make a judgement as to what the teachers’ salaries should be. Aside from the constitutional aspect of it, we are better equipped to tell municipal employees what they should get. We are better equipped to tell our firemen what they should have. Finally, we have the responsibility to do so.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation to send the Metro Toronto secondary school teachers back to work on Monday. As you are aware, the riding of Scarborough East, which I represent, is within Metro and there have been about 30,000 students in Scarborough affected by this strike of some 1,800 teachers in the borough’s 22 secondary schools.

I have had many letters and telephone calls from parents who have been distressed by the strike. I have had a number of letters as well, some of them considerably bitter, from teachers, and I believe that one of the most telling aspects of the mail is that all of the letters are emotional.

The teachers, however, were seldom explicit. Their letters range from a plea “not to promote paranoia in the pedagogue,” and that is a quote, to a plea for me to accept responsibility. The parents, on the other hand, were much more exact. They wanted this Legislature to order the teachers back to their classrooms.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is going to take an enormous quantity of goodwill on the part of all of the parties to ease the system back to where it should be. The young people were the ones with the most to lose in this strike, but they will fortunately be caught up in the rhythm of their school events. It will be up to the parents, the board members and the teachers to work toward a new spirit of co-operation. I know that the boards and many of the teachers are already devising ways to help students to catch up with the classes they have missed. Surely this attitude of helpfulness will assist in creating a more relaxed and less emotional atmosphere.

Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of this government to ensure that the education system is available to our young people. With this legislation, we have reaffirmed our responsibility to the students and to the taxpayers who pay the costs for these services.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words on Bill 1, An Act respecting the Metropolitan Toronto Boards of Education and Teachers Disputes. That is the title of this piece of legislation. I think it would be much better he entitled “Strike-breaking Legislation, Volume 5,” or something like that, because this government in its antics during the past term has without doubt retarded the free collective bargaining process more than any government this province has seen in the past 50 years. Almost at the slightest provocation, this government will go through the routine of rhetoric and claptrap to find a scapegoat to pin the blame on for their inability to govern the Province of Ontario.

The problem we are faced with today is wider -- much, much wider, Mr. Speaker -- than the problem facing Metropolitan Toronto. We know, for instance, that various other school boards across the Province of Ontario are negotiating and are in positions to take votes and all of the information we have is that we are going to have a continuing series of disputes right across the province, not only in the educational field but in other fields as well.

There is a restructuring in society that has been going on over these past few years. Anyone who reads headlines in any newspaper in Canada, or in fact around the world, must understand that the peeking order as it prevailed over the past 50 or 100 years is being challenged. Lo and behold, whenever this government sees any of the groups trying to get out of their established place in the peeking order, it comes down hard on their necks. I am thinking in terms of the TTC subway operators who were forced back to work when they chose to try and better their role in life. I’m thinking also of the elevator construction workers who for no reason that I have yet been able to find out were forced back to work.

Certainly the government can dig up excuses. They can dig up excuses to substantiate any of the moves that they seem so inclined to make. But they are the true defenders of the establishment. The status quo must remain and this government, with the help of the party to my left, has been getting away with this type of legislation over the past four or five years. It’s typical Tory legislation.

[5:15]

If one sits around here and listens long enough one eventually finds out how this government thinks. I was quite surprised to hear the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) who said, just 10 or 15 minutes ago that the right to strike was a luxury. What kind of claptrap is that? Does he not know how the right to strike was won in Canada, in North America, in fact right around the world? What was the cost, the human cost, in workers, people who have to live on wages? Luxury implies that it is something granted like a Christmas present. Well, this government, particularly this Tory government, has never granted anyone a luxury in their life as far as the wage earners are concerned. The right to strike was fought for and it was won, just as the teachers fought for and won the right to strike.

He also mentioned the iniquitous Bill 274, which made it illegal for teachers to strike. How many times have I seen the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) on the boob tube telling the people of Ontario: “Well, if you don’t give them the right to strike they’re going to go on strike illegally anyway.”

That’s how much this government thinks about the bargaining process. If the government had not been threatened with illegal strikes in the educational sector, then Bill 100 would not be on the books. And it has no right to take credit that it granted the teachers the privilege in Bill 100. It had no other option because it was faced with illegality.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if this back-to-work legislation, this compulsion by this government, continues as it seems to have done in the past few years, the day will eventually come when even back-to-work legislation will be defied. There is even thought of that now within the Metropolitan Toronto school board dispute. In fact, resolutions have been passed by the OSSTF, and I understand that the head of the OSSTF is calling a vote to determine whether in fact they will accept this legislation once the government has forced it through the House, with the help of its kissin’ cousins over there on my left.

Mr. Bullbrook: If he’s doing that, that is arrogance of the worst kind. In other words he is suggesting that perhaps they won’t abide by the law, is that it? And they wonder why they are in disrepute.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. Germa: The bill is deficient in very many forms, and I was interested to hear the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) bring us up to date on the ramifications of handing over the teachers to the Anti-Inflation Board; without any qualms whatsoever this government has seen fit to do that. They do it because they’re abrogating their responsibility; and they’ve consistently done this to try and shift the blame on to some other person. I think this short-term solution for a very narrow sector of the economy is not in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

When Bill 100 was brought in -- the minister brought it in, kicking and screaming --

Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh, no; no.

Mr. Germa: -- it was evident right from the beginning it was the threats of the school teachers to do an illegal act which forced this government into bringing this legislation in --

Hon. Mr. Wells: Repetitious and wrong.

Mr. Germa: -- and to elaborate --

Mr. Martel: The minister had to convince his own colleagues; they didn’t want it.

Mr. Germa: -- to identify how sincere the government was, in Bill 100, they made sure that it had written within it a self-destruct mechanism, so that our compulsory arbitration and back-to-work legislation was dictated within the elements of Bill 100. That is about as much faith as this government has in the free collective bargaining process. That would indicate to me that it has no faith in it whatsoever.

What this is doing to the bargaining process is eroding the true spirit of good-faith bargaining. As long as various groups, including school boards and including teachers, can rely on this government to come along and force an end to the dispute, then the government can rely on them not to come to a negotiated settlement.

The government also seems to think that the very fact of opening up the doors of the schoolroom is in fact going to open up the doors of education. I think it’s quite evident to everyone here that we have a large group of embittered, beleaguered and disillusioned school teachers, and just by forcing them back into the classroom does not indicate to me that the government is in fact opening lip the doors of education.

The destruction to the students, of course, has to receive consideration, but there is a body of opinion that believes that the point of no return has not yet been reached. Certainly, the board set up under Bill 100 made this recommendation, but there are other alternatives in order for a student to make up his school year. There is no law that I know of which says the schools cannot run in the month of July, for instance, so that the period of panic really hasn’t arrived as of this moment. If that is one of the motivating influences which brought this government to this decision, then I think it did not consider all the alternatives available.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Then why your amendment?

Mr. Germa: The amendment, I was coming to, Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I think you really did have trouble in caucus.

Mr. Germa: I think the government should not misread, in the amendment, the position of the New Democratic Party.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Do you agree that the schools should open on Monday? That it is an urgent situation?

Mr. Germa: The amendment was trying to make better a bill which is totally unpalatable; that’s exactly what the amendment was doing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You can’t have it both ways.

Mr. Germa: It was trying to make a thing palatable which we just couldn’t swallow, and that’s precisely what we are doing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, you are choking over what you are doing.

Mr. Germa: The two principal clauses in the bill --

Mr. McClellan: The Premier should be choking too.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could the hon. member continue without any interruption, please?

Mr. Germa: The two principal clauses in the bill, Mr. Speaker, are still not acceptable to the New Democratic Party. Compulsory back-to-work legislation is not acceptable to this party, and compulsory arbitration is not acceptable to this party.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Just vote against it, don’t amend it.

An hon. member: You’ve accepted it.

Mr. Germa: We have not accepted compulsory back-to-work legislation, as will be demonstrated when we vote at second reading.

Mr. Nixon: Oh yes, you have.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh yes, you have.

Mr. Germa: The New Democratic Party is opposing this legislation.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Your amendment says they’ve got to go back to work on Monday.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I was quite fascinated in listening to the words of the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa), and I just wanted to refresh my memory as to what that reasoned amendment moved by the Leader the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) said. It said, Mr. Speaker, “We want the schools to open on Monday.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is compulsory.

Mr. Singer: Yes, and it’s compulsory, and they have to be there. But it also said, “We are not going to arbitrate a pay solution; they are going to negotiate for an indefinite period.” How does one tie that in in any way with the comments made by the hon. member for Sudbury or some of his other colleagues? How many ways do they think they can have it? Do we believe the leader, or do we believe the member for Sudbury, or do we believe the member for Riverdale Mr. Renwick)? Which one?

Mr. Renwick: Wait until the vote.

Mr. Singer: It’s very, very hard. I am going to get to it. All right, let me quickly get to the member for Riverdale; he is anxious, he is anxious.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Put the boots to him.

Mr. Martel: The member for Wilson Heights is looking for a reason to vote for compulsory arbitration.

Mr. Singer: I am not looking for a reason. I say this, and I am happy to be --

Mr. Martel: There never has been a time when you haven’t.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Wilson Heights will continue.

Mr. Renwick: You’re quoting from what your colleague calls absolute chicanery.

Mr. Singer: The member for Riverdale is going to vote against it, is he? He’s going to vote against them going back, eh? He’s going to vote so that the students will not be able to go to their classes on Monday? He’s going to vote in the way -- in the words of the member for Sudbury -- that there is no rush. It can be done in July or August or September, and it doesn’t matter one hoot. That’s what he’s voting for. If that’s what it is, then let the people of Toronto know about that. We’re voting in the way that my leader indicated --

Mr. Renwick: When the question is put, we will vote no.

Mr. Singer: We’re voting so that the schools will open again on Monday.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is one very serious matter that I wanted to deal with at some length --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: -- and I hope that the hon. member for Riverdale will pay some attention. Frankly, I was surprised at him this afternoon --

Mr. Renwick: I have been waiting all day.

Mr. Singer: -- when he introduced in his peculiar way this “Dear Roy,” “Dear Jim” series of letters. Now, I join with my colleague from Sarnia in saying --

Mr. Renwick: Mention the date of that letter will you, Oct. 30, 1975.

Mr. Singer: I know, I know. Why are you so sensitive? Be patient. I haven’t said anything nasty about the member yet, but it’s coming.

Mr. Renwick: We tried to deal last year with the problem that you’re dealing with this year.

Mr. Singer: I don’t know why he’s so sensitive.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we get on with the principle of the bill? The member for Wilson Heights.

Mr. Singer: Periodically Mr. Speaker, the member for Riverdale gets all upset because of his guilty conscience. He’s going to have cause to be upset when we’re through, but I just want to lay the background. I think, sir, you’re entitled to know why I think the member for Riverdale created, probably inadvertently, a wrong impression in the members of the House this afternoon.

The member for Riverdale wrote a very good letter, because he’s a very good lawyer. He wrote a very good letter raising a number of important constitutional questions with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), and he sent that forward on Oct. 30. This afternoon when we were trying again, my colleague from Sarnia and I, to get some answers from the government as to the basis on which this was being done, as to the basis on which there could be no definite commitment as to the finality of a salary to be determined by an arbitrator, because they have set that aside. They’ve got this phoney agreement with Ottawa. We were trying to find out how and what the legal basis for it was. Then, in all his dignity, the member for Riverdale rose and waved aloft the “Dear Jim” letter. The “Dear Jim” letter, when you read it with the “Dear Roy” letter, is no answer at all. The “Dear Jim” letter is a con game and the member for Riverdale was prepared to accept it. He accepted it in the spirit that his leader made his speech this afternoon, and the member for Sudbury got up and attacked him and moved the amendments.

Mr. Renwick: You draw conclusions, I will draw mine.

Mr. Singer: Now, there are no answers, Mr. Speaker, in the letter that the Attorney General wrote to the member for Riverdale to the questions that the member for Riverdale asked of the Attorney General -- and we go to the same spot. What basis does the government have for entering into this arrangement with Pepin and his friends and saying it is binding on us without even coming to the Legislature of the Province of Ontario and asking if they can do it?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member get to the principle of the bill?

Mr. Singer: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I am on the absolute principle of the bill. The principle of the bill that we are concerned about is this: Since there is no undertaking, understanding, commitment or statutory provision that the salary to be determined or the terms to be determined by the arbitrator are going to be final, we are entitled to say -- and we’re going to say at some length as we’ve been saying -- that the reasoning behind it has to be explained; and that this government is acting illegally and that the whole thing is going to blow up in their faces. Now, that’s the point. That’s the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

[5:30]

Let me read to you a few words given in the legal opinion my hon. colleague, the member for Sarnia, referred to a little earlier:

“Our advisers have told us that the province can validly incorporate those sections of the federal Act establishing and defining the functions of the Anti-Inflation Board. Alternatively, the province can’t enact specifically that the federally-constituted board will be responsible for monitoring prices, profits and income increases and that the federally-appointed administrator will be responsible for the enforcement of the Act. Note that the provincial Act, in this case, would be nothing more than an incorporation by reference of the federal Act.”

We haven’t got a provincial statute, so there can be no incorporation by reference.

What have we got and what did the member for Riverdale cop out on, because he knows better than this? We’ve got an order in council for which we asked the authority. The House leader promised my colleague from Sarnia, and I heard him, that we were going to get the statutory authority for that. It hasn’t come forward this afternoon. He promised it in the Premier’s name, and the Premier hasn’t produced it. We have an order in council which allowed the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) to sign a document that puts us in this absolutely untenable position.

Mr. Renwick: But you have my letter and you agree with that.

Mr. Singer: I am saying -- if the member for Riverdale will listen, if he will be patient, he knows what he did this afternoon. He tried to lay a false smokescreen and he didn’t get away with it; it’s too bad, because he knows better than that.

Mr. Speaker, the conclusions are:

“The province may enter into an agreement with the federal government to have the Anti-Inflation Act apply to the bodies specifically exempted from its application by 4(2). However, such an agreement would not be valid in the absence of provincial legislation adopting the federal Act. [We have none of that.] The technical means of adoption or incorporation by reference are varied as are the means of employing the administration machinery set up by the federal Act for provincial purposes.”

It’s fascinating to note that in one of the cases to which we have been referred, and which “Dear Roy” has missed in his letter back to “Dear Jim,” is the case called the Attorney General of Nova Scotia and the Attorney General of Canada v. Lord Nelson Hotel Co. Ltd. Fascinatingly, in that case, which went before the Supreme Court of Canada in May and October, 1950, the Province of Ontario was represented by C. R. (Cliff) Magone, a very fine lawyer who did an excellent job, an outstanding job, for the Province of Ontario. C. R. Magone acted for the Attorney General of Ontario in the argument of that case.

What do we have in that case? We have five judges of the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously agreeing that there can be no interdelegation between Canada and the provinces of the powers reserved in section 91 and section 92. You can agree until you’re blue in the face but you can’t do it that way. The words that the people in Ottawa put into this agreement, and their recital, as mentioned by my colleague from Sarnia, doesn’t change it one whit. If the government wanted to do it properly and legally, then it would have done it as suggested in this memorandum of law, the concluding portion of which I read to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I think you might be interested in a few words in this judgement, just a few. Here’s a chief justice who says --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the member take his seat? I’ve been scanning this bill and I see no reference to the referral of this bill or decision, or the outcome of it, to the Anti-Inflation Board. We’ve allowed a full discussion to go on --

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, come on, you can’t do this.

Mr. Speaker: -- but if you can point out to me where it is in here, we’ll allow it; it’s an interesting legal background --

Mr. Singer: No, Mr. Speaker, you miss the point.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please -- but I don’t see any reference to it in this particular bill. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: There is nothing in the bill about the Anti-Inflation Board.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, you’ve got to put this in context with the absence in this statute of the finality of the arbitrator’s decision.

There can be no finality in the arbitrator’s decision --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re dealing with this particular bill, and what happens outside --

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, that is what the whole trouble is.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. In my opinion, and I know the hon. member is more learned in the law than I am, I can find no reference to the Anti-Inflation Board. It seems to me that’s outside the purview of this particular bill.

Mrs. Campbell: No, sir; no way.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to what this provides as the method of determining the final working conditions and the fact that there is no statement here that they shall be binding either on the boards or on the teachers. It’s written in that way because it has to be bound by what the government believes is the law; that is, the rulings of the Anti-Inflation Board in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Singer: That is why it is put that way and that is what the minister said, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It seems to me that is outside the jurisdiction of this particular bill.

Mr. Singer: Not at all, Mr. Speaker, it is not outside. Listen with me to what the minister said when he introduced it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think if the hon. member would proceed with the principle of the bill, it would be much better.

Mr. Singer: I am talking about the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I have to do this.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: I am the only one you have begun to descend upon in this way.

Mr. Renwick: Because there is no Sergeant-at-Arms.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It has been a very interesting discussion and we do allow a straying from the principle of a bill to a certain extent, but it seems to me we are dwelling far too long on something which I can’t find in the bill, quite frankly.

Mr. Renwick: Name him.

Mr. Roy: That is why you didn’t find it in the bill.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the member please get back to the principle of this bill?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I am on the principle of the bill. If you will recall what the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) said in his explanation --

Mr. Makarchuk: Throw him out.

Mr. Singer: Yes, all right; throw me out; go ahead. I think you should, Mr. Speaker. If you will recall what the minister said in his introduction, he justifies that portion of his remarks by making reference to it. Let me read to you what the minister said:

“This strike has been unusual, even unique, from the start. It began in the early period following the announcement of the federal anti-inflation programme and following Ontario’s announcement of its intention to opt the public sector of the province into the programme.”

The minister started it. He had to explain his bill, and there it is. Now I can surely explain it. It is my right and my duty to explain why the minister is wrong.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: You are debating the agreement.

Mrs. Campbell: Then why didn’t you put a floor into it?

Hon. Mr. Wells: It has nothing to do with the agreement.

Mrs. Campbell: Why didn’t you?

Interjections.

Mrs. Campbell: You know why.

Mr. Renwick: Don’t you see the connection?

Mr. Singer: In fact, on page 5, the minister says:

“Even though the expressed demands of the teachers seem clearly in excess of the federal anti-inflation guidelines, even allowing for any special considerations that might apply, the teachers chose to exercise their legal prerogative to strike. The whole exercise had a sense of futility --”

And he goes on.

Surely Mr. Speaker, when the minister is excusing government response by referring to the anti-inflation guideline we have a right and a duty to explain why they don’t apply and how the government is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of Ontario. And that is what I intend to continue to do.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: On a point of order, I think it is quite just and right to refer to the relationships and effects of the anti-inflation programme on the processes that have led up to us being here today. It is a fact that this government has opted in and there is no question that the monetary portions of a decision of the arbitrator under this bill, will have to be reviewed by the Anti-Inflation Board in Ottawa.

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you. That puts us right in order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: But, I don’t think that passing any comment on those should lead us to a total discussion of the agreement that the Province of Ontario has signed. If the hon. members want that, let them have a debate and ask for a debate or move some kind of a motion on the agreement.

Mrs. Campbell: That’s the whole thing.

Interjections.

Mrs. Campbell: We were going to get it before Christmas and we didn’t get it. We were promised it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would submit that there is nothing in the principle of this bill concerning that.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, the minister has established my very point. He says we are doing it because we are caught up. I say they don’t have to be caught up. They are being illegally caught up. I am quoting the authorities for it. I think it is high time we in this Legislature began to question arbitrary, irrational and unusual actions by a government --

Mr. Wildman: Illegal and weird.

Mr. Singer: -- which governs or purports to govern by orders in council. What does it need the Legislature for? It’s a terrible burden. It’s a nuisance. Why doesn’t the government do everything by order in council?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s not right.

Mr. Singer: Yes. If the government can sign this agreement by order in council, it could have ordered the teachers back to work by order in council. It doesn’t need the Legislature. It doesn’t believe in the Legislature. It is arrogant and cocky and it ignores the law; that’s its problem.

I want to tell you about the law, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is important that we tell you about the law. I am a lawyer and I love the law and I think we have got to run this Legislature by the law that applies in this jurisdiction and in Canada.

Mr. Makarchuk: Vote against it.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, let me tell you this.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think we are wasting quite a bit of valuable time. We have allowed the hon. member and other members to continue in this vein as background to the bill, just as there is much more material and background to the bill, but there is really no reference in this bill to the Anti-Inflation Board and the matters pertaining thereto.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh no, not now.

Mr. Good: The minister can talk about it but we can’t.

Mr. Speaker: So, if the hon. member can tie it in very briefly we will allow him to continue.

Mrs. Campbell: Well, make a ruling.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, but we would ask him to get to the principle of the bill as quickly as possible.

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: No, order please.

Mr. Singer: Well, if my words are not adequate, I am sorry. If I cannot impress the Speaker of the Ontario Legislature with the importance of the government acting legally, then I guess I have failed in all my years of public life in trying to get one simple concept through.

I am charging that this government has acted illegally and improperly; that this statute needn’t have been written in the way it is, but the government has drawn a smokescreen across the trail in saying that we are bound by a piece of paper that is legalized apparently by an order in council for which there is no authority.

I think that is an important point, and a point that has to be made and repeated and repeated and repeated so that everybody in Ontario understands that we govern by the rule of law and not by the rule of men.

I think that is important. I can’t think of anything more important, Mr. Speaker, that we can talk about in this Legislature; and I want to tell you what some of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada have to say about changing jurisdictions backwards and forwards between Canada and the provinces -- between sections 91 and 92.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We will allow the member to continue if he is not too lengthy, in commenting on the hon. minister’s introductory statements, but please get to the principle of the bill as soon as possible.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh let’s get on with the debate.

Mr. Singer: All right, Mr. Speaker. I will quote instead of 20 quotes that I have from this judgement, just two or three. I will quote first of all from the then Chief Justice of Canada, Mr. Justice Rinfret who says that the members elected to parliament or to the legislatures are the only ones entrusted with the power and duty to legislate concerning subjects -- no, no -- that in each case members in parliament and in the legislature are the only ones entrusted with the power and the duty to legislate concerning subjects exclusively distributed by the constitutional Act in each of them.

Mr. Roy: That’s pretty clear.

Mr. Singer: What could be simpler than that Mr. Speaker? What could be more applicable of this statute than what the Chief Justice of Canada says in this case? And he is joined by his four colleagues who unanimously agree with him.

In case it might have slipped anyone’s attention, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) or the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. MacBeth) who isn’t here, I again draw to their attention the fact that Cliff Magone, that famous Ontario civil servant and good lawyer, was there on behalf of the Province of Ontario.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we would not be in this difficulty if the government had, in good faith -- and I accuse them of not having good faith -- in good faith and in good conscience had said: All right, the government in Ottawa wants us to be within certain guidelines; there are ways we can do this legally and there are other ways where we can try and con the troops, and that is what we are doing.

Maybe we can even get Jim Renwick not to make a fuss; he has written a letter and that’s the end of it. That’s exactly what has happened.

But I say that we here in Ontario are entitled to have whatever control of salaries and wages and collective agreements and profits and professional profits and so on brought here and legalized, authorized by the vote of a majority of this Legislature and you haven’t done that. You have this phoney order in council that isn’t worth the paper it is written on.

I was very happy to hear this morning that CUPE -- and the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) knows about CUPE, he advised them to stay out of Brown Camps -- CUPE is about to challenge us in court and they’ll win. They will win.

I am surprised that the hon. member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) hasn’t joined with my colleague the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) and me in making this point; and I am shocked that there isn’t a law officer or a legal official of the government sitting on these benches who is able to answer us on these points.

I say this, Mr. Speaker, yes, we shall vote for the return of the students to the classes. But there is a great fault in this legislation. It leaves the teachers hanging in abeyance until somebody goes to the Supreme Court of Canada and gets this thing thrown out. And therein they have caused all this trouble that so worries, with good justification, the teachers in their bargaining position.

I say we are going to make the best of a bad situation. The law is clear. The law is abundantly clear and the government, as late as this afternoon, reneged on the promise made by the House leader to my colleague that it would give us the authority that it had for passing the order in council. If that’s the way government in Ontario operates, do away with the Legislature. We are excess baggage, we are redundant, we are meaningless. They can do everything by order in council, so why worry about Bill 1 or Bill 100 or labour relations? Just retire to your ivory towers and pass orders in council.

[5:45]

Mr. Wildman: I rise in opposition to the bill and in support of the reasoned amendment. It is interesting that our colleagues in the Liberal Party have stated that they think the New Democratic Party wants to have it both ways, and yet we just heard the minister -- well he would like to be the minister -- the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer) state that the government had acted illegally but that he was going to vote with them, and the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) states that the arbitrator has no power, and that arbitration is a charade I think he said, and yet he is going to vote with the government.

Mr. Roy: Why didn’t you vote with us when we wanted an anti-inflation board provincially?

Mr. Wildman: The last speaker dealt with the Anti-Inflation Board. I would rather deal with the problem of compulsory arbitration in this bill.

Mr. Roy: Why didn’t you vote with us?

Mr. Mackenzie: He is talking about his party, the Anti-Inflation Board.

Mr. Wildman: The reason I stand to take part in this debate is that this, as I said in the emergency debate we had earlier, is not just a Metro dispute but rather a province-wide problem, because in many other areas, as other members have mentioned, teachers have voted to strike. In my riding, the high school teachers in central Algoma are in a legal strike position --

Mr. Roy: He is out of order.

Mr. Wildman: -- and if this bill is passed, this bill ordering Metro teachers back with compulsory arbitration, I am very concerned what effect that will have on all of these other disputes across the province. If we say to the Metro teachers that the last step in Bill 100 is compulsory arbitration then we are saying that to all the teachers and all the boards in the province, and that will have a tremendous effect on the ability of those boards to negotiate settlements or on their willingness to negotiate.

I just want to point out that we had concern for students, just as I think every other member of this Legislature has, and for their education. That is why we suggested that perhaps the schools should be opened but that we should oppose compulsory arbitration and we should find another method for settling the dispute, especially in view of the fact that the representatives of both sides have said they are not too far apart and that they could reach a negotiated settlement. I think that even if they can’t, we should give them the final opportunity to try again to do that.

By saying that compulsory arbitration is the only answer, the government and the members of the Liberal Party who oppose it but are going to vote for it will find that they are causing a tremendously difficult problem for all negotiations, not just in education but negotiations throughout the province. I would urge the members of the party next to us here to rethink their position and to realize that if they want the schools open they don’t necessarily have to vote for compulsory arbitration. They can vote to have the schools open and also for the support of the collective bargaining system. I hope they would rethink their position.

Mr. Roy: I would like to say a few words on the bill. Of course, all parties are in agreement with the reopening of the schools and having the students back in the schools.

My colleagues have dealt with the fact that not only has the government taken it upon itself to relinquish its responsibility in the public sector and throw it all off onto Ottawa -- in other words, any problems in the public sector are off to Ottawa -- they’ve done a similar sort of end run when it comes to balancing their budget or cutting their deficit. That’s not on the principle of the bill, but it might be of interest to you, Mr. Speaker. The Treasurer’s (Mr. McKeough) budget is going to look better next year because he’s shoving it all on the municipalities. That’s what I call the lack of leadership that we’ve been getting from this government since September of 1975 -- they’re shoving it onto Ottawa or onto the municipalities.

I want to say to my colleagues to my right, the NDP on the approach and the criticism that they’re giving us now, we say it’s illegal and we’re backing this principle. We put forward a motion of non-confidence here. We wanted a provincial board here, within provincial jurisdiction, because we felt at the time that if we were going to be in a position to put people back to work we should have been in a position to tell them at what level. We were prepared to say that in areas such as education, health, justice, which since Confederation have been within this jurisdiction, this government should be the one to decide what historical factors and other things were when deciding wage levels. If my colleagues on my right say that we’re being inconsistent, they are the ones who are being inconsistent. If they really felt that there should be a level and they’re suggesting a level now, why don’t they vote with us when we put forward this non-confidence motion?

Mr. Renwick: Because we don’t believe in your federal counterparts’ wage and price control guidelines.

Mr. Roy: They postured here for weeks, saying that there should be a provincial board, but when the crunch came they were not prepared to accept it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: That’s right, they rejected it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If the hon. member would speak on the principle of the bill and proceed, please.

And could we have fewer interjections? Thank you very much.

Mr. Roy: The point we want to make is that we are being inconsistent

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: I mean consistent. We have said throughout that there should be a provincial board. We are saying now that the agreement between the province and the federal government is illegal. And my colleague from -- is it still Riverdale?

Mr. Renwick: Yes.

Mr. Roy: Really he should be the first one to applaud the approach taken by my two colleagues from Sarnia and Wilson Heights.

Mr. Renwick: I agreed last September. I told the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry).

Mr. Roy: He should be the first to realize that we don’t transfer jurisdictions --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the member speak to the bill through the Chair?

Mr. Roy: I was pointing that way.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: You just feel I should have a better angle.

The position of this party, and I think this bill highlights it, is the fact that we, as a Legislature, have to put the teachers back to work, but we as a Legislature cannot determine the level and that’s where the inconsistency lies. How the minister could sit there and take that type of approach is typical of the type of leadership that’s been lacking in this province for some time. How could they possibly say that they’re sending them off to Ottawa? They have evidence, the case law, the precedent is there, that the agreement that they’ve entered into with the feds is illegal. There is no precedent for it.

It’s one thing to have a lack of leadership, but it’s another thing not to be able to follow the rule of law. That is what is lacking in this whole approach. I think it’s going to be a sad state of affairs in this province, when in fact the scenario could be that the teachers under compulsory arbitration get a certain level, the Anti-Inflation Board makes a decision, and then a court case is taken and the whole thing is written off as being illegal to start with. Then where are we going to be?

That’s the type of responsibility that they’re not prepared to accept, and that’s the type of responsibility that my colleagues and I have been trying to put forward in this House today. That’s why we feel that originally we should have had the support of the people to our right in establishing a provincial anti-inflation board so we could act consistently throughout in disputes such as this.

Mr. Bounsall: I rise to oppose this Act respecting the Metropolitan Toronto Boards of Education and Teachers Disputes in the way that it is written, and to support the reasoned amendment put forward by our party. I have had various concerns over the way in which negotiations across the province have taken place under Bill 100, but clearly, in the Toronto situation and the action which the government has taken in introducing this bill, in my mind one concern overshadows everything else, and that is the compulsory arbitration aspect of this bill and the detrimental effect that it inevitably has upon collective bargaining.

I am opposed to compulsory arbitration -- not per se, not dogmatically, except that whenever it has been introduced there has been a detrimental effect upon collective bargaining, and I am very much in favour of collective bargaining. By and large it works; it’s the only solution we really have to dispute between labour and management in this country. There is nothing else on the horizon to replace it, and we must do everything we can to encourage free and full collective bargaining.

In any dispute, whenever compulsory arbitration has been applied -- as has been this government’s practice; and in many cases far too early, without really thinking upon the effects that it has upon the parties involved -- it has had a detrimental effect upon negotiations, and an effect which I would think takes some years to correct. When you apply a solution in a binding way, decided upon by a third party, which is what happens in compulsory arbitration, what you have avoided is the meeting of the minds between those two parties which is so necessary for the continued working together of those parties. That meeting of the minds never occurs, and that is what is bad about any non-negotiated settlement, and what is bad about any compulsory arbitration with its binding solution imposed upon any group of workers.

That final coming to grips with all the problems that are outstanding does not occur, and in most cases at this stage of negotiation there are very few outstanding. We can talk about them inevitably being two or three main points, and maybe three or four subsidiary points at most. This final meeting of the minds, this final coming to grips by both parties, realizing that a solution must finally be reached between them and no others, is avoided and is completely negated.

Having said that about compulsory arbitration and collective bargaining, which could be applied to any dispute, let me give the House what again is my overriding concern as compulsory arbitration has its effect upon this particular dispute and other disputes in the future with respect to teachers and boards. That is the government, by bringing in this particular piece of legislation at this point -- a very bald piece of legislation that by and large simply, in this labour relations aspect of it, imposes compulsory arbitration -- says to the teachers and boards across this province: “We have written another clause to Bill 100.”

Bill 100 is the bill that grants teachers the right to strike, and gives to the teachers and the boards very careful procedures to avoid the find breakdown of negotiations, procedures to avoid the strike situation. Now this government has written a clause that says: “Should everything fail and should you go on strike, we are serving notice that your strike can last only 38 days. Your strike, no matter when it occurs, between a teacher and a board, is going to last 38 days, plus or minus a couple of days.”

I can’t think of anything more detrimental in the first real strike under Bill 100; and it will become clear to boards and teachers in this province. Sure, here’s the legislation, but they are now writing another clause saying: “The longest we will tolerate you being off work is 38 days.”

What this inevitably produces -- and this is where my real concern is -- is that no one from here on need take Bill 100 all that seriously. They can continue on and go through all the actions of the bill, one side or the other -- it’s usually one side, but is could be both sides -- and not negotiate in good faith. They know that should a strike eventually occur, that this government, by its action at this particular time in the first operation of this bill, will blow the whistle after 38 days.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have further remarks to make?

Mr. Bounsall: No, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have further remarks to make, but this isn’t the appropriate time at which to make them.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

January 15, 1976

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

PAPERWORKERS’ STRIKE

ELDORADO DUMP AT PORT HOPE

PIONEER VILLAGE

HEALTH OF COKE OVEN WORKERS

DRINKING DRIVERS

MUNICIPAL GRANTS

BROWNDALE OPERATIONS

CANADIAN SKI PATROL SYSTEM

MINIMUM WAGE

METROPOLITAN TORONTO BOARDS OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTES ACT (CONTINUED)