Hansard Transcripts 1984-Nov-08 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with the business of the House, I would ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery Mr. Ziad Shawwaf, Saudi Arabian ambassador to Canada, and Dr. Suliman Sindi, educational attaché for academic and technical affairs for Saudi Arabia.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MULTICULTURAL SERVICE GRANTS PROGRAM

Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I am very pleased to be able to announce a new multicultural service grants program. This program will give multicultural organizations the increased financial stability needed to provide continuing help to many of those who have come to Ontario from other lands.

After a careful assessment and extensive consultation with multicultural service organizations, I am confident this initiative will complement our existing programs and help meet the changing needs of multicultural organizations and their clients. It has become increasingly difficult for these organizations to serve our multicultural population without some measure of financial stability. This stability is essential if these services are to become an integral part of the community service system.

The primary objective of our other grants programs and citizenship initiatives has been to encourage the full and active participation of Ontario's culturally diverse population. The goal remains the same, but the changing nature of the population has meant that the requirements to reach this goal have changed, and changed dramatically.

The adjustment of immigrants depends on a variety of social, economic and cultural factors. There are immigrants in Ontario who have lived here for a number of years but are not yet able to participate fully in the life of the community because of inadequate language and life skills. Our new multicultural service grants program will allow organizations to develop initiatives and long-term support to address the needs of this population. This program will be of particular benefit to immigrant women, who have been especially vulnerable to the obstacles preventing successful integration.

The federal commitment to immigration that reunites families has meant we have a larger number of elderly and young adults coming into our society. They too need the long-term support that this program is designed to make possible.

Another concern these multicultural service program grants will address is the fact that a growing number of communities and community organizations outside the Toronto area with little history of ethnic diversity are now having to adjust to the needs and challenges of an increasingly multicultural population.

Our multicultural community organizations not only help the immigrant to settle into a new home but also are responsible in a major way for the intertwining of cultures and traditions that we in Ontario are so fortunate to enjoy.

The new grants program will strengthen the administrative base of multicultural service organizations, which consequently will be better able to attract and hold the qualified staff they need to perform their very important and often difficult and complex duties.

Let me reiterate that the program I am introducing today reflects the valuable advice of our community groups. Since becoming minister responsible for citizenship development in Ontario, I have had the opportunity to meet and consult many of our community organizations and agencies. I am delighted to be able to respond with this initiative to the needs identified by them.

Under this new program, $650,000 has been allotted for this fiscal year. We intend to provide $1.3 million for these purposes on an annual basis. Established community-based organizations with a record of providing services effectively to Ontario's multicultural community on an ongoing basis are eligible to apply.

Detailed criteria have been developed and application may be made at my ministry's regional offices throughout the province. Ministry staff will be holding briefing sessions within the next few weeks to inform organizations of the specific elements of the program.

By working together as a partner with these organizations, the government will be able more easily to identify and respond to new directions and new requirements as they emerge. I feel sure, too, that by recognizing the vital role of multicultural organizations and the way their programs and services help our society, we are enriching the quality of life for us all.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE LABOUR DISPUTE

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, cabinet has been advised by the College Relations Commission that the education of students enrolled in Ontario's 22 colleges of applied arts and technology will be in jeopardy if the strike by the teaching staff in those institutions continues.

Today, as a result, I will introduce An Act respecting the Labour Dispute between the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Ontario Council of Regents for the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology.

The Council of Regents and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union began negotiations last May. Following a fact-finder's report, the council tabled its first complete offer on August 31. This was followed by a second offer on September 25, which the union refused to receive from either the council or the mediator.

From the first, without compromise, the union has demanded a province-wide formula which would substantially reduce the work load of all teachers. This was not acceptable to the Council of Regents, which maintained there is no evidence of a general work load problem.

On November 4, the Council of Regents tabled a third complete offer, which ensured limits on teaching assignments and local solutions to any individual teacher's work load problems.

[Interruption]

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker ordered the galleries to be cleared.

2:15 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The following day, on November 5, the union, for the first time since negotiations had started in May, tabled its salary demands. These exceeded substantially the five per cent provincial guidelines. At the same time, the union continued to demand the work load formula.

At this stage, the two parties found themselves at an insoluble impasse, negotiations were terminated and the Council of Regents requested the Minister of Colleges and Universities to intervene and return students to classes.

In the interest of the students and taxpayers of Ontario, the act I shall introduce today requires that all members of the academic staff bargaining unit of employees of colleges of applied arts and technology return to and resume their duties as soon as possible. In the meantime, the act will provide that the agreement that expired August 31, 1984, will be extended to August 31, 1985. As well, it will provide for interim salary increases set out in the schedule, which is part of the act.

Furthermore, an arbitrator to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council will be empowered to resolve all matters in the dispute, except for those concerning instructional assignments. This issue will be addressed by a committee that will be known as the Instructional Assignment Review Committee, to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. It will be composed of an independent chairman, one representative of the union and one representative of the management of the college system. The committee shall conduct a comprehensive review of all aspects of instructional assignments in the colleges of applied arts and technology.

As part of its review, the committee shall consult persons representing the views of the Council of Regents, the boards of governors of the colleges, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, students, parents and others whom the committee is satisfied have an interest in instructional assignments in the colleges. I anticipate the committee will submit its report and recommendations to the Minister of College and Universities by June 30, 1985.

In the meantime, as a part of this act, in addition to the amendment I suggested earlier, a further amendment will be introduced at second reading that will establish within each college of the system a college instructional assignment committee which shall serve until June 30, 1985. From that time forward, the committee shall be reappointed or appointed again with different membership for each year, beginning July 1, 1985.

The college instructional assignment Committee shall be composed of four persons appointed in each college, with two members to be appointed by the administration of the college and two by the local union. The committee shall include the senior academic officer of the college and the president of the local union or their appointees.

On receipt of a new instructional assignment, each employee of each college shall complete the standard instructional assignment form to be provided by the college. The form shall contain the details of the employee's instructional assignment and, when completed, shall be returned to the employee's supervisor. The supervisor will review and forward it with any comments within 10 working days of receipt to the college instructional assignment committee.

That committee shall meet at the request of any of its members at any time during the course of the instructional year. An employee who believes the instructional assignment is inequitable may request the committee to review the form that has been completed. Such request must be made by the employee within 10 days of completing the form and should be reviewed by the committee within 10 days of receiving the request.

The committee will advise the employee in writing that it has made a determination of the matter or that it has been unable to resolve the matter. The committee may request the presence both of the employee and the supervisor for assistance in reviewing any form completed by the employee.

In the event that a determination is made by a majority of the committee with respect to an instructional assignment arising out of an instructional assignment form, it shall be binding upon the parties and the employee concerned and the committee will advise the parties in writing of its decision.

2:20 p.m.

If a request for a review of an instructional assignment is not resolved by the committee, the employee may forthwith file a grievance as to the application of article 4.01 or 4.02 within 10 days of receiving the committee's report and may refer the grievance to arbitration as provided in article 11.03 of the collective agreement.

The college instructional assignment committee in its consideration shall have regard to such variables affecting assignments as the application of article 4.01, course preparation, measurement and evaluation, availability of technical and other resource assistance, the number of students, the instructional mode or modes, previous assignments, necessary travel time between assignments, curriculum development, academic counselling and other assignments.

This mechanism is one that appeared to be required by the members of the union within the various colleges in order to provide a means by which the employee could, without an adversarial format, apply to each college for review of assignments related to the instructional work load of that teacher.

With the amendments to the act being presented, I believe all matters in dispute are being addressed appropriately, and I hope the members of the House will find it in their hearts to provide for speedy passage of this bill in the interests of the students.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry. Oral questions, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not thought this through very well. It is just a recipe for a hung jury.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: With respect to the minister's stated position on Tuesday last that negotiations were proceeding at a time when they were not, would she please account for her --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: What is wrong with that? You have not even heard the bloody point.

Mr. Speaker: It is hardly --

Mr. Allen: I want to be able to believe and I want to be able to accept the minister's statements at face value. In this House, I am afraid I cannot do that.

Mr. Speaker: That is not for me to make a judgement on.

Mr. Allen: Is that the Minister of Education's or is that the Council of Regents' statement?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not caution the honourable member again. That is all.

ORAL QUESTIONS

COMMUNITY COLLEGE LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am fascinated by the statement today. It will not work. These questions have been festering for years. They are looking for resolutions, not more committees and inquiries. I read with fascination the last page of the prepared statement where it says, "This ends my statement." It should read, "This ends my career."

Let me put a very specific question to the minister. This morning we have been reading about her policy that has been coming out in dribs and drabs, as she thought it out and cleared it through the caucus. Let me put to the minister a specific suggestion that I believe would be constructive in the circumstances.

Instead of referring the matters she is referring to the arbitrator, why would she not send the parties back to the negotiating table for 30 days with respect to the still unresolved questions pertaining to workload, assignment of hours and the quality of education? Why would she not ask them to go back to the negotiating table, still fight for a negotiated settlement of those issues, and if it could not be resolved, then 30 days from now it could be turned over to an arbitrator?

In the circumstances, and given the incredibly bad feelings that have developed in this discussion in the last little while, would she not agree that an approach such as that, with some leadership from her such as that, might go some way not only to impress the urgency of the situation on the parties but hopefully to come to a negotiated settlement, rather than her spate of unworkable committees with two parties that will always end up hung -- she knows that as well as I do -- and another inquiry to look at matters that have been looked at for years?

Why would that not be a constructive approach right now? I understand time is of the essence and that there will probably be a resolution to this matter some time today, perhaps by 10:30 tonight. Why would that not be a constructive approach for the minister to consider?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact we did consider it. It was rejected because we had absolutely no sense of security that there would be meaningful bargaining if we referred the matters back to the bargaining table. There was concern about whether there would be active participation on both sides towards negotiating a settlement.

The matters related to work load are relatively complex. It is felt an inquiry that will be comprehensive and objective and will ensure the participation of both the members of the employees' union and the members of the management as well as an external objective individual would provide a much more meaningful foundation for the appropriate modification of the current formula than what could potentially be relatively vindictive negotiation at the negotiation table.

Mr. Peterson: This issue has been studied to death.

An hon. member: It has not.

Mr. Peterson: Of course it has.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: There have been three work load studies; the minister has the report on college growth; there have been fact-finders' reports. The minister must be aware of the background that brought about this strike. It was predictable in the circumstances, given the government's policies.

Why does the minister feel she must indulge again in the politics of deferral and the politics of inquiries or royal commissions? Any time there is an issue, that is always the government's response. Why does the minister think this is going to solve the issue in six months rather than addressing it now in meaningful ways with negotiation between the parties?

Surely that is a constructive solution. The minister is just going to defer these problems for another six months, presumably until the Premier leaves, thus leaving the problem for the next government. That is going to be us in the circumstances, if the minister does not provide more meaningful leadership.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am delighted to hear the Leader of the Opposition indulging in his usual spate of wishful thinking.

It certainly is not a matter that has been studied to death. I am sorry the member does not seem to understand what a fact-finder's report is. Neither does he seem to understand that internal documentation about certain facets of work load are not complete investigations of the situation. I believe this matter deserves the kind of study which it will be given by a committee such as that which has been suggested.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can explain one point for the benefit of the House. Why is it that all matters in dispute between the parties have been sent to compulsory arbitration except the matter that has been in dispute for the last six months? On that matter, the minister chose to follow the line of the employer in this dispute. She took it hook, line and sinker.

Instead of sending that matter to compulsory arbitration, all she has done is imposed in legislation exactly what it is the employer put to the bargaining committee on Sunday and could not get. Why is the minister giving to the employer in legislation what it was unable to get in bargaining? That is exactly what she is doing.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that is so, but I shall investigate to find out whether it was a part of the position which was put on Sunday.

I have been considering the matter of an external review committee for some time now and I think it is a reasonable way to go. The reason it is going in that direction is that it seems to be a more equitable way to ensure the appropriate participation of all members of the college system, whether they be management or employees. The committee will have the opportunity to hear from members of the administration who are not necessarily going to be bound by the restrictions that might be placed upon them if they were speaking through their college administrators.

I believe that is the appropriate way to do this. It is an open and completely accessible and available mechanism and I hope it will lead to the kind of solutions which would be deemed appropriate by all.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: I put the question to the minister again: Would it not be better at least to attempt to salvage something out of this miserable debacle the minister has gone through?

We have had to sit by and watch, with great reluctance, the great harm that is being imposed and the recipe for disaster in the future as well. The minister is not dealing with this question. She is shoving it under the rug again, hoping for some time, hoping it will go away, the way this government approaches almost every issue.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Surely this has to be resolved, and the only real way is in free negotiations. The critical issue was and is work load and quality of education, and her system will not address that in any meaningful way.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. Peterson: I put it to her again, and even today when I read this statement, it is biased in favour of the council. I do not know who wrote this statement for the minister, but she should be embarrassed to stand up in the House and read it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: Why would the minister not at least try one last-ditch stand to bring about meaningful negotiations? It is not going to cost her anything. The students will be back at work tomorrow or Monday; that is not the issue. At least let us try to salvage something out of this, particularly because it is so important to the long-term relationship.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable members will not know how long and diligently one laboured in support of attempting to make the collective bargaining process work in this situation. I do not expect it will ever be known. But as a result of this effort, the legislation that appears to address all the issues in a very appropriate manner is what we have introduced today.

Mr. Rae: I want to go back to the Minister of Education, because if anybody is responsible for the incredible delay in the settlement of this dispute, it is the minister.

I want to ask her a question I put to her before when she said she was practically struck dumb by the information. Why did she refer everything to compulsory arbitration except the matter that has been in dispute for the last six months? Why in settling that issue -- which she did not settle; she set up this plethora of committees and bodies out there -- did she choose simply to impose by legislation what the employer was asking for in negotiations?

Why did she take that one-sided approach? Does she not recognize that this does more damage to the process of collective bargaining and confidence between the parties than anything else she could have done?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not sure I would call one set of committees and another general committee a plethora. None the less, the local college committees appeared, as a result of my discussions with members of faculty of various colleges, to be an appropriate mechanism to ensure there would be full and free discussion of matters of concern before it became necessary to refer them for grievance arbitration if there was a dispute or a question or an argument about instructional assignment.

There is no doubt that many members of faculty have said very clearly they wanted some avenue that would provide them with the opportunity to talk to those in charge of the assignment of instructional activity within the colleges in some way that was open and free for both sides, and the local committees seemed to provide that.

It seems to me, having read a good deal of the effort that the Honourable Mr. Justice Estey expended in the development of the formula now in place related to work load in the colleges, that it is indeed a very good formula.

The question is whether it is appropriate at the present time. I am not sure this can be decided functionally and finally through collective negotiations, which in this instance appear to be somewhat less than totally friendly. It appeared that there was a much better mechanism for ensuring that an inquiry that provided for the participation of both parties as well as the participation of a thoughtful, wise individual as chairman would provide that kind of foundation. This is the reason for appointing the committee.

Mr. Rae: I hope the minister understands what grievance arbitration really means. I have a copy here of two awards, an interim award and a final award, dealing with the question of work load in the community colleges. It was filed on October 17, 1980. The interim award came down on June 21, 1982, and the final award came down on April 30, 1984. That is what the minister's deskmate would call staged process. That is the kind of timing of solutions that she is proposing.

Does the minister realize that by relegating this process to individual grievance arbitration for all the teachers in the 22 community colleges, she is effectively strangling any possibility of a resolution of the question of work load? She is relegating them to a process that takes months and months and indeed, four years in order to reach a settlement of one individual grievance. Is the minister aware of that kind of problem in the process?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I thought I had just said I was aware of it and that we were trying to find a way to ensure there was some preventive mediation in this whole area of activity, which could provide solutions so there would not be a long delay in finding resolutions to problems related to work load.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, can the minister help me understand how her college instructional assignment committees set out in her position today are not just a recipe for a hung jury? How is it that under the conditions we now have, with an agreement to get the students back to classes immediately, it is not now worth another attempt at a negotiated settlement of these very troubling questions of quality of education and instructional assignments?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the honourable member that in several colleges within the system there are now models that can be used as the basis for the college instructional assignment committees. They are functioning very effectively and as a result of their existence, the relationship between the employer and the employee has improved tremendously.

They are in fact functional. Therefore, we are attempting to ensure they will be introduced in all the colleges as a preventive mediation activity, because that is what we need in certain of our institutions at the present time.

Mr. Rae: If the minister is so sure she is right -- and, by God, she is always sure she is right -- why does she not send this issue to arbitration along with everything else? Why is she making an exception for this issue? Why not include it in part of the general package?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I doubt there is any human being who has practised medicine who is ever consistently sure he or she is always right, and I therefore resent the remark made by the honourable member. I have already answered his question.

Mr. Rae: With respect, I think the minister has not answered the question.

Mr. Peterson: In the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), I will stand down my second question.

ACTIVITIES OF POLICE

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, we are obviously going to return to that matter, as it will be discussed today. I would now like to turn my attention, in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), to the senior lawyer in the government who is here, and that, of course, is the Premier.

He is pointing to his seatmate, but as long as the Premier is here, he is going to be asked questions. That seems fair.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) has been at the bar longer than I have.

Mr. Rae: They can have a fight between themselves as to which of them is the older. That is up to them to decide.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask a question of the Premier that is important. It deals with the very tragic case of William Franklin Baker. I am sure the Premier is acquainted with the case. There have been many questions asked by my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) both to the Attorney General and to the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor).

I remind the Premier that Mr. Baker is a young man who was arrested in Hamilton, was held in custody for about four months and was charged by the police with murder. Then, as the matter was about to proceed to court, the crown attorney decided to withdraw the case and to drop all charges against Mr. Baker because of the fact there were some very real questions about the manner in which the confession was worked out of Mr. Baker.

2:40 p.m.

This matter has gone on for some time. It has been in the hands of the Solicitor General. There is apparently a report by the Ontario Provincial Police in the hands of the Solicitor General and it has been there for about two months. We have been waiting patiently for him to tell us what is going to happen.

This young man was held in custody for a period of time and the charge was dropped. Is it the intention of the government to compensate him for that detention? Is it the intention of the government to compensate his father, who spent thousands of dollars he could not afford to retain a lawyer? Does the Premier not think it is legitimate that those kinds of steps be taken?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to comment as to whether they are legitimate or not. I think everybody has a very genuine sense of concern over this issue.

I should say to the member for York South that the Attorney General is very close at hand. He has been delayed somewhat by members of the press gallery who are seeking answers from him relative to the question the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) was probably going to ask. I would just say to the honourable member that the minister may have some thoughts to share on this issue. I expect he will be here very shortly.

Mr. Rae: In the light of that, I wonder if it would be permissible for me to stand down my next two questions supplementary to that and address them to the Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the honourable member for Kitchener-Wilmot.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, you allowed him to stand down --

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I think the problem is the same as you have. The minister in question is not here, so let us get on with the business.

Mr. Peterson: The rules change every day.

Mr. Speaker: The rules are not changing, with all respect.

[Later]

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, while the Attorney General --

Mr. Speaker: I would have to suggest to the member that he ask the question of the Premier, because the original question was to him. Then the Premier can redirect.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to suggest that the two supplementaries be redirected to the Attorney General. I am sure his answers will be edifying to the member.

Mr. Speaker: It is one supplementary actually.

Mr. Rae: Is that tackle to guard or guard to tackle? I am not sure which.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the question I want to ask the Attorney General deals with the case my colleague the member for Riverdale has been asking about in this House for many months. I know he has been in correspondence with the Attorney General personally for many months. He and I have discussed the case at some length.

It is in regard to the very difficult circumstances around the arrest, the confession and later detention for many months of a 17-year-old youth in Hamilton.

Can he confirm there is a report that has been in existence for nearly two and a half months? Can he confirm it has been in the hands of his ministry and that of the Ministry of the Solicitor General for that time?

Finally, can he tell us when the government will be making a decision on two questions: first, about the conduct of the police, whether there is going to be a further investigation into the Hamilton-Wentworth police force in this matter; and second, whether any consideration is being given to compensation for Mr. Baker and his family for the pain they suffered?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, the report to which the leader of the New Democratic Party refers is the report the Solicitor General acknowledged he had just received during this session; I think less than a month ago. In any event, the report from the Ontario Provincial Police was prepared for the Solicitor General and a copy of that report was provided to the senior officials in our ministry who are responsible for the administration of the criminal law in Ontario.

I can advise the leader I spoke about the Baker report as recently as this morning to Mr. John Takash, director of the criminal law division in the ministry. He indicated he was not in a position to make any recommendations to me until he had obtained additional information from the OPP. He has asked for additional information on specific and important matters related to this whole unhappy affair. Until he has this additional information, he will not be making any recommendations.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General will recall there were indications in this House by the Solicitor General with respect to the results of the report and making it available to the House. He will also recall he has been asked by the member for Riverdale on several occasions about a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the allegations of misconduct.

Can the Attorney General now tell this House that he will provide for us a public airing of this whole matter so that we can deal not only with the conduct of the police in relation to Mr. Baker, but also with the conduct of the police when they are dealing with individuals such as Mr. Green, I believe his name is, here in Toronto? Mr. Green also alleges certain beatings took place in relation to arrests being made.

Can the Attorney General give us the undertaking there will be a thorough public investigation, either under the auspices of the Ontario Police Commission or in some other way, in which the public can be assured this will not happen again?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I think the public is certainly entitled to the fullest possible explanation. It is very difficult for me to suggest what might be the appropriate course of action at this point, given the fact I have not read the report. It is a very voluminous report and I have not read it myself. Obviously, once the report and the recommendations have been dealt with, I hope to deal with the report at some length.

However, the option suggested by the member for Huron-Bruce is always available to the government. All I can say to him at this time is that I agree the public is entitled to, at the very least, a full explanation and accounting of what I have already described as "a very unhappy affair."

Mr. Rae: This came to light at the end of April 1984. That is many months ago. I think the Attorney General would surely agree this is one of the most extraordinary cases in terms of reflecting on the conduct of the police and on the administration of justice in Ontario.

Can the Attorney General assure us the report of the OPP will be made public? In his response to the report, which I hope he will make to this Legislature very soon, can he assure us he will deal not only with the conduct of the police but also with the question of whether criminal charges are going to be laid?

Finally, and perhaps most important, I think all members would agree that we should not lose sight of what has happened to this young man whose life was devastated by this arrest, these series of charges and the very lengthy time in detention. Does the minister not think he is entitled to compensation if it is found the police acted improperly and there were no grounds for the accusations.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will reiterate, first, that I have not read the report. Second, I have been advised by Mr. Takash the information he requires is not yet complete. Until I have had an opportunity to obtain the necessary information, I am not going to give any specific undertakings. I must see the report and have an opportunity to review it in some detail.

I remind the leader of the New Democratic Party that so far as the conduct of the Ministry of the Attorney General in relation to the administration of justice in Ontario is concerned, the counsel for Mr. Baker had nothing but praise for my local crown attorney and his office for the manner in which this matter was handled.

Mr. Peterson: If the Attorney General wants to be Premier, he had better start reading things.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. I have a copy of a letter addressed to the Premier and signed by Pat Capponi, who was on the Mayor's Action Task Force on Discharged Psychiatric Patients, with respect to discharged ex-psychiatric patients. In that letter, it is drawn to our attention that when the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) was the Minister of Health he visited Parkdale and saw the tragedy there. One of the places he visited was 1241 King Street West. He met seven ex-psychiatric patients.

Since this letter was given to the Premier about 10 days ago, I would draw to his attention that of the seven ex-psychiatric patients he met, five of them are now dead. Peter threw himself in front of a subway train --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Sweeney: -- Gerry died in the dining room; John's cancer finally killed him; Murray, who was in his 60s, never knew why he was there, and being out all night in all weather hastened his death; Margaret, hungry and penniless, died in her sleep.

Five of the seven died, despite the fact that while he was Minister of Health the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick accepted the responsibility for ex-psychiatric patients.

Last Saturday, November 3, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick was given an award by the Canadian Mental Health Association for his work. In accepting the award, he said: We have taken some important steps. We must maintain that momentum and increase our commitment."

We were told yesterday by the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Sweeney: -- there was not a single cent in this year's budget to meet the commitment that was made to look after ex-psychiatric patients --

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is not true.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the honour-able member please place his question?

Mr. Riddell: He did. He said, "Can you?"

Mr. Speaker: Order. There were interjections on this side.

Mr. Sweeney: The minister told us there was no money in the budget this year to meet this need.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is not true.

Mr. Speaker: Let the member place his question, please.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is not what the member was told.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sweeney: Would the Premier not think it is totally inappropriate for the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), the former Minister of Health of this province, to accept such an award from the Canadian Mental Health Association, given that kind of record?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I try to understand the nature of the question after the preamble, I really expected some other form of question. The honourable member is really asking me whether it is appropriate for the Treasurer of this province to receive an award from the Canadian Mental Health Association. In essence, that is really what he has asked me.

I am amazed that is his question after what he was reciting to the House. I can only say to the member that if he wishes to dispute the judgement of the mental health association, he may do so. I am not going to question its judgement.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I would not normally rise at this point. I think it is important that the House be accurately informed as to what the honourable member is referring to, in that he has suggested something that I think he misunderstood. He asked a question yesterday in estimates in relation to a particular project in Metropolitan Toronto and I responded to what he said --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister will please resume his seat.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me a copy of the mayor's task force report written by Dr. Reva Gerstein, with the preface page signed by the Premier indicating his support for this. The Minister of Health is correct; I stand partially corrected.

It was drawn to our attention yesterday that despite the fact this report was in the Premier's hands, in the minister's hands and, I have to assume, given his past commitment, in the Treasurer's hands prior to the budget, nothing was put in this year's budget to implement this report.

Given the fact that people are dying daily, what does the Premier, still the first minister of this province, intend to do to maintain his commitment to implement this report before more people die?

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member understands all of it correctly, he will understand the government is in the process of supporting this report, not just with respect to the philosophy here in Metropolitan Toronto but on a more general basis. I just heard the Minister of Health explain to the member -- I assume this item was discussed in estimates -- that he perhaps inadvertently took an erroneous impression from what was said. I phrase that in a very kind way.

I go back to the member's main question. If he really feels the Treasurer should not have received that award from the mental health association, why does he not communicate with the association and say it was wrong in its judgement?

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, although the minister did say that commitments would be made and that commitments would perhaps be made in dollar terms at a meeting to take place some time in the future with the mayor of the city of Toronto, as of yesterday no funds were earmarked in anybody's budget for the contract alternative projects recommended in the Gerstein report.

From a conversation I had this morning, I understand the interministerial committee has now found itself without even a chairman. The Premier has been delaying and procrastinating since January 1984. That is an accurate reflection of the realities. There is still no money allocated, as of the information we received yesterday.

When is the Premier going to allocate some funds to the appropriate officials at the municipal level or on a partnership basis so that the housing facilities with support services for ex-psychiatric patients can be put in place? Are we going to have to go through another winter before this happens?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that we will have to go through another winter. As I recall my communication to the mayor of the city, I indicated to him the series of meetings or steps that should be pursued to bring this to some form of finality. I cannot put a specific timetable on it. I am just going by memory. I think I sent the letter to the mayor some three or four days ago.

I think the posture of the ministry, when it comes to some matters of mental health, is that funds are not necessarily earmarked. There may be funds in the ministry's estimates this year that could be used for that purpose.

MORGENTALER TRIAL

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this is a stood-down question and a stood-down supplementary to the Attorney General. I understand he has already given a statement outside this House with respect to his actions and the actions of his department with respect to the Morgentaler trial. Would he please bring the House up to date on what he is going to do, what his plans are?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have not made any statement outside the House, Mr. Speaker, other than to respond to questions from the media. There has been enormous public interest in this matter. I simply advised the media that I knew nothing more of the conduct of the trial, or the result of it, than what I had read, heard or seen in the media. I said I would not be making any comment or any statement here or outside the House until I had an opportunity to be briefed by the officials in my ministry responsible for the conduct of criminal prosecutions.

Mr. Peterson: Is the Attorney General saying he has not made a decision yet on whether to proceed with any further prosecutions, whether to appeal, or what he is going to do?

It appears to me from the case this morning that juries in this country are not prepared to convict under the existing law. Has the Attorney General entered into negotiations with his federal colleague Mr. Crosbie with respect to the law in this matter? What are his determinations in that regard?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I repeat that I am not going to make any comments until I have had an opportunity of being briefed about the conduct of this trial. This, at the very least, would start with the report from crown counsel who conducted the prosecution. To make a statement at this time would not only be premature but perhaps a little irresponsible.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could have the assurance of the Attorney General that at the time he makes whatever statement he does, he will respond to many of the issues raised at the trial that must have had some impact on the jury? Will he consult with his colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) and respond with respect to inequality of access, the length of time it is taking for therapeutic abortion committees to consider various appeals that are made to them, and the very cumbersome procedures that appear to be there?

Would it not be reasonable for both ministers to make a response to the jury's decision today in that regard?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I repeat what I said to the Leader of the Opposition; I am not going to respond until the ministry has had an opportunity to review this matter in some detail.

DEMOLITION CONTROL

3 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General with respect to the three apartment buildings on Eglinton Avenue West which are owned by Mr. Axelrod and are facing imminent demolition. Is the Attorney General aware that the city of Toronto is under threat of a citation for contempt of court if the demolition permit is not issued, as I understand it, by 10:30 am. tomorrow?

Second, is he aware that the city council has adjourned its regular council meeting today in order to avoid having to issue the demolition permit or to be found in contempt of court? They have rescheduled their meeting for 9:30 a.m. tomorrow to give the cabinet one last opportunity to prevent the demolition of the three buildings.

If the Attorney General is aware of those two facts, could he share with us what action the cabinet might be able to take to prevent the demolition of these buildings?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the situation, the demolition is not imminent. I am informed, first of all, as the member properly points out, that the demolition permit has not yet been issued. It could be issued very shortly, but 120 days' notices will be required for the tenants. So the demolition is not imminent.

In our consideration of this matter, one of the questions we would like answered by the city of Toronto council is its intention in seeking retroactive legislation and in seeking a further delay, the reasons for which I understand and, indeed, have some sympathy with. The legislation the city of Toronto wants to apply to this property would provide a moratorium of 365 days during which the city of Toronto would have to decide whether to purchase the properties or to expropriate them. To date, the city of Toronto has not given any indication whatsoever that it would like to follow either course.

Mr. McClellan: The reality is that the deadline is 10:30 a.m. tomorrow with the council meeting at 9:30 a.m. The Attorney General mentioned one of the possible routes out, which has to be accomplished before 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

Two bylaws were passed in 1981 by the city council of Toronto: one, the depth bylaw, which has been referred to the cabinet on appeal against a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board; and two, the minimum unit density bylaw, which is also sitting in front of the cabinet for a decision on appeal from an OMB decision.

I understand both these bylaws would be grounds for the city to refuse the demolition permit. May I ask the Attorney General whether it is possible, even at this late hour, for the people on the government side to come to their senses and to deal with these matters before the buildings are torn down?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the government has and will continue to act as responsibly and reasonably as we can in relation to the preservation of affordable rental accommodation. The very fact there has been a delay of several years, as a result of which these buildings are still there, is a direct reflection of our concern in this matter.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the council is going to have to issue that permit. The Attorney General knows it and I know it. That means 120 days later those buildings will go down.

The government is the only one right now that can save those buildings. The minister can fool around, he can equivocate, he can say he has not read the appropriate documents and he can say he has not seen an appropriate amendment, even though we sent it to him.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: But he knows and I know the power rests with the minister. It is an emergency. Is he going to save them or not? If so, he has to do it today.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to being grossly simplistic, there is no equal to the somewhat mindless approach of the leader of the official opposition to difficult issues. He is without equal probably anywhere in the Commonwealth, and we continue to take off our hats to him in that respect.

Since he has apparently decided he is going to be a messenger boy for the city of Toronto council -- and I am not saying that is not a very noble undertaking -- he might ask the council whether it is going to acquire these buildings if this further delay is afforded by legislation passed in this House.

Mr. Peterson: Let me appeal to the towering intellect of the Attorney General. How is he going to save those buildings? Is he aware of the deadline? Does he disagree with what will obviously take place in front of our eyes tomorrow and 120 days from now? What are his proposals for saving those buildings?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I can only repeat what I said before. The demolition of these buildings has been delayed for at least several years now. We on this side of the House are interested in knowing, if there is going to be a further delay, which in my view could only be afforded by legislation passed in this House. One would have to think carefully through the implications of that: what is going to be accomplished by the further delay?

I ask the honourable member once again to inquire of his friends what they want to do. Do they want to take advantage of Bill Pr3 and acquire these buildings by expropriation or by purchase, or do they just want some further delay for the sake of delay without accomplishing anything else?

Mr. Peterson: The Attorney General is remarkably well informed on this issue, let me tell him. The city of Toronto originally wanted control over demolition. Then a watered-down version of it came in. Now it does not apply to these buildings, and they are going down. The minister knows that and I know that.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Peterson: The solution of the problem rests with the government today. I gave the minister an amendment that would save those buildings some time ago. I know the minister reads a great deal and I know he has read it.

Is he prepared now not to fool around asking these questions that just try to get the problem off his back? Is he prepared to use his authority and act to save those buildings; or is he going to just stand up and fool around again, as he did with the last three questions, and let those buildings fall under the wrecker's ball? That is the question. He can ask all the questions he wants. He could have asked them a year or two years ago when this issue was at stake.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: Now he has to act. That determines and sorts out the men from the boys in this business. Is he going to be a man or is he going to be a boy?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The Leader of the Opposition certainly knows about the boys in this business.

Mr. Foulds: Take the high road.

Mr. McClellan: That is why you are at three per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am being provoked, Mr. Speaker. Whatever we do will be the responsible course of action, something that would be very strange to the Leader of the Opposition's method of operating.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General is certainly a difficult person to provoke. It takes an awful lot to get under his skin, and we certainly would not want to encourage any further outbursts on his part.

I am still not entirely clear whether the Attorney General really understands the urgency of what is happening. I believe he was addressing the Rotary club in Sarnia the night of the most recent meeting, which the leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and I all attended, at Forest Hill Collegiate Institute in his own riding. Perhaps if he had been at the meeting he would have felt the urgency there. The people feel very strongly about this matter, especially the older men and women who are going to be evicted as a result of this step by Mr. Axelrod.

Does the Attorney General really understand that we are at the end of the road and only intervention by the provincial government is going to save the day? Is he not aware of that simple fact?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I think the actions of the member for Eglinton, more than anybody else's efforts, have preserved these buildings over several years. That happens to be a fact. I would just like to say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that he keeps attending meetings in my riding and I never get invited to any meetings in his riding. I am getting a little upset about that.

WATER POLLUTANTS

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources concerning a pollution problem in his riding.

Since he has had a consultant's report that indicated the pollution problem in his own riding surrounding the Kam-Kotia Mines site and the pollution of the Kamiskotia River in the immediate vicinity, could the minister tell us why he has been sitting on that report for a year and a half?

Does his preoccupation with secrecy extend even into his own constituency, when the whole question of the viability of that water system is at stake? Can the minister tell us what caused the delay? Why did he not reveal that problem even to the people in his own constituency?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the member is aware through his own researchers that the report was in the regional offices of the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources. It called for engineering studies on all the options to assess whether they would be viable. The regional offices were looking at the cost estimates to give specific recommendations to the head offices of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment in Toronto.

He is aware of that. He is therefore aware that until two weeks ago I had not seen or read the report. I was not withholding any report. He seems to have the mentality that says I must release immediately everything that goes on in the ministry, regardless of where it is, before I have an opportunity to look at it and at the options.

I can do a good enough job and have done a good job of representing the people of my riding. The people in the north end of the member's riding want to join my riding because they want government representation.

Mr. Laughren: When they hear this story, they will not.

Mr. Breaugh: They want a nursery.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, they also want a nursery.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question, please.

Mr. Laughren: It is really remarkable. The minister had that report for a year and a half and did not release it publicly.

Has the minister read the update of that report, dated June 1984, which warned of elevated levels of phenols in that area? In case the minister does not know, phenols very often are carcinogenic in their nature. Those levels have been elevated and that updated study calls for further monitoring to determine what has given rise to those elevated levels. There could be a very serious problem in the vicinity of Kamiskotia Lake where people live.

Does the minister not agree it is now time to act, since the studies have all been done and the alternatives have been put to the minister? The Ministry of the Environment officials are saying there is a problem higher up. They know there is a problem and want it solved. The stumbling block is the Minister of Natural Resources since that property is his responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Pope: The honourable member answered his first question in his supplementary question. There was a follow-up report. We are looking at more specific information and we are continuing to work on the program and to look at alternatives. The member has just admitted in his supplementary question that was true and that there was another report that came out in 1984.

What is this nonsense about sitting on a report for a year and half? That is nonsense. The member knows it, and he knows as well as I do that his research staff started this investigation to time it with my potential announcement of leadership candidacy. His researcher said that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the minister please resume his seat.

Mr. Laughren: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I want to assure you and the House we have always regarded the minister's leadership aspirations as being irrelevant.

PUBLIC GALLERIES

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, there are 200 or 300 teachers sitting on the floor in the halls and lounges. I am wondering why they cannot be allowed in the galleries.

Mr. Speaker: If the honourable member will resume his seat, I will attempt to explain why. There was disorder in the galleries, as the members know, and I had to order the galleries cleared.

Mr. Sargent: These are not the same people. They are teachers.

Mr. Speaker: I have no idea who they were, with all respect. Will the member resume his seat?

Mr. Sargent: You do not make any sense.

Mr. Speaker: With the greatest of respect, neither do you. Will the member please resume his seat?

Mr. Sargent: These are responsible people. Let them in.

Mr. Speaker: You are testing my patience.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has the answer to two previously asked questions, which I have deliberately held up. I think this would be the appropriate time to have them.

ORGANIZED CRIME

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have a response to a question raised by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) on October 22, 1984, regarding certain decisions made by the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario relating to Nick Vasilaros, who operated a licensed establishment in Peterborough and subsequently in Windsor.

In this question, the member raised two issues. The first was in regard to the general conduct and character of the applicant. When a numbered company, 564163 Ontario Ltd., applied to the board for approval of a transfer to it of the liquor licence of Studio Four Tavern in Windsor, the board followed its usual practice of obtaining copies of the letters of incorporation of the numbered company, a police report about the principal of the company and financial and other information about the applicant.

All the information filed with the board showed Mr. Nick Vasilaros was the sole officer and shareholder of the corporation and one Kevin Doyle would be the manager. No other person is shown to be involved in the application for the licence or operation of the premises. The report advised there was nothing of a derogatory nature about Mr. Vasilaros. I am advised, however, that the board has asked one of its investigators to look into the matter. I have also brought the matter to the attention of the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) for his review.

The member also questioned the chairman's behaviour with respect to the licensed establishment with which Mr. Vasilaros was involved in Peterborough. He suggested the chairman overruled a decision of the board. The facts of the case are that the board issued a proposal to revoke a licence because of a concern that the food-liquor ratio was not being met. When such a proposal is issued by the board, it normally results in a hearing.

In this case, the hearing was held by two members, not including the chairman, and that board concluded that the evidence presented did not justify a revocation of the licence. The decision of the hearing went to the chairman, who signs all decisions of the board, whether or not he makes them. He did not alter the hearing board's decision.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, is the minister indicating that as far as he is concerned the licences were granted in accordance with the regular procedure of the LLBO in spite of the information revealed in the Windsor Star, which I quoted in the question? Is he prepared to allow those licences to stay as they are with those particular people having the responsibility of operating under the licences?

I would also ask whether the minister received a letter from the mayor of Windsor bringing the importance of the matter to his attention and calling for a full review on a priority basis.

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well what I just said. I said the board went through the usual process of obtaining copies of information about the company, obtaining a police report about the principal and obtaining financial and other information about the applicant, and none of it was found to be of a derogatory nature.

But in view of the information that has been given to me by the member and in view of the information reported in the press, I have already advised that the board should ask one of its investigators to look into the matter. I have also advised the member that I have drawn the situation to the attention of the Solicitor General for whatever review he thinks is appropriate.

HEARING FOR LIQUOR LICENCE

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have a reply to a question raised by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) on October 22 respecting a hearing conducted by the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario regarding the liquor licence of the Breslau Hotel.

I have reviewed the matter with the chairman. He has informed me that the board had before it documentary evidence consisting of police reports of occurrences at the hotel supplemented by oral testimony given by local police officers.

The major issue was whether from time to time employees of the hotel had used excessive force in ejecting patrons from the premises. As the member is aware, the Liquor Licence Act allows the board to suspend or revoke a licence if the past conduct of the officers and directors of a corporation affords reasonable grounds for belief that its business will not be carried on in accordance with the law.

The board may also suspend or revoke if the licence holder is in breach of a term or condition of his licence. The terms of a licence are set out in section 8 of the regulations. One of these terms is that the licence holder shall not permit drunkenness or any riotous, quarrelsome, violent or disorderly conduct to take place in the licenced premises.

The board concluded from the evidence that most of the incidents in question occurred where the hotel employee had refused service to a patron or had asked the patron to leave because the patron was becoming intoxicated and the patron resisted and the hotel employee used force to remove the patron.

Section 46 of the act places responsibility on such a licence holder to ensure that a person who is contravening a law does not remain on the premises. The section gives the licence holder powers to remove the person using no more force than is necessary.

In determining whether or not excessive force was used by the employees, the board considered whether or not the hotel owner or any employees had been convicted of assaulting patrons and, as far as the board could ascertain, neither the hotel nor any of its employees had ever been convicted of assault or any offence under the Liquor Licence Act. It also concluded that there was no other evidence to justify a revocation of the licence.

With regard to the death that occurred, I am advised it was the result of a fight between two customers who left the licensed premises to settle their differences outside. I am further advised that evidence indicated that the two men were not intoxicated when they left the premises and that one is now in prison for a lengthy term, having been convicted of manslaughter.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary with respect to this. I want to remind the minister that between 1919 and 1982 the special assignment unit of the Waterloo Regional Police itemized for the liquor licence board 76 incidents that occurred at the Breslau Hotel.

The most serious of these incidents was the death of Timothy Johnson, and the list also included 37 cases of assault, 22 disturbances. eight drinking and alcohol-related incidents, four reports of indecent acts, two incidents involving minors, two involving narcotics and one involving the possession of stolen property. Further, the LLBO has on record a litany of reports on two of the main actors in the case, one being Mr. Gofman, the owner and president of that particular unit, who was cited as not co-operating with the police with respect to this.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Epp: My question is this: Given the circumstances, the very peculiar lack of action and the fact that none of these particular issues was at all drawn to the attention of the board when the board had its hearing, will the minister order a new hearing? Second, will he order an inquiry into the LLBO itself?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first, I do not have the authority to order a new hearing. Second, I certainly would not order an inquiry into the LLBO itself, because I have nothing but the greatest respect for the citizens who serve on that board, who try to exercise their judgement in the best way they can, and who do it with a great deal of dignity. We should be proud of it. That is not to say that there might not be events going on that are troublesome.

I remind the member that under the Liquor Licence Act, the board may revoke a licence where continuance of a licence is not in the public interest, having regard to the needs and wishes of the public in the municipality in which the premises is located. No such complaint has ever been received and this provision provides a basis for further review should the public of that community express an opinion and justify that decision.

PETITIONS

COMMUNITY COLLEGE LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the following petition:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Being a parent whose daughter was to have graduated in December 1984, I feel it necessary for the provincial government to legislate college teachers back to work. Today I have obtained signatures of 94 people who agree.

"The college teachers' strike has been going on for three weeks. It shows that the teachers, the union and the government do not care for the students' welfare. The students today have been used as pawns. A lot of Ontario student assistance program funding, tuition money, rent money, etc., will be wasted. Some students are dropping out a year away from graduation."

It is signed by Shirley McDougall and 94 other people from the Meaford-Thornbury area.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 982 students at Conestoga College, I present the following petition:

"We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"We are on neutral ground. We are not concerned with who is right or who is wrong. We only want our education. We cannot afford to lose our year. Our future is on the line. There is a large majority of concerned individuals who are of voting age who have been following the actions of the government with regard to the handling of this strike. This majority not only includes students, but also parents and families of students, present employers who are subsidizing the education of students, prospective employers and many others.

"If the present situation is not rectified, we will not re-elect those in office. We all know that education is valuable. Every day that goes by without an end to the strike is lost for ever. We demand a quick end to the strike by whatever means necessary."

As I said, it is signed by 982 students from Conestoga College, which is in my riding.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Robinson from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the following report and moved its adoption:

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

Bill Pr26, An Act respecting the Chartered Industrial Designers.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Robinson from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 119, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

3:30 p.m.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding the provision of standing order 64(a), government business be considered this afternoon.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Eaton, first reading of Bill 131, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, amendments in the bill will bring the administrative provisions of the Ontario act into line with the federal Income Tax Act, which was amended on March 30, 1983, as a result of the enactment of Bill C-139. Amendments are also proposed to provide that the calculation of the social services maintenance tax, foreign tax credit and other Ontario tax credits will not be affected by any forward-averaging tax or tax credit. These amendments are required under the personal income tax collection agreement Ontario has signed with the federal government.

The bill also contains an amendment clarifying the computation of Ontario tax payable as a result of the introduction of new federal income tax credits early this year. The amendment will provide that Ontario tax is calculated on the basis of federal tax payable before the deduction of any federal share-purchase tax credit.

CITY OF SUDBURY HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Eaton, first reading of Bill 132, An Act to amend the City of Sudbury Hydro-Electric Service Act.

Motion agreed to.

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Eaton, first reading of Bill 133, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Motion agreed to.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Eaton, first reading of Bill 134, An Act to amend certain acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

Motion agreed to.

ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Eaton, first reading of Bill 135, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act.

Motion agreed to.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) just sit back and relax for a few minutes. Thank you.

ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED INTERIOR DESIGNERS OF ONTARIO ACT

Mr. Mitchell moved, on behalf of Mr. MacQuarrie, seconded by Mr. Robinson, first reading of Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the Association of Registered Interior Designers of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY LABOUR DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT

Hon. Miss Stephenson moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 130, An Act respecting a Labour Dispute between the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology and the Boards of Governors of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I have not asked the question yet. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Call in the members.

3:56 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with the business of the House, I would like to point out to all honourable members that I have again reopened the public galleries. I would ask our guests in the galleries to please respect the rules of the House and not partake in any form of demonstration.

The House divided on Hon. Miss Stephenson's motion for first reading of Bill 130, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Bennett, Birch, Bradley, Brandt, Conway, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Eakins, Eaton, Edighoffer, Elgie, Elston, Epp, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Haggerty, Harris, Havrot, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kerrio, Kolyn, Mancini, McCaffrey, McCague, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Mitchell, Newman, Nixon, Norton, O'Neil;

Peterson, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Reed, Riddell, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Ruprecht, Ruston, Sargent, Scrivener, Shymko, Snow, Spensieri, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Sweeney, Taylor, J. A., Treleaven, Van Horne, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Worton, Wrye, Yakabuski.

Nays

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, Di Santo, Foulds, Grande, Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Philip, Rae, Stokes, Swart.

Ayes 76; nays 17.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I should indicate to the House that, rather than the business that had been announced, we will not be proceeding with private members' resolutions and bills this afternoon and we will not be proceeding with the Theatres Amendment Act tonight. We will now embark upon second reading of Bill 130.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY LABOUR DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT

Hon. Miss Stephenson moved second reading of Bill 130, An Act respecting a Labour Dispute between the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology and the Boards of Governors of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I would have assumed that the minister would have had a speech she wanted to make today on this bill in order to justify it.

I ask the members to look at what transpired today. This bill came off the presses with the ink still wet at about 11 o'clock this morning, with a number of sections that in my view are ambiguous at best.

We are in a difficult position with this bill because we respect that the principle of the bill is to end the strike and get the students back into the classrooms. We believe that is of paramount interest at the moment. We have seen a breakdown in the negotiations, an impasse characterized -- I do not think I am overstating it -- by a lack of trust and by bad feelings. Given the present situation, it is our considered view that there does not appear to be any way to reach a speedy resolution.

I wish it were different. We were hoping, indeed praying, for a negotiated settlement to this issue. In the last three weeks, we in our party have put forward to the minister suggestions and ideas as to what we would have done. We thought her intervention and even the intervention of the Premier (Mr. Davis) not only would have gone a long way towards cutting out the cancer that had developed but indeed would have gone towards a speedy resolution of this problem. None of that transpired and here we are today in the sad situation of ending a strike through a legislative means.

We have the option of holding it up for another day or two or three, or a week. We in the opposition have that power. I would suggest that would be irresponsible and we should proceed with haste not only in second reading but also in committee. I would hope we could resolve this issue by tonight when the House rises. I would also hope the colleges would be open tomorrow morning. Obviously there are going to be some adjustments. Let us move now rather than deferring it. It seems to me that any attempt to hold it up for a day or two or three, given the circumstances, would be irresponsible.

I am mindful of the might of the government in a majority situation and I am hopeful my suggestions will be considered by the government; it has the ultimate power. I am persuaded that what the government has put forward in this bill is superficial and wrong. It is not going to solve the problem. I will discuss our solutions a little later, but I believe if the government were just a trifle more sensitive and were prepared to explore other options, then we would have a chance to salvage something from the ashes of the miserable situation that has developed.

I will discuss my ideas in that regard. It is not our intention to hang on, ringing bells at first, second and third reading, filibustering and that kind of thing. I want to put forward our ideas, if I may.

The minister would argue we need another inquiry, that we have to know the facts of this matter. If she does not know the facts, she does not deserve her job. This issue has been studied and inquired to death. It has been discussed in almost every forum. I can go through a litany since 1975 of thoughtful studies that have thrown light on the question with which we are dealing today.

What has happened today was no surprise to any thoughtful observer of the scene. It was a long time in coming, it was predictable, and that is the tragedy. Because it was predictable, it was preventable. The minister, in her usual conciliatory way, chose to drive the ships headlong into each other and let us deal with the carnage. That is the great sin and fault of this minister.

Everybody knew this was coming. I will make this prediction about what is going to happen in the university and post-secondary sectors. We are headed for a period of labour turmoil because of bad faith, inadequate funding policies and lack of sensitivity to the parties involved. One cannot continually run a free society legislating people, forcing them back to work.

It could have been prevented. We gave enough specific suggestions along the way. I believe with more sensitivity this could have been solved and we would not have to be here today. It is a sorry day and I am not at all proud of what is happening in this House.

I go back to 1975 and the Estey arbitration. It was a three-year study, a very thorough investigation of many aspects related to issues we are still discussing and which were on the table during this negotiation.

In 1980 the union conducted a survey. There were 5,000 forms sent out and more than 1,800 responses. More than one in three of the teachers responded. It was a thoughtful work load study.

In 1981 the Employee-Employer Relations Committee was established. In June 1981 it had a draft report of the minister's Task Force on College Growth which, to the best of my knowledge, is still secret. We would not even have a copy if it had not been purloined. There are too many things in there that are too embarrassing to the government to discuss in a public way.

4:10 p.m.

I do not want the minister to tell me this is a surprise or that this strike was not predictable. In March 1982 there was the first Employee-Employer Relations Committee work load survey; in September 1983, Full-time Post-secondary Programs at Ontario Colleges: Patterns, Issues and Implications, again dealing with essentially the same issues; in November 1983, the second Employee-Employer Relations Committee work load survey; in June 1984, the task force on college productivity.

How many does the minister want before she is persuaded we have had too many? This government has a fixation with studies and inquiries. It is the politics of deferral. I could look at almost any given policy area or contentious issue this government is supposed to be dealing with and it is in the hands of a committee, whether it is the Thom report, the trust companies affair or whatever. There is always an excuse for not facing up to its responsibilities, always an excuse for inaction. That is the hallmark of this administration.

Whoever the next Premier is, following the current one, he is going to have a great many problems to deal with unless, of course, he decides to read again from the Tory hymn book and have more studies, more commissions and more inquiries.

We know this is a divisive problem and a real problem. I have talked with students and teachers and my colleagues have all talked with students and teachers in their ridings and across this province. We are all persuaded to a man that this is a real problem. It is not a figment of the imagination of the teachers or of the union. They were expressing their frustration in the only way possible under the law when they walked out on a legal strike.

I share their frustration with this government's educational policy. I have a great deal of sympathy for them in regard to the conditions under which they have been working. To watch the turning of the thumbscrews or the slow strangulation of a system that could be great, I believe, is a tragedy. If we look at our record in educational policy generally, the deterioration of funding to the secondary and elementary sectors and to the universities and community colleges over a long period of time, and if we look at the excesses and the extravagances on the other hand -- the oil companies, the advertising and the land banks -- it makes us ask, "Where goeth the priorities of this government?"

To us, there is no higher priority than guaranteeing that each student in our province has a quality education with universality of access and that we equip our young people to deal with the problems of the future. Every document that comes out of the government, such as Economic Transformation, says: 'We need more technological training. We need more technological students." What are the community colleges supposed to be doing, except giving that? Yet, from the minister's hand and under her hand, we see the thumbscrews continually turned to an intolerable level.

I think what has developed is a tragedy, and it is almost more tragic that we have to do what we have to do today. If I did not believe so strongly that many students' years were in jeopardy, that we risk jobs and the future of 120,000 full-time students and close to 600,000 part-time students -- obviously in different states of jeopardy and I do not want to be overly dramatic about that -- then we would be winding back the clock in this province, because this will be a province-wide problem for some time to come.

I guess that is one of the hard judgements one has to make in politics, how one will stand ultimately on these kinds of issues. We do it not happily and we do it believing very strongly that in similar circumstances we could have done very much better. This never would have happened with sensitive leadership in this province.

The minister is the issue. She has been the issue throughout. I read her statement today and I see she is unrepentant down to the very last. That is the most truculent, biased, one-sided, mean-spirited statement I have ever seen. Good God, when is she going to recognize there are two sides? When is she going to recognize that these people have a legitimate case? When is she going to reach out, rather than just siding with one side from the beginning and using that to do I do not know what? I do not know what her motives are. I do not know how she really sees this whole question, but it has been mishandled.

The teachers and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union were reaching out. They were prepared to look for any friendly or conciliatory gesture. I believe that. I believe our suggestion of putting some of the saved money on the table would have gone some way towards solving the problem. I believe a little infusion of fresh money plus some sensitivity on the minister's part would have solved this problem.

I do not believe they wanted to go to this extent. The teachers and the union are intelligent and sensitive people. They realized the price at stake here, but they are also fighting not just for now but the future as well. I believe it has been one of the most irresponsible kinds of action by a minister I have seen in my almost 10 years in this House -- again because it was preventable. Yet here we have had to come to this sorry state.

I still believe the bill, as presented, is not adequate and will not address the problems. We are going to present amendments this afternoon for the consideration of this House. It is obvious from the replies of the minister earlier today she considered-- I gather this is correct -- the options we put forward earlier. In my view, her reasons for rejecting them were quite wrong.

We are going to put to her again today the proposition that we should attempt to continue to negotiate. We are proposing that we should put the quality issue, the assignment-of-instruction issue, the work load issue, back on the table. Let these people go back and try to come to a resolution. I am sure they will be impressed with the urgency and gravity of the situation.

We still have a possibility of free negotiation on those issues. What is the possible point of interfering with that? I feel it is a constructive suggestion in the circumstances. They should go back to work tomorrow and continue to negotiate on those issues -- and let us not forget that those have been the issues at stake in this strike.

If a resolution cannot be achieved, the matter could be put in the hands of an arbitrator 30 days from now, or 60 days if the minister prefers. But let us do everything we can to try to reconstruct those relationships and to reconstruct a decent bargaining atmosphere. It is no secret that the bargaining atmosphere has been polluted with bad feelings for a long time. The fact-finder told us that. It speaks to the need for structural reform in that bargaining relationship.

I am hopeful that after this question is resolved the minister will not shove it under the rug. I hope she will bring it back to this House for a thoughtful discussion so that together we can develop structures and methods of bargaining that will not lead to this kind of problem in the future.

I believe our ideas would go a long way towards solving this and even at this late hour are quite manageable. With the help of the legislative counsel, we have the amendments ready, I am told, and I am going to try to persuade the minister to take a serious look at them. I am going to try to persuade her that even though we are at the 11th hour, it would go a long way towards rebuilding better feelings.

There are some other assurances we in our party would like and I hope we will have a chance to discuss this during the committee stage on this bill. We hope the minister will not enforce any violations of the contract with respect to space obligation or weekend work, and that we can work that out in a conciliatory way.

4:20 p.m.

We are hopeful and anxious that there will be no reprisals against students who crossed picket lines, any part-time teachers or anyone in this situation. We are hopeful there will be a total callback and not a staged callback. This will mean that in no way will there be any recriminations against people who legitimately put forward their strongly held views about this situation. We are hopeful there will be provisions made to bridge the pensions so nothing will have been lost during these last three weeks.

There are some lessons here, it seems to me, that we can all learn as people who care passionately about the kind of future we have in this province. We have probably focused on the wrong things in many respects in regard to our community college system as opposed to the real essential, which is the delivery of quality education.

I am told, for example, that one in four employees in the community colleges is an administrator. The minister can correct me if my figures are wrong, but I am told that some 1,800 to 2,000 administrators in the system average over $48,000 a year. I am told that the support staff numbers about 4,700 people averaging about $19,000 a year and that the faculty numbers between 7,200 and 7,600, a ratio of roughly one to one.

I think the minister wants to take a very serious look at the administration of these colleges. Are we really putting our emphasis on the important areas, understanding that teachers are the single most important offensive weapon we have in fighting the war on ignorance in a changing world and in acquiring the kind of technology we need in the future?

It strikes me as I look at these figures -- and I can perhaps be persuaded otherwise -- that we are overloaded with administration and are not putting our efforts into things that are really important in any system of education. I am sure that if the minister looked judiciously at those kinds of matters, she could find some of the moneys she is always saying she is short of to build real quality into the system.

As I said, it is not our intention to hold up this debate or to delay or posture unnecessarily. We all know what is going to happen today, tomorrow, Monday or Tuesday. My suggestion is that it should happen today. I think everyone should have an opportunity to put forward his point of view. I do hope the minister will study our amendments. She has time to do it now, and we can develop some kind of consensus at least to build better relationships in the future.

I say in conclusion that it is a great tragedy that the time of this Legislature is being taken on this matter and that we have developed such bad feelings in the community, manifestations of which the minister saw today in this House. I am one, frankly, who draws no pleasure from that. But we can see those emotions and those sensitivities bubbling to the surface, and I am sure they are real and deeply felt.

There are many people in this province beyond just the active players in this dispute who are deeply concerned about what we are doing not only to our post-secondary system but to our entire education system. The minister will hear more from us in the future, as she has heard a great deal from us in the past on this issue.

There is no genius in life in solving a problem that was unnecessary in the first place. This is human behaviour at its worst. This is leadership at its worst.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I guess the position of the members of the Liberal Party can be summed up by saying that this bill is so terrible that they are going to have to vote in favour of it.

Mr. Wrye: The position of your party is that the bill is so bad you are going to keep the students out of school.

Mr. Rae: I have obviously touched a chord of great sensitivity. Having mentioned their position, I will now leave it alone, treat it with the respect and give it the attention it deserves.

I am really quite appalled that the minister has chosen not to lead off this discussion, that she has chosen not to tell us precisely what her overall conduct has been in the last three and a half weeks or to explain to the House the rather dramatic shifts, changes and inconsistencies in her position.

I was in Barrie yesterday talking to teachers at Georgian College when we heard the news over the radio that the minister was bringing in this legislation, which none of us viewed with any great surprise. One of the sentiments I heard expressed by the teachers was, "If this is what they were going to do anyway, if this is what they knew all along they were going to do, why did they not do it two and a half or three weeks ago?"

The minister has to be made fully aware of that sense of frustration which teachers and students share. If there had ever been a sincere intention on the part of the Council of Regents or the minister, and their roles are clearly interchangeable in this entire dispute, surely the minister would have known that months ago, not simply weeks ago.

As the minister responsible for colleges and universities, the minister should have known that this question of work load was one to which the union was firmly committed and one to which the teaching staff was firmly committed. The council had an early warning some months ago that this was going to be the issue they were going to take into negotiations, the issue they wanted and intended to have discussed.

One of the problems in this entire dispute from the very beginning has been that the minister has had bad information. She even had bad information today, and I am going to come back to that point. She certainly had bad information on Tuesday. She must have had bad information; otherwise, she would have been misleading the House. That is not an accusation I would make about the minister for one instant.

However, the information she presented to the House was, let us say, a few hundred miles away from what the actual situation appeared to be. I say to the minister I think she has a real responsibility, in a personal sense as Minister of Education and Minister of Colleges and Universities, for the fact that at no time were the union's concerns ever taken seriously, ever addressed directly or ever faced up to for one moment.

I have looked around and talked to teachers. I have talked to teachers in Ottawa, in Barrie and in Hamilton at a faculty association banquet on Monday night at Mohawk College. These are not people who are particularly used to the whole collective bargaining process. They do not see themselves as particularly hard-line trade unionists. They see themselves first and foremost as teachers. That is what they are; it is how they make their living.

Regardless of political opinion, the overwhelming concern I heard expressed by individuals who were in favour of what was happening, opposed to it, or whatever their opinion was, was that this is a legitimate issue. It is an issue the Council of Regents, the group which has responded so politically and so directly to the minister, has never taken seriously. If we want to look at an example of how bargaining should not be done, and if we want to look at the problems of the immaturity of the attitude of the employer to the collective bargaining process in the public sector, this would be a case study for a doctoral student.

Compare for an instant the sense of realism one finds in the private sector from the mature employer who recognizes one has to find a settlement and one is going to get a settlement sooner or later. He makes an assessment. We all know, anybody who has been involved in the process knows, that one makes an assessment as to how seriously one can take the other side.

Throughout the piece, the Council of Regents has dismissed the thing. "It is not serious. It is just a few of the leadership who are concerned about this issue. The union will fold. The union will knuckle under. It is not an issue of direct concern to them."

Finally, at the last minute, there was this desperate attempt of throwing a new offer underneath the door of the union negotiator saying: "Here is our new offer. We have changed our minds." I think one can say the union was genuinely baffled by the different messages it was getting and the different words it was hearing.

In response to that, we had the breakdown of communication between the union and the Council of Regents. Then we had the most bizarre series of steps by a public sector employer I can imagine. Just as the process of negotiation was getting back to the table, and just as we had the demonstrations outside the Legislature some three weeks ago and the beginning of questions on the floor of the Legislature, what did the Council of Regents do?

4:30 p.m.

Its notion of conciliation was to take out ads in every single newspaper across Ontario and say, "This is our position, this is why the union is wrong and this is why its position is not and cannot be justified."

Can members imagine the reaction if General Motors were to get engaged in that kind of bully-boy tactic, that kind of special pleading in the middle of attempting to find a common ground? It would be regarded with complete disdain. A professional negotiator would view that as an example of a group of people that sincerely did not want an agreement.

I think the problem in this whole dispute has been that the minister has been the deus ex machina in this whole business, always in the wings, always there, always supporting the management position. If I may say so, if it was never explicit, it was certainly a clear understanding that if things ever got rough, the employers could always count on the Minister of Education to order an end to the strike pronto along the lines the employer wanted.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is absolutely untrue.

Mr. Rae: There can be no other explanation. If the employer did not have that clear understanding, there is no other explanation for the employer's Alice-in-Wonderland attitude towards negotiations.

I cannot conceive of any private sector employer doing that, unless he wanted to break the strike, unless he wanted to break the union, unless he was not interested in reaching an agreement -- and we have certainly seen enough of those kinds of negotiations in the last couple of years -- or unless he was of that frame of mind. I cannot imagine a serious professional negotiator for an employer engaging in the kinds of tactics the Council of Regents has engaged in.

It does not make any sense. One does not simply throw an offer underneath a hotel-room door and expect to get that offer taken seriously. One does not attempt to go over the head of the duly elected negotiating committee and communicate directly with the membership in terms of one's own one-sided approach to a question, unless one is trying to undermine confidence in the process.

There are a great many people who feel that is an unfair labour practice, and there is ample case law to demonstrate that it is unfair labour practice for an employer to ignore the duly elected negotiating team of a union and to attempt to go over its head. They have fancy names for that in labour relations law. It is called bullroarism and all the other fancy names they have for this kind of bullroarism that we have seen from the Council of Regents.

Again, if one looks at the history of the way in which this dispute has been conducted, it really baffles the imagination to think there was any interest on the part of the employer or on the part of the minister to get an agreement that reflected a sincere desire to deal with the work load question.

In view of the indications in the document from Mr. Williams, dated October 12 -- the agreement that has been referred to, management's offer of September 25 -- I would have liked the minister to have said in this House in all honesty when questions were first asked, "Look, I think and the Council of Regents thinks it is impossible for us to quantify work load outside the classroom." If she had said that on October 15, at least we would have known where everybody stood. At least we would have had an honest assessment of the government's position, and then we could have had a focused discussion on that question.

I do not know the answer to that question and I do not think anyone does definitely, whether or not it is possible. The union says very strongly and urges that it is. There is evidence that they have done it at Ryerson, and from what we can tell, Ryerson is not in a state of semi-revolution. I drive by there practically every day and people seem to be engaging in work. The reputation of the place is very good. I continue to be invited to speak to the students there from time to time. It looks to me to be a perfectly civilized institution. I have seen no signs at all that it is in disrepair.

One Brian Segal, whose presence I am sure is not unfriendly to the Minister of Education and the Conservative Party of this province, is the president of that great place. They seem to manage to conduct themselves. They have an agreement with their staff that they not only are going to quantify the teaching time in the classroom but are going to attempt to regulate and get some control over hours outside the classroom.

Mr. McClellan: They negotiated that.

Mr. Rae: They negotiated that in good faith because they wanted to reach an agreement and I guess because they felt it was a reasonable thing to negotiate.

If the minister felt that issue was unreasonable, she could have answered a question which I remember putting to her at the very beginning of this dispute. I asked her, "Do you think it is unreasonable that this should be an issue that should he responded to?" I never got an answer, except for an answer saying, "I am not on anybody's side." Yet the indication from another source, Mr. Williams, said, "The minister has stated her total commitment to the position the management committee has taken."

The management committee has consistently taken the position that it does not think it is possible to discuss work load outside the classroom and it is not prepared to negotiate any overall framework on that issue. I say to the minister with a combination of frustration and considerable anger, after all the water that has gone under the bridge, this strike has proved itself to be completely unnecessary. It is absolutely obvious that neither the minister nor the Council of Regents ever intended to negotiate in good faith on the question of work load. There is no real substantive difference between the offer that was made on September 25 with respect to the work load question and the offer that was made on Sunday.

Then we have the other interesting fact -- I simply call it an interesting fact -- which the minister said she was unaware of until I brought it to her attention this afternoon. The proposal she is making with respect to the settlement of individual grievances is almost precisely, with the exception of one or two words in a four-page document, the proposal that was put by the employer to the union negotiating committee on Sunday and was rejected in negotiations on Sunday.

The long and short of this legislation is that the government says we are going to have compulsory arbitration for every single issue with the exception of the one issue that has been in dispute from the very beginning. To state it in that balder form makes one wonder what exactly the government is driving at. Then one realizes what it is driving at. Its solution to the one issue that has been in dispute from the very beginning is the employer's solution. It is not only the employer's solution in concept and notional terms, it is not only the kernel of the same idea that the employer had and expressed, it is the same proposal virtually word for word.

When the minister came into the House this afternoon at two o clock, she said she was not aware of that, and I believe her.

Mr. Martel: Do you?

Mr. Rae: Yes, I do. I do believe her.

Mr. Martel: Do you believe in the tooth fairy?

Mr. Rae: I have a lingering faith in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus as well. Seriously, I do believe the minister, but if she is telling the truth, and I think she is, is that not appalling? The Minister of Education presented a bill at two o'clock in the afternoon without being aware that the critical clause she will introduce as an amendment in a few moments is exactly the same clause the employer tried to put over on the employees five days ago. The minister was not aware of that fact.

The minister had the gall -- I am going to respond to this -- to say yesterday, 'We expect the co-operation of all parties in the House and we expect this bill to pass in five hours."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No.

Mr. Rae: Yes, she did. I heard her. She said it would be through --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Review the tape.

Mr. Rae: No. I heard the minister. I was travelling in my car and I heard her on the radio. It was her voice, unless there is a mimic loose in the Tory party.

Some hon. members: Ed Havrot.

Mr. Rae: I am coming to Ed Havrot in just a minute, but I want to deal with this issue.

I have never in my life heard a cabinet minister issue that kind of peremptory directive to all members in the House when they have not even seen the legislation and when she does not even know who is writing the legislation and who is responsible for the clauses she is putting before this House.

4:40 p.m.

At five minutes to two, she was not even aware that the legislation she would be presenting with respect to the issue of work load was written, signed and sealed by the Council of Regents and by the employer's bargaining committee in this dispute. She said, "We want you to pass it without even looking at it." Why does she not just pass out blindfolds and say, "We want you just to put your hands up and pass this bill"?

The minister may get away with that in her own caucus, though I would be surprised if she does. She may; I do not know. All I know is that we are not going to be buffaloed on this side. We recognize the train is leaving the station, and she may rule the waves: but we in this party are not going to waive the rules, and that is the way it is going to be.

We are going to look at this legislation; we are going to put forward some amendments that will deal with the fundamental question, which is the question of work load; and we are going to have a full discussion in this House because we think the minister is on the hook and we think she should be on the hook. If there is one person in the House who is responsible for a three-and-a-half-week delay, for students not getting the education they want and for teachers not being able to teach, it is the Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities in Ontario.

I have heard of chutzpah, but for that minister to come before the public of Ontario yesterday and say, "Now that I have decided to do something about it, though I am not entirely sure who is responsible for what I am doing or even what all the terms of the bill are, we expect everybody else to lie down and play dead." That may be good enough for some members of this House and even for some members in other parties; I do not know. But it is not good enough for us.

I say quite specifically to the minister and to the public that we do not want any student to lose a year. We do not think for a moment this is going to happen and we understand full well the realities of the situation. We know the legislation is going to go through by the end of this week and we know perfectly well that the students and teachers are going to be back at work on Monday.

Nothing the minister has done or said could possibly earn the confidence of the members of the New Democratic Party and it is for this reason and this reason alone that we are voting against this legislation. Her overall conduct and the specific measures contained in this bill could not for an instant merit the support of an opposition party worthy of the name.

I cannot for a moment conceive of an opposition party worth its salt, a party that takes seriously its role in questioning, criticizing and asking the difficult questions -- and yes, perhaps taking a little heat from time to time -- just lying down and saying: "OK, it has to go through. We are going to vote for it even though we do not agree with every blah blah blah."

No, that is not our approach. We are opposed to the bill: we are going to vote against the bill. We recognize that, as the minister and the government have stated, it is the government's intention to proceed despite our opposition. That is the nature of living under a 41-year-old sclerotic, one-party government.

I want to deal, if I may, with one other bizarre series of events -- and it can only be described as bizarre -- that appeared in the Northern Daily News. This is a reputable newspaper in Kirkland Lake. The Northern Daily News for Friday, November 2, 1984, contains the following headline: "Havrot Rejects Idea of Emergency Debate on Striking Teachers Issue."

The member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) is one of the leading thinkers in the Conservative Party, one of its outstanding spokesmen. He is one of the brains trust, I think one would say, of the Tories.

The article says, "Havrot said he did not think too highly of the union negotiating team." This is a member of the Conservative party: "The team has been given a proposal by the ministry that it has not given to the union membership. 'That is the whole problem right now,' he said. 'You can bring a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink. The next move is up to the executive of the union. If it lets the teachers stew, it will be accountable to the membership.' Havrot called union negotiators 'raunchy characters.'"

I look around me and I do not see too many raunchy characters.

It said, "At one point in the negotiations a union member spat in the face of a college negotiator. 'That's the kind of characters we're dealing with,' said Havrot. 'If you call that diplomacy, I don't know how they'll resolve this.'"

The members raised the issue with the Kirkland Lake Northern Daily News. They asked: "Did he really say this? Are you sure?" There were concerns expressed.

We then went back to the Kirkland Lake Northern Daily News and on November 7 read this alarming news with the headline, "Spitting Marred Contract Talks":

"Education Minister Bette Stephenson told her caucus a negotiator for striking college teachers spat in the face of a college negotiator during negotiations between the two groups, Ed Havrot has revealed." Telling secrets out of school. That is unbelievable.

"Caucus member Ed Havrot, PC Timiskaming, said yesterday Stephenson made the revelation during a caucus meeting last Tuesday."

Again I do not know whether that is accurate. It is in the newspaper and I am simply passing it on to the minister. Her colleague the member for Timiskaming made that statement. He did not just make it once, he made it twice. I know he is a very active thinker in the Conservative Party and certainly someone who has earned our respect over the years for statements he has made from time to time. If this source is inaccurate, I would only say to the minister it has been inaccurate twice, not just once.

If I may say so, it is an absolutely bizarre accusation. I have talked to every one of the alleged spitters in the group and have been assured not even a drool was found among them. I have done my own research and have found no evidence to support the allegation. If the minister can support the allegation, perhaps she will indicate who the spitter was and on what date the spitting occurred.

Mr. Van Horne: And in what direction the wind was blowing.

Mr. Rae: In what direction the wind was blowing. I appreciate the help of the member for London North. I do not know what I would do without him. He is doing a great job.

It is that kind of atmosphere, to put it loosely, that causes me great concern. I have been concerned and have expressed to the minister from day one that there is a very deep perception she is coming into the House with one-sided, inaccurate information and stuff that can only be described as rumours and gossip.

The minister came into the House and gave us anecdotal information about how many hours teachers were teaching in the classroom. That information was different from the information of the Employee-Employer Relations Committee, which is a bipartisan committee. It came up with different information in its work load study. She has presented information to the House that has been inaccurate.

Now we have an allegation from one of her colleagues that she has made a statement about the conduct of the union negotiators. It is very easy in the current atmosphere to go after union negotiators. It does not take an awful lot of guts to make scapegoats of people who are attempting to provide a degree of security and protection for their members when, generally speaking, public opinion is very concerned about inflation and jobs in the economy as a whole. When the atmosphere of insecurity is very strong in the economy, it does not take a great deal of skill to do that. Even the member for Timiskaming can stumble into it, but in a civilized society it is unacceptable.

4:50 p.m.

Many times when I have heard the minister speak in the House, I have felt she is taking the easy way out, slightly stereotyping one position, slightly misconstruing what is an overall position on one side, coming down hard and presenting the position of one side in a dispute as if it was the gospel truth. I wish I was as sure of anything as the minister appears to be of almost everything.

I really believe -- and it is one thing I have learned from being involved in labour negotiations and any negotiation of any kind -- compromise is not a dirty word. A compromise based on a real understanding of the interests of both parties in finding a solution is what the business of negotiation is all about. Trying to use one's imagination in finding that common ground is what real leadership in negotiation is all about.

It is based on a fundamental premise: That one respects the other side. One does not belittle the other side. One does not belittle the efforts of the other side to find a solution. One does not talk about the union in a scornful way, the words almost being -- should I say -- spat out? One does not talk about it in those terms. One talks about trying to find an agreement that recognizes the people on the other side are human beings too.

I think the members of the Council of Regents are human beings. They are responding in ways that are a little bit arbitrary and appear to me to be unfortunate in the circumstances, but I know many community college presidents, some of them are good friends of mine and they have some concerns about what it means to have to negotiate some of these matters. I think they are concerned about those things.

Let us at least recognize that there has to be a common ground for a solution. It is not always easy to find, but it can be found. The premise behind every negotiation has to be that a solution is possible. You have to start on that assumption from day one. I think the minister has started from day one with the assumption that the only solution possible is her solution. No other solution was even discussable or genuinely negotiable.

I want just to have a look at a couple of features of the bill which are profoundly objectionable and have to be changed. Most fundamentally, if there is going to be compulsory arbitration, the least that can be done is to have compulsory arbitration for everybody. I find it bizarre that the government would have compulsory arbitration for all matters other than instructional assignments, when instructional assignments have been at the very source of this conflict.

What has the government done for instructional assignments? Well, it has provided wording which, to put it politely, is incredibly complicated. The government has established committees at 22 community colleges. I was accused of misusing my much-maligned Latin when I said there was a plethora of committees. The government has set up 23. If that is not a plethora it could be a gaggle, a flock, a large grouping of some kind. It is certainly more than two, more than three, and I think that is a plethora. That is an awful lot of committees. I am a member of the opposition but if I had to sit on 23 committees, I would feel unduly stretched. I think the minister would feel the same way.

I would like to suggest to the minister that the legislated solution she has imposed is almost precisely word for word the solution put by management on Sunday. If the minister chooses to challenge my words, I will be pleased to send her the copy I have of the negotiating position put by management on that day. I have it right here. She has the pages here which are almost exactly the same.

This is an example of a kind of disingenuousness that is almost unbelievable. It is absolutely shameful for the minister to say we are going to have compulsory arbitration and we are going to take out of the hands of either party a solution to this problem, except for the issue that is really in dispute, and on that issue, we are going to side with management and impose management's solution on the teachers. For that reason, if for no other, I could not support this legislation in all conscience.

I could not bring myself to vote for it because I think it is the worst kind of precedent one can possibly imagine to a collective bargaining dispute. I even think it flies in the face of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I will explain why I think it does so. In its decision, the Divisional Court of the Supreme Court of Ontario discussed the concept of freedom of association in the Broadway Manor Nursing Home case which has recently been upheld by the Court of Appeal. The court said that in its view, in international law the right to strike is a logical consequence of freedom of association. If one is going to take away that right, one has to --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It has been upheld, has it not?

Mr. Rae: It has already gone to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal has remained silent on all these constitutional questions, so the ruling of the Divisional Court stands. I am reciting that to the minister. That court says the clear rulings of international labour law are that if one takes away the right to strike, one has to replace it with a process that is genuinely fair, equal and binding on both parties. If one replaces the right to strike with a one-sided, arbitrary, whimsical process, it is not even legal under the Charter of Rights.

I think what the minister has done is unconstitutional. I think what she is proposing is an affront to the notion of freedom of association. She has taken away the idea that compulsory arbitration is going to be fully and equally binding on both sides.

The minister wears many hats and the government wears many hats in these disputes in the public sector. We now have a charter which says that if one is going to change hats in the middle of the game, he or she had better be pretty careful not to take rights away from working people or from people who have some kind of union or trade association or whatever it is called.

I made these arguments two years ago when I was first elected to this place. I would remind members it is now two years and four days since I was elected to this Legislature. Some days it feels a little longer than other days, I will say.

I made that argument about Bill 179 and I felt it very strongly at that time. We were mocked by the government and by the opposition, but I think it is true, and the court said we were right. I remember the opprobrium the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) and I took and the kind of stuff we got from all sides. We stood alone for four months against that legislation because we said it was unconstitutional, and we were right.

Now the government is imposing a solution. Not only is it not going to work, it just is not right. If the government is going to introduce compulsory arbitration, it has to apply equally to both sides. If the minister and the Council of Regents are so convinced they are right, then let them have no fear before the arbitration process.

If the scales would fall before the eyes of any rational person when confronted with the arguments of the Council of Regents and the minister, let them take it to an arbitrator. The council says it is impossible to quantify the idea of overall work load. It says that is literally inconceivable and cannot be done. Modern science has not yet achieved the capacity to measure in any way, shape, or form the time a teacher spends outside the classroom. Its infinite space, infinite time, cannot be measured or weighed or balanced.

If that argument makes so much sense to the minister, let her take it to an arbitrator and convince him. The arbitrator will, no doubt, be appointed by the minister and will be somebody of complete and total impartiality.

5 p.m.

Why does the government set up a process that makes a mockery of the procedure -- and not just of collective bargaining? We recognize it is going to get rid of collective bargaining, it is going to get the strikers back to work. That train is leaving the station. But if it is, make it a fair train, make it a nice train, make it a train that has room for everybody on it. Do not make some people hang on the edges as it leaves the station saying, "Let me on, let me on." That is what the minister is doing.

If there is not a legal challenge to this so-called settlement, there ought to be, because it is fundamentally flawed. It does not make sense in terms of fairness.

The other way it does not make sense is what I call the Wall-Street-in-the-wings problem. There is this arbitrator. I find it ironic that in trying to settle this dispute the government would have a single arbitrator appointed. In our view it would make a lot more sense to have three, refer all the matters to that group and let it come up with a settlement that is reasonable.

It would reflect what tripartite arbitration always does, two people on either side and somebody in the middle trying to find a rational solution and trying to introduce some common sense into that rational solution. That is what it is all about. It is an imperfect process. It is a human process. It makes mistakes, but it is a lot better than what we have here.

What we have here is a sole arbitrator appointed by the government. We are led to believe the government is going to change its hat and say: "I am no longer the employer here. Let me take my employer hat off and put it over here. Now I am going to put on my judicial hat. I am going to be totally fair in appointing this neutral party. I am going to forget that 30 seconds ago I was wearing my employer hat."

However, we go back to subsection 5(5), "In making his decision, the arbitrator shall consider as a factor the ability of the employers to pay in light of the existing provincial fiscal policy." That is Wall Street in the wings with a vengeance.

Apart from Paul Weiler, who has had more government work in the last three years than anybody can imagine, there is not a respected independent arbitrator in the province who thinks that clause is a good clause. There is one arbitrator I regarded, until recently, as somebody of some independence. That is Mr. Weiler. Now he has thrown caution to the winds and is settling the Toronto Transit Commission dispute with the same clause. They could not find anybody else of any real independence to take the issue.

We have this clause two weeks after the Premier sent a memo to all the members of his cabinet saying, "If you go over 3.5 per cent, the government is going to turn into a pumpkin overnight." This clause can mean only one thing: no arbitrator can take any step. Even if he is persuaded by the arguments, even if as an independent person he feels he has to make some leeway and perhaps go to six or seven per cent overall in the package -- not in terms of wages but in terms of the overall cost of the package -- he will not be allowed to do it because there is this clause.

The minister is shaking her head, but she cannot have her cake and eat it too. She cannot have it all ways, every way, every time. That is what she is doing. She is asking the arbitrator to be an agent of Standard and Poor's. She might as well get rid of the middle man, the government of Ontario, and go straight to Wall Street and say: "Is this going to endanger our rating? Is this going to affect our triple-A? If I give away this clause, is that going to affect the triple-A?" They will say yes, no or whatever. There will be discussions over lunch or cocktails or however they do these things. They will go for a beer or whatever they do.

Mr. Martel: Not beer.

Mr. Rae: Not a beer; a martini.

Mr. Martel: That is more like it.

Mr. Rae: Dubonnet; all right.

It seems to me that is the very real threat to the arbitration process. We have only the one, which I think is fundamental. If we could get this referred to a court quickly enough, I am convinced it would be thrown out on the basis of the Broadway Manor precedent, because on the very face of it the arbitration is not genuine. It is arbitration that is phoney because the most important question has been settled. It is being legislated according to what the employer wanted, even borrowing his wording and taking over, word for word, what the employer said.

The second problem, and it is flawed, is that the government is imposing on the arbitration process a question that is not directly relevant to the settlement of the matters in this dispute. The government's fiscal policy is a concern of the government; it should not be a concern of the arbitrator. It is the government's responsibility as an employer to settle this matter as best it can within its financial means. Once it refers matters to arbitration, it has no business saying. "You are going to be a judge and policeman at the same time."

I believe this legislation can be challenged on the ground that it is unconstitutional and wrong in a legal sense for the government to confuse the role of an arbitrator. I believe it is wrong for the government to turn the arbitrator into a cop for Wall Street and into a judge of some kind at the same time. That is a contradiction in roles. It cannot be done, it does not make sense and it will not stand up.

There is much else I could say. I feel I have got a lot off my chest that I have been wanting to say for some time about this dispute. I want to close by saying that nobody wants to see a settlement of this matter more than we do.

Other members should not think for a moment we have not been under the same kind of pressure as individuals, with the same kinds of phone calls in the evening at home. We have had the same kinds of concerns expressed by people on the street as everybody else in this House has had. We all have been under that pressure. No student should lose his or her year. No student's future should be jeopardized by government mismanagement of this magnitude.

We have no intention of delaying this legislation unduly. We recognize the government has taken a step that in a sense is its last gasp and last attempt. I think it is a fundamentally unfair step, and that is why we are opposing the legislation. We are opposing it because it is unfair and because, as I said before, in a constitutional sense it is wrong and will not and should not stand up.

As I say, we also recognize the train is leaving the station. There is not a teacher in Ontario who does not want to teach more than anything else. I have not met a teacher in the past three weeks who was enjoying being on strike. I have not met one teacher whose first questions to me were not: "How are we going to get back to work? How are we going to settle this thing? How can I get back to doing what I enjoy doing?"

In closing, I want to say to the minister that I have grown to respect greatly the community college teachers in Ontario since becoming leader and since meeting with so many of them in the past two years. They teach hundreds of thousands of our students who need and want skills and learning. These students are not only young people but older people who see our community colleges as a tremendous way to get an opportunity, to get ahead, to get retraining, to get a new skill, to get a new certificate. The community colleges are great, lively, democratic, cosmopolitan places. They are great institutions.

There has been a great commitment from those teachers. The strike has not been about money. If I may say so again, the minister has misrepresented the whole issue of the union's monetary proposal in the sense she knows it had to do with the grid, with catch-up, with the effects of Bill 179. She knows the union is simply asking for what happened to other employees in the public sector after Bill 179. She must know that. If she does not know that or if she is not aware of it --

Mr. Martel: She sure did.

Mr. Rae: That is true. I say to the minister this strike is not about money and should never be construed as being about money on an individual salary basis. It stems from frustration.

5:10 p.m.

I do not even think the frustration is simply work load. I think the frustration comes from those people who felt they were working in a unique institution that had a chance to do a great job when they were originally hired and started teaching. Over time, they have felt it is becoming a bit more of an institution, a bit more of a meat grinder, it pays a little less attention to individuals, there is more grading by rote, true-or-false questions, multiple-choice questions and all the other substitutes for real individual contact back and forth and individual evaluation.

This dispute is about professional pride, about the sense of pride an individual teacher wants to have. I had somebody on the line the other day who said, "Mr. Rae, I cannot do as good a job as I want to do." That is what it is all about.

I make one final point and I make it to the teachers and the students who have been involved in this dispute. There is one more multiple-choice test the people of this province are going to be facing in a few months. The government has acted in an arbitrary way and in a way that I feel is illegal. I think it has completely scuppered any idea of arbitration being a neutral process. It is not a neutral process. The government has turned it into a one-sided joke and that is why we are voting against it.

The ultimate solution to this question is political. A 41-year-old government, inured in its own arrogance, steeped in its own sense that other people do not know what they are talking about and it is always right, totally enmeshed in a sense that there is no other solution but its own, has produced a solution that is not only arbitrary and unfair but is also going to be bad for education.

There are many people, and I am one of them, who were born under a Tory government, but I have no intention of dying under one and I do not think the students of this province should have any intention of dying under one. It is time we united -- teachers, students and all of us who are committed to progressive change -- to recognize the only solution to this dispute is ultimately an election that defeats the Tory government of this province and replaces it with the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that since the mid-1960s, when the community college system was begun in this province, there has not been a strike. The system is often referred to as the monument of the former Minister of Education, the present Premier (Mr. Davis). This is number one, the first strike in 17, 18 or 19 years -- whichever it is, it is a long time.

More important than the time, the years, who started it and whether it is a monument, is that it is a reflection that the people involved in the community college system do not take lightly their responsibilities, their duties, their roles or the contribution they make to Ontario's society. The fact that they would go for 17 years, solving their problems in an amicable manner year after year, despite some of the hindrances put in their way, suggests to us this strike did not start easily, lightly or without just cause.

If we are going to understand truly what we are doing here today, I think we have to know why the strike happened. Also, we have to know whether anything is going to be resolved. I have a copy of a statement made by Mr. Doug Light, the president of George Brown College of Applied Arts and Technology, at a Critical Issues Conference with respect to community colleges back in 1982, only two years ago. Here is what he had to say:

"The harsh reality is reflected in the past three years, as we examine statistically our revenue support. If we examine the support in terms of the constant dollar for full-time equivalent students, we will note some four years ago we received something in the order of $2,240 per full-time student. Today, four years later, we receive $1,820, a reduction in real dollars of more than $400, or a reduction of 20 per cent."

The last census I have seen places Ontario 10th and last with respect to its support of universities, and ninth with respect to its support of community colleges. I suggest that goes a long way to understanding the problem we are facing.

For the last several years, the community colleges of this province have been forced by the funders of the system, the government of Ontario, to cut corners and to shave here and to shave there. One has to ask oneself what that does to the people working in the system. What happens to one's attitude, morale and spirit? What happens to one's desire to do the best job one is capable of doing and wants to do when, year after year, the revenue base is chiselled away and sliced away and reduced consistently? It is not hard to understand what happens. Morale goes down, hostility builds up, people get frustrated and angry.

In my own community there are a number of teachers who have taught at Conestoga College since it was founded. I have had a chance to speak to them about this strike. They have told me a lot of the frustrations they have to undergo, but the most telling comment, the one that continues to linger, relates to their pride in what they are doing, what they have done and what they see themselves doing in the months and years ahead.

They told me they cannot do today the kind of job they used to be able to do, that the quality of education provided is deteriorating. They are not suggesting we have a bad system or a poor system. They say: "We remember a day and a time when we were doing a good job. We knew we were doing a good job. We felt we were doing a good job. We had evidence we were doing a good job."

They say to me today that is no longer true, and they say it with a sense of despair, they say it with a sense of injured pride, because these men and women are proud of what they do. They are proud of the contribution they are making to our society. They recognize we have to turn our economy around. They recognize that to do that we need to have hundreds of thousands of skilled, well-educated people, young, middle-aged and even older.

They recognize, as many of us on this side of the House recognize, that the community colleges are the unique educational institution in this province to help to do that, because they recognize that the community colleges serve a much broader range of students' educational and economic needs than any other institution we have. Our community colleges serve the needs of our apprentices. They can come back on day-time relief, in the evening or for six- to eight-week sessions once a year. There is nothing else in our system that can meet that need.

5:20 p.m.

They recognize that it is a system whereby older people have been in the work force for about 20 years and who, for a number of reasons, are forced to make changes. They have been laid off and they want a chance to start over again.

A 44-year-old single mother called me and said: "I worked for 20 years supporting myself and my family, and for the past year I have been unemployed because my company went bankrupt. This year I had a chance to start over again and get into the nursing program. Look what is happening to me. Just when my pride, dignity and self-respect were beginning to be restored I am having the rug pulled from under me.

Another man in his mid-30s called me and said he was in an apprenticeship program. He supports a wife and family. Smack in the middle of his eight-week session at the college, he was derailed. He had to go back to work again. Thank God he had a job to go back to. It has been made clear to him that because of these slots -- the colleges have scheduled them a year in advance -- there is a distinct likelihood he will not get back into that program for another year. In the interval he is losing the wage upgrading he would normally have accrued. I do not think that is fair.

I had a call from a 26-year-old man who was only three days from completing his course when this strike started. He cannot go out and get a job until he gets the certificate which flows from those three days. I called the college and said: "Surely there has to be some way of compromising on this. Surely you can give the guy a temporary certificate and say, 'Go out and look for a job, get settled, talk to employers. You have your certificate and you can make up those three days when you come back, when things are settled again.'" No, it could not be done. It is against the rules or whatever one wants to call them. These are the kinds of things in jeopardy; this is what is at stake.

Talking to other people at the college, I learned that more of the courses are being reduced to 52-week periods. There is no break. These 52 weeks fall one upon the other and there is no time between them. If a course is supposed to be extended for another four weeks, the college people do not know how they are going to handle it. They say: "We are already scheduled to start the next one. What are we going to do with those four weeks? How are we going to jam them up? The time is simply not there."

We have here a question of quality, class size. people sitting on the floors in the aisles and on steps. We have a question of faculty not having enough time to prepare their courses. Faculties are being asked, simply because of the changing demands of the economy, employers and society, to change courses more frequently, often on very short notice. This all deals with the quality of the education we are offering our students.

All those students are aware of the danger of losing time. Quite a number of them have said to me they are also aware of the problems. They will probably go back to their schools next week, but they will go back to the same situation they left. That is why my leader a short time ago served notice of introducing amendments that can begin to resolve that problem.

Let us not, after this time, go back to the same situation that brought on the condition we now have. Let us not go back to the same situation of frustration and low morale of the staff. Let us not go back to the situation where students are going to be facing the same deficiencies in the education that is offered to them that we had in the past.

Let us recognize that those changes have to be made. They were 17 years in the coming and they have to be made, or we will not have to wait another 17 years for another strike. We will have this every year from now on because that festering sore is not going to heal itself. That festering sore is going to have to be healed by the goodwill of this government, of the administrations of the colleges and of the faculty members of the colleges all working together in the best interests of the students whom they say they are serving.

My leader had also drawn to the minister's attention that a considerable number of millions of dollars are going to be available at the end of this strike that were not available at its beginning and that they can be put on the table to help to resolve some of those staffing problems.

We are well aware that the government of Ontario does not have a bottomless basket of dollars. But what price are we prepared to pay? What price are we prepared to pay in the quality of the skills of the young people who leave our colleges? What price are we prepared to pay in the level of credibility and in the level of co-operation we have with employers and businesses in this province in co-operative programs and in the hiring of the quality of students who come before them looking for jobs?

Back in 1981, a report was commissioned by this government with respect to the colleges. It is my understanding that this report has never been made public. I would strongly request that in her response to the several speakers on this side the minister refer to that report and indicate to us why it was not made public.

Did it, for example, predict this very problem? Did it draw to the government's attention the effects of that underfunding? Did it indicate in fairly strong and straightforward language the effects of the work load? We do not know because the report has not been made public. Maybe if it had been made public and maybe if it had been acted on, we would not be facing the problem we have today. Maybe we would not have to be turning away thousands of young people from our community colleges every year.

I spoke earlier about phone calls to my home and to my office. The ones that bother me the most are the calls I have been getting in the last three or four days from young people, from students asking me how they can get a refund of their tuition fees. These are the students who have left college to go out and get a job because they did not know what the future of their education would be in this strike situation.

The registrar of Sheridan College predicted early in the strike that if it went beyond three weeks -- that was his timetable, not mine -- he would expect up to 25 per cent of Sheridan College students to leave school. I do not know to what extent that has happened at Sheridan College, but I do know I have started in the last three or four days to get calls from students who have already made that decision.

5:30 p.m.

I think that is a tragedy. It is a tragedy for the young people who are trying to forge a new career and a new future. It is a tragedy for people who are trying to find a productive place in our society. It is a tragedy for young people who are trying to become independent, stand on their own feet and make a contribution. It is a tragedy for young people today who have difficulty acquiring a sense of dignity and self-worth.

It is also a tragedy for their parents. I can say at this point that perhaps the greatest number of calls I have received has been from parents -- not from teachers, not from students but from parents. I heard the anguish in their voices as they said: "We raised these young people. We gave them as many opportunities as we could. We encouraged them to continue their education. In some cases we saw them leave school early, long before they should have done so. to go out and try to make their way in the world, and to do so not very successfully. We begged them, encouraged them, urged them to go back to school to get those skills, to get that knowledge, to get those very attitudes towards a career. Now what does this government do? It pulls the rug from under us, and we as parents do not feel very good about that." This is the message I have heard, and I have heard it very clearly.

I would like to suggest that while we are taking a look at this whole issue, the minister should re-examine her role and the role of the government in the operation of the community colleges. It was her predecessor, the Honourable Harry Parrott, who, in a debate several years ago when I was the Colleges and Universities critic for our party, made a very clear distinction between the role of the government with respect to universities and its role with respect to colleges.

He pointed out the autonomous nature of the universities and the fact that, apart from its role as a funding mechanism, the government has little to do with and little to say about the way in which universities are run. Then he pointed out clearly the very great amount of say the government, the minister and the ministry has in giving directions to community colleges.

He pointed out that the Council of Regents, which has been heavily involved in this dispute, is a creature of the ministry, a creature of the government and, to a large extent, gets its message from the government and from the minister. He pointed out that there is a centralized decision-making process because the government wanted all the community colleges to be somewhat alike; it wanted them all to follow the same guidelines.

The point that was made to me in my conversations with the presidents of several colleges was that these colleges are not all alike. They are as different as our universities are different, and we have made, in their judgment, a tragic mistake by not allowing a great deal more decision-making, especially with respect to the very issues that are at stake in this strike, namely, work load decisions, staffing support decisions and teaching assignment decisions. They say it is a great mistake not to leave a great deal more of the decision-making at the individual college level.

I do not pretend to be expert enough to know what that split should be. But when I talk to the teachers and to some of the presidents of the colleges, the people who are on the front line, the people who, in my judgement, should know better and certainly do know better than I do -- and I suspect in many cases and in some circumstances know better even than the minister -- they say more decision-making should be given to them at the individual college level, that there should be a serious re-examination of the centralization of the whole process, that the question of the more autonomous operation of the colleges has to be rethought, replanned and reorganized.

There are 120,000 full-time students, young people and older people, at our colleges and there are 600,000 part-time students at our colleges. I would point out to my colleagues that 90 per cent of those part-time students are on a career path. They are not there just for interest subjects; they are there because they want to improve their own career possibilities. That is more than 700,000 people. That is a lot of young and older people who depend on this government and on the decisions made in this Legislature for their lives today, for their lives and futures tomorrow, and for those of their spouses and children.

We have a responsible decision to make and a responsible role to play today. The third party in this dispute, the students, is the one that must receive our highest priority. Those students have said to us in ever-increasing numbers: "We want to get back to our classes. We want to get back to our futures. We want to get back to doing what our role is today."

Earlier today under "Petitions" I presented a petition from 972 students at Conestoga College in my riding. They have made it clear to me through their letters, phone calls and that petition that our single responsibility is to them. If there is a dispute involving the ministry, the Council of Regents that it directs, the faculty and the administration, that is a dispute that has to be settled, but not at their expense.

Too often there are innocent third parties in disputes of this type. We know who it is now. We have the opportunity to begin to redress that. Simply ordering the teachers back to work is not the answer all by itself. We must go the one step further. My leader and my colleagues in this party have indicated what those next two or three steps need to be. There has been a breakdown in morale, in co-ordination and co-operation. We have a chance to begin to heal those wounds.

Our responsibility -- I would go so far as to say a very solemn responsibility, given the number of people and families who are affected by our decisions -- is to do that. It is not to prolong this agony; it is to begin to heal the wounds. If we can do that, perhaps the tragedy and frustration of the last three weeks will not have been too big a price to pay.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill as I did the legislation ordering the transit workers back before they even went on strike, and as I did Bill 179 and Bill 111. One of the reasons we are here today with this situation is that this House went through the exercise of passing Bill 179, the restraint bill.

I suggest to my friends on the right that when they supported that bill they made a mistake. I suggested to the members of the House at the time that over the next period of months or years we were going to see serious problems in labour relations in Ontario as a result of that decision. We are starting to see them. We have been seeing them for the last little while.

We have before us a badly flawed bill; I think it is deliberately flawed. It ignores the most serious issue, the cause of the strike itself. It is not a strike over money, as all of us understand. It is a strike over the quality of education. I think that quality applies not only to the students, but to the teachers' ability to teach properly. The clear issue was time for teaching, time for preparation, time for counselling students and, as of late, even things like cleanup time.

5:40 p.m.

The minister refers the dispute to an arbitrator who cannot deal with the instructional assignment issue. I think my leader said very well that does not make any sense. That is the key issue the strike was all about and the minister is trying an end run around it. Once more, the end run was articulated by the Council of Regents. That was exactly what it wanted.

The minister has shortchanged students in Ontario. That is exactly what she has done. They are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. We have a group of teachers who would rather be back in the classroom and who are feeling the pressure on themselves. They might not be ready to stick as much as the workers would at General Motors or some of the industrial plants. They are not really the same class of an organization -- they are still in the professional days, I guess, with respect to their organization.

They desperately want to get back to school -- as much as the students do. We all recognize that. But they will be going back to the classrooms with the status quo and worse. The situation is the same as it was. The educational system in the province is deteriorating. All too often class sizes are too large and there have to be shortcuts in the preparation and counselling parts of the program. Indeed, counselling may be at a premium.

Concern is expressed time and again over the quality of education in this province. In my view, there is a real need to improve and increase the services and education the community colleges are providing. We are at a crossroads with respect to new technological changes and the rapidity with which workers are going to have to change their jobs and look at new jobs. So the issue of quality for the students and from the teachers is a serious concern. The new technology says the community colleges are probably going to be major players in the system as far as workers are concerned over the next period of time.

But the concern for the quality of education seems to be words only from so many people -- I would say from the minister as well. The strike issue was not money; it was the quality of education. When some people finally say they want some action on the issue and are prepared to take a stand on it -- and it is a vital issue to the students as well as the teachers -- we find the minister and the ministry ready to clobber them. They will talk about the need for improvement in the quality of education but when the teachers make that the issue in contract negotiations we find how far the minister is ready to go.

This government is shortchanging the students at the same time as it clobbers the teachers. It will be shortchanging them, in the immediate and in the long-term future as well, with their response to this issue. The failure here is not just in the free collective bargaining system; it is clearly a failure of the minister and ministry too. This minister has not been impartial in this dispute.

The spitting incident was referred to, but I noticed the other day in one of the Toronto papers where it was reported that one of the students got after the minister in the corridors at Queen's Park. What was her response to him? "Go and talk to the teachers." Let no one tell me that does not show a built-in and automatic bias.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) has been on the side of the Council of Regents right from the start. We have asked questions in this House and have evidence that clearly outlines it. The Council of Regents knew it could hang tough in these negotiations, because the minister was ready to bail it out if the going got really tough. It knew whose side she was on.

I think that has to be said because it is desperately important that we do not get down on the whole idea of free collective bargaining. When that is undermined, as this minister has undermined it, she is doing a disservice to workers right across this province.

The minister has also been prepared to use the fear of the students and the hard-line stand of the regents, and I think she probably orchestrated that stand. I say "orchestrated" because she also controls the purse-strings.

The other serious problem we have in Ontario is that our priorities seem to be getting more out of whack as the days go by. We are having constant fights and problems, whether it is the education system and the level of funding, the health system and the level of funding in many cases there, or the approach to workers. How can we make them the scapegoat? That seems to be easy to do in the current times in our province.

The minister has responsibility as well for the funding. That makes it easy for the Council of Regents. As long as the minister says, "I am going to hang tough, and you are not going to get the extra funding that may be needed in terms of the numbers of teachers or the class sizes," they are going to hang tough. When they know the minister is on their side, we are not going to get free collective bargaining.

Earlier this week the minister was telling us in this House that negotiations were going on when they had broken down. I am so discouraged with this minister -- and I know that does not bother her, but it bothers me because of her responsibilities -- that I would not accept her word for anything unless I had a signed and witnessed statement. I think the minister already knew those negotiations had broken down. We cannot take anything from this minister at face value and the responsibility does lie with the minister in this dispute.

Finally, I want to come back to my even more serious and fundamental concern about what is going on in Ontario. Once the government starts down the road of taking away the rights of workers in Ontario, it does not distinguish us very much from some countries of which I would not be very proud to be a citizen.

We did that with Bill 179 and with Bill 111. We did it with the transit workers. It seems to me every time this government is faced with this kind of crisis, a crisis I submit it is responsible for, it becomes easier and easier to bring in this kind of legislation. That is an extremely dangerous situation for Ontario. Who is going to be next? What group of workers will face the power of the state next? How much more can the government do to try to undermine the whole process of free collective bargaining? It seems to be almost once a month now we are getting this kind of legislation in this House.

The minister should be ashamed of herself, this government should be ashamed of this legislation and any member in this House and certainly any opposition member who supports this kind of bill should be ashamed of himself or herself. I certainly could not bring myself to vote for it under any circumstances.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange that we have a piece of legislation before us that purports to bring to a conclusion and to offer a solution to a three-week-old strike in the public sector, in the post-secondary education system of this province, and not a single Conservative member has bothered to speak either to the principle of the legislation or to the substance of the legislation.

The minister has even refused to outline a justification of the bill we have before us. We have had ex cathedra statements from the minister to the press and a ministerial statement at the opening of the legislative day, but we have had a refusal from the minister to participate in the debate. We have also had, so far at least, a refusal by any single spokesperson for the Conservative Party, the governing party, to give any rationale to this debate.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is inaccurate and untrue.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to resume my seat and let the minister make her opening statement.

Mr. McClellan: Not even the member for Timiskaming has spoken.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The member for Port Arthur has the floor.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point I make stands.

Mr. McClellan: Why does the minister not go back home?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to outline very briefly the reasons my party and I oppose this legislation.

First, I oppose the legislation viscerally. I oppose it because it stands for everything I oppose. It is arbitrary. It targets a group of particular people, and it abrogates the principles of legislation already established by this Legislature.

As well, this legislation is repugnant to me intellectually. It is flawed legislation. If one can put it charitably, it is the legislation of a bully. It is legislation, if one does not want to use language that is too extreme, that purports to be the final solution and is no solution at all.

Finally, I oppose the legislation because, as my leader and the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) have indicated, it is fundamentally unfair.

Let me just elaborate on those three major points.

As many of the members know, as I have told this story both in this Legislature and on the hustings of this province before, I happen to come from what would be called a working-class family. My father was a section man on the railway. In 1952, he was a section foreman on the railway and a member of the bargaining unit.

In 1952, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees across this country on the railway decided they would exercise what Parliament had granted them: the right to strike. They had exercised every step of a full and free collective bargaining process up until that point and they could not get an agreement out of their employer. In the case of my father, it happened to be the Canadian National Railway, a crown corporation owned and operated by the government of Canada.

At that time, my father, who was a foreman, often in charge of as many as 100 men, was getting the magnificent salary of 97 cents an hour. The union, after negotiating for a considerable time, with the full authority of its membership, decided to take the step of striking. After striking for nine days, the men who laid the ties, the tracks and all of that kind of back-breaking, labouring work that was considered so essential to the wellbeing of this country, were legislated back to work by Parliament. The dispute was referred to an arbitrator.

Frankly, the arbitrator came in with what was perceived at that time to be a pretty good decision. It gave increases of 20 per cent. In 1952, 20 per cent of 97 cents was something like 20 cents. When a parliament can arbitrarily step in and take away a hard-earned and hard-worked-for right like that, which takes away the right for which men and women in this country have worked and fought for decades, it does something to radicalize a person. It does something to make one a person of the left, if one likes to put it that way.

It does something to make sure that every time a government brings in legislation that takes away the rights of a group of people, one examines the legislation and examines it critically.

This is what I tried to do with this legislation. I believe in that trite phrase on the masthead of the Globe and Mail that has become known throughout the province and the country: "The subject who is truly loyal...will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures." I believe it is a fundamental duty of a legislator to fight against arbitrary measures.

What we have in this piece of legislation is an arbitrary measure to try to bail the government out of a situation of its own making. I believe if this government does not have the guts, the courage or the intellectual honesty to bring in legislation that removes the right to strike altogether, then it should not bring in legislation that removes the right to strike in a particular case.

Every time the government brings in a piece of legislation that says it is all right to do it in this one instance, the general principle is negated. Over the past 12 years this government has found it expedient to bring in back-to-work legislation at the rate of twice a year. That is an astounding record.

The government has done it with teacher disputes, transit disputes, elevator disputes and now the community college dispute. This government pays lipservice to the right to full and free collective bargaining, but then says, "It is all right to have all that process, but when you inconvenience us, when you embarrass us by exercising the right, then we will take it away."

We can see where this government is coming from when one combines this kind of legislation with the government's record of withdrawing the right to strike from individual groups over a history of 12 years and with Bill 179, to which my leader referred. Bill 179 put a cap not only on wages but also on transfer payments to municipalities, colleges and hospitals, and tied the hands of such supposedly autonomous bodies as the Council of Regents, hospital boards and so on in terms of negotiating with their employees.

This government is coming from an attitude that it is far more important to forgo the revenues that are legitimately the government's from the corporate sector of Ontario. The uncollected taxes from that sector could wipe out the deficit tomorrow had the government the courage to collect those deferred taxes.

It considers the triple-A credit rating from Standard and Poor's in New York to be more important to the reputation of the Premier, the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and itself than legitimate spending on education, health, and community and social services.

When these things are combined, one knows this government puts not only collective bargaining last, not only the rights of the teachers last, but also the rights of the students and the rights of education last.

I would like to move on to talk specifically about this dispute.

The Acting Speaker: This might be an appropriate time --

Mr. Foulds: This would indeed be an appropriate time for me to adjourn --

The Acting Speaker: There is no need to adjourn.

Mr. Foulds: -- or to pause.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

November 8, 1984