Hansard Transcripts 1984-Nov-09 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with the business of the House, I would ask all honourable members to join with me in welcoming Mr. David Martin, a member of the House of Keys of the Isle of Man, who is visiting with us in the Speaker's gallery today.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw attention to the fact that this is the last day for the first group of pages of the fall session of the 32nd Parliament, 1984. They would like to extend a special thank-you to all the people with whom they have worked in their daily duties. They would especially like to thank Ms. Niezen, the page mistress, the attendants and Mr. Turner. Thank you all for your time and help.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my first question, in the absence of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes), the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and the Premier (Mr. Davis), will be to the former Minister of Energy, now Deputy Premier, who will remember the vigour with which the Davis government attacked earlier moves by Conservative governments in Ottawa to move this province and this country to the world price for oil. So passionate was the Davis government in resisting any move to the world oil price four or five years ago that the Conservative government in Ontario was quite prepared to torpedo HMS Joe Clark.

In the light of that past record, can the Deputy Premier rise in his place today and indicate what particular measures the Ontario government is now going to take to fight, and fight passionately, against the public policy announced last night by the Honourable Michael Wilson that the new Conservative government of Canada is going to return to Joe Clark's energy policy and try to move, and in fact will now be moving, Canadian energy policy towards the world price?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague the Minister of Energy, after he has had an opportunity to review all the implications of the statement to which the member made reference, will be commenting on this in due course.

Mr. Conway: I cannot believe what I have just heard. This government, as the entire province and country knows, has passionately resisted any policy of world price in this country.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: I ask the Deputy Premier, a former Minister of Energy, is the Davis government going to move today and tomorrow to fight passionately against the stated government-of-Canada policy that we must and shall move to the world price, at a cost to the Ontario consuming public of tens of millions of dollars and, as the government knows, of hundreds of thousands of jobs or so, as argued as recently as September?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Knowing how anxious the member is to have a full statement on this matter, now the Minister of Energy has taken his seat, perhaps we could refer that supplementary question to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for all members to realize that what the federal government has done is to increase the petroleum compensation charge to stem a deficit situation in that fund. I think the members understand what the petroleum compensation charge is all about.

I want to quote to the member the words of Mr. Wilson because they are important. He said, "The government believes that the time has come to let the price of oil be determined by the marketplace." He did not mention world prices in that statement. He said it is time for the price of oil to be determined by the marketplace.

Now we can see that the message of our efforts on behalf of the people of this province is getting through in discussions on questions of natural gas and on questions relating to the petrochemical industry, all of them centred on the question of market sensitivity.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that the moves made by his federal treasurer and Finance spokesman will suck at least $500 million out of the pockets of Ontario's consumers and cost 60,000 jobs, according to the former Treasurer of this province when he was fighting Joe Clark?

What steps will he, as Minister of Energy in this province, take with his colleagues to protect the consumers of Ontario and to protect jobs in this province from this move?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Might I remind the member for Port Arthur, Mr. Speaker, that he is Canada's Finance minister.

I have already explained the whole question of market sensitivity, and the value of that statement and philosophy to the people of this province. We have a case to make to Ottawa on the question of market sensitivity. We have a case to make with respect to natural gas and with respect to the petrochemical industry. In the spirit of discussion and co-operation with the federal government, we will continue to make that case.

Mr. Conway: The Minister of Energy knows only too well the negative impact this energy price hike will have on the people in the industries of Ontario. He argued that very case three or four months ago before the Senate standing committee on energy and natural resources. He need only read his brief of last June.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: I ask the Minister of Energy, who knows only too well the great pain his kissing cousins from Ottawa have now visited upon our residents of Ontario, is the Minister of Energy --

Mr. Van Horne: Going to kiss them to death.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Renfrew North has the floor.

10:10 a.m.

Mr. Conway: My final supplementary question to the Minister of Energy is this: As the Minister of Energy knows, by virtue of its ad valorem tax on gasoline, Ontario profits unavoidably from any increase in the price of oil.

Is the Minister of Energy prepared to stand in his place today, in the light of the remarkable anti-Ontario posture of Michael Wilson last night, to give an undertaking in this House that he and his government will reduce the Ontario ad valorem tax on gasoline by a corresponding amount, thereby alleviating the very unhappy burden placed on the people in the industries of Ontario by the federal Conservative Minister of Finance, Mr. Michael Wilson?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The member speaks of pain. I can only remind him it was a haemorrhage in the petroleum compensation charge fund that resulted in this tax measure the federal government has taken. It is a haemorrhage that is the result of inaction by a Liberal government in Ottawa some six to eight months ago.

I understand the Treasurer will be here shortly and he will deal with the specific question of the ad valorem tax.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, there is no help from this minister or this government for the people in the industries of Ontario who have been hammered by a policy against which they fought so hard.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: Oh, how we remember an energy policy for Ontario and how Joe Clark remembers.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

PENSION REFORM

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, among other items last evening, Mr. Michael Wilson indicated he would initiate a review of a policy that has been in place in Ottawa whereby retired cabinet ministers, members of Parliament and civil servants can and do draw their very generous pensions and full-time-equivalent public sector salaries to boot. It is the so-called principle of double-dipping.

According to his statement last night, Mr. Michael Wilson is going to investigate to see whether changes might be made. Of course, we think the changes should be made there in Ottawa and here in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Question now, please.

Mr. Conway: I am wondering whether the Deputy Premier, on behalf of his government, is prepared to give the overburdened taxpayers of Ontario a commitment that this government will initiate a review of the so-called double-dipping that allows people such as the Treasurer's father, Mr. Allan Grossman, to draw a $63,000 patronage job and a $37,000 retired cabinet minister's salary.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: Is the Deputy Premier going to undertake a review of that kind of double-dipping policy that is clearly not in the public interest in these very tough economic times?

Mr. Ruston: All in the family.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in response to the second question of the deputy leader of the opposition, I know of no plans for a similar review in this administration. I would think there are certain basic elements of fairness and justice that one should not lose sight of even in such a review. We are not known as a government that changes the rules on people retroactively.

People who make contributions to pension plans are entitled to the benefits of those plans. I would feel any federal review would take that into account with respect to the whole question of entitlement. I think the short answer is I do not know of any review going on here at the moment.

Mr. Martel: What about the contract last night? Boy, do they ever change. What baloney. The rules were changed right in the middle of the strike.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do not come back to me and complain about the time of question period being wasted.

Mr. Martel: He gets up and distorts the facts. He just said they do not change the rules in the middle of the game. What did the government do yesterday? It changed the rules in the middle of the game.

Mr. Speaker: It is your question period and 13 minutes have gone by.

An hon. member: It was well worth it though.

Mr. Speaker: Whatever you think.

Mr. Conway: In the light of the very serious economic situation in which governments find themselves -- and we heard a lot about that last night -- and in the light of the fact that this government has argued very vigorously for a fair restraint policy in the public sector, can the minister tell me why there would not be a review of this double-dipping practice?

Why is it that the hospital workers at Sensenbrenner Hospital have to live with less while people who have served well here, who draw a significant pension to which they are entitled, at the same time are entitled to a $63,000 to $65,000 public service salary? Why would there not be a review of that when it seems to thousands of taxpayers that it is an overgenerous compensation of some people at the very considerable cost to the consolidated revenue fund?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I remind my friend, for whom I have a very high regard, and I take into account his sincerity in asking such an important question, that the question had to do with review. My answer is that I know of no plans to have such a review here.

I would remind him, however, in expanding my response to his original question, that the public service in its widest definition includes members of the teaching profession who are also members of this House. We also have members who have served in police and fire departments and all sorts of public responsibilities, who have made their contributions according to the rules of pension plans and therefore have a certain entitlement.

To turn the question around, one wonders why the member would want to discriminate against them so that, as members of the teaching profession or other public services drawing a pension, they would not be entitled to have access to jobs of public service here. All I am pointing out to the member is that even a review in Ottawa would have to take into account the basic entitlement of people who in good faith made contributions to pension plans according to the rules at that time. Does the member want to reach back and change that?

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help noting, if there is any unfairness to the Sensenbrenner workers, and there certainly has been, that the Liberal Party, to a person, voted for that bill and they voted for that unfairness to the Sensenbrenner workers. Let the record show that once again.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) please turn around. Thank you. Now the member for York South (Mr. Rae) is going to ask a nonprovocative question.

Mr. Rae: I want to apologize for striking a nerve. I should not have done it and I apologize for that.

In all seriousness, without doing anything that would be retroactively unfair, does the Deputy Premier not think there is a public perception that if someone has served in the House of Commons or the Legislature of Ontario for a period of time and then is receiving a pension, it is at least open to question whether that full pension should be paid while at the same time that person is receiving a substantial salary from another public sector appointment, whether at the provincial or the federal level?

10:20 a.m.

Does the Deputy Premier not think there is at least a perception that this is an unfairness and something we could do something about without being unfair or discriminatory? Could we not at least look at that basic principle, so people at the federal level do not receive $80,000, $100,000 or $120,000 in some instances, when their salaries are only $65,000 or $70,000?

There is an element of proof in what Mr. Wilson has pointed to. Many of us have pointed to it for some time. Does the Deputy Premier think we should at least have a look at it at this level?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could approach it in two ways. In the first case, the leader of the third party is now coming forward with a more restrictive definition of "public service." If that is his case, I invite people to say how we could justify being restrictive. We are talking about people who are making contributions to a pension plan under legislation passed by this Legislature or plans that are in force to which people make contributions and have some entitlement. That applies to the point I was attempting to make in responding to the other two questions.

As I understand Mr. Wilson's statement last night, this will be a House committee. We will have the benefit of that study, and perhaps that would be the time to reflect upon the need for review, with the benefit of the recommendations or the outcome of the deliberations of that committee.

Mr. Conway: Surely the Deputy Premier can show more leadership on this very important question of public policy and a matter about which the public is increasingly concerned. Surely he would agree with me that it is obscene for any of us or --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: -- any of our predecessors, irrespective of party, to leave this place and, from the one and same consolidated revenue fund, take a member's or minister's pension and a full-time public service salary. Surely the minister would agree with me that he could show some leadership today.

Surely he will want to rise in his place and give us this undertaking that he, as a matter of leadership, will stand in his place today and undertake to initiate that review in the public interest, because he and the rest of the province must now agree with me that this double-dipping policy must come to an end if we are going to have any credibility in getting this economy moving again.

Hon. Mr. Welch: If there is one thing we can agree on, it would be that the general principle of fairness would be embraced by the people of Ontario. People who make their contributions to plans according to the rules and regulations are therefore entitled to receive the benefits of those contributions.

The next question is, are they not entitled to be paid for the services they render in some other types of activity, whether they are taking a pension from the teachers' superannuation fund, pension plans for municipal employees or those of Legislative Assembly members?

One must think in terms of the length and amount of contributions. The people of Ontario are basically fair. We will have the benefit of a public review on this matter of whether or not a certain group of people should be discriminated against. That is the question. It is basic fairness. We will have an opportunity to review it after we see the report.

Mr. Bradley: The rules apply to everybody.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer arising out of the economic statement made by Mr. Wilson last night. It seems "jobs, jobs, jobs" has now been replaced by "hikes, hikes, hikes" in gas prices. As it relates to Ontario, I am sure the minister is aware of one of the impacts of the price increases announced last night by Mr. Wilson. We calculate there will be a windfall of somewhere between $60 million and $70 million to the Treasury of Ontario because of the nature of the ad valorem tax.

Does he think it is fair that, in addition to being nailed by the federal government and the oil companies, the average motorist, car driver or truck driver, of this province should be paying $60 million or $70 million in ransom money to the government of Ontario for the increase that was imposed by Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, first, when one looks at the success this government has had in a variety of areas, particularly economic growth, I do not consider any of the moneys paid to the consolidated revenue fund of this province to be ransom money. It is unfair to the taxpayers and unfair to those who benefit from those moneys being available through the consolidated revenue fund.

Second, the survey which is done for the adjustments that are subsequently made quarterly will be undertaken at its normal time over the next 30 or 40 days. Somewhere in that time frame we will determine whether all or a portion of this increase will be or has been passed through to consumers. It is only then that we will be able to assess whether our ad valorem tax will have an impact and what kind of impact it will have. The time has not yet arrived for us to make a decision on that situation.

Mr. Rae: I cannot help but notice -- and I am sure everyone notices -- the stark contrast between what the Treasurer has said today about this move by the Tory government in Ottawa and what his predecessor said. The latter said it was going to cost 60,000 jobs and was going to be a major change.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: What explanation does the Treasurer have? Why has the lion suddenly become a lamb on this question of the effect on the Ontario economy of moving to world price? Why has the Treasurer now pulled all his punches and said absolutely nothing to protect the consumers and industry in this province from the impact this kind of price increase is going to have?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: For one thing, I think we should not pretend that an increase in oil prices will not have some sort of impact on our economy. It will. I am sure my colleague pointed out before I got here this morning that this change will bring benefits on the natural gas side. The change spoken of previously did refer to the possibility of deregulation on the natural gas side, but these benefits were previously not available under the earlier discussions, which dealt with oil price increases alone. As we move towards market on both fuel prices there are offsetting benefits for Ontario on the natural gas front.

It is also very important that we keep in mind the context in which these changes have been brought into place. I do not pretend there will not be negative impacts from the oil increase. There will be. But one must look at the whole new atmosphere that has been created, the money that is being saved and the new investment climate in this province. I believe that, taken as a whole, the entire package will do far more to create jobs, growth and employment in this country than anything we have seen out of Ottawa in many years.

That is a remarkable difference. The leader of the third party may disagree with that. However, if he is asking why this increase is different from others, it is because it is part of a well-co-ordinated, well-thought-out, well-planned strategy and it is, by and large, a healthy strategy.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, has the Treasurer had the opportunity to review the testimony of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes), who appeared before the standing Senate committee on energy and natural resources this past June? His colleague argued that oil and gas price increases would have an adverse effect on the province in terms of trade and overall economic performance. Later he noted that the result is a drop in provincial output and employment.

Does the Treasurer share the Minister of Energy's very worrisome concern about the negative impacts of increased energy prices to the province and the economy of Ontario? What specific undertaking is the Treasurer prepared to give the people of Ontario today that he will now go to Ottawa and fight like the dickens to resist this very wrongheaded policy that takes this province and this country towards the world price for oil? It was so strongly resisted five years ago it was worth the defeat of the Clark government.

10:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am joining the finance ministers in Ottawa this evening to review the statement Mr. Wilson brought out yesterday. I will tell members the circumstance we all face. It is that the new government is trying to rebuild a barn that the previous federal government burned down entirely.

If the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) wants to suggest we should go to Ottawa and say, in a piecemeal way, 'We will take one of those, one of those and one of those," then I want to assure him I will be drawing forcefully to the federal minister's attention those parts of this important new strategy that could adversely affect the people of Ontario.

I agree with the comments of my colleague. As I said a moment ago, he is right that an increase in oil prices will adversely affect the Ontario economy. But on balance, this country has been begging for many years for the kind of new investment direction, new thrust and governmental responsibility we are only now beginning to see.

If I have one important message to bring, it is that the public is very glad it is not going to see more of the kind of economic policy followed by that gentleman I saw the member introduce all over eastern Ontario in the last election and the election before, the Trudeau-Turner-Conway team from eastern Ontario. I suggest the public really wants the Mulroney-Wilson team and its policies in toto, in contrast to the Turner-Trudeau policies.

Mr. Rae: It is now clear that, in the name of its ideological commitment to the Mulroney Conservative Party, this government is now prepared to sacrifice the jobs and interests of the people of this province on the altar of its commitment to Tory ideology. That is exactly what we have seen. That is what we are seeing today.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Would the Treasurer explain to us what position he is going to be taking at this meeting of ministers of finance? Is he simply going to be saying, "We think what you are doing is wonderful -- the cuts in investment and jobs in this province and across the country and the hikes in energy price increases"? Or is he going to fight for the people of this province, for jobs in this province and for the concerns of the people of Ontario, to cut through some of the baloney that surrounds this so-called new atmosphere that is taking advantage of the people of this province and not giving them their due share?

Mr. Conway: Bill Davis, where are you now?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He is receiving thanks from thousands of Ontarians for helping to elect Brian Mulroney Prime Minister of this country.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Now just a minute. I do not know what happened to the Liberal side. They are very vociferous this morning.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: Oh no, no. Order --

Mr. Conway: I will tell you what happened on this side. We see hypocrisy across the way. Five years ago they were going to fight to the bitter end -- "No world oil price for Canada" -- and now, like kittens lying in a bay window, they roll over and wait for Michael Wilson to tickle. That is what we see.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That will be your last outburst. I caution you, it will not be tolerated any more.

The member for York South.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No. On a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. The minister has not answered the member's previous question.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Rae: I thought he had.

Mr. Speaker: No. Order.

Mr. Rae: I thought silence implied consent, Mr. Speaker. I assumed he agreed with the question.

Mr. Speaker: No, no. I made it quite clear I would come back to him.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Our friend from Renfrew North was expiating his most recent millstone. That is what caused the confusion.

When the leader of the New Democratic Party suggests we should go down and fight what happened in Ottawa, I want to make a couple of serious points. They had some important things in that budget statement that I have to endorse. They talked about selling government land, something this government started to do last May. They talked about reducing direct operating expenditures, something this government started to do last May. They talked about incentives for business growth, something this government has been doing for many years.

If we operate on the premise that government spending and government investment is the way to recover, I remind the honourable member that would be inconsistent with many of the things he himself has been saying about jobs having to be created by small business and in the private sector. I could read many of those things back to him.

That is why I endorse so many of those things and, as testimony to how successful they are going to be, I want to remind him that the new unemployment figures came out this morning. In all of Canada, 32,000 jobs were created last year and 29,000 of them were created in Ontario. I also want to remind him that, while the national unemployment rate remains over 11 per cent, Ontario's unemployment rate has dropped to 8.9 per cent. We will this year clearly create even more jobs than we predicted in our budget last May. That is the record of this government. That is why we endorse some of those steps.

Mr. Riddell: I am going to tell you that six members of one family --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Stand up and ask it. Have some courage. Ask it any time.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Riddell: I will ask it any time.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will wait here for the next question.

Mr. Riddell: That is one family. How many other families are in the same boat?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) will please --

Mr. Martel: What about the Treasurer?

Mr. McClellan: Why not tell them both to shut up?

Mr. Martel: You have the strangest sense, Mr. Speaker. I watch every day. Maybe you are deaf in your right ear.

Mr Speaker: Let me remind the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), in his rather selective vision and his rather selective hearing, that I did call the Treasurer to order before I addressed the member for Huron-Middlesex.

Mr. Martel: I did not hear you warn him. You have now warned two members on this side.

Mr. Speaker: I have indeed. The member for York South.

MORGENTALER TRIAL

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. It concerns the decision yesterday by the jury in the Morgentaler-Smoling-Scott case.

Mr. Pollock: Break the law.

Mr. Kolyn: Abortion on demand.

Mr. Rae: Perhaps I could ask it without the catcalls from the other side that we seem to be hearing.

Do the ministry and the government intend to respond to this decision, which I remind the minister is now the fourth decision by a jury with respect to the question of abortion and abortion clinics, and finally recognize that there is a problem of access, a problem that faces many women in this province, and it is a problem the government cannot go on ignoring? Is it the government's intention to respond to that trial by taking measures to ensure access to a service to which many women obviously feel they have a right to have access?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, obviously I do not have the benefit of any reasons for the decision rendered yesterday by the jury in that case. As is customary, the jury does not give reasons for its decision. I do not know what that verdict might have been based on. It is not my opinion, as Minister of Health, that it could possibly have been based on matters relating to access, given the location of that clinic in this city.

10:40 p.m.

Mr. Rae: If I may say so, I think that answer betrays a lack of understanding as to what has been going on in this country, and in Quebec and Ontario, for the last 15 years. I am really quite surprised by that answer. It is now the fourth time a jury has felt it was not prepared to convict, send to prison or find guilty doctors who were providing a service in a clinic that other doctors were providing and performing in a hospital.

Does the minister not feel this decision by the jury to acquit now puts the ball very clearly in the government's court in the sense of its having to respond in an overall way to what is clearly a practical and very real problem? There was significant evidence with respect to problems of access. If the minister did not see it or hear it, he was not paying attention to the evidence that was put before that jury.

Is the government going to keep on sticking its head in the sand and pretending there is nothing going on out there, or is it going to respond in a practical, realistic way to what is obviously a practical problem facing many women in this province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: First of all, it would be unwise, I should think, to talk about responding at this point to a decision in the court, when in the first instance I do not know yet what the intentions of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) or his staff might be with respect to that particular decision. I would, of course, have to be guided by the advice of the law officers of the crown before there would be any decision, I am sure, on my part or on the part of the government with respect to any response to that decision.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, given that one quarter of all the abortions in Canada are performed in the city of Toronto and that for three years running there were more abortions than live births in Toronto, are the minister and his government prepared to continue to obey the law of Canada? Is the minister prepared to ensure that abortions in Toronto and in Ontario are done for health reasons only and are done in an accredited hospital?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, obviously there would never be any intention on the part of this government to do other than to abide by the law of Canada. I am not in a position to make any judgement on the reasons that may or may not be given or relied upon by abortion committees in determining whether an abortion is justified in any given case. However, I would like to assure the honourable member that there is no matter before us in our society that I find more deeply troubling and disturbing morally than this issue.

Mr. Rae: The minister has no monopoly on being troubled by this issue. Everybody who thinks about it is troubled by the issue. The reality, though, is that four times in the last 13 or 14 years, three times in Quebec and now in Toronto a jury has acquitted doctors who were performing safe, medically sound abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy in a clinic rather than in a hospital. Surely that decision in itself poses a practical question. What, in realistic, practical terms, is the law today?

It is a question that had to be faced by governments in Quebec, a Liberal government and a Parti québécois government, regardless of political affiliation. The minister is faced with a practical problem.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: I go back to my question. Will the minister at least agree to review the evidence that was put before the court, not on the grounds on which the Attorney General was looking at it, but from the standpoint of his responsibilities as the Minister of Health, and determine whether or not there is a problem of access when more than half the hospitals in Ontario do not have therapeutic abortion committees? Will he at least review the evidence in order to respond in a realistic way to what is a real social problem in our society?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I stand by my earlier answer. Any decision concerning a response will be taken in consultation with my colleagues, particularly the Attorney General.

DEMOLITION CONTROL

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), with whom I have had a number of discussions about the Toronto demolition issue, I would like to ask my question to the House leader, assuming he is informed about the matter of demolition permits.

He will be aware that yesterday we discussed the issue with the Attorney General and we asked for immediate passage of an amendment to the City of Toronto Act that would save the buildings on Eglinton Avenue. May I ask him if he is informed about this issue?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I am not.

Mr. Peterson: Presumably, someone there is informed about this issue. It is an emergency, and I will take the House leader's advice on whom to direct this question to. I have just come from the Toronto council chambers where the following motion was passed:

"Advise the provincial government that city council supports the acquisition of these buildings by Co-operative Housing Federation of Toronto Inc., acting on behalf of the United Jewish Seniors, as do the Honourable Barbara McDougall and the Honourable Roy McMurtry."

The Attorney General said in the House yesterday he did not know what the city of Toronto wanted to do with those buildings. I say advisedly that he was misinformed or his memory was failing him or he was misleading this House. I have a letter under his own hand, dated December 8, 1983, addressed to the Honourable Romeo LeBlanc wherein he says:

"As you may be aware, the Co-operative Housing Federation of Toronto Inc. has put forward a proposal that would result in the preservation of the three existing buildings at 790, 800 and 840 Eglinton Avenue West." In other words, he knew. He said yesterday he did not know and was still waiting for direction from the city. Now that direction is provided again today.

I am asking the House leader, given the fact that the council this morning did not have a quorum with respect to the issue of the issuance of the demolition permit, and we now have another couple of days, will he agree to speedy passage today of the amendment that would save those buildings? I cannot speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party, but I suspect it would agree to immediate passage in this session today. The minister has the amendment. It has been drafted. Will he agree to that now to save those buildings?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, first I should remind my friend that before we would agree to speedy passage of anything, we have a situation that is even more of an emergency with a bill here which requires speedy passage before anything else is considered. He would agree that first and foremost there are a number of students -- in the hundreds of thousands -- in this province who are not going to community colleges and will not be until the passage of Bill 130 is completed.

That is the first priority of this Legislature today and that will be the first order of business that is called. All I can say to my friend is, I will be happy to pass along to the Attorney General and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) his question, the concerns he has raised and the matters and opinions of the city of Toronto. I know they have talked, discussed and studied this problem at great length and will present some answer.

Mr. Peterson: The city will be in court right at this moment on a contempt charge because there was not a quorum to issue that permit. That is the situation we face now. The fines could mount. The city council used this procedural device to gain some time.

Recognizing time is of the essence, we are at the 11th hour, we are at the very last moment. We should have done this yesterday. What I am suggesting is quite compatible with what we are already doing in this House. Both of those aims can be accomplished today. What can I do to impress the urgency of this situation on the minister? We are going to lose those buildings.

That permit could well be issued on Monday or Tuesday. The properties could fall under the wrecker's ball, and 120 days from now those buildings will be gone, throwing 200 seniors on to the street. It has to be addressed today. It was not addressed yesterday. The government has had lots of time. The Attorney General has been aware of this, even though he denies it or his memory is faulty or he is going senile.

I am asking the House leader, as a semi-reasonable man with Intergovernmental Affairs responsibility, to apply his mind to the question now, not 10 minutes from now, and bring forward that legislation. I guarantee our cooperation in order to pass that today. Would the minister do that?

10:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Perhaps at another time my friend can define the term "semi-reasonable."

The problem this matter concerns is in the riding of my colleague the Attorney General, who is a first-class, excellent member as far as representing his riding goes. I would not give any assurances of anything until I have had a chance to talk to the member for that riding and find out exactly what he would recommend that this government do in a particular situation. I am sure that is exactly what my friend, who I will say is not a semi-reasonable person but a reasonable person, would expect to be done.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I am increasingly pessimistic that the property rights of Mr. Axelrod are simply going to prevail over the right to security of tenure of the residents of those buildings and that these buildings are going to be torn down.

In order to prevent that from happening -- and he has only a relatively few hours left -- will the government House leader convene a meeting of some of his cabinet colleagues, including the Attorney General and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, to look at the options?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Gregory) please desist?

Mr. McClellan: I ask the government House leader, if he will pay attention, whether he will consider passing the amendment to the City of Toronto Act. If he is not willing to do that, the cabinet can go into session this afternoon and approve the two bylaws that have been requested by the city of Toronto, the depth bylaw and the minimum unit density bylaw, either of which would empower the city to refuse to issue the demolition permit. Why does he not take that action? Is it simply the reality that these buildings are going to be torn down in about 120 days?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, all I can do is reiterate what I said a few minutes ago. I will be happy to bring the member's concerns to the attention of the Attorney General and other members of the government. At the appropriate time they will indicate what the position of the government is on this matter.

CONDOMINIUM TAXES

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. The minister will recall that on January 6 he wrote a letter to me stating he did not disagree with the 12 pages of research I tabled on November 1, which showed condominiums have been overtaxed, but that he could not make any adjustments at that time because the matter was before the courts.

Now that we have a court ruling in Mississauga, his own riding area, that Mississauga will have to return some $5 million to condominium owners who have been overcharged, is the minister prepared to respect that court decision and amend the Assessment Act to authorize a systematic reassessment of condominiums across this province?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, there was a court decision on a point of law, and the situation now is that all the condominium cases in Mississauga that have been appealed will be heard before the Ontario Municipal Board.

Mr. Philip: On that very matter the minister should be aware that the number of outstanding condominium appeals is now 51,221. It will be a beautiful bureaucratic nightmare to deal with all those.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Philip: The minister will also be aware that the total assessed value under appeal is $1.44 billion and that if the assessments of these properties were updated to reflect present market value, condominiums in the city of Mississauga would pay approximately $4.4 million less in annual property taxes.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Philip: Is it not his role, as a minister who sat by and allowed this inequity to go on over the years, to cut through the bureaucracy, not to force these people to go through the 51,000 appeals in this city and to protect the condominium owners in his own riding, even if he does not want to protect those who have been overcharged across the province?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: The appeals are launched with the Ontario Municipal Board on behalf of the city of Mississauga. The point is that the tax base must be protected. We have a resolution as well from the city of Mississauga, and I am sure the member is aware of this, that it is undergoing an impact study for section 63 programs at the request of council. I would say the council of the city of Mississauga does not share the member's opinion.

PCB DESTRUCTION FACILITIES

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of the Environment regarding polychlorinated biphenyl destruction facilities. Our research reveals that at the PCB destruction facility in Texas the local health authority counted 3,600 infractions in its first year of operation. In Illinois the Environmental Protection Agency closed down the destruction facility after widespread sickness and death occurred among farm animals. Three weeks ago the Bonnybridge plant in Scotland was closed because of severe problems there.

Would the minister be prepared to have his government take responsibility if the health of nearby residents is affected when the mobile units go into operation?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is talking about technology that is not nearly as advanced as the type of technology that is being proposed for Ontario in the mobile destruction units we are anticipating will come into operation with the new regulations.

I do not anticipate the types of problems the honourable member is talking about. I can only assure him that the type of monitoring, the type of control systems, the type of backup protection that is available and the systems that are being looked at in Ontario as part of our regulatory process are far more advanced than the type of thing he is talking about and would not lead to the same problems.

Mr. Ruprecht: Will the minister give us assurances that if he should decide on the recommendations made by the PCB hearings and if he permits burning of PCBs in urban centres such as Metropolitan Toronto, London, Windsor, Sudbury and other places, the recommendations he is going to make to this House will also include exactly who is responsible if our people's health should be adversely affected, not only in the immediate future but also after a number of years?

Will the minister tell us whether the ministry is going to be responsible if adverse health effects should take place? Is it going to be the operator or the company that holds the licence?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: As the member knows, we are going through an exhaustive process of hearings on PCBs with the express purpose of building into the system the necessary safeguards I am sure the member would want to see us put into that system.

We are establishing, as an example, the length of time a particular mobile unit can remain in a community. We are trying to establish as well the setback requirements. We have not determined whether a unit can go into a very densely populated area, as the member suggested in a most misleading letter he sent out to his constituents indicating, I might add, that we had --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am not through yet.

Mr. Ruprecht: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would ask the minister to withdraw the statement that I have been misleading the residents. I will tell you why. The minister knows full well that no area of burning is being exempt.

Mr. Speaker: I think you have made your point.

Mr. Ruprecht: No. I would like you to hear me out. If he wants to stand up --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member resume his seat. Thank you.

11 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I will withdraw that comment and indicate that the letter was factually inaccurate. The inaccuracy relates to the fact that the member suggested without any equivocation whatever that this government and this minister were going to move mobile polychlorinated biphenyl destruction facilities right into the Junction triangle. I had this discussion with the member through a radio show.

Mr. Ruprecht: The minister should show me the letter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member will please resume his seat.

VISITORS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this is either a point of order or a point of something or other. It is a point of great importance.

There are five distinguished people in the gallery whom I believe deserve recognition. I would like them to be recognized and greeted warmly by this House. We are going to see a lot more of them. They are: Jean Poirier, Lowell Green, Chris Ward, Bernard Grandmaître and Lily Munro.

They are the Liberal candidates in the by-elections and I am sure the House is going to get to know them as well as I know them. I am sure the House will enjoy their constant company as much I enjoy their constant company.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. New question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I hope the people whom the leader has just introduced enjoy their very brief stay and their brief visit here today. This may be the last time they will ever see this place.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I was fairly calm and did not hear the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) answer who was responsible for these burnings and who is responsible if accidents take place. He still has not answered that question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With all respect, I think the minister was answering the question. There were interjections from members, including the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) himself, and I decided to cut it off.

ONTARIO STATUS OF WOMEN COUNCIL

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for Women's Issues. On Tuesday, we were discussing the status of the Ontario Status of Women Council and the Touche Ross report the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) had commissioned to examine the role of the council.

Now that the minister appears to have decided to continue the council by filling the vacancies, will he tell us whether he has also accepted the conclusion of the Touche Ross report that the council has a very crucial and distinctive role to play in the women's program, namely to give independent and external advice, presenting the view of women and the public?

Will the minister accept the recommendations of the Touche Ross report to bring in supplementary estimates that would enable the council to become independent and maintain an independent position; to support increased public consultation on educational activities; to facilitate regional work, and to upgrade the level of expertise of the staff and the committee? Will the minister bring in supplementary estimates for those items?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if I could put the question of estimates aside for a moment, the answer to all the other questions is yes.

With respect to the estimates, the estimates before the committee of supply at present do accommodate some increase for the council. We will be discussing that in our estimates.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Energy be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

Ministry administration program, $7,273,400; conventional energy program, $3,323,200; alternative and renewable energy program, $15,998,500; energy conservation program, $17,945,900; regulatory affairs program, $2,565,300; energy investment program, $69,250,000.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues would be very disappointed if there were not an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act in each session of the Legislature.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved, seconded by Hon. Miss Stephenson, first reading of Bill 136, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills?

Orders of the day.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Do you want a brief explanation of this, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I waited for you and you did not stand up.

Hon. Mr. Snow: This is Friday morning, you know.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of housekeeping amendments to the bill but a few I believe are worth mentioning to my honourable colleagues.

Section 2 of the bill deals with the time of use of motor vehicle headlights. It adds to the present legislation one hour morning and night when headlights will be required.

It also deals with the matter of the carriage of television sets within vehicles. It deals with the use of new --

Mr. Nixon: What is the minister going to do if he is stopped in traffic on the Queen Elizabeth Way?

Hon. Mr. Snow: If the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) had one of these new types of television sets, he would be able to watch the car behind him. This is a new safety measure we are approving which allows a closed-circuit TV monitor to monitor the road behind a vehicle, mainly for safety purposes.

The amendment changes a reference in the legislation that deals with yellow lights. That is being changed to red and amber. Another proposed amendment would cause convictions for offences involving motorized snow vehicles to be reported to the registrar in the same manner as they are when motor vehicles are involved.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY LABOUR DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for 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.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was not sure whether the honourable member who was standing wanted to ask a question, but I will recognize the member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Swan: No, it is past question period time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think it was on Tuesday night when I first heard that legislating the college teachers back to work was imminent and, like the rest of my colleagues in this party, I felt quite uncomfortable and unhappy about that. We think the workers have the right to strike and we are opposed to back-to-work legislation in principle.

I have to admit, though, that a counterbalancing factor that all of us are considering at this time is the fact that some 600,000 students would be resuming their education. Although I did not like the back-to-work legislation, I live in the real world; I know how the government across the way works. Their decisions have little to do with principle. It is really how many votes will be won or lost.

11:10 a.m.

Some proof of this was given by the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr). When my colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) asked the rhetorical question, "What good is this legislation?" the member for Burlington South said, "It is good for five seats." Not long after that, when the member for Port Arthur said there was a lot of objection to the bill, the member for Wilson-Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) said, "Take a poll." I do not know whether they took a poll, but it was certainly the opinion of the government that there was overwhelming popular support for the back-to-work legislation.

I understand why the government is ordering them back. It has no great conviction about the rights of labour generally. Because of these factors I was not planning to speak, until I read the bill. Then I was so infuriated I determined I must register my opposition to it. It is not just back-to-work legislation. It is, perhaps even more so, legislated punishment against the teachers for striking. It is the worst back-to-work legislation I have seen in this House in the more than nine years I have been here. It is so vindictive and mean one thinks the Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) wrote it all herself.

I want to say to the Liberals on my right, all four of them who have stayed to hear the debate on this very important bill --

Mr. Kerrio: We are one up on the New Democratic Party. There are only three NDP members here.

Mr. Elston: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Are you sure it is a point of privilege and not a point of order?

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege or whatever: It is a point of offence that this gentleman stands up and criticizes members of this Legislature who have other obligations. I have an obligation to be in the standing committee on administration of justice. There are people with duties around here that this fellow obviously never thinks about. It is time there was a little consideration. He ought to recall there are other responsibilities for members on all sides of the House.

The Deputy Speaker: Fine. The point has been made. All members need to follow the normal courtesy they would ask for themselves in debate. Would the member for Welland-Thorold please continue.

Mr. Swart: I will be glad to continue. I just reported a fact, that there are four members of the Liberal Party in the House this morning.

Mr. Kerrio: We are one up on you.

Mr. Swart: Proportionally, that is a bit more.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: There are five Liberal members in the House, not four.

Mr. Swart: I can understand why the Liberals are very sensitive about this bill --

Mr. Kerrio: There is an important bill on the floor that the member should be talking to instead of this malarkey.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: I do not consider this issue before us --

Mr. Kerrio: To the bill. Stop this foolishness.

Mr. Swart: I do not consider this issue to be malarkey. It is a very important issue --

Mr. Riddell: The NDP members have treated it with levity.

Mr. Swart: I wonder if I could have the attention of the House to continue.

The Deputy Speaker: The only suggestion I can make to the member is that perhaps it might help to get their attention if he left alone personalities and any interparty play such as counting noses, and dealt with the second reading of the bill before us.

Mr. Kerrio: Exactly. The member should address himself to the bill.

Mr. Swart: I did not deal with personalities. I want to correct the record on that. I was dealing with the position of the Liberals on this bill. It seems that is very much a part of the debate on this issue. I want to say to them --

Mr. Kerrio: The member is not dealing with the bill and that is what we were talking about. To the bill.

Mr. Riddell: We want the students back at school. That is our position.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not need the interjections.

Mr. Riddell: He is very provocative.

Mr. Swart: I want to say to the Liberals on the right that they should think again about their position on this bill. It is one thing to support back-to-work legislation. It is something we on this side of the House find extremely distasteful. It is one thing to support that, but it is very much another thing to support a mandated employer's position. That is really what this legislation is that is before us at this time.

I would like to point out how it is mandating the employer's position and how it is vindictive and mean legislation to the college teachers of this province. Almost everyone who has spoken has pointed out that most legislation which forces workers back provides that the issues in dispute will go before an arbitrator. This, of course, does not. The major issue, almost the only issue, the work load and how it affects the quality of education, does not go before the arbitrator. It is mandated legislation for the employer in this instance.

In lieu of this mandated employer's position, they have thrown two sops to the teachers. The first is they have created an instructional assignment review committee which has no power to do anything, does not report until June 30, and then it is only to give a recommendation to the minister. If there is anything the minister does not need it is a recommendation. Surely she knows the situation in this province with regard to the work load. To set up a committee of this type is just buck-passing and a sop to the teachers.

Second, they have appointed the college instructional assignment committee for each college. It is a very interesting appointment and a very deliberate tactic on the part of the minister. It sets up two people from each side, two from management and two from the union. When they come to an agreement on something according to subsection 9c(8), which is the amendment submitted by the minister, it says, "A decision of a committee is final and binding upon the employee and the supervisor."

That is all very well. It sounds good until one realizes that subsection 9c(9) applies on those very controversial matters where there cannot be a decision. That subsection says, "When a committee, after a review, is unable to reach a decision, the employee is entitled to file a grievance in respect of the instructional assignment in the manner provided for in the agreement."

My leader, in this House yesterday, read out two decisions. Not only did they take three or four years in total to be arrived at but the Ontario Labour Relations Board also said there is no power in the agreement to deal with the work load. As far as the teacher who wants to appeal the work load is concerned, he or she just gets in a revolving door and comes right back out at the same place.

Another way in which this legislation is vindictive to a degree that I have never seen before is that the mandate, in effect, means extra work for the teachers when they go back -- and without remuneration.

If we look at clause 2(1)(b), it states, "Every employee shall report for work and shall perform the duties assigned by the employer including duties assigned in order to afford students the opportunity to complete courses of study affected by the strike." What does this mean? It means that the board of governors of a college can say to the teachers: "We are going to run classes on Saturday. We are going to run classes on Sunday. We are going to run classes in the evening to make up." There is no guarantee the teachers will get paid for that.

11:20 a.m.

The government will have saved its $20 million or $25 million and the teachers will be compelled to work for nothing to ensure that the students get the same education they would have had if the strike had not taken place. What kind of injustice is that?

Subsection 4(1) of the act is a further slap at the teachers. It says, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall, upon the advice of the minister," that is the Minister of Education, "appoint an arbitrator to examine into and decide upon the matters referred to in section 5."

Surely the minister, who has already come out in support of the Council of Regents' position, has a real vested interest in appointing somebody who is going to uphold her side and that of the regents. It will not be possible to get an impartial arbitrator. Surely if they had wanted to have legislation that was fair, it would have been the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) or somebody else who would have appointed that arbitrator, and not the Minister of Education who has already taken sides.

On the matter of salary, the minister is putting a second set of shackles on the arbitrator. Subsection 5(5) says, "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." We already have general legislation that provides that. Why does the government have to put it in the bill in even tougher terms? The minister is doing that to take a slap at the teachers.

Looking at subsections 9(3) and 9(4), there is a double standard on offences.

Subsection 9(3) says, "Where the union is guilty of an offence under this act, every officer, official or agent thereof who assents to the commission of the offence is guilty of the offence and is liable to a fine of not more than $500 for each day upon which the contravention by the union occurs or continues."

Subsection 9(4) says, "Where an employer is convicted of an offence under this act" he is subject to the same kind of penalties "unless he satisfies the court that he took all reasonable care to prevent" it. Why could that not have been put in for the union? There is one standard for one and one standard for the other.

I suggest the size of the penalties is extremely punitive. It is $500 a day for any teacher who stays out and $10,000 for the union if it aids or abets any of this.

After this bill, I think we must conclude that the minister thinks teachers must be very dangerous people. They must be totally bad when they are singled out for this kind of treatment, and they really are singled out. She has collected the spit and the prejudice of the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot), mixed some of her own arrogance and vindictiveness with it, and she now proceeds to rub the teachers' noses in it. I would not be surprised if she had a voodoo doll at home or in her office into which she sticks pins.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I think I have one of you, Mel boy.

Mr. Swart: I want to tell her it has no effect on me.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That will be the only one I will ever have.

Mr. Swan: I want to ask my Liberal colleagues again whether they are going to aid and abet the Minister of Education in this. If they vote for this bill, they are not just voting for back-to-work legislation; they are voting for an unprecedented abasement and humiliation of our college teachers at the hands of the Minister of Education. I urge them to stand up and be counted with us against her unworthy and hostile legislation.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on 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 and Applied Arts and Technology.

I heard the member for Welland-Thorold express his views concerning compulsory arbitration. I think we all share some concern about compulsory arbitration. However, I must say to him that I do not think it is something new to this government or this chamber. I think of the concerns of some 300 or 400 students I visited in the library at Niagara College last Monday.

The minister has indicated that the Council of Regents and the union began negotiations last May and, following a fact-finder's report, the council tabled the first complete offer on August 31, 1984, about four or five days before the colleges opened their doors to the students. That was followed by a second offer on September 25 that the union refused to receive from either the council or the mediator.

I look at the process that has taken place, particularly in relation to what might be considered essential services in the public sector and the difficulties there are in the bargaining process.

I often feel this Legislature is used as a scapegoat when there is an impasse in bargaining between two parties, particularly in the public sector. They can take a hard-nosed line at the beginning and say, "We do not have anything to worry about it because, whatever we do, the Legislature will bail us out." I think that is the wrong approach to take. New labour legislation should be brought forward in the public service sector areas whether or not it relates to essential services.

I am sure I have the time to compare this bill to legislation introduced in British Columbia in the time of Dave Barrett, that great Premier of the New Democratic Party, that put back some 50,000 employees, and I am sure they were not all public servants. Anyway, the Minister of Labour at that time, Bill King, a good New Democrat, said it was a regrettable step to take but all other methods of solving the dispute had failed. At the same time, he announced a search for a better way of dealing with work stoppages in such essential services as firefighting, police and hospitals.

One can look at the special legislation forcing striking food industry, forest, railway and propane workers back on the job that was passed by the British Columbia Legislature in emergency session on October 7, 1975. The bill, called the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act, gave the more than 50,000 workers involved 48 hours to return to work.

If one looks at the bill, there are some good things in it. That was a case where the government perhaps had no choice but to bring in compulsory arbitration. Perhaps the minister is following the bill introduced by Dave Barrett, NDP leader in British Columbia, in 1975. There are no differences in the intent of this bill and the intent of the legislation in British Columbia.

I think we have forgotten the third party in this strike, the students themselves, who had signed a contract. Many of them worked hard to get sufficient funds so that they could enter college to upgrade their education or receive a better education for the prospect of good jobs in the future. We have ignored their part in this and what it has cost them.

The students raised some questions with me and others at that meeting and asked, "What compensation is there for us?" I think the answer from the deans was: "There is really no compensation. What we can do to resolve your educational problems is to compress the instructional courses in the college. We can pick up the month they will lose in their college education."

11:30 a.m.

The answer from the students was, "At what expense and with what compensation? Some in the co-op program will lose their jobs because of the loss of their education for one month in the colleges." Another said: "I am paying room and board. I am from outside the province. Who is going to pay for that extra cost?"

There is the question of compressed studies. What effect will they have on the students? Will they be able to cope with it? One of the deans said, "You will probably be working in school up until the end of August, and then the next term comes." They will lose all their chances for employment in summer jobs. Again, there is no compensation by the government or any of the parties involved in the strike.

So as much as I detest compulsory arbitration, I have to support such legislation today. As the Premier of British Columbia said, it is regrettable that we have to take this stand. I want my colleagues to my left to understand our amendment. Perhaps I should read the intent of it:

"The Liberal amendments are introduced on the assumption that the teachers will return to work immediately. These amendments would have the effect of bringing the issue of the quality of education, primarily the matter of teachers' work load, back to the bargaining table for the two parties to negotiate for a period of up to 30 days. If no agreement were reached by that time, the matter would be referred to the arbitrator."

The amendment says we are not taking away the right to strike; we are giving them time to reassess their position in negotiations.

The private member's bill I introduced in this House when I was the Labour critic for the Liberal Party for a number of years contained a 60-day cooling-off period. What the minister is doing now is more than a cooling-off period. If she waits for another study to come back, it will be a year from now, almost. I think that is the wrong direction. If we are going to keep abreast of new technology, new contracts, new negotiation procedures, then this government should be looking for a cooling-off period. If that had been applied, as this Liberal amendment says, back in early September, those students would never have lost a day in school.

Our party supports this in principle, but the government is going to have to look at other alternatives so the Legislature is not called in to amend legislation or to remove an impasse. I think the government should be bringing in progressive labour legislation in this area.

In fact, if the minister had only called on the Minister of Labour, who has the expertise in this area of negotiations, I bet it could have been resolved. But she did not do that; she referred it to the old method of fact-finders. What have they done in the past in strikes, particularly in schools? Nothing. She should have called on the expert, the Minister of Labour, to get into the picture earlier than we are doing with the legislation today. It could have been resolved back in the latter part of August of this year.

I suppose we have to support the legislation in principle, but I hope the minister will find some other methods to bring forward so the parties do not have to depend on the Legislature to legislate them back.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to indicate to the minister and to the House that I gave this strike a great deal of thought when we knew that legislation was going to be introduced, but the decision on how I would come down on this kind of legislation was made very easy when the minister introduced this legislation, which is one-sided, is unfair and is exactly what the Council of Regents wanted.

In my seven years in this Legislature, this is the second-worst piece of legislation. The only one that was worse was Bill 179, the wage control bill. Of course, on both pieces of legislation the Liberals and Conservatives are on side with one another.

I find even the process here in the Legislature somewhat amazing. On a major piece of legislation, on an issue that affects virtually the entire province, there has been very little participation in this debate: none from the Conservatives, with the exception of the member for Wilson Heights, and only two or three members from the Liberal Party.

It seems to me that one of government's most important roles is to protect people's rights, and if we believe in the right to free collective bargaining, then surely the minister should not be bringing in legislation that is one-sided. She should have done everything in her power to facilitate free collective bargaining and a negotiated settlement to this matter. That was not done.

If the Premier (Mr. Davis) had become involved when my leader called for his involvement more than a week ago, I believe he could have mediated and assisted in achieving a negotiated settlement, rather than this half-arbitration and half-imposed settlement that the government has decided to introduce with the support of the Liberal Party.

It was 10 years ago next week, or the week after, that I was elected to the Windsor Board of Education. When I was elected to the board, we were in the midst of a strike of our teachers. In the two-year term I served we had a second strike. In the first strike we had a negotiated settlement. In the second one we had an arbitrated settlement which only resulted in a third strike after I was off the board of education. When the third strike occurred, the then Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) said the government had absolutely no intention of getting involved and the parties would have to negotiate their own settlement.

When they were forced to negotiate their own settlement they struck history. They signed the first three-year agreement since Bill 100 had been brought in. We have never had a strike in Windsor again with our secondary school teachers. The relations between the board and teachers have been somewhat harmonious in the last number of years.

I remember talking to the then Minister of Education after the third settlement had been struck at the bargaining table. He said it was the vindication of Bill 100, the vindication of the right of teachers to strike and to bargain freely with their employers.

I also remember him saying that a true Conservative Party should be the staunchest defender of free collective bargaining. Yet this fall alone we have had two pieces of legislation that denied this. One would not even allow workers to withhold their labour for a day -- the legislation was brought in before the strike even occurred -- and then there was this piece of legislation.

If one looks back at the history of the problems we are having in the college sector now, one has to trace some of the conflict back to Bills 179 and 111. When we were fighting the battle on Bill 179, we introduced motion after motion in committee in order to bring ministers and deputy ministers in front of the committee to discuss with us the long-term implications of the legislation. It took away the right of workers to bargain freely. We predicted at the time there would be strife in public sector negotiations over the years because of the bill's implications.

Other colleagues of mine in this party have discussed the flaws and the unfairness in this legislation, so there is no need for me to go into it. But I want to refer for a couple of minutes to my colleagues on the right.

When we took the vote on first reading on this bill yesterday, Mr. Speaker seemed somewhat confused. He asked for all those people in favour of first reading to stand. Then, when the Conservative Party was finished, he then asked for all those opposed. He assumed the Liberal Party was opposed to this legislation. Much to his surprise they were not; they were favouring the legislation. Why would he be confused?

If one looks at the questions that have been asked in the Legislature in the last couple of weeks, and the kinds of statements that have been made even on this legislation, one could get very confused at the position the Liberals have taken. They have been critical of the minister; they say she has been totally wrong in her handling of the situation and that she lacks their confidence. They said the Premier should be involved. They said there could have been a negotiated settlement.

Then the legislation comes in and they say, "The whole situation has been messed up by the Conservative government but because it is politically popular we will support Bill 130, which will order the teachers back to work."

It is too bad the five Liberal candidates who are running in these by-elections were not here to watch this debate to see what a hypocritical position their party is taking on this legislation. The party has done the same on virtually every other piece of labour legislation introduced by the Conservative government.

Mr. Nixon: The candidates who stand in the way of kids going back to school are going to be knocked off the map, and they are yours.

11:40 a.m.

Mr. Cooke: It is not a matter of standing in the way of kids going back to school. The government does not need the Liberal Party's votes. There are 71 Conservatives in this Legislature and they can pass the legislation on their own.

Mr. Riddell: The member needs to protect his own hide. Does he know what Fergie Jenkins is doing? Fergie is going round his riding telling the people the member's party is preventing students from going back to school.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: Fergie does not even know where my riding is.

Mr. Van Horne: Do not be too sure.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: Fergie Jenkins does not even know where Windsor-Riverside is. They wanted him to run in Chatham, but the Chatham Liberals had too much sense. They would not take him.

Mr. Kerrio: The member would be very wise to put his own position and put arguments to the bill and not to talk about anything else.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: Those people are ridiculous. They are playing to the groups who come to see them and they do not talk to the bill. Why do they not talk to the bill?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the member please restrain himself.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Is there a psychiatrist in the House? I think the member is having a mental breakdown.

The Deputy Speaker: Your comments are inappropriate. Would the member for Windsor-Riverside continue.

Mr. Cooke: The member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) says we are playing to the few people in the galleries. What the Liberal Party members do on every one of these controversial issues is stick their fingers up in the air and whatever way the political wind is blowing that is where they go. They are gutless, they are hypocritical and they have done that on every piece of labour legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. May I make a suggestion to the member in his debate. It serves for all of us. We all know our standing rules prohibit us from using inflammatory language. If the member insists on choosing those lines, he will have to be prepared for interjections and then the chair will have to do what it must. I would remind the debater and other debaters this morning to stay on the bill and leave personalities out of it. Let us also keep the choice of language up to a level that is worthy.

Mr. Kerrio: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I want to say this with the greatest sincerity to the people in the New Democratic Party. I came here to hear this bill debated and I am prepared to listen to the bill being debated. I am not prepared to listen to their foolishness in dragging this party into their rhetoric. I want to hear about this very important bill. That is what I came for, but any time the member makes reference to this party he will hear from me.

Mr. Cooke: I will not refer to that party any more, other than to say its actions speak louder than any words I could use to describe what kind of principles it has.

In finishing up, I simply want to say that this bill, along with Bill 179, Bill 111 and the Toronto transit workers' bill that was brought in earlier this year, is an indication of where we are going in this province with respect to labour relations. The Conservative Party in this province brings in regressive legislation that is identical in principle to the kind of legislation the Social Credit government in British Columbia brings in.

The government does it with a smile, does it nicely and does its best to deceive the people of this province. It tries to come across as being progressive, but when it comes down to reality, we know which side it is on. It is on the side of management, whether it is in the private sector or the public sector. The workers take a beating every time legislation is brought in, whether it workers' compensation, labour legislation or this particular dispute.

The history of this minister when she was Minister of Labour and now as Minister of Education is a disgrace. She is continuing the same kind of legacy that will be left by her for years. Unfortunately, in the meantime, the workers of this province suffer.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to be brief. I cannot let the opportunity pass without making a very brief reference to the member for Windsor-Riverside. Having been born in Huron county and having spent a fair bit of time in a rather rural setting, I am mindful of the fellows who used to come around periodically to clean out the septic tanks. I think they were called honey dumpers.

I have to tell the chamber that I am reminded of that occupation whenever I listen to the member for Windsor-Riverside; such nonsense, such sanctimony. Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how angry I am to listen to that nonsense. If that party were sincerely concerned about the students and the staff who want to get back to the job, they would not have dragged us through this exercise for the last 24 hours.

Our party is reluctantly supporting this piece of legislation; we all know that. I want to take the opportunity to remind the members that those of us who have colleges in our ridings have been in constant contact with a very large number of students and teachers.

In my particular constituency office we keep a log of every phone call that comes in. In the first week of the strike we had more than 350 calls at the office. The three members from London, with Fanshawe College in the riding of London North, also found that the students and faculty had been issued sheets with not only our constituency office numbers on them but also our residence numbers. At my residence in the first week of the strike I received just short of 100 telephone calls.

In the first week, between office and home, a significant number of people called me to express their concern. Not one of those people said, "Hurrah! We are on strike." They were all saying: "Help get this over. Help us get back to the classroom. Help us get back to the job."

Beyond that first week, although the numbers did decrease slightly, the calls did continue. In total, between the constituency office and the residence, I received close to 1,000 calls. I have to reiterate what I said just a moment ago. Precious few of the people who contacted me were happy about the strike or wanted it to continue.

On the other hand, if one looks at the work load of some of these people on the faculty, one can understand their strong feelings. I have a communication from a constituent of the member for London South (Mr. Walker) who felt obliged to send me his concern. This faculty member says in this correspondence, in part:

"In September of 1976 I grieved my work load. The college instructional assignments committee unanimously upheld my grievance. This took the better part of a year. My chairperson neglected or refused to obey the committee's order for relief. The case went to binding arbitration.

"Only a half year more elapsed, and an arbitrator upheld my grievances and ordered a reduction of work load as a remedy. The chairperson chose her own interpretation of that order, and the case went back to the arbitrator. Nearly one year after his original award the arbitrator awarded monetary compensation.

"The college must have wasted in excess of $12,000 in legal costs, arbitrator's costs, etc. The union spent nearly $10,000. The award was about 15 per cent of those two sums.

This person goes on to talk about his present teaching assignment. He says: "I am assigned to teach eight different classes five different courses, of which two are entirely new to me. There are no textbooks available in one of the courses. I write my own material. I meet 891 students each week."

He then goes on to relate that to the ratio and to express the concern he and many others have. He does not feel badly treated monetarily, but he does feel his work load is almost unbearable. That, as I understand the issue, has been one of the major concerns.

We realize this legislation is not perfect, we realize the situation is not perfect; but we recognize beyond that the broader principle. I object to being accused of following a politically popular move, again according to the member for Windsor-Riverside. It is not politically popular, but the situation demands attention and it is getting it.

11:50 a.m.

Again, I do not want to delay the process. If this debate had been directed to a conclusion last evening we would have had the people back in the colleges today getting ready for next week. As it turns out, next week will be practically lost in the reorganization and getting back into a process.

I would submit to honourable members that the exercise the New Democrats are putting us through has effectively added a full week to this problem and there is no way they can duck that responsibility. They are guilty of delaying tactics that are harming every teacher and every student in the community colleges here in Ontario.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, while I recognize that everyone wants to see a quick end to this strike, we are opposing this bill for several very important reasons.

First, we are being asked for the second time in less than three months to put another nail in the coffin of free collective bargaining in the public sector. I regret the government appears to be becoming addicted to rule by the big stick instead of assisting the parties in reaching a negotiated settlement. It puts the Conservative government in the same right-wing camp of undemocratic governments as the British Columbia government, the Alberta government and the Reagan government that destroyed the air traffic controllers' union in the United States.

The legislation probably violates the freedom of association section in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but by the time anyone can test it in the courts the law will have been implemented, if it passes.

Back-to-work bills destroy the collective bargaining process in the public sector. Genuine bargaining ceases when management knows that sooner or later the government will step in with the big stick.

I think it is rather ironic that a year ago when the government passed the second restraint bill, it brashly labelled that bill, in part, an Act for an Orderly Transition to the Resumption of Full Collective Bargaining. It was talking about the public sector.

I regret that more than 600,000 students have lost three weeks of instruction and lab work. I can understand their worries about completing their year and about obtaining value for the fees they have paid that have cost them a great deal to raise.

I regret that teachers who had the guts to go out on strike for the principle of quality education have been stymied. I congratulate them on a pioneering attempt to bring important, new, nonmonetary items into the collective bargaining process. The Metro Toronto library workers are doing the same thing, the same sort of pioneering in the technological change field.

The second reason I am opposing this bill is I think the minister could have probably got the colleges open even today without the bill if she had done one simple thing. She could have announced on Wednesday after the cabinet meeting that the government was allocating an additional $40 million to the community colleges to hire additional teaching and support staff to overcome the work overload problem. This money could have been allocated on the basis of approved need by each college.

The Council of Regents could not solve the work load problem without this kind of assist from the minister. The minister and the government knew this, but they did not respond. Even if the grant the minister had given them this year was above the cost-of-living index, as she says, it was simply inadequate to meet the greatly increased enrolment and the overload problem that had been building up for several years.

I would venture to suggest that if the minister had made this announcement on Wednesday, the two parties would have been back at the bargaining table that day and a negotiated settlement could probably have been reached by the end of the week. The students might even have been back by today.

The minister was talking nonsense and showing her lack of understanding and respect for the legislative process when she said the colleges could have been open on Friday with the bill she was introducing on Thursday afternoon. There are 125 members in this House. The number of hours that would have been left to debate the bill on Thursday afternoon and evening after its introduction would have been about four. At 30 minutes a person, eight members could have participated in the debate.

The supreme legislative body of this province should have an opportunity to discuss a bill of this seriousness, which affects the whole province, with adequate time for all those members who wish to participate to join in. As for the last speaker from the Liberal Party saying the students could be back sooner if we had let the thing go through last night, if the minister had followed my suggestion and announced the new grants on Wednesday, they could certainly have been back much sooner than under this bill.

My third reason for opposing the bill is that it fails to satisfy the needs of any of the parties involved in the dispute. It fails to resolve the teachers' key concern in the strike, the question of work load, which is not to be part of the arbitrated settlement. It fails to provide any special assistance to students to help them make up for three weeks of lost instruction and lab time. It does not contain any guarantees that might allay their fears about the loss of their year.

It fails to provide any assurances to the Council of Regents that it will be able to fulfil its mandate to provide quality post-secondary education to the great influx of new students resulting from job shortages in the work place and of young people now realizing that more education is necessary.

The Council of Regents and the ministry share a responsibility to provide quality education to all those students who wish to attend community colleges and who can qualify. The minister has failed to assume her share of this responsibility. The bill simply sends all the groups back to the colleges with no assurances that the educational shortcomings which have surfaced during the strike will be overcome.

Let me share with members the educational shortcomings in one small segment of the community college system in Metropolitan Toronto. Centennial College campus at Ashtonbee has an automotive and transportation equipment course where the students learn repair and maintenance. The teacher, Mr. Bruce Barker, tells me he has not received any new shop equipment since he organized the course in 1973 except for what he has been able to obtain as donations from automotive companies. One can understand that this kind of equipment would change radically over 11 years.

He has 20 to 22 apprentices on the work floor at one time. He used to have two instructors with them. Now he has only one. He is worried about the safety factor for all those working in such crowded conditions and with such little supervision.

His own teaching load is 22 hours, which is above the 19 the Minister of Education has been telling us most of the community college teachers have. These 22 hours do not include all the administrative work he does as the course organizer and supervisor. It does not include ordering supplies or even setting up the lab before classes. He also has a night course called "Ladies, Know Your Cars," which has 25 women of all ages enrolled but only five of them can get their cars on to the lab floor. They have to learn on somebody else's car, which may be quite different from theirs.

12 noon

That is an example of the kind of service community colleges are being forced to give; which is completely inadequate when we think of their mandate.

The problem appears to be the minister herself. These are the reasons we think she is making a mistake in bringing in this bill instead of solving the problem by dealing with the work load question in the only way the government can deal with it, which is by providing more funds for more teachers and support staff. Money is being found for other government programs, and this one affecting our youth and the training of our future work force is too important to shortchange.

I would like to quote in closing a comment from a student whom Lois Sweet quotes in her article of November 7 in the Toronto Star. The community college student said, "If they think education is costly now, wait until they find out what ignorance costs later."

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to join this debate on second reading, but given some of the comments that have emanated from my left this morning, I want to make a couple of comments.

My friend the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) finally explained to me and perhaps to the House why the party to my left is going to vote against the bill and why we are going to vote in favour of it. She said in her speech a couple of minutes ago that the bill fails to satisfy the needs of any party in the dispute.

My colleagues and I and all parties on all sides of the House for the past three weeks have had hundreds of calls; one of my colleagues reports having received 1,000 calls from one party in the dispute, the students. The only need the students want satisfied is the need to go back to school. Consequently, that is why on that very simple principle of the absolute, urgent and total need to get the students back into the classrooms, this party is voting for the principle of this bill, because that is what it says.

We are as disgusted and unhappy as anyone -- the teachers, many students and many other people; our friends on the left included -- with the provisions under which they are being sent back. We are as unhappy as anyone that the key issue in this dispute is not to be addressed in any real way, that we are hoisted by the continuation and expansion of the college instructional assignment committees. These apparently have not worked very well in the past and I presume will not work very well in the future. We are given as a crumb, and that is barely all it is, another study.

At the appropriate point we will try to amend the bill to do certain things: to give the parties one last chance to negotiate together and to reach an agreement together on the key issue of work load, which is quality of education. That is what this strike has been all about.

Failing that from the two parties, we are prepared to put that issue in the hands of an arbitrator so that finally we will get some progress on the issue. The minister has provided us with a prescription for no progress, a prescription for the status quo. That may be all right with the minister, it may be all right with some of her colleagues, but it is surely not all right with the overwhelming majority of the teachers and, I might suggest, with the majority of the students, certainly the ones who have contacted my office. One curious thing is that while they all want to go back, most of them support the teachers' demands and say there is something very bad going on here.

My friends on the left would have us continue this strike. That is what they would have us do.

Mr. Martel: That is a lot of bunk and the member knows it.

Mr. Wrye: If I could feel --

Mr. Martel: The member knows he is lying.

Mr. Wrye: If I could feel --

Mr. Martel: The member knows it. I said it deliberately because he knows he is.

The Deputy Speaker: Would the member for Sudbury East please withdraw that remark?

Mr. Martel: Yes, Mr. Speaker. At the same time I would ask you to look at standing order 19(d)9, which says that you cannot impute motives to another member. I suggest that you ask the member for Windsor-Sandwich to withdraw his comment.

The Deputy Speaker: May we get on with the debate? Let us have both members do exactly that.

Mr. Martel: No, I withdrew. You cannot impute motives to anyone else in this House.

The Deputy Speaker: That is absolutely true.

Mr. Wrye: There is nothing to withdraw, Mr. Speaker. I did not impute motives.

The Deputy Speaker: There was a change in the chair at that point, so I have to admit I did not catch those remarks. I did hear the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, you cannot say, "That party over there wants the kids to stay out on strike," or "He wants the strike to continue."

The Deputy Speaker: Order. With all due respect to the member, it is fair debate to accuse a party of motives. Our standing orders deal with an individual -- for example, saying that someone is a liar. You know it well.

Listen to the tirades we have heard about the government in this party and that party. It has been going on through the whole span of the debate. Under our standing orders we deal with individual honourable members.

Mr. Martel: It is the same thing he said on the radio yesterday in Windsor. He goes out of here, plays this little game and makes these sorts of accusations that we are not worried about the kids. Most of us have taught school. That is a hell of a lot more than he ever did.

The Deputy Speaker: The chair will monitor the debate with great care, and I would ask members in turn to take care in the choice of their language as they make their legitimate debate.

Mr. Wrye: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am stating what would be the case if Bill 130 did not pass: The strike would continue. Presumably they would continue to negotiate, but I want to suggest that my friends seem to think that if only we did not have this bill, somehow the immense problems, even with goodwill, could be overcome in an hour and a half.

I was in the House for part of the speech of the leader of the third party yesterday and he kept talking about the fact that there would have to be a compromise. I would have thought that my friends on the left, many of whom come from the trade union movement, would understand that on an issue as contentious as this, the movement to a compromise will not be easy and may be of long duration. Frankly, the students cannot wait any longer for that.

We agree the parties should bargain this crucial issue collectively, and that is why we have proposed that we allow them to continue to do so. But we know they cannot do so any longer with the students removed from the classroom, and that seems to me to be the fundamental principle we are speaking of today.

The other concern I have in making these few remarks is that my friends like to stand up and suggest that somehow this party is not willing to fight the good fight for a prolonged period of time and that they are. I always stack that up against the fact that on a previous occasion about two months ago we were in and out of this House in five hours as the great fight collapsed from the left.

Indeed, as the reality overcomes my friends, they are prepared, presumably, in some period of time to continue these discussions until such point as the matter is resolved today because, while they want to stand in their place and vote no, they too understand the reality that the students must be back in the classrooms Monday next.

12:10 p.m.

So I have some concern when I see the member for Sudbury East jumping up in his place with a suggestion that I have imputed motives. I wish he had been in his place during the speech of his colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside. I would think he would have wanted to jump to his feet and defend this party, because if there is any member in this Legislature who knows how to impute motives it is my friend from Windsor-Riverside, who does so with great regularity.

I will not prolong this speech. We will, as the House well knows, support the principle of the bill. We will also place before the House for its consideration, and I hope adoption -- and I hope support will come not only from my friends on the left but also from across the way -- of a different method of resolving the dispute. I say quite sincerely that, while we will put the students back in the classroom and in the short term we will satisfy one party in that regard, there is a prescription in the bill, as it is now written, for a continued mess and a continued poisoned relationship between the teachers and the colleges.

There are two principles at stake. Unfortunately. we are dealing in this bill with only one. It is the one that must be dealt with in the short term, but surely the time has come to deal with the long-term principle and end the festering bad relationships that have been around the community colleges for a very long time.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I rise, as did my colleagues in this party, to oppose this piece of legislation. I can understand the discomfiture of the Liberal members of this Legislature. There is a very fundamental Liberal principle at stake in this bill. That Liberal principle goes to the very root of one of our most sacred and cherished rights and freedoms, that is the right of association. We know how the courts have judged on that issue in recent months in relationship to collective bargaining and the right to strike.

The right of association has been threatened in the two years I have been in this Legislature in at least two major ways. One was with respect to Bill 179 and the other is with respect to this particular piece of legislation. This piece of legislation goes further to undermine the process of what one might call free and full arbitration in the manner of Bill 111. In those respects, this bill focuses on a central principle in the Liberal tradition and I am surprised that for some reason the members to my right --

Mr. Kerrio: We do not need a spokesman for the Liberal position. Why does the member not put his own position? That is all he has to do.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Hamilton West has the floor.

Interjections.

Mr. Allen: For some reason, the members to the right will not pay the Minister of Colleges and Universities the compliment of examining her legislation with some rigour. In contrast to the leader of that party, the leader of the New Democratic Party in this Legislature at least took time to burrow beneath the surface of this bill and to look at principles that were there which did not lie on the surface.

Mr. Nixon: Where is the NDP leader, by the way?

Mr. Allen: Where is the Liberal leader? They both happen to be busy men. I do not want to return to the Liberal caucus later in this dispute, except to say I will be supporting their amendment.

It seems to me there is another major principle that is offended in this piece of legislation and that is a Tory principle. I had always thought it was some part of the Tory tradition, indeed a central part of the Tory tradition in Ontario, that government should act with some overarching paternal concern with regard to the interests of all aspects and all parties in the community.

What I find in this piece of legislation is an unusually partial defence of one interest in a dispute in which the ministry itself has been implicated as a party. This legislation does not establish only the position of the Council of Regents; it establishes the joint position of the ministry and of the Council of Regents in their joint dispute with the teachers of the colleges in this province.

This bill is for students; it is about teachers. It is a reflection of the Council of Regents as a structure, it is a mirror of a minister and it is a piece of paper that is utterly invidious in its principles.

As the members of this party have stated in our contribution to this debate, we understand the problem the students in a struck college face. They cannot get on with their lives and they are right to be concerned about that. We know the details of their problems and the way they have been magnified as the days have passed.

But it is no part of the motivation of the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), a former teacher in a college, when he rises to dispute some of the fundamental aspects of this bill; or of the member for Sudbury East, a former principal whose students have gone on to post-secondary institutions; or of the brother of a student in the system today who expressed his concern yesterday; or of the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), with his close association with Humber College, rising to tell us something of the history of the problem of funding in the latter years of the 1970s as seen through the eyes of a president of one of the colleges.

This party is more than sensitive to the problems of students, but we do not labour under the illusion that voting for this bill as a party is necessarily the best exercise of our responsibility in this House. We do not believe, on the other hand, that our opposition to it is going to delay its passage significantly.

It is in the light of this that we take our position as critics of the central thrust that lies at the very heart of this bill. It is the principle that a public sector employer, having been aided and abetted, if not managed, through this dispute with his employees, can expect that the minister and ministry involved will not only go out of their way to assist him but will pass legislation that will put in place the very package of demands, requirements and proposals that he has been unable to secure in the process of collective bargaining in the normal pattern.

When he cannot do that, surely it must indicate there is some fundamental flaw in the position he has adopted. We know when this dispute began that the Council of Regents was prepared to remove the work load limits on teachers in the college system. That is something like the bargaining process of the post office, in which you lay out 73 rollback provisions on the assumption that somewhere down the line the process of bargaining and arbitration will result in getting 35 rollback provisions. The whole supposition is that the working person must be worse off at the end of the process than he was at the beginning.

12:20 p.m.

That is not a proposition we in this party are prepared to abet in the Legislature in any way. The principle in the heart of this bill, as I described it, is not one we are prepared to accede to.

We know where the tyranny of the Tory majority leads in this Legislature. It leads precisely in those directions in the collective bargaining process, but it also leads to the fact that when it proposes legislation, that legislation gets passed. That is a matter of reality and the terms on which our politics have to be constructed. In the meantime, we play our role as critics. We try to do that to the best of our abilities.

It has been said in this dispute that the college teachers did not move. The final communiqué from the council said, "We are really frustrated by the union's refusal to work to an acceptable solution." In fact, there was a problem in the work load. I do not think anyone can deny that. As to the process of bargaining, certainly the negotiators for the teachers moved to several different positions.

In the first instance, they wanted a formula which does work. It works in the Ryerson Institute of Applied Arts and Technology and it works in Quebec. They were denied it. Then they proposed that since the council said no one in the system worked more than an average of 42 hours a week, perhaps it would be satisfactory to put a cap of 45 hours per week on overall working time. That immediately gave a lie to the council's propositions; first that the 42 hours was the average work week; second that they were prepared themselves to move in any direction.

Third, when that failed, the teachers' negotiators proposed that perhaps the ministry could help the situation by indicating an injection of funds would be available to assist in the hiring of further teachers in the system. That was turned down. The only proposals that ever came from the council were ones that would have worsened the collective bargaining contract in force today. When we look at some of the amendments proposed by the minister, we can see that her proposals will make the present contract worse.

Why is there so much reluctance in the ministry? Why is there so much reluctance on the part of the minister? Why has there been so much reluctance on the part of the council to recognize and grapple with the work load problem? It can only be explained by the fact that the minister is not prepared to provide the funds to the system to deal with a real and pressing problem.

Certainly if one looks at the base study, the college growth study, it made it plain that coming out of the 1970s the system was in pretty dire straits. I do not need to read out the document to explain that, but it is certainly there in the abbreviated form in which it was available to anyone who was interested in that subject.

During the period immediately leading up to the college growth study in the late 1970s, one could see what was happening to enrolment. In the technology division, between 1976 and 1980 it went up 34 per cent. In the business division, over the same years it went up 59 per cent. In the applied arts division, over the same years it rose by 16 per cent. Then one can look at the enrolments that have occurred in the five years from 1978 to 1983. They have gone up 30 per cent.

Finally, in the last couple of years we have given a little more money to the system. We have given more money than inflation; that is true, I am not going to dispute that. In the last five years, there was a 47 per cent overall increase in funds for the system, which is larger than one would normally allow because it includes the Unemployment Insurance Commission money. In the statistics we use that is rolled in.

Those same years saw an inflation rate that cumulatively reached over 50 per cent. If members look at the enrolment and inflation combination, there is simply no way -- the fact-finder says it -- we can conclude the work load is not increased.

The productivity study, which is a five-year analysis of the system, made it quite plain what had happened over five years was that the unit cost of producing a student went down by 20 per cent. In the full five years, if the system had been working at the end of that period as it had been working in the beginning, there would have been 21 per cent more teachers, 21 per cent more support staff and 30 per cent more resources.

Can the minister draw the conclusion? The fact-finder draws the conclusion. He says: "On the surface, it would seem hard to imagine how... a decrease of approximately 20 per cent" in faculty "would not have a significant impact on the work load of the average faculty member. It is equally difficult to see how an increase or decrease in class size of 15 per cent would not have a significant impact on the average faculty member."

Surely, anyone who looks at the tables in the work load study -- I have a few copies here, but it is a much more massive document than this -- would have to conclude that if on the average a faculty member in the colleges is working, as they are in most of the critical categories, marginally above the 19- to 22-hour limits that are the maximum allowed by the contracts, there must be huge numbers of college teachers who exceed those maximum hours by a very large amount.

Mr. Nixon: As hard as university professors.

Mr. Allen: We will talk about them on another occasion.

The case seems so patently obvious that it is difficult not to suspect there is some other motive at work, some other concern at work in the ministry, in the minister's mind and in the Council of Regents' operations that lead somehow to ignoring the hard facts of the reports that lie on their tables and to which they have ready access.

Given that, it becomes even more astonishing to see in this bill that the minister is not prepared to use the instrument of binding arbitration with respect to all the issues at stake. The issues that can be settled readily, both on the council's side and on the union's side, are the ones that are going to binding arbitration.

However, the sticking point, the major one that cries out for arbitration is being governed by ministerial fiat, because that is what the minister's regulations are. She will send out a numbered regulation and tell them how to do it. The curious thing about the numbered regulation is, not only will its words follow the last offer of the Council of Regents, but it is almost a total duplication of what now exists in the colleges with respect to assessment, evaluation, appeal and arbitration of assignment work loads.

That tells us the Council of Regents, which did not want to move beyond or modify in any improved fashion the current contract, has got its way, both in the very words and in the lack of departure from the present contract.

12:30 p.m.

I could read off the sections that are so similar. They are right here in my hands, but I will not bother the members with them. If they had them in their hands they would be reading them and would realize that, clause by clause and almost word for word, here is the Council of Regents' last offer, here is the wording of the minister and the ministry, here is the contract with the description of the instructional assignment committee arrangements.

The whole thing is a charade. One dances from the contract to the council, from the council to the ministry and the minister, and back again. It is something like the dance going on in the college system in terms of the funding principles and the kind of education that is beginning to happen there as a result of years of underfunding, massive crowding and overworked faculties.

There is a game of seeing how many students can dance around a single test tube in a laboratory. It is not unfair to say that. I have cases and cases I can give the minister.

The class size increased from 40 to 70 last year. Lab classes which in the previous year were divided into groups for safety and tuition are no longer divided. This results in four students per machine, which is considered to be unsafe.

The chem lab last year had four students per set of equipment; this year, there are seven students per set. Some teachers have been required to send students to computer-assisted instruction on the course requirements. Nursing students, for example 170 in first year, have to complete an English component on the CAI system. The problem is there are only nine CAI terminals for these 170 students. Of these, only four are working.

It is a crying shame; it is a scandal. This party assumed the minister would have laid before us a piece of legislation that held out some hope of significant resolution of the major issue at stake. In effect, all she has done is relegislated the past contract into existence, borrowed the language of the Council of Regents with respect to its solution of the problem and put it into her bill. That is the sum and substance of the matter.

This is not good enough; it is no solution. We do not want to see a first-year student in the college system, whose studies are disrupted by a strike this year, being disrupted next year and the year afterwards by a strike. However, that is precisely what this legislation lays the base for. This continuing unrest, division, turmoil, strike and contention in the whole college system is not only disruptive to the students, it also absolutely undermines the whole teaching process and what the colleges finally are all about.

This college system has had great potential and it still has. It is doing a lot of good things and a lot of necessary things. However, it is becoming prejudiced. Its capacity to produce results is slowly being marginalized and eroded. It is a very serious situation. That is precisely why unrest of this kind boils up in our midst and we face a significant strike over a major issue in the educational process.

Let me simply reiterate, therefore, that we find this piece of legislation problematic legally. We think it will be in difficulty before the courts as the restraint legislation was with regard to fundamental principles in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We believe it institutes an invidious principle whereby a minister, having been engaged with a public sector employer and supporting him hook, line and sinker, turns around and uses both the legislative process and a partial application of the arbitration process to establish the position of one party to the dispute as the resolution of that problem.

We further find that the bill, in its implications and its results, will do the college system no good. As we legislate teachers back to work and as we get students back into the classrooms, we have to be concerned that what they are going back to is something they, too, will be able to respect. I submit this bill provides no basis for that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, Bill 130 is fair; it is equitable. Indeed, it reflects the generosity of the minister under the circumstances because there was great pressure for her to be much harsher.

Bill 130 reflects the maturity of the minister, her patience and her leadership. Once again, it emphasizes the very wide acclaim by her colleagues that she is the finest minister of post-secondary education in Canada. The personal diatribes and the vicious personal attacks on the minister only underline the immaturity and the irresponsibility that come with a knee-jerk ideological response to an issue, however great or difficult or complex it might be.

I support the passage of this bill on behalf of the students of the community college system of this province.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in concluding this round of the debate on Bill 130. I have listened with great interest to the contributions of all honourable members. I was particularly struck by some of the observations of the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), whom I greatly respect on these matters of post-secondary education. I was also struck by the observations made by some of his colleagues last evening, more particularly the comments of the member for Nickel Belt.

I do not intend in my summary remarks to replough the ground that has been much travelled upon in the past 24 hours. I think it is fair to say we are now faced with this legislation because over the past six months there has been a growing unhappiness between the management team and the union. These are the two parties charged with resolving matters concerning quality of education in our community colleges.

It is also fair to say the well has been poisoned in some ways between the management team and the union. I and my colleagues had hoped that would not be the case. We had expected, had prayed for, the resolution of this unhappiness at the negotiating table. Over the past three weeks and one day we have tried to encourage a climate of conciliation, both in the Legislature and in the negotiations. We did this in the hope and expectation we would get the preferred result, which in our view is the negotiated settlement.

My colleagues the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne), the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) and my leader have all referred to the very important role our community college system plays. But we are now faced with the adjudication of competing rights. My friends in the New Democratic Party are quite right in drawing our attention to the rights of free collective bargaining and we are very sensitive to that.

We have tried to the best of our ability to respect those rights. We understand them, perhaps not with the same degree of association as do our friends in the New Democratic Party. However, I believe we have tried sincerely to respect the very important rights of free collective bargaining as those rights affect the 7,600 community college teachers. In my view, they have very properly drawn to the public's attention their very legitimate concerns about instructional arrangements, quality of education, work load, etc.

12:40 p.m.

But there are other people involved in this and there is another right. That is the pre-eminent right for us now, the right of the three quarters of a million students in the community college system of Ontario. What we as responsible legislators must do now, it seems to me, is adjudicate between those rights. We certainly understand and respect the rights of the striking teachers who have very properly brought to this Legislature and the public beyond their very justified concerns about the quality of education.

There is no doubt in my mind, as there appears to be in the mind of my honourable friend the member for Nickel Belt, about the jeopardy in which thousands of students in the community college system now find themselves. I can speak only as one member who represents a constituency in which there is a campus of one of our very distinguished community colleges. I speak about the Pembroke campus of Algonquin College based in Ottawa.

Almost to a person, the scores of students and instructors at that campus have indicated to me jeopardy is now critical. I have seen in the public press and I have had it reported to me elsewhere and from other people that it is the same at other institutions. I think of Mohawk College in Hamilton, for example, where it was indicated the other day that we are now at the very critical stage. Unlike my friend from Nickel Belt whose view I respect, I believe we must now act because the jeopardy of three quarters of a million students forces us to act in favour of and in exercise of the higher principle, which is the public good of those people.

Some might say it is something of a Benthamite calculus to suggest that. I believe we must respond to the higher order here, which is the jeopardy and rights of those students, not only their educational rights but their economic rights. I have people by the score who have come to me, not only nurses or forestry technicians in my community, but countless others, and said: "Listen, we understand and we believe we are sensitive to the teachers' point of view, but something must be done. Not only my education but my job is at stake."

What saddens me about this jeopardy question is that scores of those people are leaving the system these days and may never return. That is a matter of urgent and pressing concern for all members of this Legislature. I repeat that the striking teachers have very justifiable concerns that must be addressed. The minister has set out her position in Bill 130. We as a Liberal opposition have another position to which we will speak in the committee stage. We think ours is a better way. We believe the rights of the three quarters of a million students are now and must become the priority concern for members of this Legislature.

It is in the adjudication of those competing rights -- the rights of the striking teachers and the rights of the three quarters of a million affected students -- that we now say the public interest, the students' rights and the students' jeopardy unhappily force us, as a matter of urgent and pressing concern, to support the principle of Bill 130, which in our view is back to work for those three quarters of a million students and their 7,600 instructors. After allowing three weeks and one day for the pressures of the strike environment to force a settlement at the negotiating table, tragically one has not happened.

I conclude my remarks with this. We are very hopeful our friends in the government will look seriously at our amendments to deal with the very serious long-standing and legitimate concerns, the reasons for the strike, which the instructors, 7,600 strong, have properly brought to our attention. We hope that when the amendments are put, they will be favourably responded to by the government.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to thank all the honourable members who have participated in this debate on second reading of Bill 130.

Yesterday in my opening statement, which laid out the principles of the bill relatively clearly, I thought it was clearly stated that instead of having the committee structures as appendages, they would be amendments to the bill on our behalf. I hoped everyone would understand that and I regret that it has led to some confusion.

It obviously led to the frequently compounded misunderstanding that the modus primus of the solution related to work load was the expansion, strengthening and legislating of the local college instructional assignment committees. That is not the prime means of attempting to resolve the work load problem.

It is without doubt, precisely as my friend the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) stated, absolutely essential at this point to begin the process of ensuring that the colleges are open and that the educational programs are available to students. As he said, and I can concur vigorously, it is not only the educational concerns of the students that are at risk, but also the economic concerns of the students. In some cases, the future careers of some of the students are at risk as well. I believe we cannot toy with those matters at all.

We did try very diligently to give the collective bargaining process an opportunity to resolve this. I hoped, as I have always hoped, that a negotiated settlement would be achieved. As a matter of fact, in this province we achieve something in the order of 3,500 negotiated settlements per year, as opposed to the one or two which have been legislated settlements annually over the past two or three years. It seems to me that record is reasonably good.

I would like the members to be aware of the rationale for the introduction of the special committee that is to be established, the task force, with the independent chairman, one representative of management of the college system and one representative of the union.

In 1974 Mr. Justice Estey was charged with the responsibility of attempting to develop an arbitration award on the issue of work load within the college system. Throughout all those proceedings, Mr. Estey was frequently noted to remark that he was very much concerned that this issue could not be arbitrated appropriately when it was so complex and when there was so little quality information upon which to base his decision. As a result, the arbitration has been less than satisfactory to both sides.

It has worked relatively well in some instances and badly in other instances. However, because it is not only a very complex issue, but also because in this set of negotiations the parties are very far apart on the principles -- they are so far apart as to have something of a chasm between them at present about the basis on which any arbitration might be made -- there is a set of facts about which there is total confusion, but actually complete disagreement in most circumstances.

As a result of these two significant factors, it seems to me unrealistic to suggest that any normal human arbitrator would be able to resolve the problem within the time frame usually given under the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act for arbitration in the college system.

We felt it would be much more equitable to both sides, but particularly to the union side, if there were an opportunity for that task force, that special committee or commission, to be established to hear from all the concerned parties, including students, teachers, administrators, parents and boards of governors of colleges, in order to develop a set of recommendations upon which negotiations could be carried out in the next round.

That is precisely why the time frame has been established, so those recommendations will be in place in time for a reasonable negotiation for the next contract for the colleges of applied arts and technology in this province.

12:50 p.m.

Everyone in this province has pride in that college system. I believe the achievement of the system is noteworthy. It is probably one of the most highly touted groups of achievements that any jurisdiction in the world has the honour to have at the present time. The commitment of everyone in the college system to that set of achievements is noteworthy as well.

I believe there is commitment on the part of all of the teachers, just as I believe there is commitment on the part of administration, the boards of governors, the Council of Regents and everyone who has anything to do with the system. I know there is commitment on the part of the students.

Therefore, I would ask my colleagues in this House to honour that commitment by attempting now to provide a reasonable solution that will ensure the needs of the students are served and that we do find an equitable foundation for appropriate negotiation of the issue of instructional assignment, which I hope that interesting reporter in one of our newspapers will understand is a euphemism or another word for work load.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In order to clear up some confusion before we head into clause-by-clause debate and before the vote occurs, I wonder if the minister would clear up the whole story surrounding the remarks of the member for Timiskaming.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): That is not a point of order. However, I am sure the minister heard your comment.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I hope we will have an opportunity to settle this in a way that will ensure there is a sound foundation for negotiating the issue of instructional assignment, which, as I was saying, is really another word for work load. It is the phrase that is used in the contracts of the colleges with their faculties for that area of activity and, therefore, is not something that was just dreamed up out of the air.

I think the route we have proposed, as a result of the amendments that will be introduced in committee of the whole, will provide that foundation appropriately and will ensure we have the right kinds of negotiations, the right kinds of attitudes and the right kind of ambiance in the college system in the future.

In response to a point of the member for Nickel Belt, which has nothing to do with the principle of the bill, whatever was reported in the newspaper, which I heard about, I did not say.

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

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Birch, Bradley, Brandt, Conway, Cousens, Cureatz, Drea, Eaton, Edighoffer, Elgie, Elston, Epp, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Haggerty, Hennessy, Hodgson, Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kerrio, Kolyn, Lane, McCaffrey, McCague, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McNeil;

Newman, Nixon, Norton, O'Neil, Peterson, Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Reed, Riddell, Robinson, Rotenberg, Ruprecht, Ruston, Scrivener, Shymko, Snow, Spensieri, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, J. A., Treleaven, Van Horne, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

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

Ayes 68; nays 17.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that the House continue to sit beyond one o'clock today.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, before we go into committee, I would like to rise on a point of order to correct the record. This morning I used the figure of 60,000 jobs when talking about what the former Treasurer, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), had said about the increase in going to world prices and what it would cost this province. Instead, on December 13, 1979, in his vicious attack on the Conservative federal budget, he said it would cost Ontario 20,000 jobs.

House in committee of the whole.

COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY LABOUR DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT

Consideration 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. Conway: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the preamble.

Mr. Chairman: The preamble is always dealt with last.

Are there any comments, questions or amendments on section 1?

Section 1 agreed to.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, for one thing, it is impossible to hear in the assembly. Second, where are we?

Mr. Chairman: Section 1 was carried.

Mr. McClellan: I was discussing a matter with the government House leader with respect to stacking the vote. Was there an amendment on the preamble?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, but we were reminding ourselves that comes last, after the sections.

Mr. McClellan: The preamble comes last. Thank you.

On section 2:

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on clause 2(1)(b), if there is no one before that.

Mr. Chairman: We are considering section 2 as a whole.

Mr. Laughren: Clause 2(1)(b) reads, "Every employee shall report for work and shall perform the duties assigned by the employer including duties assigned in order to afford students the opportunity to complete courses of study affected by the strike."

I would like to know from the minister precisely what she means by that clause. If management at any given community college determines it is necessary to work on a Saturday, during the Christmas break, during the traditional winter break at the college or beyond the normal end of the academic year, does this section mean the employees must do that, according to the dictates of the management at each college?

Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, I was going to draw the minister's attention to the same section. I want to associate myself very briefly with the concern of the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren). I apologize to my friend the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan); I was going to move on this question as well. I want to indicate I also had those concerns and would appreciate the minister's response to that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, the basis for the section is to try to ensure there will be additional instruction provided for those students who require it to achieve their courses of study during this portion of the year or during the complete year. From the information available now, each college is developing its own program. Each college will be discussing the most appropriate way to implement this with the instructors involved on their return.

I am informed that almost all courses can be completed with a few additional hours. Some may be attached to one school day per week or something of that sort. There is no intent to infringe upon those legally constituted vacations that are part and parcel of the negotiated agreement or the contract between the faculty members and members of the administration of the college system.

I gather there is intent in some colleges to utilize the bulk of the traditional winter break, which is not one of the areas negotiated between the employees and the employer. There is some suggestion that for a very few programs there may be some requirement to extend beyond what has traditionally been the end of the school year for four or five days, which means it probably would be mid-May by the time the students complete their courses in those areas of study.

This does not apply to all of them; it applies to a relatively small number of them. It provides the basis upon which the discussions can take place and ensures additional instruction will be provided by the instructors in the college system.

Mr. Laughren: I am somewhat dismayed on a couple of points. The minister indicated an additional day per week. I did not quite understand --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I did not say that.

1:30 p.m.

Mr. Laughren: I thought she did.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No.

Mr. Laughren: All right.

The other thing bothering me is that I hope I can make the assumption that, if extra time is required on the part of the instructors, it will be worked out in a mutually agreeable fashion and will not be dictated by the management of the colleges. If the minister wants to exacerbate the problem, she is going about it in the right way if she says it is the right of the college to tell the instructors exactly when they will teach the extra days and how many extra days they will teach.

I do not have to go back very far to recall a disruption in the collection of garbage in Etobicoke. When the strike was over and the workers went back to work they were told, "We have to get caught up," and they were paid time and a half to do it. It went over the regular number of hours. I wonder whether the minister is waving a red flag at the same time as she is trying to resolve the dispute.

The minister would be wise to think seriously about this, because the clause states that "every employee shall report for work and shall perform the duties assigned by the employer..." There is nothing in the section that says it should be agreed on by the two parties involved, management and the union. I will not dwell on the rather contradictory statement of the minister that there really is not much to worry about because there will not be much extra work required. At the same time, she regards it as such a crisis as to bring in back-to-work legislation.

I would like some assurance from the minister on the need to make it mutually agreeable.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, the wording of this phrase may appear to be somewhat peremptory. It was not intended to be; it was simply intended to ensure the academic year of no student would be lost as a result of the circumstances that have been in existence, and to try to ensure there would be provision of the appropriate program to make that assurance to the students.

It would be fruitless to suggest the students would be going back and the program would be provided if there were not some means of ensuring those responsible for instruction were going to be there to provide that instruction for the program.

Therefore, it was considered necessary to have a clause that, it was my understanding, was going to be subject to the same kind of routine as are all other instructional assignments. It is provided to the employee, the employee responds to it and then, if there is discussion about it, the discussion is carried out with the administration of the college in a way that tends to resolve any difficulties which arise.

Mr. Laughren: I cannot let this go by. The minister understands we have a group of instructors who have gone on strike basically because of the work load issue and the quality of education issue. They are out of work for three weeks. They come back against their will because of this back-to-work legislation. They are then assigned by the college an additional work load on top of their regular duties, as the minister would say, to allow students to make up their academic year.

There is no doubt in my mind that the individual instructors will know what is necessary to have those students complete their academic year. I tried to make that point in the debate last night, but I do not think the minister was listening closely. This section is too one-sided. One cannot say this to the employer and employee. The employer is then going to be in the position of saying that, despite the fact they have had a three-week work stoppage because of the work load question, he is now going to be able to lay an additional load on the instructors.

I ask the minister to think seriously about this and to accept an amendment to ensure the decision on any extra time must be made by a mutually agreed upon route. This section is simply unacceptable. The minister used the word "peremptory" and I would agree with her. By leaving the section the way it is now, that is going to be a hot issue in many of the colleges, if not all of them. If the minister wants this to work, she would be wise to accept an amendment that states the idea of working extra hours or days will be mutually agreed upon. Will the minister accept that?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: At the moment, I do not have an alternative wording. I must admit I recall all too vividly the circumstance involving students very close to the riding the honourable member represents. We attempted to determine there would be some mechanism in the final negotiated agreement to ensure the students were provided with the additional instruction, particularly so as not to miss their grade-13 year. It was suggested there should not be any such clause in the agreement, that we could simply trust this would happen. We trusted it would happen and absolutely nothing happened.

Interjection.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In Sudbury.

Mr. Laughren: It did happen.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: A significant number of students did not have the additional or extended instruction that provided them with the program. We had some difficulties in resolving the issue because in that circumstance there was also a pink listing for summer courses. So nothing was provided.

Mr. Laughren: The minister is being grossly unfair.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I am not.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, she is and I will tell her why.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member should tell me how he would resolve it.

Mr. Laughren: I would resolve it by saying it must be mutually agreed upon.

To go back to the minister's point, when that secondary school strike occurred, it did affect a large part of my riding. It was in the spring months, February, March and April; or January, February and March.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: February, March, April, May.

Mr. Laughren: It was three months. When that strike occurred the quality of applications to Laurentian University, according to its president, who I am sure is a close friend and confidant -- that is the former president of Laurentian, Dr. Henry Best -- stated the university had a higher quality of applications than it had in previous years. So that was not a problem.

The teachers did work with the students to make sure they got their academic year. That was not a problem. What the minister has to understand is she can put her faith and trust in the instructors in this situation. They will work with the students to make sure they get their academic year. There is a professionalism there. The minister seems to think it is resident only in the medical profession. It is there in the teaching profession too, and it is time the minister understood that.

Unless the minister puts in this section that any agreement on extra days to allow students to make up their academic year shall be agreed upon by both the instructors, through their union, and the management of the individual colleges, I believe very strongly she is asking for serious trouble.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member obviously does not know I have a high degree of regard for the professionalism of very large numbers of teachers in this province. I happen to have four in my own family and I know how professional they are.

I agree that in most circumstances -- in fact, probably in all circumstances -- that will prevail, but it seems to me it is necessary that there be some mechanism to ensure that no student is going to lose his or her academic year. We must have some mechanism.

Mr. Laughren: It is called trust.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am perfectly happy to trust, but I would like to have some assurance that what I am trusting is going to happen.

Mr. Laughren: The minister wants a law instead of trust.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No. The members opposite are the ones who want laws about everything.

1:40 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, from my experience in this House, the minister has been responsible for more arbitrary, peremptory legislation than any misdirected Socialist could ever conceive of in his or her worst hours. This is yet another example of that.

Why does the minister not accept wording such as the following? "The parties will undertake to ensure that no student shall lose his or her academic year or progress as a direct result of this dispute." What would be wrong with that? Would it not be reasonable? If that is the objective, if that is what the minister is really concerned about, why does she not accept that as an amendment?

I would move the wording I have just articulated as a result of the concerns expressed by the member for Nickel Belt. I would move, Mr. Chairman, as an amendment that section 2 --

Mr. Chairman: May I interrupt the member, please? If you are making an amendment, it has to be in writing. Would you supply us with a copy?

Mr. Rae: I will supply you with a copy, but it is not complicated. I just drafted it now.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Rae moves that clause 2(1)(b) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"The parties will undertake to ensure that no student shall lose his or her academic year or progress as a direct result of this dispute."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the honourable member might consider seriously the amendment of clause 2(1)(b) to read, "every employee shall report for work and shall perform the duties assigned by the employer," and then a clause (c), which would state clearly that the parties will work together to ensure that no student loses his academic year, or will provide the program to ensure that no student loses his academic year.

Mr. Rae: Do you want to keep clause 2(1)(b)?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I think under the terms of legislation of this sort it is necessary to do so.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, the problem with this wording is that an obstinate employer could still interpret this clause, "perform the duties assigned by the employer," to mean the employer could still assign duties that went beyond the normal course of events and could assign, for example, weekend classes and so forth; whereas the section proposed by the member for York South makes it clear it is a mutual responsibility to ensure that students do not lose their academic year.

The minister is going to cause confusion between the two sections if she leaves them the way she proposes to make them. You could interpret those two sections differently. I do not think that is what she really wants to do, but that is going to be the result. Does the minister understand me?

Mr. Rae: What if we left in the wording "every employee shall report for work and shall perform the duties assigned by the employer" and stopped it there? That is not saying anything that you do not already have to do.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, if I may just intervene, I well appreciate the point that the members from York South and Nickel Belt are trying to make. It finds favour with us. I do think there is the basis here for an understanding and an accommodation. It would help, of course, to see in writing exactly what is being proposed.

We are sympathetic to the concern that there be a consensus between the two parties about how the academic and instructional year is now going to proceed, and that is the point we would like to see clarified. We are quite agreeable to any amendment that deals with that.

Mr. Chairman: Just as a thought to the members, you will recall we had an occasion the other evening on which we found it helpful to have some legislative advice and we stood the item down and came back to it later. Is that perhaps a thought? Then we can come back and discuss it. Agreed? Agreed.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask for your indulgence and that of the House for a moment. During the period when section 1 carried, I was engaged in a conversation with the government House leader with respect to the ordering of the votes this afternoon and I missed the carriage of this section.

I had a couple of questions I wanted to ask on the definitions section, and I would appreciate the opportunity to raise those with the minister with the consent of the House.

Mr. Chairman: Is there unanimous agreement to reopen section 1? Agreed.

Mr. McClellan: I do not really need to reopen it, butt would like to be able to ask the question. It relates to a point I tried to make last night in the second reading debate. The definitions section sets out that there are three parties being discussed during the course of the bill: The council, meaning the Council of Regents; the union, meaning the Ontario Public Service Employees Union; and the minister, meaning the Minister of Colleges and Universities. In clause (g) it says, "'parties' means the union and the council." But there is a tripartite distinction between the minister, the Council of Regents and the union.

My problem is very simple and I would like an answer to the question. Why is it that the chairman of the negotiating team for the Council of Regents is Mr. Ian L. McArdle, who is also, I believe -- and I misspoke myself last night -- acting manager of the staff relations branch of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities? In other words, he is a management employee of the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Why was a management employee of the Minister of Colleges and Universities acting as the chairman of the negotiating team for the Council of Regents during the course of the negotiations, in which the minister is claiming that she herself was an unbiased, neutral third party?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, the act provides that the --

Mr. McClellan: What act?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act, in the section related to the colleges of applied arts and technology, provides that the Council of Regents will function in a number of ways, and one of the ways in which it functions is in being responsible for the negotiations between the union for the employees of the colleges and the colleges themselves. Provision is made under that act for the establishment of the Council of Regents.

Through a memorandum of understanding with the ministry, the Council of Regents has a very small staff, and the staff that is provided to it is provided by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. The staff relations branch within the Ministry of Colleges and Universities has always provided that kind of support to the Council of Regents for the purposes of negotiations. They function on behalf of the Council of Regents at that point and during all of the negotiations.

Mr. Rae: So they take their hat off.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They are responsible for ongoing relationships within the college system and they function almost totally within the area of relationships between the colleges and the colleges' employees. But they are paid by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities rather than by the Council of Regents because that is the traditional, established way it has been done.

I can tell members quite honestly there is merit in careful re-examination of the mechanism of negotiating in the college system, and it is a matter that will be pursued immediately this dispute is completed.

Mr. McClellan: I appreciate the minister's response. I assume the minister will understand that it is impossible to --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Confusing.

Mr. McClellan: It is not just confusing. It is one of the things -- there are a number of others -- that casts doubt on the credibility of the minister's assertion that she was somehow neutral during the negotiations and was not herself a party to the dispute.

One of her own management staff was chairing the negotiation team for one of the --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: But reporting to the Council of Regents.

Mr. McClellan: I do not know. I do not suffer from schizophrenia; neither does the minister and, I am sure, neither does Mr. McArdle.

1:50 p.m.

Mr. Rae: What is your problem?

Mr. McClellan: Whose problem? Mine or hers?

I am sure Mr. McArdle does not have a double personality either. Mr. McArdle has a responsible management position as the acting manager of the staff relations benefits section of the ministry and is one of the ministry's senior employees. The minister cannot ask people to accept these kinds of roles. I assume she will proceed quickly to review that, but it is an intolerable situation.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not the only thing we are going to review.

Mr. McClellan: I should hope not. I do not want to hammer this point to death, but I do want to state our concern that at the time the minister was in the House on Tuesday, November 6, at 3:30 p.m., telling us there was light at the end of the tunnel, the acting manager of her staff relations branch, chairing the negotiating team for the Council of Regents, was busy preparing a press conference. At precisely the same time the minister was in here telling us one thing, her employee was out there organizing the press conference, having terminated the negotiations.

Mr. Nixon: Let us go over that point a couple more times.

Mr. McClellan: Perhaps then even the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) would understand it.

If the former leader, the real leader of the Liberal Party, does not think it is important that ministers --

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Just so the honourable member will not unintentionally mislead the House, I simply want to bring to his attention that the matter to which he is referring was raised on a previous day as a very heated and vehement point of order. It has been raised, along with spitting in the face, by about five of his colleagues in their other comments. Now we have graciously allowed him to return to section 1 because he missed it in a previous debate and he is hashing over that old crap.

Mr. Breaugh: Is that parliamentary?

Mr. Chairman: I do not think so.

Mr. Kerrio: No, but it is very descriptive.

Mr. Nixon: Make that straw.

Mr. McClellan: I do not know what has made my honourable friend so prickly and unpleasant.

Mr. Nixon: I am getting bored with the member's repetitive approach to this bill.

Mr. McClellan: Why does the member not go out and have a good dinner somewhere if he is so bored?

Mr. Nixon: We could have had the kids back at school today, rather than listening to the nth review of the question.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. McClellan: It has to do with a crucial point about the reliability of information provided to this House in ministerial statements. It may not be important to anybody else, but it is important to me.

Mr. Nixon: In his chicken-hearted way, he is saying the minister's comments are not reliable.

Mr. McClellan: They were not accurate.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They were based on absolutely accurate information.

Mr. McClellan: They were totally inaccurate and the minister's own management employees were behaving in a completely opposite manner to the way in which she had described them to us in this House.

Interjections.

Mr. McClellan: If the members would just be quiet for another 15 seconds, I am not going to hammer this point to death, but simply say again --

Mr. Nixon: It was dead two days ago.

Mr. McClellan: The member was dead two days ago.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. McClellan: I would have been finished three or four minutes ago if my honourable friends would just go and get a pastrami sandwich or something. I do not know what ails them.

I would like some undertaking from the minister with respect to when she will be in a position to report to us the results of the review she has indicated she is going to undertake. Can she advise us when she will manage to separate herself clearly, as Minister of Colleges and Universities, from the management team of the Council of Regents?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would hope early next year.

Mr. Conway: Can I get the minister to repeat her last answer? I did not hear it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I was asked when I would report on the review that will be carried out. I said it will begin as soon as this whole area of negotiation is settled.

Mr. Chairman: Section 1 was carried. We agreed that the member had a question and we dealt with that. We are on section 2.

Hon. Miss Stephenson moves that clause 2(1)(b) be amended by inserting after the word "assigned" in the third line, "by mutual consent in order to afford students the opportunity to complete courses of study affected by the strike."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Does that solve it?

Mr. Laughren: That is agreeable.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Fine. Can that be considered an editorial change, adding that phrase "by mutual consent"?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt, but does that mean the minister does not want to accept our additional clause with respect to the assurance about students not losing their year; or does she not see that as necessary?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I think it is probably redundant, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Chairman, would the minister clarify the meaning of clause 2(1)(d) as it pertains to peaceful picketing. The sequence of nouns and modifiers does not entirely make it clear to me that an employer or officer, etc., of the council, for example, or of the union, has the right to picket peacefully. Could that not be interpreted as saying the council has charge of the colleges and therefore all faculty members are employees of the council? Is it saying, therefore, their right to picket peacefully is somehow being made illegal by this provision?

I assume it remains in law that any member of the faculty has the right to picket peacefully on any subject he wishes to picket about.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, the word "picketing" in this relates to picketing that would accompany a withdrawal of service or the establishment of a sanction in a major dispute. It does not necessarily relate to someone who is simply carrying a placard.

Mr. Rae: The minister, on this marvellous Friday afternoon, is in such a conciliatory mood. Why not simply add the words "in connection with this dispute" at the end of that sentence?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I think that would be all right.

No? Legislative counsel suggests it would probably be more effective to take out the word "picketing." Is that agreeable?

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Miss Stephenson moves that clause 2(1)(d) be amended by deleting the word "picketing" in line 4.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Chairman, there are also the words that follow, "or any similar activity." Does that mean there is a similar kind of activity one can engage in that is somehow approximate to a lockout or a strike?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, I would think so.

2 p.m.

Mr. Allen: Okay.

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I think there has been confusion in the public press and in the minds of many who read the public press about exactly what the levels of increases are that are provided for in subsection 3(1) of this bill, the interim awards.

I believe the minister has indicated to the public press that the interim increase in salaries and rates of wages for the striking teachers' group is four per cent.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Total.

Mr. Conway: That is what I want to clarify. I have had incidental discussions with some people in the teachers' group. They have done some calculations. I know for a teaching master who is at step 16, as indicated in (a) of the schedule contained on page 7 of the bill, relative to subsection 3(1), the calculation was that it is a two per cent increase.

As a point of explanation, the minister might elaborate on what that schedule refers to with respect to overall percentages and specific breakdowns. It might be helpful to clarify that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The total compensation package for this group of employees in the college system is to be, as a result of the generosity of the act, increased for an interim period by the amount of four per cent. What that does is to cover all the movement back to grid. Some of those have been interrupted, as the member knows, as a result of the two pieces of legislation before, plus a restoration of increment for all those in this area.

It means that some employees will have a salary increase during this interim period of approximately two per cent. They are the people at the highest end of the salary scale.

At the lowest end, I think the increase is something close to -- I have forgotten and I cannot find the sheet, but I think it is about seven to eight per cent, if I am not mistaken, at the lower end of the scale. There is a variation. Some of them are at five, some at two, some at six and some at seven, but it does encompass the return to the grid for all who are in this bargaining unit; and a return of the increment for all of them as well.

The member will recall that some of them who were at $35,000 or above were hit by Bill 179. That is restored within the percentage that is being allotted to this.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the minister that on the list of teaching masters and counsellors it is not only in the case of the people at step 16, who are making more than $35,000, but even the minimum starting rate is increased by only two per cent. It is my understanding they were making $22,035 and now they are making $22,476. Am I wrong?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do not know for a fact, but I do not think that is correct.

Mr. Rae: My understanding is they were making $22,035 and they are now being given $22,476, which I calculate as being a two per cent increase. Have you a copy of the old grid?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I had it but I cannot find it.

Mr. Rae: We could then make a comparison.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What I have is a distribution of faculty on the salary grid. Forty-two per cent of the faculty are at the maximum and they will receive an increase of approximately two per cent.

Interjection.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Okay, fine. The member is absolutely correct. I am looking at one which was made out for another salary grid obviously. The salary increase at all levels is two per cent as a result of this. I am mistaken. I thought there was a variation, but the variation in actual fact occurs because some of them are restored to grid and some of them are restored to increment, which they had not had before. All of them get two per cent.

Mr. Rae: When the government ordered back the Toronto Transit Commission drivers, I think the interim increase was four per cent, if I am not mistaken. I am going by memory. I think the minister would agree that, while one cannot always buy goodwill, it does not hurt to show a level of generosity prior to the compulsory arbitration, particularly since people are being docked pay for the entire period they were out on strike.

I wonder if the minister would agree that the two per cent increase is pretty paltry when one considers the length of time the arbitration may take.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There is a time limit on arbitration for the college system, as I am sure the member for York South knows. I am sure that time limit will be honoured.

Mr. Rae: It was my mistake to give the minister that out. Surely the minister would agree that in any terms the two per cent increase is rather paltry. Surely she recognizes the arbitrator is bound to give an increase that will be greater than two per cent.

Under the proposed salary schedule set out in the management's offer of September 25, there is an overall increase of five per cent that is divided as follows: 28 per cent of teachers would receive a 10 per cent increase; 23 per cent would get a 7.7 per cent increase; six per cent would get a 6.2 per cent increase; and 43 per cent would get a three per cent increase. That is because of the numbers of teachers who are at the higher levels in the grid.

I think two per cent is pretty cheesy.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The other two per cent is spread over all the members of the bargaining unit because they will all achieve an increase in the return to grid and in the increment area. I would remind the member that the Inflation Restraint Board guidelines require that the total bargaining unit be costed. It is within that four per cent costing that this has been established. We wanted to provide some flexibility for the arbitrator.

Mr. Conway: I am sorry I missed some of the exchange between the member for York South and the minister.

Getting back to her four per cent of the overall compensation package increase, are we to believe the minister is including as part of that four per cent moneys that are now payable, particularly to the upper-scale instructors, because they have come beyond the control period set for them by Bill 179? Is this part of her calculations? Is this how she gets her four per cent?

I may not be making my question quite clear. I do not know whether she has answered this in responding to the leader of the New Democratic Party, but I am trying to determine her overall four per cent increase in the compensation package that is spoken to in section 3 of the bill and outlined in the schedule on page 7. Are we to understand that one of the inputs that allows her to get to a four per cent overall increase has to do with the inevitable consequences for the over $35,000 group because they have, as of September this year, escaped the control year set for them by Bill 179?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That happened automatically.

Mr. Conway: That is right, but are we factoring in those --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We have to under the IRB.

Mr. Conway: I want to be clear. When we talk about four per cent, the minister is not suggesting this bill alone provides that four per cent, but rather to get to four per cent it includes what is necessary because of Bill 179?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Right.

2:10 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: Any further discussion on section 3?

Mr. Rae: I just want to make a point in connection with extra duties assigned and related to this question. It is one of these ironies that the teachers in a sense are now in the worst of both worlds. For some purposes they are to be treated as salaried professionals and for other purposes they are to be treated as employees, but in a sense they get the worst of both worlds.

If they were simply hourly rated employees, they would have an hourly rate and they would be paid overtime for work they do that is additional. In every industrial dispute of which I can think, workers go back into a plant and traditionally realize they are not going to get paid for the time they are out on strike, but are going to get a bit of overtime in order to make up for what they lost while they were on strike.

The teachers in this situation have really been stuck in the ear. All I would say to the minister is this. If it was her intention to order people back to work, it might have been fairer to all the parties concerned to say at the very beginning of the dispute, "We are going to order people back to work if this dispute goes on for too long." It would have been wise to have said that at the outset, to set that as a basic strategy of the government.

I think it would have been only fair. A number of teachers have said to me, and I am not talking about the union leadership, I am talking about the average teacher, "If the minister is going to order us back to work, if because of her involvement in the bargaining" -- they feel she has some responsibility for the position of the regents -- "they never intended to deal with the work load question, why did she not order us back to work two weeks ago?"

That is the frustration that is out there. It is the sense that they have come all this distance in time and lost three weeks' pay, and it is now legislated that they will lose that three weeks' pay, so they are no better off than they were at the beginning of the strike. They have not gained one thing.

I think the minister has to understand what that does to people's morale and sense of who they are and what they do. She is going to have to reckon with that for some time.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would like to respond by stating very clearly it was not my intention and never was my intention until Tuesday evening of this week to legislate anyone back to work. That was not ever in the mind of the minister. I think the member can ask several hundred people related to the college system about that resolve. I had no intention of legislating teachers back to work at the time the talks broke off and an impasse was declared.

It was my intent that we find a resolution to the problems and have a negotiated settlement. There was never any thought but that in my mind. All this has developed since an impasse developed on Tuesday evening.

Mr. Rae: Let me deal directly with that. I do not want to get into a semantic argument, but I will make this point to the minister. She surely must have known or should have known the issue in question was one of work load. I say to the minister in all sincerity that she should have sat down with the union at the very beginning of this dispute and said, "This is how far," because she was the deus ex machina in this whole thing. Either she did it directly or, if she did not think she should do it directly, she should have told the Council of Regents to do it directly.

If the council had said, "We are prepared to move so far on the work load question and no further," at least at that point there would have been a clear understanding and a willingness to deal with the nub of the problem. Instead, I say to the minister, and I have talked to a number of people involved in this dispute, my assessment of the negotiations is that for the longest time there was an air of almost complete unreality about the discussion.

We are not coming to grips with the real issue at stake. To me that is what is unforgivable about what has been allowed to happen. I mentioned this yesterday in my speech and I will say it again. I think it is appalling that a strike could have been allowed to go on for so long when there was no intention from the very beginning of the strike on the part of the employer, which is the government -- frankly, the agent of the government, an extension of the government -- to deal directly and frontally with the question of work load on any terms other than the terms it was prepared to impose.

That is what bothers me. If that had been the minister's position from the outset, at least she could have had the straightforwardness and the candour to say that to everybody involved.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would have the candour to say to everyone involved that that is an interesting description. From the reports given to me, it is my understanding that the negotiators for the Council of Regents suggested they were willing to negotiate any part of the contract. They were not willing to discuss only the union's formula for work load, which was set as a precondition for negotiation in almost all circumstances. I am sorry the impasse finally arose. I had truly thought there was some means of finding a solution.

However, at the present time we are in a different circumstance. We have passed that unfortunate occurrence and we should now try to get on with the job of solving the problems to get them back.

Mr. Allen: I would like to underscore what the member for York South has said and perhaps to add a point to it. The minister has been implicated in the council's position to the extent that the president of the Council of Regents could write to all the presidents and say -- this is almost verbatim -- that the minister has stated clearly her complete support for management's position.

She thereby provided the kind of backing to that party's position that made it almost impossible for the union to get any resolution of the dispute from that point on in particular, and presumably earlier, since I expect that position had been communicated in other words earlier in the dispute. For the minister to have had that kind of involvement and been an agent in the prolonging of the dispute, which now will cost them money at her hand, is a rather strange position for the minister and the union members to be in.

She should perhaps pursue this clause in the same spirit of generosity with which she was prepared to amend the earlier clause with regard to the way in which assignments would be handled. Obviously, the assumption is that teachers are going to work co-operatively within the colleges to make up a lot of lost time. They will be going around the clock for some time catching up on the studies students have lost.

For her then to invoke this clause, which provides a kind of penalty on the one hand but no compensation on the other, strikes me as being a peculiar position for her to be in in making that kind of request of the college teachers through this legislation.

I, therefore, move that this clause be stricken from the bill. I want the minister to respond to this motion.

The Deputy Chairman: That is not a legitimate motion. The members should not vote for it.

Mr. Allen: If you will be proceeding not only clause by clause but subsection by subsection --

The Deputy Chairman: I am willing to help you out. We will do subsection 3(1) and then 3(2). Then you can decide what you are going to do.

Mr. Allen: I would like to hear the minister's comment on what I have just said.

The Deputy Chairman: The minister does not want to respond. Are we ready to vote on section 3? Let us take subsection 3(1) and then 3(2). Then you can have your motion in another way, reversed. Does section 3(1) carry? Carried.

All those in favour of subsection 3(2) will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 3 agreed to.

On section 4:

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, I have a question about subsection 4(1) of the bill, which says "The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall, upon the advice of the minister, appoint an arbitrator to examine into and decide upon the matters referred to in section 5."

I am interested to know why the minister, in appointing the arbitrator in this dispute, was not persuaded to proceed along the lines of section 23 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, which provides for a mutual -- what is the phrase I want -- a mechanism for the appointment of an arbitrator or board of arbitration that would have been consistent with section 23 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act. The intention of that act is to allow both parties to agree on either a sole arbitrator or board of arbitration.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: This has come about as a result of negotiation or discussion in normal circumstances and has always prevailed in the past. The pattern which has been established in this kind of circumstance has been that the Lieutenant Governor in Council appoint the arbitrator when such legislation is passed. It is an interesting suggestion, one that will prompt me to consult with the leaders of the union and the leaders of the college system to try to find some mutually agreed upon names.

Mr. Conway: I really hope we could do that a little more forcibly. As members have pointed out -- I think the leader of the New Democratic Party put the case very well in his most recent intervention -- this very difficult, unhappy strike has now lasted 22 days. The 7,600 community college teachers have very properly brought to the attention of the community their concerns about work load and quality of education.

By my reckoning, they together have now lost something like $20 million worth of income as a result of this. The minister shakes her head --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do not know.

Mr. Conway: Oh, all right. I have done some calculating and talked to some of the union leadership and our best guess is that the 7,600 striking teachers have, as of this day, forgone $20 million worth of salaried income. That is a very considerable sacrifice for a cause they believe in very strongly.

As we find in reading Bill 130, certainly the criticism of the teachers' union is justified. When they look at this bill they say, "For what? We have no reason to believe that Bill 130 is a satisfactory resolution of the key question of instructional assignments" -- read "work load " At least there is no resolution that is going to advance their cause in a meaningful way. We will have to deal with that in a moment with my amendments to section 5.

The minister has shown some goodwill this afternoon in trying to improve certain aspects of this bill. Surely in the interests of a return to a better climate in the community college system and between management and the union, we might give a clearer undertaking than the minister just offered on the appointment of an arbitrator. Surely we could invite both parties to agree on the arbitrator. A board of arbitration is not mentioned in this section of the bill.

Could we not advance the minister's initial undertaking to a more formal level and perhaps write something into this bill which indicates this with regard to an arbitrator? Could we not say the appointment of an arbitrator will be consistent with the spirit and intent of section 23 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act? I think the minister is interested in accommodating that spirit at least, and I am wondering if there is not a way we can work towards that, as another step towards better relations between both parties.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We might say "upon the advice of the minister" -- I do not know how we can work "consistent with the spirit of" into it. Is "consistent with the spirit of" an agreeable phrase to be included?

Mr. Conway: The minister might want to consider it for a moment and to consult with legislative counsel. Perhaps the leader of the New Democratic Party wishes to comment. There is no great rush, if consultation would advance this consideration. I would be, of course, quite amenable to that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I think I understand what the member is saying. One suggestion is that it could be after the minister has received the views of the council and the union about the appointment. What the member would really like to say is somewhat more consistent with what appears in the college relations act.

Mr. Conway: As I read section 23 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act -- I could be wrong, and perhaps if I am I will be corrected -- both parties must agree or nearly agree to the appointment of an arbitrator or a board of arbitration. I am very concerned that this very painful strike be resolved now in such a way as to restore a sense of fair play, to whatever extent it can be restored, and a sense of fairness in the mechanism that is going to be relied upon to adjudicate these very troublesome questions. That is the point I am trying to make.

Maybe my learned friend the member for York South can offer an opinion.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We have one difficulty. I have just been reminded very clearly that the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act provides only for voluntary arbitration. But I do think we could suggest that subsection 4(1) could begin, "Consistent with the spirit of section 23 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall, upon the advice of the minister..." That would require the minister to pursue the seeking of advice and the receiving of names in attempting to develop some mutually agreeable name.

Mr. Conway: If that is the minister's intention, we will consider it. I want to reiterate to her that I hope she is very sensitive in the consideration of the appointment of an arbitrator to the very heightened concern in the teaching profession at the community colleges in this province about a sense of fair play in the way these matters are going to be dealt with.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to rise to support this amendment and the reasons for its introduction. We also had a considerable concern, given the issue that we thought was central to this bill and to its interpretation, namely, the problem of the involvement of the minister with one party in this dispute then becoming the individual who gave the advice about the arbitrator who would be the single, lone arbitrator to function in the resolution of the issues that are described in this bill and to settle the remainder of this dispute.

We ourselves have considered that perhaps it might be better to pass this particular role on to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) in order to remove it entirely from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and the present minister. However, if we can be assured that this will be pursued in the spirit of the relevant section of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, we will be happy with that amendment.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know whether the minister considered the wisdom of a three-person board and whether, given the nature of this dispute, that might not make more sense. This partly leads into what we were talking about under section 5, the fact that it does not refer the most important matter to arbitration. I regard that as unconstitutional on the minister's part. I do not think she can do that. I say this in all sincerity, and we will see her in court on that issue.

I would be amazed if this legislation was not challenged in court on the simple grounds that it is unconstitutional. The government cannot take away the right to strike and replace it with a form of compulsory arbitration that is fundamentally flawed. The law is very clear on that point, and I think she is going to have some real difficulties with it.

Did the minister consider a three-person board?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: For this one, no; for the other one, yes.

Mr. Rae: For the independent commission.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes.

2:30 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: There is an amendment now before us that has been put together by the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Miss Stephenson moves that subsection 4(1) of the bill be amended by inserting at the beginning "Consistent with the spirit of section 23 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act" before the words "The Lieutenant Governor" in the first line.

Motion agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Are we ready for section 5? Can we proceed quickly?

On section 5:

Mr Conway: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my good friend the member for Hamilton West, I want to move now to the main amendments the Liberal Party has to Bill 130. I think the minister has copies of these. I think my friend the member for Hamilton West has copies as well.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Conway moves that subsection 5(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(1) Subject to subsection (1a), the arbitrator shall examine into and decide all matters in dispute between the council and the union, including any matter that may be a subject of dispute as to agreement thereon and any other matters that appear to the arbitrator to be necessary to be decided between the parties.

"(1a) During the 30 days next following the coming into force of this act,

"(a) the arbitrator shall not deal with the matter of instructional assignments; and

"(b) the parties shall seek to agree upon that matter,

"but if on the 31st day after the coming into force of this act the parties have not agreed on that matter, the arbitrator shall examine into and decide the matter of instructional assignments."

Mr. Conway: I am not a very experienced legislator, so I have to defer to those with more experience, such as my friend from Kingston.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I wish you would defer to me more often. I would keep you from going astray.

Mr. Conway: I am glad my friend the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) is here, because I must admit that while I have been here nine years and a couple of months I could count the number of bills I have done on one hand, so I really am in the hands of my more experienced colleagues.

Mr. McClellan: What have you been doing for the last few years?

Mr. Conway: It is a very good question my friend the member for Bellwoods puts. What have I been doing? I think the chairman who just left the chair would say, "Giving very poor acting lessons." Maybe that is the answer.

Mr. Breaugh: That is true. There seems to be a consensus on that.

Mr. Conway: Agreed. We are agreeing on a few things here and I appreciate that. It is now 2:33 p.m.

Interjection.

Mr. Conway: I hope I get credit for something this afternoon. We will try and move this along. I want to be direct on this point. This brings my colleagues and me to our principal concern about Bill 130. As I indicated in my summary remarks --

Interjection.

Mr. Conway: I am always impressed by the entreaties of the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché). I know the long and arduous journey he has to make tonight. I hear it is snowing north of Nipissing.

I do not want to trivialize the most important aspect of this important legislation. My colleagues and I are supporting Bill 130 because we believe that in the clash of principles -- on the one hand is the principle that teachers have the right and have properly exercised the right to strike. On the other hand, students also have the right and the community at large has the right to see the community college system restored at a point when the jeopardy is very clear and immediate.

We think that the strike has been about some very good causes from the point of view of the teachers and the Ontario community. There is an honest and healthy difference of opinion among members of this Legislature on this point and that difference of opinion will, I suppose, in the final analysis, only be arbitrated by the good electors of this great province.

In so far as Bill 130 is concerned, the minister's remedy to the key question, which brought the strike on, is yet another of a -- to use the rather felicitous phrase of the member for York South (Mr. Rae) -- plethora of committees to deal with the very critical questions of instructional arrangements, work load, quality of education and all the related issues. We in this party do not think that is the best way to deal with this long-standing, long-simmering difficulty.

I need only remind the minister that we have had, in recent years, a clear indication from the teachers in the community college system that there was growing worry and frustration about what the burgeoning community college system was doing to the quality of education. My colleagues on all sides of the House have, in the course of this debate, brought all kinds of anecdotal evidence to bear on that question, and I do not intend to repeat it.

When one looks at the recent record in this connection, one knows, for example, that in 1980 the Ontario Public Service Employees Union conducted a very extensive work load survey. It sent out something like 5,000 inquiries and had over 1,800 returns, which gave a very good indication of the difficulty related to work load. In June 1981 the Ontario Ministry of Colleges and Universities struck, or was reported to, a task force on college growth. I cannot remember. Was it struck in 1981 or did it report in 1981? The minister may help me with that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It was not a task force.

Mr. Conway: Well, the college growth study report has been much talked of, but it has been very secretively kept. I am quite confident that the executive council and the minister and her mandarins, some of whom are ensconced under the press gallery looking very seriously upon the progress of this debate, are very well apprised of the data on this question of work load.

In 1982 there was a conference of the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario on the critical issues in college education and college management. At that conference, as I recall it, there were a number of leading politicians and bureaucrats from the Ontario government, among others, making presentations about the challenges being faced in the community college system.

Then in 1984 there was the task force report on college productivity. As the member for York South and others have noted, there have been many reports and studies. I do not believe the minister's remedy in Bill 130 to this question of work load is the best of the available answers.

That is why my colleagues and I in the Liberal Party --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Better than an arbitrator.

Mr. Conway: The minister says in an aside, and she is partly right, "Better than an arbitrator." I think she may be more than partly right. In putting this amendment, I do not want to minimize the difficulties an arbitrator would have in adjudicating these very fundamental questions in some cases. That is why our amendment provides a prior step.

2:40 p.m.

I am sure the minister thinks it is not a prior step. I probably speak her mind when I say that. Recognizing the urgency of this question and the hour, we in the Liberal Party say in our amendment that there is a better way than this plethora of committees. We are not too impressed by the minister's remedy because we believe that she, her officials, college management and the teachers are all very well apprised of the issues in great detail. I am not at all persuaded another committee that has eight months to look into this matter --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Six.

Mr. Conway: Six? I thought it was to report by the end of June 1985.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It has seven months, then.

Mr. Conway: I am closer to it at eight, but we will not quibble.

I am not at all persuaded that in six or seven and a half months another group of well-intentioned people is going to be able to bring to the table any new or substantially different information. There will certainly be variations on a well established theme. The minister will say, with some justification, this general review panel of hers will now go out and talk to students in a particular way. I accept that, but with all due respect I do not think another review is going to reinvent the wheel. The panel is going to come back with a body of information very much like that we now have before us.

The question is the will of both sides, and particularly of the government, to find a solution to these very difficult questions. I do not hold an exclusive brief for the teachers in all this. I have some very good friends and even some relatives who teach in this system, and we have some healthy discussions about some of these aspects. That is the way it should be.

I am concerned that at this time we really lack a will on the government side to face up to these very troubling questions the fact-finder identified. I am not going to go into the particulars of his report some months ago, but there is no question in my mind that we have a very clear understanding of the problem. We do not need another study group, with all due respect to my friend the Minister of Colleges and Universities, and I think she really believes that.

What we need now is some will to deal with the problems that are affecting very much the quality of education in the 22 community colleges of Ontario. I accept the minister's injunction that it is not going to be easy for an arbitrator to resolve these questions. I want to be quite honest and candid in saying that. That is why our amendment provides a 30-day period during which both sides can go back to the table and try to find a mutually agreeable path towards resolving some of these questions.

After this very unhappy 22-day strike I think there will be a heightened appreciation on both sides to start dealing more effectively in the public interest with the challenge community college education faces today and for tomorrow. Perhaps 30 days is not enough. I would be quite prepared to say if it needs more time, let us give it more time.

I agree that going to an arbitrator is not going to be a very easy final solution, but I do think there must be some finality to this in the near future. I respectfully submit another committee going over the old data base and refining it with some new information is not going to solve that problem. I really do not believe that and my colleagues do not believe that. We really think this should be and probably can be negotiated in some more effective way than we have seen in the past.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It cannot unless you have a foundation on which to proceed.

Mr. Conway: The minister says that will not happen unless there is a foundation on which to negotiate. I am not sure because I have great faith in the people of Ontario. When I think about the people on both sides of this, I cannot believe they are not now impressed by the situation in which we all find ourselves as a result of what looks to many like an utterly fruitless strike.

When I think of these teachers, there are some in this chamber this afternoon who have sat here and walked outside on the picket lines for almost 22 days now, losing upwards of $20 million in income. To be told that the Legislature of Ontario has ended this strike and sent everybody back to work -- and we now think that time has come and I have given our reasons earlier -- but for what? For another committee to look at the basic problem.

In my view this is just not good enough, and I think both sides in their heart of hearts know this is not good enough. That is why I think -- and I am sure my friend the member for York South would agree -- that both sides could be sent back with more optimistic results possible at the negotiating table.

If that is not possible -- and I believe to a greater degree than the minister there is more hope and optimism there and we should give it a chance -- if that fails, we do accept that, while it is not perfect and while it is not going to be easy, the arbitrator must adjudicate as best he or she can the very basic and critical questions related to quality of education and instructional assignments. Anything less than that, it seems to us, is neither fair nor reasonable.

I put this case in the hope that the minister and her colleagues will reflect upon it very carefully and in the hope and expectation that we can offer the 750,000 students and 7,600 teachers something more than another committee, which, in their view, will not advance the debate very effectively or immediately on the critical questions that, for many of those people, have brought this strike on for very good and understandable and justifiable reasons.

In conclusion, my colleagues and I have offered this series of amendments because we believe that yes, the strike must now be ended in the public interest. But we believe the teachers of the system have very properly brought to the public's attention long-standing and legitimate concerns about basic questions of quality of education. Those people, good citizens of Ontario, deserve a better solution than that which the minister offers in Bill 130. That is why we offer our amendments as a better way to resolve a very serious difficulty.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise to support the direction in which this amendment moves. I find section 5 is rather curious in that it presumes that somehow on the one hand the minister can move to relegate a certain portion of this dispute to arbitration and a second portion of it to some other kind of process of which she herself has the controlling levers wholly in her command.

There is another curiosity to it in that it seems to suggest that, having done this and having moved the central feature, the central issue at hand -- namely, the work load, or instructional assignments -- into her hands through a very dubious process of a kind of reiteration of this

committee of instructional assignments that currently exists in the colleges and what I would conceive to be a rather redundant study group that would go over material already well known, she also then assumes that somehow or other the parties, and in particular the union, will be prepared to continue a kind of negotiation that may take place in the background.

2:50 p.m.

That element of the section is simply the height of illusion. With the experience they have had in the negotiations with the council and having had the council taken off the hook by the minister, it is just incredible to think that, somehow or other, some form of negotiation will then proceed.

The options are quite clear: either to return to some form of negotiation or turn totally to a full form of arbitration.

The Liberal amendment has at least one virtue. It proposes that while the teachers return to work and the students return to classes, the union and the council take up once more the process of negotiation. It proposes they proceed in a different fashion in ending the strike, now that the moment of truth is upon them -- if one can use that word in any respectful way regarding some features of this bill. It suggests the next month may well be fruitful.

One cannot really hope for that but I am prepared for the moment to give them the benefit of the doubt in that circumstance, despite what has passed. At the same time it does seem to me that, either immediately with the passing of this act or as the amendment proposes, all matters shall then turn to full arbitration. That really is for us the nub of the issue and we may want to return to that question with another amendment.

What I want to say at this point is that we are impressed with the position that was put so clearly by our leader yesterday. We cannot at one and the same time legislate a group of workers back to work and then go after the problem in such a way as to excise the main issue at hand. We cannot give that problematic dispute to the minister to resolve in whatever way she will and at the same time put the relatively unproblematic issues into binding arbitration.

We have to treat the dispute as a whole phenomenon. After all, it has to do with a single contract. It has to do with a contract that is negotiated totally between two parties and to which finally both parties must assent. It is not divisible in that sense.

It seems to me the minister should make some comment with respect to the route she has followed -- to attempt to justify it to us. My suspicion is she will give to binding arbitration the matters that have a direct monetary implication -- direct salaries, benefits and so on. She knows she has other handles which she brings into this bill, and which exist outside it, to cope with the possibility that there may be some more money entailed.

The arbitrator will have to function under Bill 111 with respect to the provision of ability to pay. We in this party have objected to this in the past as being in itself an undermining of the process of arbitration.

The problem with the work load issue is that if the government is going to solve it, in all probability there is only one necessity: somehow to get more instructors in the system. That gets around the additional cost of escalating wages and so on, but it does bring an additional cost to the system and there is no question about that.

If the minister were to place an arbitrator into the resolution of that aspect of the dispute, she would be letting out of her hands and out of the government's hands the kind of protection it has bought for itself in Bill 179 and Bill 111 with respect to salary increases per se.

I would like to hear the minister's response to that, because I submit that is the only reason the minister has chosen to split the dispute. She does not want to lose control, she does not want her government or the cabinet to lose control, after all the work they went to with Bill 179 and Bill 111 on the issue of costs, which is most central to this dispute.

In short, we are supporting this amendment. If it does not pass, we will be submitting an amendment of our own which may get even closer to the nub of the question.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I regret that, to my knowledge, it is less than appropriate to agree to the amendment placed by the member for Renfrew North. The very real difficulties that abound at present related to the whole area of instructional assignment or work load, or whatever euphemism one wants to use for it, are those based on a lack of solid information, a lack of agreed-upon foundation.

That is the rationale for proposing the critical examination by what is really, I suppose, a group of apparent experts with an independent exterior chairman who will make recommendations upon which the foundation for negotiations may take place. There has to be a semblance of understanding of the issues involved on both sides. I think there is an acceptance of the fact that there is a degree of problem in some areas and not quite so great a degree of problem in other areas. Even that is a matter of some concern.

I question the validity of suggesting the parties go back to the table, particularly if we are going to say that, if they do not agree in 30 days, it is going to go to arbitration. I have seen that happen before. There is no way one can persuade people to bargain when they know at the end of 30 days they are going to arbitration. That means it will go to arbitration and the arbitrator will simply have to make decisions on the basis of information that is incomplete and not necessarily valid at this point.

I feel very strongly we want to have the foundation upon which this can be negotiated appropriately. I anticipate and expect that when this committee makes its recommendations, not just the findings, it will develop as a result of the input of the union, the input of the college management and the input of an exterior independent chairman, we will have the foundation upon which appropriate negotiations can take place and we will have a total resolution of this problem.

It will not happen within 30 days, however, and it will not happen within 60 days, so I believe it is inappropriate to support the amendment.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to prolong this unduly, but I have listened to what the minister has said. I want to reiterate for a last time our view that there is probably a different environment today as a result of what has transpired over these past three weeks and one day. I might be wrong in that, but I do not think I am. I have been very critical of some of the people on both sides of this, but I have to believe we are dealing with reasonable men and women who want to see a better tomorrow for our community colleges.

There can be no one who is happy with the impasse at which we have now arrived. I cannot believe this is true anywhere. There has been too much pain and sorrow over this business simply to leave it to another committee.

3 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not just another committee.

Mr. Conway: I say to the minister with all respect that it certainly looks like just another committee. It is true to say it is a different committee that is going to look at some different things. It is going to involve the students and parents in a way in which they perhaps were not involved before. In my view, those are not qualitative differences. They are important differences; I do not mean to diminish the role of the students and the parents in all this, but I think the minister, the Council of Regents. the teachers' union and the teachers in the system know very much what most of the parents and students are concerned about.

It is not correct to say that if we send people back to the negotiating table with an outside limit, it is not going to do anything because they are simply going to say: "Well, there you have it, 30 days. If we do not reach a settlement, something else is going to trigger."

I think both sides can now go back and look at what has gone on, both in this place and in the community beyond, and what some of the options are. I am enough of an optimist to think that would create a heightened determination on both sides to make one last-ditch effort in the public interest to agree or to find a mutually acceptable mechanism to agree.

The minister has been Minister of Labour and I have not, and she has more experience. My friend the member for York South is a distinguished labour counsel and I am not nearly in that category. I am someone who believes in the good faith of my fellow Ontarians and believes the men and women on both sides have recognized the anguish, pain and sorrow caused by this unhappy and, in my view, unnecessary dispute. Given one last chance, I cannot believe they will not make a more heroic effort to find a settlement than has been seen in the recent past.

If I am wrong, and I might be wrong though I hope and pray I am not, then I respectfully submit one last time that a committee is not going to be the answer to that difficulty. I would be the first to agree arbitration is no panacea either, but in the interest of fairness and reasonableness, we should urge a return to negotiations, which I hope will bear fruit. Failing that, let us arbitrate all the issues at dispute. That is a better way, not a perfect way, but a better way, than that proposed by the minister in the later sections of Bill 130.

I really encourage the minister and her colleagues to reflect very seriously upon the choices, because we want to ensure this strike has been for something. I have to believe the 7,600 teachers who have walked those picket lines expect this Legislature to offer more in the interests of fairness and resolution than an arbitration of all that was noncontentious and a committee review of the basic question that has been festering for months and years. I think there has to be a better way. We believe the better way is the Liberal amendment package that we submit under section 5 of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Conway's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Allen moves that subsection 5(1) of the bill be amended by deleting the words "other than instructional assignment" from the second and the fourth lines of the subsection.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Chairman, I would like to state why we are making this amendment and then I will give my leader the opportunity to make further comments on it. He is more of an expert on labour law and related matters than I am.

As the mover of this motion, I suggest it is this phrase, which appears in two places in section 5 and in the preamble, that lies at the heart of our objection to this bill and to the procedure it proposes as a means of resolving this dispute. It is intolerable for us that the dispute be divided into two halves, one half that may be handled conveniently as the minister decides by arbitration, but another half that somehow resides in her hands and that, through the vehicle of the majority vested in the other side of this House, she is able to wrest from the dispute and handle in a quite different fashion.

There is a fundamental legal question and perhaps even a constitutional question pertaining to rights and freedoms of a very fundamental kind that are brought into question by this particular procedure. I will not detail them further, but in moving this amendment, I want to draw attention to them as the nub of our concern not just with this section of the bill, but with the whole procedure that the bill lays out in its entirety.

I want to sit down with those remarks and leave it to others to carry the debate further.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, with the minister listening carefully, I want to go over not only the reason I think this is unfair but also why this part of the bill is unconstitutional. It is not a very complicated argument, but I believe it is an important argument and I think it is one that needs to be understood.

We have a Charter of Rights that sets out something called the freedom of association as one of the fundamental rights that apply to every individual in Canada. The courts have now determined --

Mr. Haggerty: Let the courts decide.

Mr. Rae: Yes. The member says, "Let the courts decide." That is fine, but it is worth while to raise these issues in this Legislature. I do not think we should support legislation we think is unconstitutional. Surely we have an obligation to look at that fundamental question where it affects the liberty of the subject. I would have thought the Liberal Party would be interested in the liberty of the subject, but apparently it is not.

To focus on the question, the Divisional Court has found that the meaning of the phrase "freedom of association" implies the following: a freedom to organize, a right to be certified or declared a union or declared a bargaining agent when there is a majority of support and, as the justices of the Supreme Court of Ontario have said, the right to strike as a logical extension of the freedom of association.

3:10 p.m.

The courts have also said -- and they have adopted the language and arguments of the International Labour Organization and international labour law -- that if one is going to take away any one of these rights, in particular the right to strike, and impose compulsory arbitration, that is not, in and of itself, an unfair or unconstitutional thing to do. If it is an essential service where life and health are threatened, for example, there may need to be a way of ensuring compulsory arbitration as a part of the system.

The one point they have made, and they have made it persistently, is that compulsory arbitration must be equally binding on both parties and must be a process that is genuinely independent of both parties. The simple point I want to make to the minister is that -- and I go beyond some of the things my friend the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) has said -- it is not simply the unwisdom and unfairness of taking instructional assignments and sticking them into another process, it is the fact that, in solving the instructional assignments problem, the work load problem, the quality of education problem, the minister has basically done what the employer tried to do in bargaining and was not able to get resolved.

The minister is shaking her head. She will not stand for it. For God's sake, she should look at what the employer put forward and compare it. She will find that the fundamental concepts there are exactly the same concepts and exactly the same notions.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They are not.

Mr. Rae: I am sorry, but they are. If the minister wants to compare them, she can look at pages 14 through 17 of the offer. That is not good enough.

When a Divisional Court is seized of this matter, as I am sure it will be, and has to consider the good faith of the government and the whole question of the approach to compulsory arbitration by this government, it is going to say the government has acted in a way that is fundamentally unfair, unconstitutional and illegal because it offends the Charter of Rights.

The minister has taken away people's rights and has not substituted for that a process that is genuinely independent of the government. The minister has substituted for it a process that is biased, one-sided and essentially directed by the employer on the issue that really matters.

I want to document what I have just said. In some instances, it is even worse than what was originally proposed. The minister proposed yesterday, for example, a process whereby, "An employee who believes that the instructional assignment is inequitable may request the college instructional assignment committee to review the completed instructional assignment form." Such human terms. "Such a request must be made by the employee within 10" -- then in the margin is written "15" -- "days of completing the IAF and should be reviewed by the CIAC within 10 days of receiving the request."

Here it simply says, "A committee shall review instructional assignments as soon as practicable," which means the minister has given less in the amendments we are going to be discussing in sections 9a, 9b, 9c, 9d and 9e than the employer was prepared to offer last Sunday.

That is my point. The minister is offering less than the employer was prepared to offer last Sunday. It is one of the main points I made yesterday and it is a point that has to be made. The government cannot wear these different hats and take away people's rights. In 1984 in Ontario, it has to be done according to the Charter of Rights. The minister has not done it according to the Charter of Rights. She has taken away the right to strike and imposed, in its place, a process that is not impartial, a process that is biased and directly oriented to the approach the employer wanted her to take.

It is not I whom she is going to have to convince; I am sure it is a court she is going to have to convince. If she looks at the track record of her colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) in court, she had better start worrying.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, again the leader of the third party has missed the important point, which is section 9a of our amendments. The section related to the establishment of the college instructional assignments committee is an expansion or modification of a position that was put because it has worked well in several colleges. It was suggested by the employer and was put in the offer that was made on November 4.

However, the important part of the solution is not those individual college committees. The important part is the establishment of the review committee of instructional assignments that will include a representative of management and a representative of the unions, mutually chosen.

I intend to ask management to offer me a list of five or six nominees and provide that to the union so it can determine which of those people it thinks are appropriate. I intend to ask for the same sort of thing from the union to be presented to management so it can select an individual.

Then there will be an external, objective chairman who will not be related to either the union or management.

Mr. Wildman: Or to you.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Or to me. It is my sincere hope it will be a judge.

That is the operative committee. One hopes the establishment of the individual college committees will meet a requirement which has been frequently articulated by members of the faculties of various colleges. They wished to have a mechanism whereby they could address their concerns, without too much concern about adversarial positions and with as little formality as possible, to a group of people within the college who would be helpful in sorting out the matter in a relatively informal way.

If that worked, the solution reached would be binding on both parties. However, if a solution was not found, the problem could proceed through the normal grievance arbitration system. We are trying to find a mechanism that would solve those problems before the other prolonged area had to be invaded.

That is simply a help or sustenance during the period when the really important committee is establishing the foundation and the recommendations on which the collective bargaining process will be able to address the problem of work load or instructional assignment appropriately. That is nowhere in anybody's offer that I am aware of. It is in this legislation because --

Mr. Martel: That idea came from the council.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, it did not.

Mr. Martel: Yes, it did.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I will tell the member where the idea came from; it came from me. The idea may have been suggested verbally by the mediator at some point. I do not know about that. However, it was not in anybody's offer. It was my idea. I believe it is the appropriate way to try to solve this problem.

Having been apprised of the difficulties of attempting to determine the right foundation for these negotiations within a short period of time, I am convinced of the wisdom of Mr. Justice Estey's remarks. We really have to know more than we know right now and we have to have an opportunity to have the appropriate input from all those who are concerned. We need to have the sound recommendations that will provide the foundation for appropriate collective bargaining. That is what is being suggested in our amendment.

Mr. Rae: I do not want to prolong this discussion, but I want to tell the minister, with all due respect, that the Instructional Assignment Review Committee she is talking about -- is that the one she is referring to? --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes.

Mr. Rae: -- the committee she is referring to as an original idea that came from her head is a committee whose recommendations are not binding on anybody.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They are binding on me.

Mr. Rae: Like hell they are. Where does it say that in the minister's amendment? They are not binding on her; they are not binding on anybody. Do not give me that guff. They do not have the force of law. The minister's idea is to set up a task force that is going to study a problem. That is a great idea for a government. I honestly do not think the minister has grasped the problem.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I hope she has. If the government is going to take away people's rights and set up compulsory arbitration, it had better make sure it is fair. The minister is taking the fundamental question of work load out of the issue. Divvying up that question of work load into two committees, the primary committee being a local one that will deal with individual cases, which is exactly what the employer wanted, is not fair game; it is not fair ball. It is not going to be seen as fair, because it is not fair. I will leave it at that.

I think the minister has a problem under the charter. I do not even think she has thought about it. I do not even think the Attorney General would know a charter problem if he tripped over it in the dark. I think the minister is going to face some difficulties because of it, and I wish her well.

Mr. Chairman: Are we ready for the question? It is an amendment to subsection 5(1) by Mr. Allen. All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Conway moves that subsection 5(5) of the bill be struck out.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, I am told by learned legislative counsel that this has to be done just to make it consistent with the earlier amendments to this section. I only speak to this to tidy up the loose end that legislative counsel indicates is there if the two earlier amendments to section 5 of the bill are favourably responded to. It is a technical, housekeeping amendment. I am told.

Mr. Laughren: Are we on subsection 5(5)?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, subsection 5(5).

Mr. Laughren: Every time I see the expression "the ability of the employers to pay," it rings an alarm bell in my head.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I misspoke myself. I am not paying enough attention to this. I am sorry; I was wrong.

Mr. Grande: Pay some attention.

Mr. Conway: Yes, I will. The member for Oakwood is quite right. I am sorry; I was looking at other notes here and not the ones I should have been.

The import of subsection 5(5) is simply to strike that subsection of the bill, which says, "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."

We would strike that on the basis that the arbitration should be fair and unfettered. We think that if there is going to be arbitration, it must be fair and unfettered. We do not think it is prudent or reasonable to constrain the arbitration in the way subsection 5(5) intends to do, and I therefore move that this section be struck.

I apologize to my colleagues for having misled them a moment ago.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to tell you how to do your job, but I wonder if it is really appropriate to allow the member for Renfrew North to move this amendment in view of the fact that his party voted for Bill 179, which put this all in place and set the scene to allow the minister to put this section into this particular bill.

This is dealing with the decision of the arbitrator: "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."

Just as the minister knew that with the support of the official opposition she could bring in the bill legislating people back to work, she should have been able to count on the support of the official opposition on this particular section of the bill. I do not know how you can vote for Bill 179, which lays out the fiscal policy of the government, and now turn around and vote against this particular section, which has direct reference to and dependence on Bill 179.

Mr. Nixon: We moved to have that removed from Bill 179.

Mr. Kerrio: There are a lot of things you do not know.

Mr. Mackenzie: It bothers you, doesn't it?

Mr. Chairman: Order. Let us not have the debate on Bill 179 all over again. The member for Nickel Belt has the floor.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I think you should rule that members should not heckle other members who so seldom heckle.

Mr. Chairman: It will not work.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, would you control that nattering nincompoop?

Mr. Chairman: That is unparliamentary.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I think the member has to withdraw that comment.

Mr. Chairman: Before we proceed and lest we get out of hand, would the member for Algoma just remove that remark from the record.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, I would withdraw the term "nattering nincompoop" and replace it with "nattering ninny."

Mr. Kerrio: The member does not have to withdraw it. I accept where it comes from. I would not say such a thing about him, however.

Mr. Cooke: The member for Niagara Falls has said worse things about everyone.

Mr. Kerrio: No, I have not.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Laughren: We had an unprovocative, reasonable debate this afternoon until the Liberals started barking and braying when I was making my most restrained remarks concerning subsection 5(5).

When I look at this section, I picture myself as an arbitrator. If I were an arbitrator, not that this government would ever appoint me as an arbitrator --

Mr. Conway: The Prime Minister appointed Stephen Lewis to New York, so all things are possible.

Mr. Laughren: The honourable member is right. There is hope for me yet.

Mr. Martel: The member should look to his right. There is an empty seat there. I will not say who used to occupy it.

Mr. Chairman: Order. I would draw to the attention of all the colleagues of the member for Nickel Belt that he was courteous and attentive through some of the earlier debate. I think we owe him that much.

Mr. Laughren: If I were the arbitrator who had been appointed, I would look at that section and say: "Now, wait a minute. I have certain views on what is fair in my role as an arbitrator, given the nature of this dispute." I would try to ignore this section because it would put handcuffs or a straitjacket on me as an arbitrator. I do not know why the minister feels it is necessary to have this section in the bill.

I know when she drafted the bill she was really saying to the arbitrator, "We have attached a salary schedule to this bill." That is what she was saying. That salary schedule awards increases of two per cent throughout the salary ranges. I believe that is the rough figure. It also says in the bill the arbitrator shall not be restricted to that schedule.

The arbitrator looks at the bill and looks at the schedule and says, "That two per cent is not appropriate," and decides that for whatever reasons that schedule needs to be changed. What then happens if the arbitrator makes awards that exceed the existing provincial fiscal policy or, to use the other words, the ability of the Ontario government and the people of Ontario to pay?

I do not know how the minister sees any logic or sense in this section. I can only conclude she put it in because she was mistaken in her view that the official opposition would be consistent and support her on this one, as it supported her on Bill 179.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to enter the debate, but I do want to be helpful to my friend the member for Nickel Belt, because I know he would want to make sure the facts of the matter are correct and properly laid out.

First of all, I know my friend thinks back two years to Bill 179, but perhaps he should rest his mind on Bill 111, which is the piece of legislation that had the ability-to-pay clauses, not Bill 179. I want to remind my friend it was Bill 111.

This party would want to be and will continue to be absolutely consistent. If my friends from Nickel Belt and elsewhere would like to wander behind the Speaker's desk and check the record, they will find that when this matter was put to the House in Bill 111 this party voted to remove it.

We have moved such an amendment this afternoon and we will continue to vote as consistently as we did on Bill 111. That was to remove from the amendments the matter of fiscal responsibility, or the employer's ability to pay. I hope I have made that clear. I am sure if my friend from Nickel Belt rereads the comments, perhaps over the weekend, even he will understand that this party is going to vote as it did about a year ago. I am sure he probably will.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, the member for Windsor-Sandwich is quite right about the ability to pay being in Bill 111. Where he is wrong is on the consistency of his caucus. Where the consistency broke down was thinking they could support Bill 179 and then taking the ability to pay out of Bill 111. So there is inconsistency, as usual, in the Liberal caucus.

Mr. Martel: What I tried to elicit from the minister yesterday -- she took so little time to respond today -- it is my understanding that some of the salaries were frozen as a result of Bill 179. It is my understanding --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We did all this earlier today. We went through the whole thing.

Mr. Martel: Was the minister able to convince people that those people were going to be able to get the catch-up that would put them in the appropriate grade level and there would still be enough money within the provincial guidelines?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It consists of both increment and returning to grid, plus about a two per cent increase across the board in the interim allotment which is being provided for salary.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, my inclination is to strongly support any move to delete subsection 5(5), even if it comes from the Liberal Party. However, before making a final decision, can the minister explain to us what the existing fiscal policy of the government is?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Does the member have the next five days to listen? I would probably require that length of time.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, I do; I do indeed. I am not sure the member for Port Arthur does.

I am sure that is again one of the honourable member's rhetorical questions that really precludes any possibility of a rational answer. I think he has had an opportunity to debate much of that in a significant number of pieces of legislation over the past couple of years. Indeed, he has had the opportunity to debate that in the amendment to the estimates of the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) which have just been completed.

May I also say, since I am on my feet -- and I think that is probably the end of this amendment -- does anyone else want to discuss it?

Mr. Foulds: Yes. One of the points I would like the minister to elaborate on relates to the famous memo from the Premier (Mr. Davis) to the cabinet as a result of his trip to Standard and Poor's. The statement was made that the limit would be three per cent in transfer payments to municipalities, to institutions and so on. Would the minister elaborate on whether or not these are part of the existing guidelines the arbitrator must pay attention to if this subsection passes?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The subsection states very clearly that this concerns government policy -- provincial fiscal policy. Memoranda or notes from people to other people are not necessarily classified as such. The policy in place at the present time was enunciated in Bill 111. That legislation suggested very strongly that the limit or compensation package be in the range of five per cent in those areas in which the bulk of the income for employed individuals comes from taxation.

Obviously, this is consistent with government policy and thus, to demonstrate government's consistency, it would be inconsistent if it were not in this act at the present time.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I do not know whether I speak for anyone other than myself, but the lights in here make me think we are about to have an extraterrestrial visitation. I do not know if ET is on his way, but if we do not really need these high-beamed wonders, I would be in agreement if we could tone them down.

Mr. Chairman: Fine. I appreciate the member pointing it out. One of the networks wanted to do a short film.

Mr. Laughren: I cannot hear you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: I was just thanking the member for pointing that out. We will turn the lights off again. We were responding to a request by the French network.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to accept the minister's answer, not because I do not believe the minister believes what she just said, but during the debates on Bill 179 and Bill 111 recall very clearly that ministry officials and the Treasurer indicated to us that a statement by the Treasurer would be considered to be government fiscal policy and need not be stated in legislation or regulations.

There have been a lot of arguments about what the Premier actually said to the cabinet. It would seem to me a statement by the Premier to his ministers about keeping a lid on expenditures, and particularly a statement by the Premier to his cabinet ministers with regard to transfer payments and increases in budgets, would be de facto government fiscal policy.

As neither the Legislature nor the public of Ontario has ever had an opportunity to see that document or hear that conversation, it is difficult as legislators to know what it is we are voting for or against here.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I stated the policy as I understand it, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe it has changed.

Mr. Foulds: I simply want to emphasize the points made very ably by my colleague the member for Nickel Belt. This subsection is the antithesis of arbitration. Including this subsection in any kind of arbitration process defeats the purpose of arbitration, let alone the purpose of collective bargaining.

If the arbitrator is to view the dispute with any kind of evenhandedness, any kind of unfettered eyes, one cannot have imposed upon one this artificial and draconian measure. In the strongest possible terms, I oppose subsection 5(5), because it is more and more clear that the fiscal policy of this government is not made in the province of Ontario. It is not made in the Legislature of Ontario. It is not even made in the corner office of the Premier of Ontario or the Treasurer of Ontario.

The fiscal policy of this government is made on Wall Street by Standard and Poor's and Moody's, because this government has an absolute obsession with its triple-A credit rating. Because of that, this year, next year and the coming year, it is going to slash the amounts of moneys available for health, community and social services, and education.

I suggest this clause is not even worthy of consideration, let alone of respect. For that reason I will support any motion to delete, even when it comes from David Peterson's community Liberal Party of Ontario.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Sections 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 9:

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following sections:

"9a(1) There shall be a committee to be known as the Instructional Assignment Review Committee to be composed of three persons who shall be appointed by the minister.

"(2) The minister shall designate one of the members of the committee to be chairman.

"(3) The chairman and the other members of the committee shall be paid such remuneration and expenses as are determined by the minister.

"(4) The committee shall conduct a comprehensive review of all aspects of instructional assignments in the colleges of applied arts and technology.

"(5) As part of its review, the committee shall consult with persons representing the views of the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology, the boards of governors of the colleges of applied arts and technology, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, students attending the colleges of applied arts and technology, parents of such students and other persons whom the committee is satisfied have an interest in instructional assignments in the colleges of applied arts and technology.

"(6) The committee shall submit its report and recommendations to the minister not later than the 30th day of June 1985 and is thereupon dissolved.

"9b(1) There shall be a committee to be known as the college instructional assignment committee established for each college of applied arts and technology.

"(2) Each committee shall be composed of four members of whom,

"(a) one shall be the senior academic officer of the college or his appointee;

"(b) one shall be the president of the branch of the union in relation to the employees or his appointee;

"(c) one shall be appointed by the board of governors of the college; and

"(d) one shall be appointed by the executive committee of the branch of the union in relation to the college.

"(3) Each committee shall elect one of its members to be chairman of the committee.

"(4) The chairman of a committee may call a meeting of the committee on his own initiative and shall call a meeting of the committee at the request of any other member of the committee.

"(5) The committee shall be established on or before the first day of July in each year and shall continue until the 30th day of June in the following year.

"9c(1) An employee in a college may request the committee established for the college to review an instructional assignment.

"(2) A request under subsection 1 must be made to the chairman of the committee not later than 10 days after the employee delivers the report of the instructional assignment to the employee's supervisor.

"(3) A committee shall review instructional assignments as soon as practicable.

"(4) A committee is not required to hold a hearing or to afford to any person an opportunity to make oral submissions before making a decision under this section.

"(5) A decision of a majority of the members of a committee is the decision of the committee.

"(6) A committee in accordance with its review may confirm, amend or revoke an instructional assignment.

"(7) A committee shall give its decision, together with written reasons, to the employee and to the supervisor.

"(8) A decision of a committee is final and binding upon the employee and the supervisor.

"(9) When a committee, after a review, is unable to reach a decision, the employee is entitled to file a grievance in respect of the instructional assignment in the manner provided for in the agreement.

"(10) In carrying out its review, a committee shall have regard for:

"1. The number of teaching hours.

"2. The number of contact days.

"3. Course preparation.

"4. Measurement and evaluation.

"5. Availability of technical and other resource assistance.

"6. The number of students.

"7. Instructional mode or modes.

"8. Previous assignments.

"9. Necessary travel time between assignments.

"10. Curriculum development.

"11. Academic counselling.

"12. Other assignments.

"13. Any other factors the committee considers relevant.

"9d(1) Each employee who receives a new instructional assignment shall set out the details of the instructional assignment in an instructional assignment report in the form that shall be provided by the college.

"(2) The report shall include information as to:

"1. The number of teaching hours.

"2. The number of contact days.

"3. Course preparation.

"4. Measurement and evaluation.

"5. Availability of technical and other resource assistance.

"6. The number of students.

"(2) The report shall include information as to:

"1. The number of teaching days.

"2. The number of contact days.

"3. Course preparation.

"4. Measurement and evaluation.

"5. Availability of technical and other resource assistance.

"6. The number of students.

"7. Instructional mode or modes.

"8. Previous assignments.

"9. Necessary travel time between assignments.

"10. Curriculum development.

"11. Academic counselling.

"12. Other assignments.

"(3) The employee shall deliver the report to his supervisor as soon as practicable.

"(4) The supervisor shall review the report and transmit it, together with his written comments, to the chairman of the committee within 10 days after receiving it from the employee.

"9e(1) The provisions numbered 4.02a, b and c (college instructional assignment committees) in the agreement between the parties shall be deemed to be removed from the agreement and void, and sections 9b, 9c and 9d shall be deemed to form part of the agreement, effective the day sections 9b, 9c and 9d come into force.

"(2) Where a college instructional assignment committee has commenced a review on the day subsection 1 comes into force and has not completed its review or where an employee has filed a grievance or referred a grievance to arbitration under the provisions of the agreement mentioned in subsection 1 and the matter has not been concluded, subsection 1 and sections 9b, 9c

and 9d shall be deemed not to be in force in respect of the subject matter of the review, grievance or arbitration.

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Bette Stephenson has moved sections 9a, 9b, 9c, 9d and 9e. Shall we dispense? Agreed.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, not even in my most friendly moments would I refer in this House to the Minister of Education, the member for York Mills, as Bette Stephenson.

Interjection.

Mr. Conway: It is interesting that the member for York East (Mr. Elgie) should interject at this point. I know this could be provocative, but I do not mean it to be. One of the concerns I have about this at the secondary level is 9a(c) where it is suggested, "The committee shall...report...to the minister not later than June 30, 1985."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You mean subsection 9a(6).

Mr. Conway: The minister is not saying 1986.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is section 9a(6); you said 9a(c).

Mr. Conway: That is a technicality.

The Deputy Chairman: You are being provocative.

Mr. Conway: I was going to say that I am concerned it will not be the responsibility of this minister to accept the report and then to take it the next step. I have a feeling that, if an election does not intervene, the member for York East will be in that responsibility, but I could be wrong.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Do not hold your breath.

Mr. Conway: I have said elsewhere that as long as she is here, I think the member for York Mills is the best candidate for the next Chairman of Management Board anywhere in this House or in this province.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member will speak to the bill.

Mr. Conway: I always defer to men of the cloth, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say quickly that I indicated earlier our concern about this Instructional Assignment Review Committee. By my reckoning, we have had five different committees over the past four or five years to look at these subjects. I do not believe, nor do my colleagues, that what this matter requires is yet another committee.

The minister and Mackenzie King might be the only two who believe another committee is what is necessary. We do not think another committee will substantially advance the cause. We think our amendments, as put under section 5 of the bill, are a better way. We do not feel this is appropriate or the best available remedy. Therefore, we do not find it worthy of our support.

Mr. Allen: The two major elements in this omnibus series of amendments proposed by the minister constitute, on the one hand, a system-wide committee that presumably may do all the things the minister may say, but also may not. There is nothing in it requiring that any action follow from it. Therefore, it exempts it from and frees, if you like, the members of the union and the teaching staff from any certainty their problem will be resolved.

3:50 p.m.

This may follow the way of the college growth study and any number of other studies we know that various cabinets and departments have put away on the shelf. Therefore, it falls under the objections we have that the minister has not referred all matters in the dispute to arbitration.

We have already tabled our concerns about a second aspect. On the one hand, it is because the articles duplicate almost the very words of an offer put by the management within the past week to the union bargaining committee. On the other hand, they are very much a duplication, with some amendment, of the process that already exists -- perhaps in some colleges, certainly across the system. They duplicate what one finds on pages 8 and 9 in the collective agreement, namely articles 402 and the various subsections.

Those articles have not provided relief. They are precisely what the union objected to when the council proposed that subjects of this kind pertaining to work load should be handled on a case-by-case basis. They argued that it was a system-wide problem and that of course is the issue that needs to be resolved.

Certainly the committees in place treat it on a case-by-case basis. That is not good enough. If the system-wide committee that is supposed to look at all this simply sits on the table -- and there is nothing to tell us it will not do that -- then there will be no relief for the faculty members. The central issue they have gone to strike over will end up not being addressed. There is no certainty that course will not be the one that is followed.

Our objections are fundamental and central. I repeat that they relate to the central concern we had about this bill. The principle that lies behind the bill is that a minister and a ministry, having supported one side in a public sector dispute, may then by virtue of the power of legislation put in force those aspects of the entire part of the employers' offer with no redress for the injured party.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, I assumed you were just dealing with section 9a first?

The Deputy Chairman: We are doing all of section 9.

Mr. Conway: I want to deal quickly with sections 9c and 9d. My colleagues and I are concerned that certain aspects of the CIACs derogate from the current collective agreement and make teachers worse off under this arrangement than they might be under the collective agreement.

For example, in the collective agreement there is the requirement that the CIACs reach a decision within three weeks. That does not appear to be sustained in subsection 9e(l). For that time frame, it is retreated from. In subsection 9c(3), there is a provision now --

Mr. Rae: You are doing a great job.

Mr. Conway: I am looking at subsection 9e(1). As we relate that section to the collective agreement, we note it refers to having to reach a decision within a three-week period. We believe that should be provided for in the collective agreement, 4.02b, but that protection is nowhere to be found.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That can certainly be added.

Mr. Conway: That was a concern there. On subsection 9c(3), this has to do with the assigning of instructional hours. The collective agreement, paragraph 4.02a, stipulates September as the time the employee is assigned instructional assignments. That appears to be changed now in the minister's subsection 9c(3).

I do want to be very careful because I have my illustrious and learned colleague the member for York South here present. But we note in two or three of these cases that the minister's amendments derogate from certain provisions in the collective agreement. My colleague the member for Hamilton West has noted some of these as well. I did not quite get that he had covered all of these. We are concerned about that, as are our friends in the New Democratic Party.

Mr. McClellan: It will be thrown out in court.

Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Bellwoods, who is as learned in the law as I am, says it will be thrown out in court. Perhaps that is the case.

I would really advise the minister to look seriously at making sure. I do not know what the provisions are now. Maybe this is the time; we probably should do it right --

Mr. McClellan: We always write collective agreements in here, do we not?

Mr. Conway: It is difficult to write these agreements in here. My legal counsel is some distance away from me.

At any rate, we want the protections of the collective agreement at least as a minimum in the minister's new sections. We are also concerned, on that matter of subsection 9c(3), that it appears now under her amendments that the teachers can be given their instructional assignments at any time during the year, not just in September.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That may happen.

Mr. Conway: That, it seems to us, may open the door to worsened labour relations in the colleges. Perhaps the minister might care to respond to that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: My concern would be that there may be a modification or an addition of instructional assignment to an individual teacher at some time during the year in some continuous intake programs, for example, or in some of the relatively short-term programs. There are a number of short-term teaching situations in the colleges as well, and those may occur not just at the first of September.

The intention is that as soon as an instructional assignment is given to a teacher, the teacher is requested to complete the instructional assignment form in order to ensure that he or she accepts this as a reasonable request on the part of the supervisor.

Mr. Conway: The difficulty appears to us to be that now, since the September stipulation is removed, a new assignment may be provided very late in the academic year when, practically speaking, no redress is available to the teacher.

That is the concern we have. Is there some way we could tighten this up to give teachers the protection of at least the collective agreement as it now is written in that connection? Again, I do not want to labour the point, but the college instructional assignment committees are recipes for hung juries on a lot of this. I do not have great faith that they are going to be able to deal very effectively with the problems that will be brought to them.

The minister differs; we have an honest difference of opinion. But at the very least let us be sure that her amendments provide for the minimum protection that is currently in the collective agreement.

The Deputy Chairman: Does the minister wish to make an amendment at this point, or is she drafting it?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In order to achieve what is in the collective agreement we do not have to make an amendment, because the collective agreement, in conjunction with this, will in fact -- unless we have removed that section entirely from the collective agreement. I do not think we have.

Mr. Rae: This is appalling. You are writing a bloody collective agreement on the floor of the House.

4 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I am not. I am ensuring that there is protection. I am assured by legal counsel that the September date in the collective agreement does not refer to the CIAC. The CIAC may meet at any time if the assignment changes or, if a new assignment is given, it is modified in any way, so it does not conflict with that.

Mr. Conway: Is it possible that we could add a section somewhere in here to make it very clear that the protections that are now in place in the collective agreement are not superseded or in any way derogated from? If anyone reads Hansard, I think it is very much the intention, but I would like to see it in these amendments to make it very clear what is intended. Perhaps legislative counsel can help us.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about college instructional assignment committees established under this legislation. A couple of things bother me.

One is whether or not clause 9b, which creates the committees, is subject to the law under subsection 9(1) which states, "Every person who contravenes any provision of this act is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $500 for each day upon which the contravention occurs or continues."

I would not want to ask the minister a perplexing question so late in the day, but I really wonder whether or not the college instructors are required to serve on such committees. If I were in the college system and I saw this appear on my desk as a requirement, I know what I would be inclined to do. I would have to express my opinion as to the wisdom of anybody from the union serving on one of these committees. I wonder whether or not it is a requirement of the act and whether, if they do not serve on these committees, they are subject to the fines and penalties as laid out in subsection 9(1).

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It was not intended that penalties be assigned for failure to comply. One would hope there would be, within the hearts of all of those involved in the colleges, the willingness to serve on such committees for the benefit of faculty members of the colleges as a reasonable kind of human activity.

Mr. Laughren: It is part and parcel of what they accept, despite the fact it is all part and parcel of back-to-work legislation that does not resolve the problem for which they went on strike. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No. What I am saying is that in the minds of many members of faculty in many of the colleges across the province, the existence of an avenue such as this in order to discuss, in rational framework without adversarial intent, the kinds of disturbances that seem to arise from time to time would be a great advantage, and that is the reason for the existence or the suggestion that this section be added to the act.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, I think it should be fully understood, and I say this by means of commentary to get it on the record, exactly what the government is doing here. The government is rewriting the collective agreement in the Legislature of this province and that is absolutely ridiculous. It is nothing short of ridiculous for the minister to be imposing terms on the collective agreement. Those are matters that should be decided by an arbitrator. The minister has no business doing that and the Legislature has no business doing that. We have no business rewriting collective agreements.

In some instances, what the minister is imposing is less than is contained in article 402. It is an utter absurdity for the minister to be doing this. I hope she understands the consequences of what she is doing. It is just ridiculous.

I would also like to point out that under the existing articles of the collective agreement, article 402, which is the work load, is not substantively or dramatically different from the section the minister is adding today.

Bill Kuhn, a teacher at Fanshawe College, filed a grievance on October 17, 1980, dealing with his work load assignments in 1980. The hearing was scheduled on May 7, 1982. The interim decision was handed down on June 21, 1982. Hearings were later held on February 29 and March 1, 1984, and the final decision was handed down on April 9, 1984. It took three years and seven months for that grievance to be arbitrated, dealing with work assignments made in 1980.

This is an absolute Alice-in-Wonderland world in which the minister is living. It would be nice if the world were like that, but my God, the minister is quite an adversary herself and she knows how that works. If one has a grievance against this great sitting consensual group which is in no sense adversarial, the process may take years. By the time one is finished going through the process, the decision has nothing whatever to do with the teaching assignments one has in that year.

Mr. Kuhn is not alone. Florence Ward of Fanshawe College filed a grievance on June 26, 1980. When the board was unable to reach a majority decision, on May 4, 1981, the griever requested the dispute be referred to arbitration. A hearing was held on August 31, 1982. An interim decision dismissing the employer's objections to the jurisdiction of the appeal board was handed down on November 22, 1982.

In a second interim decision handed down on March 14, 1983, the board disposed only of the employer's objection that the griever's work load could be compared only to those of her colleagues at the Woodstock campus of the college. The board held that comparison to all Fanshawe teachers was appropriate.

The third interim decision was based on a hearing on June 21 and June 22, 1983, and resulted in a decision dated June 27, 1983. That is not the final one, however. We had to wait for the final one, which had five separate hearings between November 30, 1982, and April 3, 1984. That is the total.

Following explicitly the reasoning of the board in the Kuhn case, this board, chaired by Mr. O'Shea, found the work load of the griever was neither absolutely nor relatively inequitable. A final decision was handed down on July 3, 1984. The total elapsed time in this case was four years and one month.

We are talking here about a system of industrial or labour justice that does not make any sense. This is the system the minister is establishing as her model. Her model is that every college is going to have one of these committees and everybody can go through the grievance procedure. That is how individuals are going to get justice. The minister is desperately out of touch with the real world of the community colleges.

She is compounding two absurdities. The first absurdity is the idea that the Minister of Colleges and Universities can sit down and write a collective agreement that is good for everybody because she knows what is in everybody's interest. We do not need an arbitrator. The minister says: "I will do it myself. Why do we need an arbitrator? I can do it myself." She sits down and writes the clauses and takes credit for the ideas, saying they were her ideas in the first place. Great.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I did not. The leader of the third party is distorting it.

Mr. Rae: No. I listened very carefully to what the minister said.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: What the honourable member is describing as the individual college committee is really his concern at the present time. He is suggesting that I suggested the committees were my idea. I did not at all. What I suggested was my idea was the overall college committee, the examination of the total system. This may be only an interim kind of medication to try to provide some relief for a period of time.

Mr. McClellan: Like psychosurgery.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: "Take two aspirin and call you in the morning."

The other committee is the one that is really searching for the solutions.

Mr. Rae: The minister probably thinks a lobotomy is a temporary answer to a problem, but I do not think it is.

4:10 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Come now, really.

Mr. Rae: I know it is Friday afternoon. The minister should not lose her sense of humour. She is famous for it.

Now I have it straight. The minister is saying that sections 9b, 9c and 9d are not her idea. Is that right?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is right.

Mr. Rae: She says that is right. They are not her idea; they are the employer's idea. That is what I have been saying all along, and she has just admitted it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am just saying that is not the solution.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The honourable minister can respond.

Mr. Rae: The minister is saying that is not the solution, but she is also saying, and this is what we are being asked to vote for, in section 9e:

"The provisions numbered 4.02a, b and c in the agreement between the parties shall be deemed to be removed from the agreement and void, and sections 9b, 9c and 9d shall be deemed to form part of the agreement, effective the day sections 9b, 9c and 9d come into force."

The minister is rewriting the collective agreement with sections that come straight from the employer. That is what she is doing. If the minister does not understand that that is exactly what it says here and that is what she is doing, she is going to regret the day she has done it because she is making an enormous mistake. She has no business writing a collective agreement.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not trying to.

Mr. Rae: The minister says she is not trying to, but that is exactly what she is doing. Is she denying section 9e exists? Does section 9e exist? Are we being asked to vote on --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, it exists. I certainly was not denying it.

Mr. Rae: It exists. Section 9e says that sections 9b, 9c and 9d shall become part of the collective agreement. Is that true?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes.

Mr. Rae: I rest my case.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, if it will minimize the trauma, then what I shall do is establish these committees through a memorandum to the colleges in order to try to be of assistance to faculty members who feel their existence would be helpful. I am willing right now to withdraw sections 9b, 9c, 9d and 9e from this amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: Does the minister now withdraw them?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes.

The Deputy Chairman: We are only considering section 9a. Is there any further discussion on section 9a? Shall section 9a carry?

Section 9a agreed to.

On section 10:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Miss Stephenson moves that section 10 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"10. This act comes into force on the day it receives royal assent."

Mr. McClellan: Why has the minister eliminated the sunset provision?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Because the committee under section 9a cannot disappear on the date the agreement is reached on the basis of the arbitration.

Mr. Rae: Why not? With respect, that does not make sense. Why not say the act is repealed no later than June 30, 1985, which is the date on which the minister has to get her committee report in, or are we going to have another Thom commission?

Mr. Conway: Are we finished with section 10?

The Deputy Chairman: We are on section 10.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Breaugh: With all due respect, the amendment put by the minister is a little incoherent. This bill has to have an ending. One can pick any date one wants when one has an agreement put together under this bill, next June, next July, next August, or whenever, but I certainly do not think that even this government wants to put this kind of legislation on the books for ever and a day.

The Deputy Chairman: We just approved the amended section 10 that this act comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.

Mr. Breaugh: I have no problem with that. I want to know when this act ends. I presume it is not the government's intention to leave this piece of legislation in place for ever. It has in mind that it will act for an interim period and we need an answer. When does the act end?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Subsection 5(4) takes care of all that.

Interjections.

Mr. Breaugh: I appreciate the chatter back and forth, but I want on the record when this act ends. Will somebody stand up and tell me that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: When an agreement is made.

Mr. Breaugh: Let the minister put it on the record.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Subsection 5(4) says, "The agreement between the parties shall be for the period expiring on August 31, 1985." I would think what should happen is that this act, coming into force on the day it receives royal assent, should dissipate on the day the agreement expires.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: I cannot hear the member for Oshawa.

Mr. Breaugh: I am asking someone to put that in this clause. Is that not a reasonable thing to do? I appreciate the minister's opinion, but her opinion is not quite law; it is pretty close. I am waiting with bated breath for an answer. I think the process has come unglued here. Ah, good, the answer arriveth.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The act will expire, it will be spent, when the agreement expires under subsection 5(4), and the committee reports in section 9a. It does that automatically apparently. Legislative counsel says one does not have to do anything with it. He says it expires automatically as a result of subsection 5(4).

The Deputy Chairman: Is there a further amendment the minister has to present?

Mr. Conway: Just one moment, if I can. Has there been some impact on what we did in clause 2(1)(b)? Do the members remember what we agreed to with respect to -- I do not even have a copy of the amendment that was agreed.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: By mutual consent.

Mr. Conway: I am thinking quickly. Is there a possibility that by the termination of this act some of the provisions of the fallout of what we agreed to in clause 2(1 )(b) are somehow affected in later months or even later years of programs that are now affected by this current dispute?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The addition under clause 2(1)(b), that is, including duties assigned by mutual consent in order to afford students the opportunity to complete courses of study affected by the strike, obviously ensures that this clause relates specifically to assignments that are made within the next several weeks to accomplish the purpose which is stated clearly in clause 2(1)(b). I do not think that has any impact on whether there should be a date of repeal or otherwise. One would hope that it would have some beneficial effect on relationships.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Conway: I am trying to work this along. I have one last amendment, which is the first amendment on the preamble.

The Deputy Chairman: The preamble has not been moved yet.

Section 11 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Mr. Conway: I have one quick amendment to the preamble and then a word about it. The amendment has already been dealt with, practically speaking. The minister has it. It follows from what we were discussing back in the main sections of the bill, particularly section 5.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Conway moves that the preamble to the bill be amended by striking out "other than instructional assignments" in the second last line.

Mr. Conway: The reason for that is obvious. It just deals with matters that were at issue in section 5.

I have a small observation concerning the preamble. It is a poor example for this Legislature to introduce education-related legislation with a spelling error. I am sure it is of great concern to the minister that about four lines from the bottom of the preamble we have the phrase "be provided to bring the 'stike' to an end."

We would not want to set a bad example to the educational system by passing legislation in relation to education that contains a spelling error. They would not want it at Ridley, I am sure the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) would agree, and we could not have it enshrined in legislation that way.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: We have to deal with the stacked votes.

4:30 p.m.

The committee divided on Mr. Allen's amendment to subsection 5(1), which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 30; nays 42.

The committee divided on Mr. Conway's amendment to subsection 5(1), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mr. Conway's amendment to subsection 5(5), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on whether section 5 shall stand as part of the bill which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

Section 5 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells. the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.

COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY LABOUR DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT

Hon. Miss Stephenson moved third 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. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the week has taken its toll on my voice.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: The member should not be mean.

As a result of the fandango which occurred about half an hour ago, the Minister of Colleges and Universities has now withdrawn her amendments to Bill 130 which would have provided an amendment to article 4 of the collective agreement.

I would point out to her that as a result of that withdrawal -- which was as unexpected for me as I am sure it was for her -- we now have an absurdity compounded upon an absurdity. An arbitrator will be dealing with a collective agreement and the collective agreement will now be silent on the entire question of instructional assignment, hours of work, maximum teaching hours for nursing per year and maximum contact days per year. It will be silent on the question of assigned hours of work for librarians and counsellors and all the other questions contained in these four pages.

The minister is leaving the teaching profession and all the people who are working in the community colleges without any protection whatsoever as far as their hours of work are concerned in their collective agreement. It is unreal.

I do not know whether the minister understood the implication of what she was doing. I do not know whether today she understands the implication of what she has done. She is assigning to an arbitrator the writing of a collective agreement that is going to have four blank pages in it on the question of instructional assignment.

If the minister says she will write those pages herself because she is going to send a memorandum to the community colleges, that only compounds the problem. That means for the first time since collective bargaining rights were granted to this group of employees, she and her department are unilaterally going to determine their conditions of work. We are going back to the stone age in terms of labour relations and employee relations.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: Those guys do not know what they have done; they do not know what they are doing; and they will never wake up to it until the Divisional Court throws them out on their face. When the Attorney General stands up and says, "Maybe I will have to consider this Divisional Court judgement," then they will understand.

4:40 p.m.

How many times is it going to take them to learn? They did not learn on Bill 179 or on Bill 111. They are engaging in practices reminiscent of pre-collective bargaining, and the preenlightenment days of industrial relations.

The minister is saying, "Go ahead, arbitrator, you can make all sorts of decisions on salaries, vacations, the grievance procedure and all the other stuff, but you cannot write anything about instructional assignment." That is quite a lengthy article. It is four pages in the collective agreement.

I think the minister should be embarrassed by the advice she has been given. Has she talked to her colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay)? Can she tell me what other collective agreement there is in Ontario today that does not have a clause on hours of work? Can she name one and bring it back and show it to this House and say, "There, that is the example"?

She does not have a collective agreement. She does not even understand that. That point has to be made. In her meddling she has misunderstood the problem. Her meddling has undermined not just one agreement, not just collective bargaining, but the notion that employees cannot be treated like serfs. She is basically going back to pre-enlightenment days.

I began this week by pointing out there was a Santa Claus parade, which some of us with kids stood out in the rain to watch. The float of the Ontario government was called "Santa's Prehistoric Friends." We have had today a revelation of why that float was as appropriate as it proved to be. The government has an absolutely prehistoric attitude towards labour relations and it is going to regret that attitude.

I am very proud of the position our party has taken, a position of principle, over days that have not been particularly easy. I am proud of my colleagues. I am proud of my colleague the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) who has served us well in this.

The minister has made a mockery of the whole process many people have spent years in building up.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am constrained to respond briefly. It is my understanding that those provisions currently in the collective agreement related to instructional assignment will remain as they are until the next agreement is negotiated.

I think it is of note that the members of this Legislature have worked diligently for the last two days to ensure that 120,000 full-time students and almost 600,000 part-time students will be able to resume their educational experience in the colleges of applied arts and technology in Ontario on Monday.

4:46 p.m.

The House divided on Hon. Miss Stephenson's motion for third reading which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Birch, Brandt, Conway, Cousens, Cureatz, Drea, Eaton, Edighoffer, Elgie, Elston, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Hennessy, Hodgson, Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kerrio, Kolyn, Lane, McCague, McKessock, McLean;

McMurtry, McNeil, Mitchell, Newman, Nixon, Norton, O'Neil, Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Reed, Riddell, Robinson, Ruprecht, Ruston, Shymko, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, J. A., Treleaven, Walker, Watson, Wells, Williams, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

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

Ayes 58; nays 16.

4:50 p.m.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. Mr. Aird: Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed a certain bill to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

Assistant Clerk: The following is the title of the bill to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:

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.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to this bill.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

The House adjourned at 4:57 p.m.

November 9, 1984