Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8:05 o’clock, p.m.

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: When the committee rose at 6 o’clock we were just starting to consider Bill 179.

Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any section of the bill, and if so, what?

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Section 1.

Mr. T. F. Reid (Rainy River): I will defer to my colleague the member for Windsor West.

On section 1:

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): The leader of the NDP.

Mr. Bounsall: A few years yet to go on that.

On subsection 2, Mr. Chairman, section v, in committee, we discussed the possible change of “normal period” to “work week”, in terms of the casual person who is employed and not covered by the contract. I can’t quite recall the rationale expressed there as to why “normal period” was a better phrase than something like “work week”. When you explained “normal period”, “work week” kept creeping into the phrases. Why is “normal period” again a better designation than “work week”? Does it keep it more generalized -- and make it easy for comparison with other employees -- than to specify it in terms of a work week?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): I think that’s right. I think in the ordinary course of events an employer would be looking at the work week in any event.

Mr. Bounsall: Would he be looking at the work week in any event in most circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I would think so, yes.

Mr. Bounsall: So that if there is something strange about the particular job, then a different period could be looked at, but normally it’s the work week?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment on subsection 2, section v?

Mr. Reid: Subsection viii, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments prior to subsection viii?

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, we went over this fairly lengthily in the committee. Has the minister anything to tell us this evening about what he is going to do concerning the employees who work in the legislative building under the auspices of the Speaker? Have you been able to unravel that?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Well, Mr. Chairman, the short answer to it is no. They are dealt with in this Act and we will have to deal with other people, or another department of the government, to take care of the other Act.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment on this subsection?

Mr. Bounsall: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. On this section, I quite appreciate the amendment of the acting committee dropping the original phrase “persons employed in the office of the assembly”. That’s a step forward and obviously the minister can take his time considering any other changes if they are required.

But have we made it quite clear that the persons in the Office of the Assembly, as well as those 18 other persons who were stewards, tour guides, cooks and clerks, are in fact not Crown employees?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, I have said that they are covered for the purposes of this Act, but we will have to make that change in the other Act, which I will endeavour to do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed?

Mr. Bounsall: That is all on subsection viii, Mr. Chairman.

Section 1 agreed to.

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

Mr. Reid: Section 3, Mr. Chairman.

Section 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

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

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 3, subsection 6 of the bill.

Mr. Reid moves that section 3, in the third line of section 6 of the Act, after the words terms and conditions of employment” be amended by adding “including pensions and superannuation.”

Mr. Reid: I’d like to comment. Again, we don’t want to go over the whole debate, Mr. Chairman, but very simply, it is the position of the Liberal Party that the civil servants should have some say in the investment of their moneys, some $680 million -- close to three-quarters of a billion dollars -- in investment funds for their pensions and superannuation. I seemed to get the feeling and impression from the minister when we discussed this in committee that he felt the civil servants would run out and invest this money in the nearest penny stock or some other reeling enterprise like the Ontario government, or something like that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Krauss-Maffei perhaps.

Mr. Reid: But it is the feeling of this party that because these are funds that belong to the civil servants, hinds that they contribute to the pension fund, surely along with the other rights -- to conditions --

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Speculation in land.

Mr. Reid: -- of employment and so on -- they should have the right to have a say in regard to their pensions and superannuation. Some method can be worked out so that it isn’t just a consultation by the minister, or whoever is doing the negotiating for him, but that they have a real say and some strength in where those funds are invested and what happens to them.

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

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): I think there must be some discussion. I mean, after all, this amendment has been proposed. Is the minister going to comment on it or not? Are we just going to have one of these bland evenings together in the assembly?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Exactly the way you want it. This was discussed in committee and I think I made --

Mr. Renwick: We would like your comments. We weren’t all in committee.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Weren’t you in the committee?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I know that. I think I made my position very clear at that time. I am not agreeing with what the hon. member said, of course I am not. The matter of pensions is very important to us, as far as the employees are concerned. We don’t say for one moment that we are not prepared to discuss the matter, because we are. I assume from what you said that you reject that sort of proposal. However, we think the fact that we are prepared to discuss it with them comes a step closer and we are prepared to listen to what the members of the CSAO have to say and to consider any suggestions in this regard.

In the meantime, if we changed it I think I have to make it quite clear that the government would be withdrawing its support of the guarantee of the fund. So as far as I am concerned, at this time I would have to vote against your amendment because I think we have come a fair step forward as we are.

Mr. Reid: I don’t want to prolong this, Mr. Minister, but would you not agree, really, that it would be hardly going overboard if you made provision on the board, or whatever controls the superannuations and pensions, for a member from the Civil Service Association as a voting representative, or one of two or of three, controlling those funds? Surely it is only right and just that they have more than just the right to consultation with the government when we are dealing with this kind of money?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I am not certain whether I said this or not, but I believe I said in committee that I am just not satisfied that the entire membership would particularly want it this way. I am prepared to open it up for discussion.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, it would.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Don’t you think they have a democratic executive?

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Would the minister agree with it if the majority did indicate that they wanted to have control over their own funds and that they should have that right? I don’t think that these government guarantees are a good idea myself. These funds should be operated by the employees.

Mr. Renwick: Are those your party’s views, not your personal views? We get your personal views most of the time.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Deacon: I am speaking as the member for York Centre. I haven’t consulted my party as to whether they share these views or not.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Where is the member for Riverdale this week? Are you still at odds with your caucus, by the way? What are you going to do about that?

Mr. Deacon: He is the expert in standing by himself.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He’s like the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman). He never goes to his caucus.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Deacon: I would like to bring forward the opinion that it’s a mistake for us to keep on encouraging groups to rely upon a government guarantee of their pensions, because this is not developing self-reliance and all the qualities and characteristics that I would hope Canadians would develop. I think that by putting this pension fund, by putting the OMERS, by putting the teachers’ fund, putting all these in a situation where they are being run independently, where our role as employer is one of contributing an equal amount or even a greater amount to the pension but leaving it up to them to run it, would be a great step forward. It really would, and I hope the minister, if he finds that sort of sentiment on the part of the association and its membership, would definitely agree to go along with it.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I just say that all pension funds haven’t been all that successful, but I think --

Mr. Deacon: No, they certainly haven’t been, under government, necessarily successful.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I know what members are saying, with the exception of the fact that I think this is a step forward in the interests of the employee groups we are discussing.

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

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I take it that what the member for Rainy River would like, and I think we would be totally in support of his position, is some representation --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Has the member checked it out with the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor)?

Mr. Renwick: -- with respect to the question of the determination of pensions, and I think that’s all he’s asking for. I think he agrees with us that’s all we can possibly get at this time for the civil service of Ontario.

Would the minister be prepared to accept an amendment that would allow some representation from the Civil Service Association of Ontario, regardless of how it is drafted, on the question of the determination of pensions and superannuation? I take it that’s what the member for Rainy River would be prepared to accept.

Mr. Reid: I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, if I might clarify my position, that the Civil Service Association have some representation, not only in future negotiations on pensions and superannuation but that they have some say in the present situation where the fund is already some three-quarters of a billion dollars.

Mr. Renwick: For what it is worth, we are in agreement with you depending on the wording. I am sure the minister is prepared to accept that. Even a moment’s reflection should convince the minister of its worth.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor West has the floor.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, I would certainly be pleased if the minister would accept an amendment of that sort, or at least indicate clearly to what extent he would ensure that the bargaining agent, in this case the Civil Service Association, had in fact representation and a say in the investment of those pension funds.

If the minister will indicate, as he did so often as we went through the bill in committee, that he will consult in depth or set up a joint consultative committee, and give us some idea of the make-up of that committee, and assure us that committee will in fact contain representation from the association and have a real say in determination of where their pension moneys are placed, I would be quite interested in hearing that.

I am almost tempted to let the argument stop there. I think it’s important we get that established and the minister give us his current feelings on that.

On the other hand, the stand of our party has always been, with respect to things negotiable, that matters that can be placed on the bargaining table by the bargaining agent and that matters that are exclusively the rights of management, should in fact be things that are completely bargainable in that one bargains through and reaches a management rights’ clause albeit, but one which has been reached as a result of bargaining, and not having anything in the Act which puts limitations on what is bargainable from the point of view of the employees’ association and what is exclusively the right of management not to bargain.

I would very much prefer, Mr. Chairman, that in. this section everything after the word “employer” be deleted, so that this section would read; “Upon being granted representation rights, the employee organization is authorized to bargain with the employer.” So that the matters which are negotiable and which can be negotiable, and what are management rights and what aren’t, are in fact sorted out by the two parties at the bargaining table.

You know, that wouldn’t be a bad procedure to be going through right at the moment. I think there was a certain large degree of understanding reached between the minister and your negotiating team, and the representatives of the Civil Service Association. At this stage in time, if one said, “Okay, let’s delete section 6 and section 17 of the original bill [the first clause being section 3 in this bill], let’s sit down now and bargain what is negotiable in our various contracts,” I think there would be strong bargaining on both sides. But I think the faith which is now starting to emerge would result in a better solution, and an ongoing solution, to the problem. It would never be off the bargaining table at any time; through the bargaining procedure, they would arrive at what is considered to be a management right and what is considered to be fully negotiable. I would like to see the minister try that, because I gathered from the minister in committee that a fair degree of good faith was building up on both sides now.

In committee, the minister certainly seemed very reasonable on many of these points and certainly, at the moment, he seems to be a person whom I could put a fair degree of trust in as being reasonable on this point. I would hope that the minister would see his way clear to letting the two parties bargain about what is negotiable. To that end, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Bounsall moves that all the words following “employer” in the second line be deleted.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): That sounds reasonable.

Mr. Laughren: Very good amendment.

Mr. Germa: I’ll support that.

Mr. Renwick: Does the mover of the amendment support that? What does the hon. member for Rainy River say about that?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I think I made my position quite clear. We have to deal with a number of employer, organizations, the CSAO of course being the largest of all; and following the words of the hon. member for Windsor West, I think the first stage is the discussion of the question with these agents, as I have said on more than one occasion now. I would prefer to follow that course of action; therefore, I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Laughren: It would be a major act of good faith on your part.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bounsall has moved an amendment to the amendment, that all the words following “employer” in the second line of section 3(6) be deleted.

All those in favour of the motion --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Before you put the motion, Mr. Chairman, if the amendment to the amendment is lost, and the amendment is lost, will it preclude any further debate on the section?

Mr. Chairman: No, just on the amendment. On a technicality, if the second amendment did carry, it should carry the section. This would be the procedure.

Mr. Stokes: On that basis I’ll take my chances.

Mr. Chairman: We’ll deal with the amendment to the amendment.

All those in favour of Mr. Bounsall’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Do we have the consent of the committee to stack the votes?

Some hon. members: Yes, stack them.

Mr. Reid: What about my amendment?

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion of Mr. Reid’s amendment before I place the motion?

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. B. Newman: I would ask the minister to reconsider the decision not to include the suggestion of my colleague from Rainy River. The suggestion had been discussed at some length during the committee and I think it is an extremely worthwhile one. I look back in communities throughout the province where policemen and firemen, once they are retired, no longer have any rights, nor even has their association any rights to bargain for pensions and superannuation. It puts them in the invidious position with the rising cost of living that they may reach the point where their pensions are actually below the poverty level.

I think that by accepting the inclusion of pensions and superannuation you give the privilege -- I shouldn’t say privilege -- the opportunity for the civil servants at least to bargain on something to which they have contributed. These are their funds that you are handling and not your own. Surely they should have some say as to how they may be invested and as to what types of pensions and superannuations they could negotiate with you through the collective bargaining procedures.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on Mr. Reid’s amendment? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I should just like to respond to that. I am not turning clown all the suggestions -- of course I am not.

Mr. Stokes: You are just simply not accepting them.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I am simply saying that we are not all that unique, because there is only one jurisdiction in Canada where it is negotiable. That is no excuse, but I am just saying, Mr. Chairman, to those who are participating in the debate that I think this is a first step forward, I am not saying we won’t look at it again.

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

Mr. Bounsall: Could I ask the minister, is there any consultation at all now occurring with the Civil Service Association of Ontario with respect to the investment of their pension moneys? Is there any informal talking, if that is the way one has to refer to it, with respect to the investment of their pension moneys, and/or is there any sort of consultative committee? That is not the way I would normally recommend that it occur, but I would like to see something much more formalized. But is this going on now and is it something --

Mr. Renwick: Can we have an assurance that it is not going to be from these funds that the Syncrude investment is going to be made? Could we have this?

Mr. Bounsall: What does take place now? Could we hear the minister’s comments?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: There have been discussions regarding pensions but not the investment policy. I say to you that the discussions that I am suggesting take place will hit a broader range.

Mr. Reid: Are they in progress right flow?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: As time goes by, I will let you know.

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

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, is it the practice of the government to hire outside advisers to invest these funds or are these funds just channelled into government of Ontario securities that, in effect, are self-borrowing by the province at rates it determines to be advantageous?

If that is the case, there is really very little basis for the government to indicate that it has to guarantee these pensions. It is subsidizing itself through the investment of these funds, unless it does use outside objective advisers, is it not?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: To the best of my knowledge, we have had them analyzed by outside advisers, but it is the government’s prerogative.

Mr. Deacon: It is not an outside management organization that is investing the funds? You occasionally have somebody decide whether the funds are guaranteed or safe or something of that sort? I don’t think that is sufficient and I urge the government to move over to where they are independently operated.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay”.

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Shall we stack this vote?

Agreed.

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

Mr. Stokes: The section won’t carry. You gave me that assurance.

Mr. Chairman: We won’t have any further discussion on this.

Mr. Stokes: On section 3 of the Act?

Mr. Chairman: I understood we were going to take the discussion prior to the vote and we have actually had the voice vote. It would seem to me the discussion --

Mr. Reid: Not on the amendment.

Mr. Stokes: No, no. I’m not on the amendments. You assured me that if the sub-amendment didn’t carry that there would be further discussion allowed on section 3.

Mr. Renwick: You said you would take your chances.

Mr. Chairman: I think you perhaps misunderstood the Chair. I will permit a discussion at this particular time, but it would seem to me that when the amendment is defeated the section would automatically carry. We’ve had the voice vote on it.

Mr. Stokes: You gave me the other assurance that if the sub-amendment didn’t carry, further debate would be permitted.

Mr. Reid: That is true.

Mr. Chairman: I said that we would deal with the subamendment and then we would --

Mr. Stokes: I only have a brief comment on it.

Mr. Chairman: Okay. The Chair will recognize the hon. member.

Mr. Renwick: Fine. There are a couple of points I want to raise too.

Mr. Stokes: Section 3 of the bill dealing with section 6 of the Act makes specific reference to some of the items that are negotiable and among them is the mileage rate payable to an employee for miles travelled when he is required to use his own automobile on employer’s business.

In a recent change in the manual of administration that was put out by the government recently it did increase the mileage allowance generally across the province, and it was increased to 19 cents per mile in northern Ontario for non-union people and 15 cents a mile for those who were covered.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Stokes: That’s the way I read it. There is that discrepancy of four cents a mile. It’s 15 cents a mile for somebody who is covered by this agreement and 19 cents a mile for other personnel who would be in a higher category.

I’m wondering why the discrepancy and why the apparent discrimination against somebody who is covered by this agreement, compared with somebody in a supervisory capacity, a branch head or something of that nature. Surely the minister must appreciate that. As I say, while I appreciate that it is a negotiable item, why is there this discrepancy where one civil servant is paid 15 cents a mile while others are paid 19 cents a mile? It costs the same amount of money to operate both automobiles and surely there should be the same indemnity. It really shouldn’t have to be a negotiable item.

If you’re paying 19 cents a mile for those civil servants who are not covered by this agreement why would you restrict those covered by this agreement to 15 cents a mile? It seems to me an anomaly that should be corrected.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure of my dates, for I would like to quote you the dates. That offer has been made and has not been accepted by the CSAO -- that very offer, the amounts of money that you made reference to. As a matter of fact, I think our offer was made in retroactivity so that if it were accepted we could pay back to the date that we made the offer.

I can’t remember exactly what that date was but it is some time ago now.

There were two raises; April 1, 1974, was the first one and Aug. 1, 1974, was the second one. And that offer stands.

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

Mr. Renwick: Yes, there is.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale, what section?

Mr. Renwick: On the same section, if I may; section 3 of the bill.

What conceivable reason is it that any elective public office or political activity is excluded from the area under which bargaining can take place?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Would you explain that please, may I ask?

Mr. Renwick: As I read the new section 6 which is clause 3 of the bill, we can assume that the employee organization can bargain about any number of things, but at the very tag end it said: “ ... and the conditions applicable to leaves of absence for other than any elective public office or political activities ... ”

If I read that correctly that means that those matters are matters to be retained entirely for the discretion of management. I can’t understand why questions of leaves of absence for the purposes of someone running for elective political office or engaging in political activities should be proscribed by the government as a matter of managerial concern. Perhaps I haven’t read the section correctly but that’s my understanding of it.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I’ve been informed that leave of absence is covered by the Public Service Act, Mr. Chairman, and I’ll to leave it in that regard. I thought maybe you were talking to the earlier part of that section. But that’s the answer I have for that particular point. Leave of absence for elective offices is covered by the Public Service Act.

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

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, on that same point, Mr. Minister -- that is covered by the restrictions in the Public Service Act. We are not discussing that Act, Mr. Chairman, I point out, but would the minister give a commitment that sometime early in the next session amendments would come in to the Public Service Act, which deals with this whole area of an individual’s political activity?

Here in this bill we do talk about the restrictions on the employee organization, the CSAO, and this bill looks ne except for that provision -- because we don’t talk about the individual’s rights to do anything or not do anything. Then you turn to the Public Service Act and there are all the restrictions on the individual. Could you give us a commitment to do something very soon about the Public Service Act and the restrictions therein?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I won’t make the commitment that the hon. member asks for, but what I will make is that I will discuss it with my colleague.

Mr. Bounsall: Which minister is it who will be bringing these amendments in? Is it the Minister of Labour?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): I will be glad to discuss it with my colleague.

Mr. Bounsall: Did the Minister of Labour say he’d be glad to do it? Did I catch that?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, glad to discuss it.

Mr. Renwick: He would be glad to do it but the Act isn’t under his ministry.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I said I’d be glad to discuss it, but it isn’t under my ministry.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on this section?

Mr. Renwick: I am not certain I can quite understand that the question of the employee organization bargaining with the ministry on the question of political activities is an entirely different matter. I had taken this to mean that the employee organization was precluded from bargaining about leaves of absence for individual members of the employee organization who may wish to engage in political activities, or engage in competition for public office.

I defer to my colleague, the member for Windsor West, but if that’s what the meaning is, then it doesn’t belong in this century -- let alone in this half of the century -- that those matters of questions of leaves of absence for individual members of the Civil Service Association, who may want to run for elective office, should be precluded from the bargaining which may take place.

It would appear to me to be a very legitimate topic for discussion in a bargaining session.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I assure you that I will have a very careful look at that.

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

Mr. Bounsall: Still further to this point, Mr. Chairman, I realize that it’s difficult to frame amendments to a bill when the bill has reference to and is affected by so many Acts, like the Public Service Act. But really if one were looking at this bill and wanting to make it as simple and as clear as one could, bearing in mind those other references, the minister probably should delete from this section those words “dealing with leaves of absences for other than elective public office or political activities of training and development.” Section 13, which is still there does that where it says, “the collective agreement or decision of a board shall not contain any term that would require directly or indirectly for its implementation the enactment or amendment of legislation.” There’s where you pick up the Public Service Act -- in section 13.

If one were going to use as few words as possible in an Act, one would delete it here. However if one were trying to err on the side of clarity, one may leave it as you have it But you actually don’t need them because they are covered in section 13 and the employee bargaining agent knows that. Au individual employee reading it may not quite realize it. Rut it is covered through section 13 of the Act.

Hon Mr. Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I really don’t think that this has been a major problem, but again I assure you I’ll look at it.

Section 3 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Arty further discussion on any other section of the bill? If so, what section?

Mr. Bounsall: Section 4.

On section 4:

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

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, in section 4, where you are repealing and substituting for sections 8 and 9 of the Act, the comment I want to make here, Mr. Chairman, is that section 9 still relates to matters that can’t be solved in dispute going to compulsory arbitration.

I know that if one has an Act which takes away the right to strike, there must be some other method to replace it.

Although we have a better system than the previous one for the tribunal and its selection and so on embodied in this Act, we still come to this section where we spell out that matters that cannot be solved, that matters still in dispute, will be settled by compulsory arbitration. In areas of dispute where it has to be employed, you are really continuing to postpone the problem.

There is no substitute for the two sides -- however hard the feelings might be or how long the bargaining might be to get to that agreement -- there is no substitute for those two parties bargaining though to an agreement. Where you have to send a matter to compulsory arbitration, it’s a failure between the two parties, and a failure that is likely to become more contentious rather than less contentious.

That’s the fault with compulsory arbitration. It doesn’t really solve it by handing it out to a third party, no matter how careful we are to choose the third party to be as fair a person or persons as possible. Whenever we have to take a matter in dispute and hand it to a third party, that represents a real failure of the two sides to come to grips with the problem. And not coming to grips is going to affect future negotiations; which is why we are against compulsory arbitration in any form, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I’ll reply to that. Again, I think I appreciate the stance the hon. member is taking. But I would say this to the hon. member: I think, if my memory serves me correctly, there was a situation not too long ago where the exact procedures under the old Act were followed and they worked out very satisfactorily. There were no bitter feelings and the settlement was accepted.

Now in this particular amendment, all we are saying is “the tribunal, if advised in writing”; which means there must be some desire to go that step. I don’t think this is objectionable at all. As a matter of fact I think it creates a vehicle that if it weren’t there would be a desirable one to incorporate.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Rainy River; on this section?

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I was going to amend this a little later on with the same idea in mind, but maybe this is the better place to do it.

Mr. Reid moves that section 9 as contained in section 4 of the amending Act be amended by removing all the words in said section 9 and substituting a new section to read:

“Employees shall have the right to strike, except for those deemed to be engaged in essential services; such essential services to be determined by management in consultation with the bargaining agent or agents.”

Mr. Chairman: I assume there is no further discussion on subsections 1 and 2 of section 8 as contained in section 4, so will section 8 as contained in section 4 carry? Carried!

On the amendment to section 9 as contained in section 4; does the member wish to comment further?

Mr. Renwick: Where does this come in, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Reid: It is section 9 as it appears in section 4 of the amending Act on page 3.

Mr. Renwick: Is this an amendment to section 9 which would be enacted if section 4 passed, and where does it come in that amendment?

Mr. Stokes: It deletes the clause.

Mr. Reid: It deletes section 9 as contained in section 4.

Mr. Renwick: It’s a deletion of the whole section 9 and the substitution of a new section.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, this deletes the whole section 9.

Mr. Renwick: It raises some interesting questions, Mr. Chairman. I’ll be glad when the member for Rainy River elucidates on this amendment.

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

Mr. Reid: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment is simply to take out the provision for requiring any disagreement that isn’t settled between the two parties to go to compulsory arbitration and to allow the civil service association or those engaged in those particular negotiations to go on strike to use their economic power to affect a settlement. It gives the civil service employees the right to strike.

Actually, I suppose this could come under section 25 of the bill but perhaps this is a more appropriate place to put it. We believe, Mr. Chairman, that the employees of the government should have the same rights in this respect as those enjoyed by most others in the Province of Ontario, in that if they cannot affect a settlement through the usual channels of collective agreement, the obvious answer is for them to go on strike.

We have put in the amendment Mr. Chairman, because we think it’s necessary; we don’t believe this can be a wholesale right to be given to the civil service. The leader of this party has pointed out some cases of those he feels are engaged in essential services. Obviously, it has to be a somewhat subjective decision as to who is in an essential service and who is not. I think it would be common agreement even among the three parties, Mr. Chairman, as to those who certainly are not essential services and who would be able to go on strike if this were necessary.

It has been pointed out, almost ad nauseam, that there is experience in Australia where the right to strike has been taken away from people involved in certain work situations. Australia has the largest number of wildcat strikes of any industrialized country in the world. Obviously taking away the right to strike does not prevent strikes; it only makes them illegal.

We have been over this again and again and again. I would refresh the minister’s mind about the recent experience between Christmas and New Year when there was a threatened illegal strike by the CSAO. The minister maintains he wasn’t pressured or blackmailed into a settlement by the threat of the illegal strike.

Mr. Renwick: There was a threatened strike by the CSAO. The determination of whether it was legal or illegal would await the event.

Mr. Reid: Well, if you like; I am sorry, I defer to my legal friend, who has --

Mr. Renwick: No you don’t. You defer to a difference in political policy.

Mr. Deacon: Oh, my God!

Mr. Chairman: Would the hon. member for Rainy River continue please?

Mr. Reid: In any case, Mr. Chairman, I think what I am trying to say is clear even to my friend from Riverdale. We believe this should be a proper part of the collective bargaining process in the case of the government and the CSAO. We believe that some essential services should not be allowed to strike. We think it is only eminently fair and just, and we would ask your support in this.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make two comments. One is that it is quite obvious there was a presupposition that the strike by the CSAO, bad it occurred on Jan. 1, would have been illegal. The fact of the matter is that in the Province of Ontario that matter had never been determined in any way, shape or form.

I dispute the proposition that lay people, such as ourselves or the general public or the media, should assume that what the Civil Service Association of the Province of Ontario was proposing in the course of its bargaining was of necessity illegal.

It’s quite clear that the law was not all that clear. We happen to believe in the rule of men under law. We happen to believe that kind of question begs the question.

We disagree with any assertion that what the Civil Service Association of Ontario may have been proposing to do in an event which did not materialize was illegal. We happen to give the citizens of the Province of Ontario credit for making determinations as to whether or not their actions will or will not be illegal. And we dispute the proposition that some vested interests can categorize the activities of other persons as illegal until such time as some body with some authority can determine that. Of course, this distinguishes us from my friends on the right.

An hon. member: Oh, come on.

Mr. Deacon: Simon-pure.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: Listen, now we determine --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Renwick: Let’s make it clear --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: Let’s make it very clear --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale has the floor.

Mr. Renwick: It’s all very nice every now and then for members of the Liberal Party to bob up and down talking about the rule of law. Okay? Let’s forget that.

Mr. Reid: You are not teaching law.

Mr. Renwick: The rule of law is determined in a court or other body invested with the authority to make the decision, and this party categorically denies that there was any suggestion that what the Civil Service Association of Ontario may have done on Jan. 1 was by nature illegal because that prejudges the question.

I want to make that very clear, because we just hear too much of this sort of Millsian, 19th-century form of liberalism, which was dead and buried a long time ago --

Mr. Reid: That’s the most hypocritical claptrap I have ever heard.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: -- and which the member for York Centre and the member for Rainy River, and his predecessors in the Liberal-Labour Party have argued from time immemorial.

Mr. Reid: Do you ever listen to yourself during the question period? You make all kinds of assumptions.

Mr. Renwick: Now my second point is very simple --

Mr. Reid: Whose side are you on anyway, the government’s side?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the hon. member allow the hon. member for Riverdale to continue?

Mr. Renwick: No, we are on the side of the Civil Service Association of Ontario in this particular question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: You are only assuming that.

Mr. Renwick: No, it is very clear. That’s the side we are on. We have made our commitment to that a long time ago.

The second issue is that if we could have a copy of the amendment proposed by the member for Rainy River -- and we haven’t had a copy of it at the present time -- I think we would like to move a sub-amendment for the purpose of clarifying the usual hazy thinking of the Liberal Party and of the Tory party about what constitutes essential services and what doesn’t constitute essential services.

Mr. Bounsall: Force them into it.

Mr. Renwick: This is the kind of cutting stone on which we would like to really find out where the Liberal Party stands, where this party stands and where the government party stands. It is very simple. You can’t shrug off that kind of a question by some hazy language such as the Liberal-Labour member for Rainy River would like to suggest that this House should pass.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on Mr. Reid’s amendment?

Mr. Renwick: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move a sub-amendment, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Send us a copy, eh?

Mr. Bounsall: Well, while the sub-amendment is being prepared, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could comment on the amendment as I understand it.

Certainly the way the amendment is phrased brings up a question at this point, rather than at some other point later on in the bill, of the right to strike. Certainly everyone in this party feels that the right to strike is an inherent right that everyone should have. In the specific instance of the Civil Service Association of Ontario and the employees that association represents, we feel they should have the right to strike and that every employee should have the right to strike. I fully endorse, as do other members of my party, the remarks by the member for Riverdale relating to an illegal strike or otherwise, that no such determinations were made.

The minister knows my views on the right to strike. I gave him examples in committee, having lived in England for a couple of years, where they have no orderly way of arriving at the strike position. What they have there is a series of non-legal strikes, or a series of wildcat strikes, to use a better word, because I don’t think they even bother to determine the legality or illegality of those strikes when they occur; they simply have a whole series of wildcat strikes. What particularly appalled me was, in the year 1963 at the Ford plant in Dagenham outside of London, England, of the 260-odd working days in the year, only 83 of there were free of wildcat strikes. I came to the conclusion, observing that particular industry -- which was the one that had by far and away the most wildcat strikes while I was there -- that any system of labour legislation that does not provide for a legal strike and simply requires that when that strike occur it be a wildcat strike -- and it can occur any time then, because you don’t have the time sequences leading up to, as we do in our Labour Relations Act, a period at which the strike then becomes one of the options which you have open to you -- is the world’s worst system of labour relations. And here we have it in a small separate Act dealing with the civil servants of the Province of Ontario. I would hope that the minister would, at the appropriate position in the bill -- this may be it -- give to the association and its members the right to strike, with a procedure leading up to a position where the strike becomes appropriate.

With respect to essential services in the civil service, Mr. Chairman, we believe that in this case none of them is essential and that by voting to agree or not agree with the position to go on strike, the employees will determine that question in their own minds as to how essential their services are. But they all have, in fact, the right to strike. We’re not like members of the Liberal Party, where some of them say that snowplough operators should not have the right to strike and others stand up and say they should have the right to strike. We feel that all of them, without qualification, should have the right to strike.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to move an amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick moves the deletion of all words after the word “strike” in the first line of the proposed amendment.

Mr. Chairman: I’m wondering if the Chair could comment? I have some grave doubt as to the propriety of both Mr. Reid’s amendment and also Mr. Renwick’s sub-amendment.

Mr. Renwick: Well, there’s no question of the propriety of mine. If there is any propriety in the first amendment there is propriety in mine. I wouldn’t want the propriety of mine to be questioned unless you determine the propriety of that of my friend, the hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. Chairman: It’s contrary to the principle of the bill and, as I say, I do not feel that it’s proper for this committee to change the principle.

Mr. Renwick: Let’s vote on that question.

Mr. Chairman: No. In this particular case we are talking about the principle of the bill, and that is, that there is no right to strike. The amendment that Mr. Reid is moving is contrary to that, that they do have the right to strike except for those services deemed to be essential services. It seems to me this is contrary to the principle of the bill, which was debated on second reading.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, perhaps before you make any definitive decision on that, let me make this comment: If this were the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, it may well be that such an amendment would be out of order. This, in fact, is simply an amending bill, amending various sections of the Act. There is no such principle in this amending Act. It would appear to us that it would be very appropriate at this particular point in time, and quite in order, for the hon. member for Rainy River to move the kind of wishy-washy amendment that he has moved in the circumstances, and for us to be in the position where we would like to clarify the issue which divides the three political parties in this area at this time. I think it would be well worth doing.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other member wish to comment before the Chair pursues this?

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that in the amendment of the member for Rainy River he is only changing the Act insofar as those in unessential services are concerned; all others are still really maintained in the principle of the bill. Those who carry out essential services do not have the right to strike. So it is an amendment to it; it is clearly not contrary to the principle.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair still feels that this is contrary to the principle -- and I didn’t read Mr. Renwick’s sub-amendment. I will read it for the record: “Mr. Renwick moves, by way of sub-amendment, the deletion of all words after the word “strike” in the first line of the proposed amendment.”

The Chair still feels that this is contrary to the principle of the bill and I would so state.

Mr. Deacon: Is that really your own thinking?

Mr. Chairman: That’s really my own thinking. It really is.

An hon. member: Pretty positive thinking.

Mr. Reid: Is there not something in the standing orders of procedure about this?

Mr. Chairman: You are reversing the principle of the bill that was debated at second reading -- on the proposed right to strike.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Reid: It is not in this bill, Mr. Chairman. All we are doing is amending the bill.

Mr. Chairman: I still feel it is injecting a new principle into the bill.

Mr. Renwick: You wouldn’t want us to appeal your ruling would you, Mr. Chairman?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s one way of settling it.

Mr. Chairman: I so rule that we are changing the principle of the bill.

Mr. Renwick: We will certainly appeal his ruling.

Mr. Bounsall: Speaking to that point, Mr. Chairman, I am not a parliamentarian in the sense of knowing which is right procedure and which is wrong, but I can recall other amendment bills going through the House in which one has moved the deletion of a whole section, or, when we got to the final section of the bill, deleted that section which gives the title to that bill to express our displeasure with the principle of the bill. We have moved the deletion of whole sections with which we didn’t agree, and those amendments, as placed, have always been accepted.

Just speaking on a point of due procedure, I can see little difference between an amendment of that sort which has occurred on other bills and the original amendment that was placed here. One deals with the amendment in the substance and frame in which it is placed. I can see no difference between what has been done in this bill and what we have always done in clause by clause discussion of other bills.

Mr. Chairman: What the hon. member is referring to is the process of deletions, but my ruling is that this is changing the basic principle of the bill with regard to the right to strike, and the Chairman’s ruling is not debatable. If you wish to challenge it --

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I rise to appeal your ruling because you are establishing a precedent here which makes it impossible for us to discuss and to amend any bill whatsoever. I just can’t see how we can possibly accept a ruling such as this, which in effect is cutting off debate on any sort of adjustment or amendment to a clause.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman. I want to make this very clear. I take it, Mr. Chairman, in explaining your decision on this matter, which of course we accept, what you are saying is that you do not accept the amendment proposed by the member for Rainy River -- it is not a question of whether or not the sub-amendment proposed on behalf of our party will be accepted -- and it is the Liberal Party which is challenging your ruling on this matter. Is that a correct interpretation?

Mr. Chairman: The Chair again reiterates the fact that Mr. Reid’s amendment is changing the basic principle of the bill, which was debated at second reading. It is the Chair’s ruling. Shall the Chairman’s ruling carry?

Mr. Reid: No.

Mr. Deacon: No.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

Mr. Renwick: In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Mr. Laughren: The “ayes” have it.

Mr. Chairman: You are getting the Chair confused now!

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Call in the members.

Order, please. We are voting on the Chairman’s ruling. Mr. Reid moved an amendment to section 4 of Bill 179 by renumbering the first paragraph as subclause (a) and adding subclause (b) as follows:

“Employees shall have the right to strike, except for those deemed to be engaged in essential services; such essential services to be determined by management in consultation with the bargaining agent or agents.”

The reason I am reading the proposed amendment is for the benefit of the members of the committee who weren’t here at the time it was placed and when the Chairman ruled.

The hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, that was deleting section 9 also, you’ll recall, in the original amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Section 9, correct.

It is the Chairman’s opinion that this injects a new principle to the bill which is contrary to the principle which was debated at second reading and which was approved by the House.

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

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 42, the “nays” are 28.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the Chairman’s ruling upheld and the amendment out of order.

Is it the pleasure of the committee that we deal with the two amendments which are stacked at the present time, while the members are here?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: In section 3, which deals with section 6 of the Act, Mr. Bounsall moved an amendment to the amendment that all the words following “employer” in the second line be deleted.

Mr. Stokes: Well, on a point of procedure, if for no other reason, there are other amendments; why don’t you wait and stack them all at once.

Mr. Chairman: If it is the wish of the committee, we can either stack them or we can deal with the two that are before the Chair at the present time?

An hon. member: Ah, wait with them.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): I suggest that we deal with all the amendments at the same time, Mr. Chairman. That might be more convenient for the House.

Mr. Chairman: Is that agreed by the committee? We’ll wait and deal with all the amendments when the debate is completed?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 9 as contained in section 4 form part of the bill? Any further discussion?

Mr. Reid: No, I just wanted to make some very brief remarks on this, particularly in view of the remarks of the member for Riverdale and the member for Windsor West. You may recall that the member for Riverdale indicated before we rang the bells they were going to support the Chairman’s ruling, and of course it’s just another example of them changing their minds.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Foulds: Yes, the remarks of the member for Rainy River are completely out of order, and erroneous.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): That’s your answer.

Mr. Foulds: There is no indication in Hansard about how this party would vote before the vote took place.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member has a difference of opinion, not a point of order. Could we continue with any discussion on section 9 as covered in section 4?

Mr. Breithaupt: That was a point of view.

Mr. Foulds: With the greatest respect, it is a grave parliamentary misdemeanour to mislead the House --

Mr. Chairman: The member should not accuse the member of misleading the House.

Mr. Foulds: -- and the member for Rainy River is attempting to do that.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): I don’t think those in the gallery would agree.

Mr. Chairman: Did the Chair hear properly that the hon. member was suggesting the member for Rainy River was misleading the House?

Mr. Foulds: Yes, the Chairman certainly heard that properly -- and the member for Port Arthur withdraws the remark.

Mr. Breithaupt: They don’t believe it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Rainy River, any further discussion on section 4?

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that we can’t pursue this matter of the right to strike. However, I suppose that the best way to resolve the issue is to remove the government in office and replace it with the Liberals.

Mr. Roy: We will be kind to you.

Mr. Reid: But let it be on the record, Mr. Chairman, that the labour critic for the NDP, the member for Windsor West, in the debate on second reading on Jan. 30 indicated that that party also, at least through him as its spokesman, accepts the point of view that there should be essential services. I would like to quote from Hansard for Jan. 30, 1975.

Mr. Laughren: Where are the TTC operators? How do the TTC operators stand in this whole thing?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I think that we have debated this. It’s on the record at second reading. I think we should deal with the --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: We can make any comment we want.

Mr. Foulds: Tell us about how you voted on compulsory arbitration for teachers -- each time differently.

Mr. Breithaupt: You can get in on the debate if you wish.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, the member for Riverdale made the point that we weren’t as exact on this matter of essential services as he would like. He moved on amendment that I gather is still in order. I gather his amendment is in order, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: No, his sub-amendment was --

Mr. Reid: I would like to address myself to the remarks he made in that regard because he said quite clearly and distinctly, Mr. Chairman, that he did not support any restriction on the right to strike, that there shouldn’t he anything such as essential services, that everyone should have the right to strike. I draw his attention to the remarks of his colleague, the member for Windsor West, on Jan. 80, in which he said --

Mr. Renwick: This matter is out of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We discussed this point earlier. Section 9 of the Act deals with matters that may be determined by the arbitration board and I would ask you to speak to the section.

Mr. Roy: That is exactly what he is doing.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: If I understand this, Mr. Chairman, it deals with compulsory arbitration and this is the subject matter that we are discussing. I really don’t have to say anything further except, Mr. Chairman, to point out that again there’s a rift and a chasm between the members of the NDP on this matter.

Mr. Renwick: No. You never have to.

Mr. Good: Renwick rides alone.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 4 form part of the bill?

Section 4 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments, criticisms or amendments to any other section of the bill? The hon. member for Windsor West. What section?

Mr. Bounsall: Section 5.

On section 5:

Mr. Bounsall: I just want to say on section 5, Mr. Chairman, that the amendments that appear in the bill as amended by committee are certainly acceptable amendments and clear up some discrepancies that happened to appear in the original bill.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 5 form part of the bill?

Section 5 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comment, questions or amendments?

On section 6:

Mr. Bounsall: A question on section 6, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister: This is a section which in essence we agree with, that is, telling the board of arbitration established under the original Act that it is to complete its duties under that Act before the coming into force of this Act. I have the same question on this one, as I have on a similar section that is brought in later on, that if the parties appearing under a board of arbitration at the moment feel that the new set-up of the arbitration board under this Act is better than the one under which they are appearing, they may feel very strongly they would like to appear before the new board of arbitration set-up. Would that be allowed?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Are you suggesting that this is where a matter of business has not been completed, or a new matter of business?

Mr. Bounsall: No, where a matter is partway through and not been completed. I understand the government’s strong desire to have matters completed --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes.

Mr. Bounsall: -- that are already halfway through. Are there any of those, may I ask the minister? If the new procedures are somewhat better, even for a matter that is partway through, and the parties wish to go under the new procedure in the Act, is that possible?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I must say that that was really not my intention. My intention, of course, for adding this thereto is so that the board, as it was constituted, could complete its business.

I would assume that it would be a very minimal amount of work, but all new matters could, of course, be referred to the new board. I don’t see this as being a contentious matter. If it does become a contentious matter, certainly I can look at it.

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

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, if I could just carry on to clarify this. If a matter has come before the old board and has not yet been considered by the old board --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That would be taken care of.

Mr. Reid: That will then be taken care of by the new tribunal?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 6 form part of the bill?

Section 6 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments or questions or amendments to any other section?

Mr. Bounsall: Section 9.

Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.

On section 9:

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

Mr. Bounsall moves that section 9 be amended by deleting “discipline, dismissal, work methods and procedures, kinds and location of equipment,” in 17(a) and “training and development” in 17(b).

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, that pretty well echoes the amendment I have, except that I would like to add a sub-amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on this? Does the member for Windsor West wish to comment on this before we hear from the hon. member for Rainy River?

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, I would like to comment on this, Mr. Chairman.

My normal inclination at this point would be simply to move the deletion of all of 17, and have no management rights clause in the bill at all -- with those management rights to be determined by both parties. That’s really what should happen.

I have the feeling, though, that that amendment might be soundly defeated. Instead, I’m deleting from section 17 those specific management rights clauses which I feel should be most in discussion between the two parties.

Those matters which I leave remaining, particularly in 17(a), would be matters which might, through at least the first negotiations, pertain to management in any event. I am, of course, prejudging what both parties may agree to in the first approximation; and that is dangerous, and I don’t feel very comfortable doing that. I would simply like to move deletion of the whole kit and caboodle.

Bearing in mind the discussions we’ve had on superannuation and the problems of at least having a joint consultative committee on it between two parties, and discussions relating to the investment of the pensions -- hoping that this would occur anyway, informally, even though there’s a management rights clause here in 17(b) that makes that a right only of management -- I did not include superannuation in my deletion. This was done specifically, because I would like to see the minister take the lead here and informally set up this joint consultative committee to discuss superannuation and the investment of those funds.

I sort of get the feeling that the minister may be intrigued by that idea and may like to try it out on his own. Even though it’s purely a management right, he would have the management right to set up that joint consultative committee. I would so urge him to consider doing that -- so I have not deleted that.

But it strikes me that in matters of discipline, this should be not just a management right. It should be something management would discuss thoroughly with the Civil Service Association in determining discipline; certainly in the matter of dismissal the same argument applies.

Work methods and procedures: This is a very contentious point between the postal workers and their employer; the postal workers contend that work methods and procedures is a bona fide area of negotiation between the two parties and not exclusively a management right.

Kinds and location of equipment: I can’t imagine a management that would not wish to sit down with its employees and discuss the kind of equipment that should be purchased, the location of that equipment or the proximity of employees to that equipment. In committee, we discussed the situation where there is excess equipment in one area and a deficiency in another, and the possibility that an argument might develop as to whether or not you transfer the excess over to the deficiency and buy new equipment. I think that is a matter of common sense and would not stop the proper location of equipment in terms of excess and deficiencies around the province; and it is a matter of common sense that no group of employees, certainly at the bargaining table, would make a real point of issue.

Training and development, in section 17(b), is again a matter where I can’t imagine a management not wanting to have a lot of input from its employees as to what sort of training programmes they would wish to embark on so that they can develop and put themselves into a better position to carry out the jobs they have been assigned.

The way it is proposed in the bill, if this is an area in which the association cannot have anything more than a very informal input, it does not give them an opportunity to say to management, “Look, in this particular area we feel our employees in that area should have this kind of training available to them so that they would carry out their particular jobs more efficiently or would equip those particular employees with a certain background to then move on with that additional training and take up another more meaningful position within the ministry.” I would hope that the minister, at this point, would consider deleting the specific clauses from the bill, as I have mentioned.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to comment before the hon. member for Rainy River places his sub-amendment? Then we can deal with both of them.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): A sub-amendment? I want to speak to the amendment itself before any sub-amendment is placed --

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps we could let the hon. member read his sub-amendment into the record, and then we could debate both of them.

Mr. Deans: Okay. But it may be that I want to speak against it for all I know. I have to listen first.

Mr. Reid: I don’t think so. Mr. Chairman, as I say, the amendment imitates the one that I was going to put --

Mr. Deans: No, no, it is similar in nature; it doesn’t imitate.

Mr. Reid: -- and the one that my colleague from Windsor-Walkerville put in the committee when we were debating this matter in committee.

I would like to add a sub-amendment to the amendment that has been put in the hope that it will give us the best of both worlds.

Mr. Reid moves a sub-amendment to delete from section 17(1)(b) the word “superannuation.”

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Wentworth wish to speak on either the amendment or the sub-amendment?

Mr. Deans: Yes, I do. I want to say two or three things about it. First of all, of course, we will support it. My colleague would have moved that, except he thought there was perhaps another procedure that might have been used.

Mr. Reid: Well, no. I was afraid it wouldn’t be accepted.

Mr. Deans: I think we would generally agree that matters of superannuation should be matters which could be discussed at the bargaining table. In fact, we go a bit further than that. The whole matter of management’s rights is something that is an archaic principle. There are very few things in life that don’t affect employees; in fact, if you take a serious look at employees, everyone right up to management is an employee of one sort or another.

I think, particularly in government services, there is no such thing as the owner on the one hand versus the employees on the other. You’re talking in actual fact about employees of the government, all of them, everyone. Even those acting on behalf of the government are, in fact, employees. I fail to see the reasons why we set out something called a management rights clause.

It seems to me in this enlightened age that it should be possible for employees to sit down with employers and to discuss across the bargaining table all things pertaining to their employment. It may well be that they won’t agree. It may be that they’ll come to a point where they will have to agree to disagree on certain items and that those matters may well have to be decided by an impartial arbiter. But the fact of the matter is that among reasonably intelligent people who are working in the same general area, whose concerns are very much parallel, they ought to be able to sit and talk, one with the other, about all matters.

I’ve said many a time to the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet that far more disputes develop as a result of things which are not able to be discussed between employer and employee than develop over wages or general working conditions. I would suggest to you, as I did to your predecessor and to his predecessor, that if you want to avoid industrial strife and if you want to avoid the kinds of upset, the kinds of withdrawal of services and the festering general feeling of discontent that develops among employees from time to time, you do it by having an open process, a process that permits the employee on the one hand or the employer on the other to come to the bargaining table and to sit down and to discuss all of the matters which affect the employer or the employee in his place of employment.

I don’t know why the government can’t be in the forefront of this change. I don’t know why the government can’t give it a try to see whether or not there may be areas regarding employment that employees might want to have some input into; to see if there may not be areas of appointments that employees might be able to offer some constructive suggestions about; and to find out whether or not there may be matters pertaining to the complement of people required to do the job that could well be discussed at the bargaining table, given that the employees surely have as much of an interest in ensuring that the job is done well than does the Management Board of government or its representatives.

Surely the whole matter of assignment is something that could well be of a decision reached between the employer and his employees. You may decide, for example, that a certain complement of people ought to be assigned to do certain work in a certain part of the province. It may be that as a result of experience on the job, employees would know that that isn’t the most advantageous and the most economical way to do it and they would like to bring that to your attention and to discuss it. But within these terms that is the prerogative of management and, therefore, there is no avenue open for employees to bring these constructive suggestions about the way in which an assignment might be dealt with by the employer.

In the matter of discipline, it may well be that a number of employees recognize that there have been discipline problems and that there ought to be a discussion about an employer and employee representative on the management side and the way in which discipline is meted out. It should be a matter for discussion.

What worries me about it is that somewhere along the way of coming to a decision all of the wisdom about these particular matters is held in the minds of a few selected people and that the remainder, the great mass of employees, don’t really care very much about the way in which the operation is carried out with regard to these particular concerns. It’s not as if you’re holding to yourself rights which you have to have in order to manage properly. It’s not as if somewhere along the way there is a profit derived from holding to yourself something called the “owner’s rights.” That’s where it all derives from. In years gone by the owner held for himself certain rights because he owned the business and he wanted the right to make his own decisions. As time evolved, he transferred the exercise of these rights to people whom he appointed as managers.

In this case we are not talking about an owner situation, an owner versus employee. We are talking about a great number of people, all of whom are employees. We in the Legislature, you as the Chairman of Management Board, and all of the cabinet, are simply the trustees of the public position, the trustees of the public purse, if you will. Your job is to make sure that the public funding and the legislation that are required to carry on the orderly business of the province are done properly. You don’t take on an ownership function in doing that. All you are doing is acting as a trustee. Everyone else, including those people sitting under the gallery, are all employees and they have been assigned certain responsibilities.

They don’t hold for themselves all of the wisdom. They don’t hold to themselves all of the power to make decisions. They don’t pretend, I hope, to have knowledge of every single aspect of every single job that falls beneath their particular station. Surely it would make a lot of good sense, given the size of the civil service in Ontario and given the way in which they are dispersed throughout the province, that we recognize that employees of the Crown are dedicated on the first hand; that their dedication is at least the equal of anyone else’s, whether designated as management or otherwise; that they have a deep-rooted desire to make the system work properly on behalf of the people; and that the only way in which they can sit down with management, which is you ostensibly, is at the bargaining table. There is no other opportunity. You are far too busy and they are far too many.

At this point in time, what we should be doing with the civil service is creating the most open collective bargaining atmosphere that can be available. We should be setting up a model. The model should be that we are prepared and we are not afraid to trust the employees to come to reasonable decision about matters which affect not only them but which also affect the public. That means saying to them: “When and if you find in any areas matters within those areas which you think could be negotiated to the benefit of the public and yourselves, we are prepared to sit down and talk about them.”

I don’t quite understand why any of these matters in all fairness, need be held as sacred rights of one particular small group appointed by the government to manage, because you are excluding a tremendous amount of very valuable brainpower. You are excluding a great number of people right across the province who could quite conceivably have more concern about the way in which their particular job and their particular area operates and who may be far more knowledgeable about it than anyone here at Queen’s Park. Yet they can’t bring up matters of assignment, organization or complement and any other procedures or work methods. These things can’t be discussed at the bargaining table. They are excluded from discussion completely.

If I can go on to the amendment, I have never understood -- and I’ve made this argument for seven years -- why superannuation was excluded from discussion at the bargaining table. I have never been able to appreciate how it can be that what takes the place of the pension for employees in the civil service cannot be a matter for discussion at the bargaining table. I don’t understand it. There is some very obscure principle some place. I’ll be damned, as I look through the negotiating processes and the way in which employers and employees carry out negotiation processes, how we can come to the decision in this House in this year that the employees of the government ought not to be able to negotiate their pensions. I don’t understand that. I mean, what is it about that?

What is it about employees of the government that makes them so different from employees of the Steel Co. of Canada with regard to their pension needs? What is it that makes them so different from any other employees in the Province of Ontario with regard to their need to ensure for themselves and their families an adequate level of remuneration after they retire? Why should they not be able to discuss with the government, year by year, at collective bargaining time, their needs and the government’s capacity to meet those needs?

It’s an evidence of bad faith on the part of the government. It’s a continuation or perpetuation of a long-held principle which has never had any foundation. And it doesn’t make sense. It has never made sense.

However you arrived at it, I’ve got to say this to you; that as I recall previous management’s rights clauses, this is a vast improvement over what was there in years gone by. I mean, in years gone by it was virtually impossible for Crown employees to talk about anything. They were having a devil of a time even talking about wages. But surely, having recognized that we are now in a new era and we are dealing with people who are making a career out of the public service, people who are no longer coming in via the patronage route, and are being hired for their ability rather than for their contacts, people who are prepared to devote their lifetime to ensuring that the public receives an adequate level of service, they should then be able to sit down at the bargaining table and talk about what kinds of rights they will have beyond the age of retirement.

I suggest to you that that ought not to be in this legislation. I would like to tell you I am almost positive -- almost, not quite, but almost positive -- that if there were no section 9(17)(1)(a) and (1)(b) that collective bargaining would go on; that whatever discussion took place at the bargaining table would be to the advantage of the government and the people of the province; and that whatever matters would be raised by the employee representatives at the bargaining table would be raised from a desire to improve the conditions in an effort to improve the service level.

I will never, for as long as I am in here, understand why you continue to hold to yourself something called “management’s rights,” recognizing that of course management, as I said before, is in fact, simply employees elevated to a position of supervision. And that’s all. They have no vested interest, and there are no owners involved. There is no profit to be protected. In fact, all you are saying is that you don’t want to be bothered having to talk to your employees from time to time about matters which you might find a little awkward.

I think you’ve got to have more faith in the employees of the Crown. I think you’ve got to understand that these employees’ sense of commitment is far greater than you’ve ever realized, and that they are in fact career civil servants choosing the job because (a) they are well trained, (b) they are well suited, and (c) they have a deep-rooted sense of commitment.

Mr. Chairman: In view of the hour does the minister wish to comment now or will we continue the debate? Are there any more members who wish to speak on the amendment or the sub-amendment? If there is to be further debate, perhaps in view of the hour we should rise.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, the situation for tomorrow, I think is well understood.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Pardon? I am not required to stay for the late show, Mr. Speaker, so I would like to say that on Thursday we will proceed with the consideration of this particular bill, then Bill 111 in committee and, I believe, if the Condominium Act returns, we will consider it as well.

Mr. Speaker: For the information of the Speaker and the members, do we sit tomorrow at 2 o’clock?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, that’s been agreed and announced.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Before he moves the adjournment, can the House leader indicate whether the committees will be sitting tomorrow or not? Are there any committees still sitting on the Condominium Act, for example?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I would assume because of the arrangements that we deem ourselves not to be sitting. The arrangement that has been made is for the convenience of the members of the House.

Mr. Deans: Does that mean that they won’t be sitting?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s what I was saying, yes.

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28, I now deem a motion to adjourn the House to have been made.

The member for Ottawa East has given notice that he is dissatisfied with the answer given to him by the Attorney General (Mr. Clement) earlier today. The member may now debate this matter for five minutes, following which the Attorney General may reply for five minutes. The member for Ottawa East.

ROSS SHOULDICE

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Speaker, the reason I said that I was not satisfied with the minister’s answer is that if one reads section 110, subsection 2, of the Criminal Code, it reads as follows:

“Everyone commits an offence who, in order to obtain or retain a contract with the government, directly or indirectly subscribes, gives or agrees to subscribe or give to any person any valuable consideration for the purpose of promoting the election of candidates or a class or a party of candidates to the Parliament of Canada or the Legislature.”

Very quickly, the elements of the offence are as follows: First of all, what is required is a contract. In this particular case, there was a contract, the fact that the government wanted to buy certain lands.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: The second element required in this is that there be an agreement to give or agree to subscribe or to give.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Let the member tell us the last time he was here on a Friday.

Mr. Roy: If one looks at the letter of Nov. 23, 1971, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that in the last paragraph of that letter Mr. Shouldice states:

“In the event that a sale is effected, it would enable me to forward to Toronto central the $30,000 that I was short in my commitment to you.”

Clearly there is an attempt here to give. The third element of this situation is that there be valuable consideration. That is the third element involved, and that’s the $30,000.

Finally, the last aspect of it is that it be for promoting the election of a party of candidates to the Legislature. That aspect of it is when he says that he would forward to Toronto central and that, Mr. Speaker, is the central fund of the Conservative Party here in Toronto.

Mr. Drea: The member is never here on a Friday.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Scarborough Centre just give the member for Ottawa East the floor, please?

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Drea: It’s true, he has never been here.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): How would the member for Scarborough Centre know?

Mr. Drea: I have been here every day, and he asks me how would I know.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breithaupt: Not always in that condition, I hope.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue, the transaction apparently did not go through with the help of Mr. Shouldice, and the $30,000 in fact was not transmitted to the central fund. But the fact remains that under the Criminal Code, Mr. Speaker, an attempt to commit an offence is an offence. Section 24 of the Criminal Code reads:

Everyone who, having intent to commit an offence, does or omits to do anything for the purpose of carrying out his intention is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence whether or not it was possible under the circumstances to commit the offence.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is clearly a situation where you have, in my opinion, an attempt to commit an offence. When you talk about an attempt, then you are talking about the question of intent. I can’t see any situation that is clearer than the question of intent when he says:

“In the event that the sale is effected, it would enable me to forward to Toronto central the $30,000 that I was short in my commitment to you.”

He goes on to say in a subsequent interview with Mr. Cleroux of the Globe and Mail:

“Yes, that is the letter I sent him. I know Mr. Kelly denies that he got it, but that is the letter that I sent him. I had a copy in my files until they were confiscated.”

He goes on to say that he never gave the $30,000 he had offered because the transaction was never made. Clearly it’s a situation where he admits having made the offer. On a question of intent, Mr. Speaker, just look at his letter of July 5, 1972, which was filed here, where he states:

Contributions must be given at election time commensurate to the amount of work that they have received.

He goes on to say:

“If it were possible to inform me in advance of any legal, engineering or architectural work in the North Bay, Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie areas, I would be pleased to contact the recipients and start rebuilding our funds for future use.”

So, Mr. Speaker, I was not satisfied with the answer of the minister when he stated that we were talking about a question of conspiracy, because I don’t see anything about conspiracy in subsection 2 of this section.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is basic in a criminal prosecution that the criterion you have to satisfy is reasonable and probable grounds and not certainty of conviction. It seems to me that in this case there are reasonable and probable grounds. I do have great respect for the Attorney General as a person, and I am not about to start making allegations of political influence pertaining to him personally, but I say to him that he has a duty as Attorney General to look at the evidence as it exists and, if he decides not to prosecute, it is important that he give us an adequate explanation. If he does not, we are left with the impression that prosecutions are not taking place either because someone is putting pressure -- not pressure, but basically what I want to say --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has a half a minute left.

Mr. Roy: Half a minute? Fine, that is enough for me to complete my remarks.

I say very simply that because of the importance of the minister’s position as chief law officer for the Crown, he has to give the impression, not only that justice be done but that it appears to be done to everyone in this province. So when he says to me that if I am not satisfied, I should lay charges myself, he is not discharging his duty, because it is up to him. He has the investigation process at his fingertips. I don’t know what the Attorney General’s evidence is, but it seems to me that in a situation like this, if he is not going to prosecute on this type of evidence --

Mr. Speaker: Time is up.

Mr. Roy: -- then we are entitled to an adequate explanation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Attorney General.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, in this procedure, which I am not that familiar with, I understand that I need not reply, but I think I would be remiss if I didn’t reply to the question put before the House at this time by the hon. member.

Mr. Drea: Talk about the yo-yos --

Hon. Mr. Clement: The member has suggested that the criminal test is one that is described as reasonable and probable grounds. I suggest, and I know he would agree, that it’s beyond a reasonable doubt.

One not only has to look at the particular section but to try to determine what the law officers of the federal Crown agency decided when Mr. Garson brought in this legislation perhaps 20 or 21 years ago. The legislation under section 108 is very specific as to how it deals with any member of an assembly who is corrupted by the offer of a bribe or something of that nature. It deals very specifically with members of assembly. It goes on into sections 111 and 112, in particular, I think, dealing with municipal officials who are offered a bribe and who are therefore guilty of the crime of corruption.

It’s very specific as to what happens after an election. If you are a member of an assembly or a member of a municipal council, then specific sections deal with those situations. If you are a government official and you are corrupted, then you are dealt with under section 109 and section 110(1).

The whole gist of this exercise is to deal with those who are candidates. My law officers advised me that it was their considered opinion, and I personally share it, that a candidate under section 110(2) -- and I am talking in relation to this assembly or the federal House; but everything we are talking about refers to this assembly -- is one who is a candidate running for office after the date of the issue of the writ. Now the writ was issued in September, 1971 -- I forget the specific date -- and the election, of course, was on Oct 21, 1971.

The letter which we perused, and which is referred to by my hon. friend, was dated Nov. 23, 1971; and in no way, in the opinion of my officials, could that letter affect or indeed be relevant to the outcome of the election which was held some one month and two days before the date on the letter.

Perhaps I did not make it clear, and if not I apologize to the members and I apologize to the member in particular. But I tried to make that clear at the time that it was my officials’ opinion that it did not apply; because there’s a peculiar type of individual, who is not an elected individual, who had to be covered by this legislation.

Our predecessors in Ottawa visualized that type of individual. Namely, one who is about to become a candidate and, in fact is a candidate in law, who, by the entering of a race after the writ is issued and is officially a candidate, holds himself out or someone on his behalf says: “If you support my man, or my men, or my party and pay so much money and a contract is involved, then certain things will flow from that.”

And that specific section deals with that type of situation. Because, as of the date of the election, you are then covered, sir, by section 108, in the opinion of my law officers. Because you’re then a member of the assembly of this province, and if you corrupt yourself by offering to hold out some inducement to any person, then, of course, you’re guilty of the crime of corruption.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Attorney General has one minute left.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Now, I can only assume this, and I hope I’m correct. I think I interpret this from the hon. member’s comments, because he is an officer of the Supreme Court of this province, as am I, and had taken an oath long before we entered this Legislature, and we owe an obligation to justice -- I hope that the member is not assuming that pressure, political or otherwise, has been exercised upon me or my officials for political purposes.

Mr. Roy: No, I agree with all that.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I accept that. I stand here before this House, Mr. Speaker, and I tell you that this is the considered opinion of my senior law officers, and I share it. I’m not suggesting that it’s right or wrong. I say it’s right, and I’m not differing with my friend. I think this explanation is required, and I’m here and I hope I have made it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I now deem the motion to adjourn the House as having been carried.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Are they clapping for Shouldice?

Mr. Roy: No, I rise on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Would the hon. member for Ottawa East please take his seat while the House is being adjourned?

Mr. Roy: No. I have raised a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: The House has been adjourned. There are no more points of order to be raised tonight.

Mr. Drea: Sit down! He never listens.

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

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order. We have exceeded the time of adjournment by allowing you and the Attorney General to have five minutes each, and that is under standing order 28. There is no more debate after the 10 minutes has elapsed.

The House adjourned at 10:45 o’clock, p.m.