Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege. I draw to your attention, sir, a report in yesterday’s Toronto Star, dated June 12, reporting a speech made by the hon. member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener), a direct quote from which I take strong and personal exception to:

“Mrs. Scrivener, parliamentary assistant to Irvine, said she suspects Ontario Liberal Leader Robert Nixon ‘hopes that the inconvenience and anxiety created by the housing shortage ... will add to his votes in the coming election campaign.’”

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Oh, Margaret!

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): She’s at it again.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would say to you, sir, that while we have listened to the emanations from the hon. member, irresponsible though they are, for a number of times --

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Shame on him.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- we believe that they are simply politically motivated, but this one is unacceptable, and I ask her, in your presence, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw this allegation, which is wholly baseless and a personal insult which I do not intend to accept.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, what is she going to do about it?

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): What is the Leader of the Opposition going to do about it? The Liberals have money for helicopters but not for housing.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It’s a cheap, rotten, political trick which will see her defeat.

Mr. Lewis: Right. But not by the Liberals -- by us. I want that understood.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I will recognize the member for Stormont, please.

Mr. Lewis: She is going to run third. We have already done a survey in St. David. She is a disgrace to politics.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, there are 30 students from Eamers Corners Public School in Cornwall seated in the west gallery, and I would hope the hon. members would join me in giving them a warm welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry. The hon. Minister of Energy.

ENERGY PRICES

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, information in the media last night, and again this morning, reports that the government of Canada has decided to raise the price of crude oil effective July 1, and of natural gas effective Nov. 1. If this is a decision, and frankly we do not know if it is or not, it was made unilaterally. There was no consultation at the ministerial level.

The government of Ontario is absolutely opposed to price increases at this time. Figures released this week show that prices have again increased, as has the unemployment rate.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): What is the government going to do about Ontario Hydro?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In this environment, the federal government still appears to be seeking higher oil and gas prices.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Thirty per cent for Hydro is okay, eh?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if the opposition is not concerned about this subject, I think the people of Ontario are.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Sure we are. We are as concerned as the government is; we are more concerned. We are more concerned about hydro rates.

Mr. Eaton: If the Leader of the Opposition would listen, he might learn something.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On May 22, in response to a question as to his expectations regarding oil and gas prices and the reported agreement between the governments of Canada and Alberta as to price, the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said:

“I think it is fair to say there is common ground between the two governments as to moving to a further level of price in oil and natural gas over a period of time by a series of steps. [He continued]: We are seeking to achieve the support not only of the producing provinces but, if possible, also of the consuming provinces for an increase at this time.”

Mr. Speaker, the support of this province for such purposes has not been “achieved.”

At the first ministers’ conference this year, the Premier (Mr. Davis) said no, not at this time. The response today is unchanged. It is unchanged because the level of unemployment continues to be a rebuke to national planning; the level of inflation continues to be an indictment; Canada’s ability to compete for exports, its balance of payments position, reduced housing starts, persistent recession -- all of these cry out for bold and relevant national action.

Indeed, the irony of the situation is that oil and gas price increases are being contemplated at exactly the same time when the federal Minister of Finance has been attempting to achieve a consensus among all sectors of the economy to battle inflationary pressures.

Ontario is already doing what it can. Our policies are directed toward giving leadership relevant to the needs of the nation and of the province.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is right and they are wrong but what is this government going to do about it when they increase it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We in Ontario brought in a budget designed to get our economy moving, to contribute to improving Canada’s lagging balance of payments position, to stimulate consumption, to increase productivity and productive capacity in the province --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: How about the $1.7 billion deficit?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- to assist citizens robbed by inflation and to deflate ballooning prices. We addressed ourselves directly to the needs of the people of this province and because sickness in the Ontario economy infects the nation, it is true to say that we addressed ourselves to the economic needs of Canada.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, that is quite a metaphor.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The statistics of the impact of the increases in the prices of crude oil and natural gas in Canada are well known. It’s a fact that we reluctantly agreed a year ago to a 71 per cent increase in the wellhead price of crude oil; that an increase in natural gas prices followed like an ominous shadow --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Call it active reluctance.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- that this increase produced $1.8 billion in extra costs to Canadian consumers --

Mr. Lewis: The Ontario ministers fell all over themselves to increase the prices.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- that 95 per cent of this immense sum from the pockets of consumers ended up in the treasuries of Canada and the producing provinces --

Mr. Lewis: That is wrong. That is incorrect.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Absolutely incorrect.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- and that these expenditures did not result in one definable extra barrel of crude oil or a cubic foot of natural gas.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): That is an echo of Esso.

Mr. Lewis: It went to the oil companies, not to the governments. That is completely wrong.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: All this is known. We know what happened following the increase in the price of oil and the doubling of the field price of natural gas that followed from the 1974 conference. The Premier reported on it at the first ministers’ conference this year, and I am quoting:

“Damage was done by the $2.70-a-barrel increase in crude oil and the doubling of the field price of natural gas, which followed in 1974. Our technical estimates are that the growth of jobs within Ontario, as a consequence of this increase, was reduced by 22,000 in 1974 and we will forgo a further 16,000 provincial jobs in 1975.”

One has to ask, will these people, unnecessarily unemployed, pause in their search for a job to applaud a further increase in the price of crude oil and natural gas, the erosion of still more jobs, another increase in the bills they have to pay for petroleum and the further inflation of prices in Canada?

Mr. Samis: What is the announcement?

Mr. Lewis: The government always knows how many jobs are lost. It never knows how many jobs it will create.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You bet they won’t. You ask, will the government of Ontario? You can bet that we won’t.

If the government of Canada, with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as its agent, is looking for a consensus favouring the escalation of inflation and the further erosion of jobs, if it wants the government of Ontario to stand four square for the further prejudicing of the economic health of this province and this nation, if it wants me to agree that those desiring jobs should continue to be unable to find them, if it is looking for a consensus favouring a further erosion of our balance of payments position, continuing recession, a reversing of progress resulting from the Ontario budget --

Mr. Lewis: It will never wash.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- if this is what they are looking for, they are looking in vain --

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): What rhetoric!

Mr. Lewis: That is rhetorical rubbish. Who wrote this stuff?

Mr. Ruston: The minister sure didn’t write that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The real interests and purposes of this nation will not be served by the pumping up of the price of oil and natural gas. We have better options --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Developing shortages of crude oil and natural gas must engage the attention of all of us -- the consuming and producing provinces and the government of Canada.

Mr. Lewis: The minister has done nothing to take the prices back. His statement is filled with hypocrisy.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The increasing of prices will contribute nothing to the resolution of this problem. We have the experience to prove it. We have pointed out, until we have grown weary of pointing it out --

Mr. MacDonald: We are growing weary too -- more than the minister is. He is not taking any action himself.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- that if the producing companies require increased cash flow to ensure Canada’s present and future energy supplies, it can be accomplished by some retreat by the governments of the producing provinces and the government of Canada in terms of royalties and taxes; they can permit additional funds to flow through to the producing companies.

Mr. MacDonald: They are not going to be cowed by the minister.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It should be no insuperable problem for the responsible governments to ensure that this additional money is used for the purposes for which it might be released. Because it has been a windfall to government is no reason for it to be permitted to be a windfall to the producing companies.

Government can, as necessary, work with the producing companies to ensure expanded production of petroleum and natural gas. We have an example in the Syncrude project for the extraction of synthetic oil from the oil sands of Alberta.

Mr. Lewis: The Syncrude project?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Not only did the governments of Canada, Ontario and Alberta invest public money in this project, but, to cover the high costs, they agreed that the price of the resulting product should be higher than the price of oil produced from existing conventional fields.

Reserves of natural gas are proven in frontier areas. National policy, while ensuring the protection of regional residents and the protection of the environment, might find a means of shortening the delay in the arrival of this essential energy. In fact, effective change in the price of natural gas has resulted in an increase in the money flowing back to the producers and the governmental tax and royalty gatherers.

The federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been quoted as saying that a new field price for natural gas in the range of 70 to 80 cents per thousand cubic feet is justifiable. He should have calculated the impact of the increase in the border price of natural gas exported from Canada on the revenues flowing to the producers in Alberta.

This is what his calculations should have shown him: In December, 1974, the average field price of natural gas in Alberta was 45 cents per thousand cubic feet.

Mr. Renwick: Does the minister have a copy of this?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On Jan. 1, 1975, the border price for gas produced in Alberta and exported from Canada was increased to $1. That increase, which did not alter the domestic price, added an average of 16 cents per thousand cubic feet of additional revenue to the existing 45-cent field pricing.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on!

Mr. Renwick: Can we have a copy of what the minister is saying?

Mr. Lewis: What is the government going to do about it? Everybody knows this.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The government of Canada has announced a further two increases in the border price, effective Aug. 1 and Nov. 1 of this year. This will add another 20 cents. The average revenue per thousand cubic feet that a producer in Alberta will get for his natural gas will be slightly in excess of 80 cents.

In short, the average revenue per thousand cubic feet that producers will receive on Nov. 1, 1975, compared with Nov. 1 of last year, will have nearly doubled. And yet Mr. Macdonald wants to further increase our domestic price as of Nov. 1 of this year.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: So does the government of Alberta.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Nor should a semi-secret continue to be made of the fact that in the 12 months following Aug. 1, 1975, as a direct consequence of the increased export prices, an additional $583 million will flow back, to be shared between the federal government and the producing provinces, with the remainder flowing to the producing companies.

That sum, in excess of half a billion dollars a year, will be achieved, if you will, without one penny increase in the price of crude oil or natural gas to Canadian residents. It will not result in the eroding of jobs or the worsening of inflation in this country.

Ottawa cannot pass blame for increases in the price of crude oil and natural gas to the governments of the producing provinces. Under sustained pressure from our government, the government of Canada --

Mr. Lewis: Not the governments!

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- finally passed the Petroleum Administration Act, which enables them to control the price of both natural gas and crude oil that crosses provincial boundaries. The onus regarding price is clearly and unmistakably on the government of Canada.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: At the first ministers’ conference, the Prime Minister said the government of Canada has come “reluctantly to believe that the price of oil in Canada must go up -- up toward the world price.” I ask the House to consider this in the light of a recent statement by the hon. William Simon, the US Secretary of the Treasury, speaking on the Public Broadcasting network --

Mr. MacDonald: Esso doesn’t believe the minister. They know he is grandstanding. They know he is on their side.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I quote: “The price consideration, as far as oil is concerned, is not an economic consideration; it’s a political one. The price of oil today bears no relationship to economic reality. There is no relationship to the production cost of oil, to the cost of alternative sources of energy. It was a political decision on the part of a cartel” --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. The government’s friends, the oil companies, were responsible for the price increase.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I continue the quote: -- “to quadruple the price of oil arbitrarily, because they control 67 per cent of the world’s proven reserves. And now, with the Humpty Dumpty logic that is being used, due to world inflation, and that their imports are costing more than the oil, they insist on a further price increase, which is absolutely ludicrous. On the trade weighted basis, which is the normal comparison, the price of oil, on any year’s comparison back to 1955, is 500 per cent higher than their own imports are. So it is consummate nonsense.”

Mr. Lewis: Sixty per cent of the world’s resources.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That’s a good clear statement. It is not the kind of statement that we are hearing out of Ottawa.

Indeed, we hear of a grossly inappropriate suggestion by the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that the governments of Canada and Alberta have found “common ground as to moving to a further level of price in oil and natural gas.” This is just as though prices here must follow the world cartel prices; just as though the other provinces of Canada had no interest in this matter; just as though they had no concern as to the health of the national economy or the well-being of our citizens.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): A fine political speech. It should be made on the hustings, not here.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We read of the grossly inappropriate statements that the federal minister made in Ottawa last night. I underline that Ontario is not indifferent to the aspirations of the producing provinces. Our record over several decades confirms this fact. But our first loyalty must be to the national interest.

Mr. Lewis: The minister said that in all his speeches, which didn’t get coverage.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I don’t wish to be misunderstood. The government of Ontario is totally opposed to any increase in the price of natural gas and/or crude oil, prior to our people --

Mr. Lewis: What is the minister going to do when it happens?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): What is the minister going to do about Hydro?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- being put to work and the inflationary escalation of prices in Canada being brought under control.

Mr. Breithaupt: What about Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The Premier’s office has been in touch with the Prime Minister’s office and has asked for an early meeting on Monday.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, that is useful; that is terribly useful.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour.

LABOUR RELATIONS ACT AMENDMENTS

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This morning I will be introducing for first reading a bill entitled, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

The Labour Relations Act is one of the most important statutes administered under my authority. It may be regarded as the basic bill of rights of the employees to whom it applies.

As hon. members know, it is the statute which provides for collective bargaining in what is loosely referred to as the “private sector.” I say loosely, because it applies not only to private industry, but to municipalities, utilities, health units, universities and other enterprises of a quasi-public character.

The Act in its present name was first enacted by a Conservative government in 1948. It was patterned on the United States’ Wagner Act, one of the most progressive and enduring pieces of social legislation enacted by the first Roosevelt administration.

Since 1948, successive Conservative governments have modified and updated the Labour Relations Act to meet the evolving needs of the industrial relations community. Administered by the Labour Relations Board and the conciliation branch of the Ministry of Labour -- two of the most respected agencies of government -- this Act has a long, proud and successful history.

When I assumed office just over one year ago, I was aware that the Labour Relations Act had not been amended since 1970. I soon became convinced that one cannot afford to stand still in this dynamic field and that new legislative initiatives were required. As the months passed, I became convinced that responsible collective bargaining and industrial stability, far from being incompatible, are in fact complementary -- and that, in this imperfect world, free collective bargaining is, so far, the best dispute-resolution technique available and the one on which we must build.

For many months I have worked with my advisers to attempt to formulate changes which will further the objectives of this government in the field of labour relations; objectives which are now enshrined in the preamble to the Act which, as hon. members know, reads as follows:

“Whereas it is in the public interest of the Province of Ontario to further harmonious relations between employers and employees by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely- designated representatives of employees...”

Three broad policy objectives have guided me in my preparation of the bill which is introduced today.

The first objective is the reduction of industrial conflict, and the bill contains a number of measures which I believe will assist in the achievement of this sometimes elusive goal.

Secondly, I am proposing certain measures which should make collective bargaining more accessible to the unorganized and should further protect individual employees against contraventions of the Act.

Thirdly, while I wish to protect and encourage organizing I am concerned that bargaining agents act responsibly, both toward those whom they represent and toward the community at large. Accordingly, I am proposing certain amendments which will further encourage fair and responsible conduct by trade unions.

I should add that some of the amendments reflect the proposals made by His Honour Judge Waisberg, in his report on certain sectors of the construction industry, and incorporate certain recommendations of the construction industry review panel, an advisory committee made up of senior representatives of management and labour in that important industry.

Before turning briefly to the highlights of the bill, I wish to record a deeply held belief that the key to success in labour relations is the willingness of the bargaining parties, employers and trade unions alike to operate within the law, and, wherever possible, to settle their differences without resort to the ultimate weapons of strike or lockout.

I appreciate that collective bargaining presupposes that the parties will often differ, sometimes dramatically, in their views as to what is a fair and reasonable settlement. I also recognize that on occasion when legal procedures have been exhausted the strike or lockout may be inevitable. To say that the adversary atmosphere can ever be totally removed from collective bargaining is to exhibit a fundamental misconception of how the system works. Too often, however, resort to strike or lockout represents a failure in effective communication, with tragic and costly consequences to the protagonists and to the community.

The central aim of my ministry is to continue to attempt to minimize bargaining failures and to work patiently and tirelessly with the bargaining parties to assist them in reaching acceptable settlements. We have no intention of intruding indiscriminately, recognizing that voluntarism is often the key to successful settlement; but we will not hesitate to come to the assistance of the parties, with or without their request, where we perceive that our presence can be helpful. In the months and years ahead, as we face economic problems of increasing perplexity, I look forward to a renewed spirit of co-operation among employers, unions and the government.

I now wish to turn briefly to the highlights of the bill. With respect to the right to organize, we are proposing, among other things, to reduce from 65 per cent to 55 per cent the membership support requirement for automatic certification; to expand the coverage of the Act to include dependent contractors; to transfer the onus of proof from the employee to the employer in complaints of illegal discharge or discrimination; to enable the Ontario Labour Relations Board to issue automatic certification where illegal employer interference stifles the free expression of employee desires; to permit the board to issue interim certification so that bargaining may commence where bargaining-unit description disputes would otherwise prolong the certification process.

To assist in the reduction of industrial conflict, I propose to seek the power to appoint a mediator at the time during the life of an agreement to assist the parties in the identification and early resolution of anticipated bargaining problems. I am proposing as well a disputes advisory committee, composed of senior representatives of labour and management, to be established on an ad hoc basis to confer with the bargaining parties and advise me in difficult bargaining impasse situations where conventional settlement techniques fail.

Mr. Lewis: That won’t work. That’s not the answer.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: In addition, I propose to seek the right to direct and supervise ratification votes in the case of prolonged strikes.

Finally, in the area of union accountability, I am proposing modest yet meaningful changes in financial reporting procedures, with particular reference to pensions and welfare trust funds. I am proposing an expansion in the duty of fair representation to ensure that the victims of discriminatory practices in hiring halls may bring their complaints to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for resolution. I am also proposing that the Ontario Labour Relations Board be given expanded powers to enjoin illegal strikes and lockouts.

These then are the highlights. The bill contains other important amendments to which I shall speak on second reading.

It is trite to observe that no legislation is likely to satisfy everyone, especially in the volatile field of labour relations where emotions run high and where problems at times seem insurmountable. In proposing these important amendments, I have carefully considered the views of the many interest groups with which I have conferred. I am indebted to all of them for the advice which they have given and the constructive arid co-operative spirit in which it was tendered.

I have also considered the legislation of other Canadian jurisdictions and have not hesitated to adopt concepts which appear to me to be useful and workable. So while there is some plagiarism, for which I make no apology, I believe the bill is distinctive and peculiarly appropriate to Ontario, still the most highly industrialized province in Canada. Almost 30 years ago we were the first among the provinces to develop workable collective bargaining laws. I believe, sir, that the Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1975, will keep us in the vanguard.

Mr. MacDonald: That’s nonsense.

Mr. Henderson: That’s the end of the New Democrats.

Mr. Renwick: Where’s the great labour man, the member for Lambton?

Mr. Lewis: That’s just a very weak series of amendments. That’s too bad.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Health.

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Since I am bringing the most serious announcement of the day, I will wait for order.

NURSING HOME WEEK

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to acknowledge June 15 to June 22 as nursing home week in Ontario.

Mr. Reid: There are a few over there who are ready for it.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): How about providing some more belts?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister will continue.

Hon. Mr. Miller: How could an innocent little remark like mine stimulate such an angry outcry from the opposition?

Mr. MacDonald: He is quarrelling with himself. Why doesn’t he stimulate the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Winkler)?

Mr. Renwick: He is just that provocative.

Mr. Ruston: When is pork barrel week?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): It’s every week.

Hon. Mr. Miller: But this week with the present meat situation, I wouldn’t want to use the term “pork barrel.”

Mr. MacDonald: Pretty weak.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I’d like to commend the members of the Ontario Nursing Home Association for the very important and growing role they play in health care throughout the province.

A fast-growing segment of our population, our senior citizens, live in nursing homes so it’s entirely appropriate that nursing home week coincides with senior citizens’ week.

Mr. Lewis: It’s pretty pithy.

Hon. Mr. Miller: In fact, my counterpart in the Ministry of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) has also just proclaimed June 15 to June 21 as senior citizens’ week in the province.

Nursing home week gives me a good opportunity to emphasize that nursing homes and the Ministry of Health are working together to care for the citizens of Ontario. Indeed, over the past few years I’ve been quite impressed by the way in which private enterprise has accepted a working partnership with government and has co-operated so well in helping to make that partnership work.

Nursing home care has been included as a benefit in the Ontario Health Insurance Plan since 1972. Nursing homes provide the extended care programme, under which the major portion of the patient’s daily basic rate is covered by the provincial plan.

All nursing homes in Ontario are independently operated and must be licensed by the province. They have to comply with stringent requirements and are subject to regular inspections by the Ministry of Health.

Mr. MacDonald: How about tossed salad week?

Today, the specialized health care of the older patient is one of the ministry’s highest priorities. The average life expectancy of Canadians is rising, and to help other patients to continue leading rich and rewarding lives is one of the significant social targets at which the Ontario government is aiming through its nursing home programme.

I, therefore, again commend the Ontario Nursing Home Association for its outstanding work, and I’m sure all members will join me in extending sincere good wishes for their future endeavours.

Mr. Speaker: Before the beginning of the question period, I recognize the member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Please allow me to introduce to you 40 students from the B. A. Parker Public School in Geraldton, the friendly town in the north, under the leadership of Ken Kurish, Peggy Goodwin, Ruth Corcoran and Bob Mahaffy. Will you please welcome them to the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Algoma.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): I would like to take this opportunity to introduce 30 students from the St. Joseph Island Public School, with their teachers, Mr. Wills and Mr. Jacks, and chaperones, Mrs. Porter and Mrs. Moscrow. I wish the members to welcome them at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The Leader of the Opposition.

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A question of the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister tell the House that when the Premier meets the Prime Minister on Monday, as is requested, he will be able to back up his demand there be no further increase in petroleum costs for this province by saying he is instructing Ontario Hydro to withdraw its 33.5 per cent rate increase which is at present before the Energy Board?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition likes to try -- I hope he’s doing it innocently -- to mislead both himself and the public.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Isn’t the minister applying for a 33 per cent increase for Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear all along that I do not accept as carved in stone --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s something that the government doesn’t want to deal with.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- the request from Ontario Hydro. But the hon. Leader of the Opposition must remember, and I hope he knows this, that we are talking about a publicly-owned, non-profit corporation --

Mr. Lewis: Non-profit?

Mr. Renwick: Non-profit?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- that has a mandate to deliver power to the people of Ontario and has a mandate to keep itself financially solvent.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister hasn’t read the task force report.

Mr. Lewis: He hasn’t looked at it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The Energy Board started hearings this week and adjourned until Tuesday. It will report to the government and to the people of Ontario later this year, by around Sept. 1 or Oct. 1 or thereabouts, its findings as to whether or not those increases can be justified.

What we are saying is that when one is talking about the field of oil and natural gas prices; when one is talking about the private sector; and when one is talking about security of supply, there is no justification whatsoever for those prices at this time but there are other ways to achieve it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the position was put forward by both opposition parties a year ago that there should not be an increase in oil prices and since the minister as a part of the government -- at least through the Premier -- reluctantly acquiesced, would he not feel that there would at this time be some value in having a unanimous statement from the Legislature opposing these increases in oil prices? Nobody in this Legislature wants them. The Premier wanted them last year and he doesn’t want them this year.

What is he going to say to the Prime Minister to back up his demand, particularly since his own government is demanding a further 33 per cent for Hydro costs when he himself acquiesced to an increase a year ago? How can he conceivably take a stand which the federal government is going to respond to?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Here again, Mr. Speaker, I think the comments of the Leader of the Opposition are somewhat misleading.

Mr. Lewis: Which Liberal Party is he talking about?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No. 1, the government is not asking for a 33 per cent increase in Hydro rates. No. 2, the request has come from Ontario Hydro --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the minister opposing it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- giving their best advice as to the demands on their system and their need to maintain the system as financially solvent and able to deliver the desired power to the people of Ontario. They have asked for a 29.7 per cent increase and not 33 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition is confusing it with what his federal Postmaster General wants in the way of postage rates. He is confusing it entirely. The other is that we have said all along that we were prepared, always, to --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister sends more mail than I do. As a matter of fact, I got a copy of a letter from him this morning. He sends out more mail. He asked me if I wanted to man a poll or make a contribution.

Mr. Breithaupt: Does the minister want to take him off the mailing list?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the Leader of the Opposition is saying he is disappointed with his government, all well and good. We will prevail. Unfortunately, I wish he had conveyed that a week ago tomorrow. Perhaps the Liberal government wouldn’t have made that statement this week.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A week ago tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for York South have a supplementary?

Mr. MacDonald: A supplementary: Is the government willing to back up its strong words with some sort of action in terms of exercising its constitutional power of investigating the prices in the Province of Ontario and their components?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, that option remains open to us. Within the ministry itself we maintain an ongoing survey of this. That option does remain open to us. We have attempted through our budget to spur the economy. Our concern here, as I said in the statement and many times in recent months --

Mr. MacDonald: Would the minister answer my question? Is he going to do it?

Mr. Lewis: Is he willing to do anything about it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I said it remains open to us.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question following what my colleague from York South has said, will the minister introduce enabling legislation into the assembly to back up what he is saying so that he can protect the consumer in the province in the light of the intended increases at the national level?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, we have examined in great detail the work that has gone on, for instance, in the Province of Nova Scotia. What we are finding is that as a result of their legislation the prices all come up to the adjudicated levels. We’re finding that in the Province of Ontario, by and large, our prices are lower than in those jurisdictions where they’ve done this because of the competition. This becomes a floor price, if you will, that everybody seeks.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on. They were at the floor price.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: They were not.

Mr. Lewis: It is a monopoly cartel anyway. They all move in sync.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the member will look at the factor of the case, he will find that I’m right.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition have any further questions?

SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes. I would like to ask the Minister of Energy a further question on this matter, in the absence of the Premier, the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) and a number of others. Have there been discussions in the cabinet having to do with the reaction of the government of Ontario if, in fact, the oil, petroleum and gas price increases do go forward -- and we hope they do not -- having to do with the statement from representatives of the government that our budgetary stance depends on no changes? Are we to expect a supplementary budget to be introduced before the Legislature rises for the summer recess in response to any changes of this type? Is there any plan under consideration by the cabinet along these lines?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, obviously as the hon. member knows, I can’t divulge cabinet conversations.

Mr. Reid: Is the minister invited to the cabinet meetings?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As I mentioned, what we are going on right now is a press report. There has been no communication from the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to me that he’s made a decision. There’s been no communication from the Prime Minister of Canada to the Premier of this province that there has been any firm decision. They are running the government by way of the front pages, it seems.

Mrs. M. Campbell: (St. George): It is hearsay?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We are waiting. The Premier has asked to see the Prime Minister and, in addition, we await almost with bated breath the budget of the Minister of Finance. Any questions further to that would have to be directed to the Treasurer.

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

OHIP PREMIUMS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A question of the Minister of Health: Is he aware that the Brampton Times reports that the Premier made a statement in his own constituency about a week ago that during this coming year the OHIP premiums would undoubtedly be increased? It was reported in the Brampton Times of May 16, 1975.

Mr. MacDonald: After the election; it always happens.

Mr. Henderson: The member was slow in getting that out.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of the report. I’ve never heard the Premier make that kind of a quotation in public; he may well have done so. The last time I heard him mention this in public was, I think, more than a year ago; at least it was around the time of the awarding of increased salaries to workers in Toronto, I believe, when the topic came up. I believe at that time he said there was no intention of raising the premiums.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. He was quite categorical.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I believe the words were “within the time frame of at least a year;” if I recall those words. Certainly he made categorical statements that there would not be an increase. I’ve made categorical statements there wouldn’t be any increase in 1975, but that’s not necessarily binding on the Premier.

Mr. MacDonald: Along with the sales tax on Jan. 1.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

PICKERING GENERATING STATION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask a further question of the Minister of Energy. Has he a report on the environmental safety at the Pickering plant which indicates there have been 63 leaks or incidents from the system and they have been termed of substantial concern to public health in at least 23 of those cases? Is he aware of a report of that nature and can he give further information to the House about it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have received no such report, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Does the minister have an advisory group within the Ministry of Energy which is concerned with safety at Picketing and our other atomic establishments including Chalk River?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, within the Ministry of Energy, within Ontario Hydro, within the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada and presumably within the federal Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources, that is a prime concern.

COMMENTS BY PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the Minister of Housing on a matter which I must admit is of personal concern. Does he still support his parliamentary or legislative assistant in her public comments, which I’ve raised already in the House, in which she says, “Liberal leader Robert Nixon hopes that the inconvenience and anxiety created by the housing shortage will add to his votes in the coming election campaign”? Would he not realize at least there is a basis of sincerity, surely, on all sides when it comes to matters of public policy concerning housing and other matters? Would he not accept the assurance, as we accept his assurance, that at least we are doing our very best to see that public housing and other housing in this province are removed from the morass into which they have fallen in recent months and years?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to receive the assurance of the Leader of the Opposition that that is his position and I would like to have it on the record.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: The minister knows I am very concerned about the statements by his parliamentary assistant who has said, in defence of her position, “At least he has not called me a liar.” That is her quote. Is he going to put up with that sort of so-called support on a partisan basis and, more important than that, from the person who is getting extra pay from the taxpayers to assist him in his onerous and very important duties?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, if it was possible, I suppose the salary of the parliamentary assistant should be increased because she does do an awful lot of work for me as the Minister of Housing.

Mr. Ruston: What kind of work?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I fully appreciate the assistance and co-operation she has given me. In any event I guess what we are trying to determine is the position of the --

Mr. Lewis: I wouldn’t appreciate it if I were the minister. It is like a permanent millstone.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I am trying to discern if the minister supports her irresponsible statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does the minister or does he not? Will he answer that question?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to determine whether or not the Leader of the Opposition will come out clearly and state he is for the policies of the government in regard to --

Mr. Lewis: Come on, don’t be so silly.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- the accommodation of families in communities where we have had resistance in the past. That’s all; there we are.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary question: Would it not be possible that the former deputy found he could not put up with the administration in the department as typified by the member for St. David, and that is why he had to get out of government?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is going, too. We are not worried about the member for St. David. We’ll beat the minister, too.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thoroughly irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A discredit to this House.

An hon. member: I wish I was as safe.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A discredit to this House. Mike Warren knew enough not to stay around here.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, could I advise the hon. Leader of the Opposition to worry about his own position and not to worry about mine? He has enough problems on his own side of the House. He shouldn’t be worrying about whether I’m going to be here or not.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have a very firm conviction that I am going to be around this House a lot longer than he will, and this party will be in power a lot longer.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister has a real problem. He has a cuckoo in the nest and she comes from St. David.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Do you want me to withdraw that, Mr. Speaker?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s good.

Mr. Speaker: I would just like to get on with a little more orderly question period, please. Does the member have a few more questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All right.

Mr. Samis: Cheaper than the Gallup poll.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Looks pretty bleak.

ONTARIO LEGISLATURE COURSES AT HUMBER COLLEGE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the Minister of Colleges and Universities how in these times when we are so deeply concerned with the costs of education, he can approve nine courses in astrology at Humber College and another one in creative divorce. Isn’t it time we had a look at some of these courses and decided we are wasting a lot of money? We are concerned about the quality of education, but the Tories must be about hiring astrologers trying to get some indication of their future.

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t say that is a provocative question, but it certainly gives an opportunity to make a few comments --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Good.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- which I shall not do. I don’t recall approving the courses the hon. Leader of the Opposition mentioned.

Mr. B. F. Nixon: The minister attended them.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I have a feeling they have been in place for some time. Was the last one -- did the member say creative divorce?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Right.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’ll look into that one.

An hon. member: Has there ever been an uncreative one?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. Lewis: A question, first, of the Minister of Energy. Since it is absolutely clear, all the posturing aside, that the federal Liberals -- with or without the reluctant acquiescence of the provincial Liberals --

Mr. Deacon: Does the member think our opinion matters?

Mr. Lewis: -- are going to raise the cost by $2 a barrel --

Mr. Breithaupt: It is called the federal government. That is what it is called.

Mr. Lewis: Federal Liberal government is what it is called.

An hon. member: Like in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Breithaupt: NDP government in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister recognize that contrary to news reports that works out to 5.7 cents a gallon increase on the base rate at the pump? With the increase of the refinery loss, which the oil companies calculate that will be 6.2 cents on the gallon at the pump; and when and if any additional costs is added by the oil companies -- last time they took 2½ cents on top of that -- we in Ontario are faced, on July 1, not with a four cent increase but with an eight cent per gallon increase at the pump and in home heating fuel. Therefore the Legislature has a right to know what the minister is going to do to contain those increases or to prohibit them when the oil companies attempt to impose them.

Mr. Breithaupt: Allan Blakeney will want to know too.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, what I am referring to this morning -- or trying to respond to because the federal minister apparently is off to Japan -- are press reports. We still hope the government of Canada -- there is sufficient time, there is lots of time --

Mr. Lewis: There is not.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- that the Government of Canada would be sufficiently concerned about the economy of the country and of this province specifically that it will listen to our arguments and will recognize that in point of fact we are correct when we say the fires of inflation need not be made worse, unemployment figures need not be made worse and something can be done. If they do, then I will respond at that time. Until then, it is still hypothetical.

Mr. Lewis: Okay; by way of supplementary: Is the minister aware that now, at this point in 1975, every additional cent per gallon means $26.5 million more to the consumer for the purchase of gasoline, $5.5 million more for the purchase of diesel fuel, $13.5 million more for the purchase of home fuel, so that every cent increase on the gallon means $45.4 million more to the consumers of Ontario, and at the likely eight cent increase we’re talking about, that means $363 million for Ontario? How can he be so sanguine about making his response when he knows it’s a fait accompli already and he refuses to protect the consumers of Ontario by telling us what he will do?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, number one, we do not know that it’s a fait accompli.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, of course it is. He never did anything. He knew it.

Mr. MacDonald: He was silent until it was.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: He has acquiesced throughout.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We have what?

Mr. Lewis: He acquiesced last year -- willingly and enthusiastically, not reluctantly -- and he’s doing nothing about protecting the consumers now, except for some rhetorical gestures?

Mr. Speaker: Please allow the minister to answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That may be the member’s opinion. I don’t think that the history of the last year proves that or substantiates that at all; not at all.

Mr. Lewis: Not at all? What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, we will continue to strive to stop any increases at this time.

Mr. Lewis: Oh come on. It is coming. What will the minister do for the people of Ontario?

Mr. Renwick: Bring the law in.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the federal government completely abdicates its responsibility --

Mr. Lewis: What will he do?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- then we will respond at that time.

Mr. Lewis: Then he will respond? Right. Instead of bringing old speeches into the Legislature, from which the minister got no coverage six weeks ago, and using them to respond to Macdonald now this morning, why doesn’t he tell us which option he will choose to protect the consumers of Ontario, since he has lost the rhetorical game with Ottawa? What are his options?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, in the case of natural gas prices, as the hon. member knows, we have the protection of the Ontario Energy Board which controls the rates of return of the gas companies to acceptable levels.

Mr. Renwick: That’s not what we are talking about and he knows it. The Energy Board doesn’t control that at all.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What I am saying is that, in the overall situation, if the government of Canada refuses to accept its responsibilities in the interest of the country, then at that point in time we will make our position known. Until then, I think --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): What is it now?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- we must not cloud our position. Our position must be absolutely clear. We oppose those increases altogether.

Mr. Lewis: We understand that hypocrisy, considering last year.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: A last question then, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister saying that now the announcement is effectively made he will not even indicate the options? Let me put it another way: Given the heat of his statement today, will he allow a one cent per gallon increase in gasoline or home fuel to be levied anywhere in Ontario when the federal government provides the oil companies with the additional $2 per barrel at the wellhead? Will he allow it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Again, Mr. Speaker, a hypothetical question.

Mr. Lewis: A hypothetical question?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: He keeps calling it a fait accompli. We don’t accept it is a fait accompli.

Mr. Lewis: Okay, good.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister is a slow learner. He will find out, and he knows it too.

HOUSING STARTS

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, of the Minister of Housing: Now that the January-to-May starts for 1975 work out to 18,832 in Ontario, compared to the January to May, 1974 starts of 30,239 -- a decline of 38 per cent -- and now that it is estimated that a one bedroom apartment will rise to $300 per month average rent by the end of this year, can he indicate to us, on the one hand, what additional programmes he has to actually create new starts; and on the other, when he is going to introduce his equivalent of rent control legislation?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’m well aware of the figures that the hon. member has outlined to the House. As far as I am concerned, I’ll have a better understanding as to the housing prospects across Canada, and particularly for Ontario, after Mr. Turner’s budget of June 23. I have to wait until that time.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: Is the minister familiar with the report on the housing market in this province, that I believe was put out within the last day or two by the A. E. LePage Co., which indicates that the tremendous, catastrophic drop in starts is due to governmental interference and governmental actions?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, I am familiar with the report. I don’t agree with the comment that the government is responsible for the drop in starts. I agree there are many other matters that are responsible for it though.

Mr. Deacon: Like lack of financial incentive for the municipalities.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Shulman: A further supplementary, if I might. In the report, does the minister suggest perhaps the speculative land tax was brought in by someone other than the government?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, I am not, certainly. We understand why the land speculation tax was brought in; why the land transfer tax was brought in -- and they have worked, in my opinion, very very well.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions? The member for Scarborough West?

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Will the Minister of Housing confirm whether or not Ontario Housing applications are at the rate of 1,000 a month, as he said he would yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they are not at the rate of 1,000 a month. What actually was meant by Mrs. Niddrie was that there were 1,000 reached last month, and the actual figure is much less than that.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, I see, 1,000 last month; but not necessarily 1,000 a month. We’ll wait for this month.

LABOUR RELATIONS ACT AMENDMENTS

Mr. Lewis: Could I ask the Minister of Labour: How did he manage to labour for five years to present amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act and fail to bring in the only amendment which will do something for labour peace in Ontario; and that is to secure good faith bargaining enforceable by law? Why is that omitted from the amendments?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned the Act now requires good faith bargaining.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on!

Mr. MacDonald: Why doesn’t he enforce it?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Good faith bargaining is a matter between the parties. From time to time some of them, in their zeal, may depart from what the hon. member opposite regards as good faith; but I am satisfied that most people, when they come to the bargaining table, are trying to reach an agreement. And that, I think, is all we can expect.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Naive thinking.

Mr. MacDonald: That is a cop-out.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister not realize that apart from one or two incidental amendments of value, there is absolutely nothing in his amendments this morning which will make for harmonious labour relations in Ontario? Does he not realize that?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with that; I think there are some provisions here which will make for more harmonious relations. I don’t suggest the bill is any kind of revolutionary or dramatic bill. It is my belief that progress in this type of legislation is best made slowly. It has to be accepted by both parties. We have some selling to do, I think, in some of these clauses, with both parties, but I think that they are ready to buy them and as long as we move forward slowly and are moving in the right direction, then we are accomplishing what we can for labour relations. I think this bill will do that, sir.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT AMENDMENTS

Mr. Lewis: A further question of this minister related to the amendments to the Workmen’s Compensation Act introduced yesterday: He must have had some breakdown of dollar costs to give us the dollar cost to the companies of the 10 per cent increase in the widows’ pension.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I have it here, Mr. Speaker, if I can put my finger on it. We increased the widows’ pension by 10 per cent to $286 per month; the annual cost of that is $1.5 million.

Mr. Lewis: One point five million! Whew!

An hon. member: Oh, boy, that’s had.

Mr. Lewis: So $1.5 million for all of the companies assessed across Ontario?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That is my understanding of the annual cost, yes.

Mr. Lewis: Which means that, had he brought it to the minimum level of the pension provided in the rest of the legislation, it would have cost somewhere around $5 million or $6 million for all of the companies assessed across Ontario. Can I plead with him to review that section of the Act before we enter second reading?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I’ll keep in mind what the hon. member has suggested. As I tried to point out yesterday, we are coming up with a figure the people receive as of right, regardless of their economic conditions. I tried to say that amount is not a large amount for a widow who is unable to go out to work herself, but we must also remember that is this day and age --

Mr. Martel: She can eat crow.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- there are other supplemental benefits. If her husband had been working for 20 years or so, there would be benefits from the Canada Pension scheme; and of course, eventually the old age assistance. But this is not a welfare Act, and I have to --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. It’s a cut all right.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Other people get these benefits regardless of the fact they may be working on full income; and that is my reference in regard to some widows who are in no way impaired from working themselves. They are entitled to this sum as a right too.

I think the member is suggesting we should base the Workmen’s Compensation Act on a matter of the need of the individual claimant, and that is not done. If we want to do that, we can perhaps review it with that in mind, but we will upset the whole scheme of the Act.

ONTARIO ADVERTISING IN TIMES SQUARE

Mr. Lewis: I have one last question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism, since it is Friday and we are together again. Can I ask the minister about the release of June 11 from his ministry, “Millions in Times Square View Salute to Ontario. Ontario Will Have Top Billing on Broadway This Summer”? The ministry is apparently having a giant electronic display screen above Times Square in New York City featuring such Ontario attractions as the CN Tower, the Polar Bear Express and Niagara Falls. Can he comment on this part? “As well, it will include photographs of Canadian show business personality Guy Lombardo and Claude Bennett, Minister of Industry and Tourism.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Admittedly, the Premier gets a picture too.

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Correctional Services): We want to attract tourists.

Mr. Lewis: If I may steal shamelessly from the member for Kitchener, is it true that every picture sells a Tory?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): If I were the member I would object too. He is the best actor in the House and he never made it to Broadway.

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): It is Friday morning, obviously Mr. Speaker, and the importance of the question should be realized. I will attempt to answer it with the significance it deserves. First of all, we have an opportunity, along with the Bulova Watch Co., to put an advertisement in Times Square.

Mr. Reid: Do we get second billing?

Mr. MacDonald: Is the minister on the face of the watch?

Mr. Deans: Is it something like those Mickey Mouse watches?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: At least, members can say I made it to Broadway. That is better than most members can do.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, let’s hear the answer.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We had the opportunity to make use of the largest electronic billboard in the world at the cost of $6,000, which is the production of the film required to produce the advertisement in the billboard.

May I say that the leader of the NDP happened to miss the most important line, that the Premier of the Province of Ontario will also be exposed to the people of the United States.

Mr. Foulds: The minister is talking more like Charlie Farquharson every day.

An hon. member: Watch that language.

Mr. Foulds: Exposed?

Mr. Martel: He may be the centrefold.

Mr. Lewis: Not in Times Square.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: it is obvious the opposition can’t work together on most occasions and this morning is no exception to that rule.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t apologize for asking the question.

Mr. Samis: Isn’t there a law against that?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is obvious their minds work in that particular channel.

Mrs. Campbell: At least their minds work.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: So they have accepted the meaning they would put on it, sir. The Premier will be inviting those people who visit Times Square --

Mr. Stokes: There’s no business like show business.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- and there are a million a day -- to visit the Province of Ontario. We are delighted to have this opportunity and Ontario will be well represented.

Mr. Breithaupt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Other than all of us probably receiving a Bill Davis wristwatch, could he advise us what the cost of this entire project will be?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It won’t be a Nixon-Agnew watch. I can tell the members.

Mr. Martel: A Mickey Mouse watch.

Mr. Breithaupt: I am sorry; I didn’t hear that.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It’s $6,000, which is the cost of producing the film for the three-month period it will run on an average of five hours per day.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York North with a question.

Mr. Deans: How often is the minister featured?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Every 10 minutes.

Mr. Lewis: He might get a seat in Albany.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; the hon. member for York North has a question.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Mr. Speaker, I had a question of the Attorney General (Mr. Clement) but I don’t see him in his seat. I will hold it and maybe he will come back.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I have a question, but before I pose it I would like to welcome a group of 34 students from Grey Central School who were in the west gallery. I see they have departed; I had trouble getting on this morning.

Hon. Mr. Potter: He lost his audience.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): They saw how his leader performed and they left.

Mr. Gaunt: In any case they were accompanied by Mr. Jim Axtmann, the principal, Bob Bremner, Floyd Herman, Mrs. Boneschansker and Mrs. Campbell. I am sure the House would want to extend a warm welcome to them. Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will get this Hansard printed quickly so I can send it back to them.

PAYMENTS TO WCB CONSULTANTS

Mr. Gaunt: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Does P. S. Ross and Co. presently have any role in so far as the Workmen’s Compensation Board is concerned?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I know they have done work for us. Whether there is continuing employment there for them, I am not sure. I think they are still doing some survey work for us, but I will check on that for sure and give that information to the hon. member.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister indicate how much money has been paid by the board and/or the government to P. S. Ross; and could the minister inform the House exactly what concrete results have come out of these payments?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I can certainly get the amount that has been involved. I am not so sure I can show any concrete results --

Mr. Ruston: That’s par for the course.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- but I will get that information for the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

HAMILTON HEALTH CARE FACILITY

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health: Given that the Roman Catholic community in the city of Hamilton has become very attached to the obstetrical services that are provided by St. Joseph’s Hospital; and given that the hospital had more births there last year than any other hospital in the Hamilton area, will the minister make it clear to the health council that it wouldn’t be the wish of the government of Ontario that they should take any action which would deprive that community and many others in the total community of the services of that particular unit of St. Joseph’s Hospital?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, if I start using that kind of prerogative, then I don’t think I need district health councils at all. Surely if the statement the hon. member has just made is correct, the feeling will be obvious to the council in place; if it is that strong, surely the council will abide by those feelings and it will reflect in their recommendation.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Does the Minister of Health feel that it would be desirable to maintain the services in that hospital since it does serve the Roman Catholic community?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am not going to comment on it because I don’t know.

Mr. Deans: The minister doesn’t know? Doesn’t he think he should find out?

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George.

OHC LAND PURCHASES

Mrs. Campbell: I have a question of the Minister of Housing: In view of the fact there are now several municipalities which have stated that they have offered lots to Ontario Housing at cost, which Ontario Housing has not taken up, would the minister now table in this House a report from Ontario Housing Corp. indicating the municipalities which have in fact offered such lots to them at cost, which they have refused, and give the reasons for such refusal?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I can give a general answer on this --

Mrs. Campbell: I want a specific answer.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and I think it will be applicable to each municipality, if the hon. member will listen. I said a long time ago in this House that we didn’t have adequate funding from the federal government to proceed with the senior citizen accommodation or the family units we wanted for Ontario and we haven’t got that yet. Our present funding will provide accommodation for only 4,000 senior citizens and maybe 500 family units. In the $390 million that I asked Mr. Danson to have Mr. Turner provide us, we have asked for an additional $100 million, which will provide funding for our target of 8,000 senior citizens and 1,500 family units.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What about the $105 million that wasn’t spent last year?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We can’t buy the land if we haven’t got the money. It is as simple as that. That is why we haven’t purchased from the municipalities the lands that have been offered to us.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Why don’t the members opposite cut some red tape in Ottawa?

Mrs. Campbell: That still doesn’t answer my question. I would still like to have the list from Ontario Housing. I would like to have their explanation because, as usual, the minister is not always accurate in his remarks and I would like to get it from Ontario Housing.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I may not always be accurate. I try to be accurate in the House or any place I am. I would suggest to the hon. member that perhaps if she would refer to exactly what I said, I am as accurate as anyone can be.

Mr. Deacon: Will the minister not make it available from Ontario Housing and then she can be assured it’s accurate?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I am the one who is responsible for the Ontario Housing Corp. and I will make the statements in the House.

Mr. Martel: The minister lets the member for St. David make them outside the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

PROMOTION OF AMETHYST

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Now that the amethyst is to become the official gemstone in the Province of Ontario, will the minister, in concert with other ministers in the resources policy field, assist mine owners and quarry operators to provide road access into those deposits, so that amethysts can become a very important secondary industry in northwestern Ontario? And will the minister prevail upon his colleagues to assist in fostering the kind of growth that is possible surrounding this new-found resource?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, first of all, on the point of advancing the position of the amethyst, I have suggested to the people in the ministry that in our future publications, brochures and pamphlets that will advertise and show the trillium of Ontario, we will now show the amethyst as being the gemstone of the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Deans: Why not put it in Times Square?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The first question, sir, I’d have to take under advisement to see exactly what it involves financially, and how access would be gained over private land.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Industry and Tourism has the answer to a question asked previously.

GRANT TO TRIPLE NINE FOODS LTD.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member for Scarborough West asked my colleague, the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman), on Friday last -- and it was a Friday morning question again --

Mr. Lewis: That can wait.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- why a $250,000 grant was given to Triple Nine Foods in Brampton to purchase equipment to manufacture a special coated peanut.

Mr. Speaker, Triple Nine Foods is setting up a manufacturing plant in Milton, not Brampton. It is not a grant but a loan.

Mr. Lewis: That’s from the press release.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, if the member had read the press release he would find out that the principals live in Brampton and the plant is in Milton.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, I see.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, a great difference. This is an industrial mortgage in the amount of $250,000, and I again repeat, it’s a loan and not a grant. The principals are providing $215,000, for a total cost of $465,000. The company proposes to manufacture a coated peanut not presently available in North America --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s what the world needs -- another coated peanut.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It’s great to laugh, but it’s an industry, and let me say that’s the job we have, trying to bring industry to this province to create employment.

Mr. Lewis: Right, and they do a great job; no secondary industry for northern Ontario, but for Milton.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the product is not presently available in North America, and the secret of it is that the flavour is absorbed in the coating rather than being fried directly into the peanut.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is our greatest single asset.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: As in all applications dealing with food, this one has been approved by the Ontario Food Council. This product, Mr. Speaker, is presently being manufactured in Holland, the sales record there is 32 million pounds of peanuts a year, and it is a favourite with Europeans.

Mr. Stokes: Have they checked the lead levels?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The export potential of this product from Ontario to the United States is great, and the acceptability of the product has been shown through independent market surveys in Canada.

The Ontario Development Corp. is designed to help entrepreneurs who, in the opinion of the corporation, have a viable product, provide employment and have been refused financing in the private sector. Triple Nine Foods met the criteria established by the ODC and the loan was approved; it will produce 25 jobs for our province.

Mr. Martel: The minister of peanuts!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Waterloo North.

CONESTOGA COLLEGE DISMISSALS

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Would the minister investigate the conditions at Conestoga College, where I understand five probationary staff members are being dismissed just prior to their probationary period ending? Would the minister ascertain whether other part-time employees are being hired to replace these staff members, and why they are being released just prior to the completion of their probationary period?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, I am sure, it is an internal matter for the administration and the board. But I will be glad to inquire and get information for him on the background.

Mr. Good: Supplementary: While the minister is getting information would he ascertain why, if it is a matter of economic restraint, other administrative staff are not being released as well as the probationary teachers?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire about that too. I would assume that financial restraint may have something to do with it, and it may well be there has been some non-replacement of administrative staff and some other measures on the administrative side as well as the faculty side.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

HOUSING IN THUNDER BAY

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Housing: When is the Minister of Housing going to respond to the telegrams and letters that he’s been receiving over the past week from people concerned about the Thunder Bay community project, in order to meet his commitment, or the commitment of his predecessor, on May 13, 1974, to provide 10 per cent of the funding for that project?

Mr. Reid: I asked that yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rainy River asked that question yesterday. I said we have asked the federal government some weeks ago to reassess the feasibility of the project as it is now. It’s our concern that it isn’t economical or viable at the present time. It might have been a year ago. So when I have a letter back confirming that the federal government agrees, then we will process it in due course.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the urgency of the matter, seeing as the bid bond expires on June 16, how is it that he does not know that the redesigned project has been approved by the federal government? They’ve brought it in at a much cheaper price than his original approval. Isn’t he in great danger of doing simply what his colleague from St. David accuses the federal Liberal government of doing -- that is, playing dirty tricks because the complex is known as the Andras complex in Thunder Bay? Why don’t the Conservatives and the Liberals get to the meat of the matter and supply housing units for people in Thunder Bay, instead of playing politics?

Mr. Yakabuski: What is the member for Port Arthur playing now?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it very clear I’m not playing politics. If the hon. member has information which we haven’t, I’d be happy to have it. I’m saying I have not received an official letter indicating to me the updated cost for the project. If the member has, I’d be happy to have it.

Mr. Reid: A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister indicate why the project is now uneconomical and supposedly not viable? Is it just the rising costs?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Port Arthur just very clearly pointed out our concerns. He stated there is a lower cost now associated with the project, and that would indicate to me the federal government did take another look at it. Maybe the cost that was originally estimated was too high for the project. I would like to see those figures, quite frankly.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

ALUMINUM WIRING

Mr. Deacon: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: In view of the fact the federal minister responsible, Mr. Ouellet, has said that the problems for aluminum wiring are in connection with the installation, not the material, and that the province, under the constitution, has the legislative powers to deal with this problem and impose a moratorium of, say, 90 days to really check into the matter and bring in new procedures, will the minister not delay any amendments now going through the Building Code and impose a moratorium immediately before there are more fires caused by bad installation of aluminum wiring?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says to do something before -- and I’ll use his exact words -- there are more fires caused by aluminum wiring. There isn’t any proof at all, in any agency, anywhere, that any fire in Ontario has been caused by aluminum wiring.

Mr. Haggerty: There has been in the United States, though.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I have written to Mr. Ouellet today, accepting certain suggestions he has made concerning the national electrical committee of the Canadian Standards Association, which will be meeting later this month. We will be making proposals at that stage; and if we get support from the other members of the committee, then perhaps there will be some action taken. Until that time, there is no intention on my part to take unilateral action to impose a moratorium.

Mr. Deacon: A supplementary: If evidence is forthcoming in the next few days, which is possible, that there have been many fires caused by aluminum wiring, will the minister take immediate action?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate seeing that evidence. I have been seeking it now for months and all I received are allegations from very unqualified sources. The fire marshal’s report indicates to me quite clearly that his office has not been able to identify aluminum wiring as the cause of any single fire in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

GOGAMA WATER SUPPLY

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment: How much longer is the minister going to allow the people in the community of Gogama to drink water, poisoned with nitrate and other chemicals, because of the failure of the Treasurer to introduce Bill 102, the northern communities bill, and to use that as an excuse not to provide a communal water service?

Is the minister aware that just this week, another study was instigated by his ministry out of Timmins? Is he also aware that this week, part of the communal water supply supplied by Canadian National has broken down again? What kind of perverse priority does this government have that will provide a $250,000 loan to help establish a business to apply a special coating to a peanut, and yet allow the people in Gogama to drink poisoned water? It’s sick, I tell the minister; it’s sick.

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, we do have an increase in our budget this year to deal with water and sewage problems but we’ve had tremendous demand. We’ve also been caught by the inflationary trend. I did not know about the recent breakdown at Gogama. I am fully aware of the member’s problem; we have many problems in many parts of the province which we are trying to deal with and get sorted out.

Mr. Laughren: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister make a special provision for a community like that whose water table is polluted? Forget about Bill 102; will he do that?

Hon. W. Newman: I can’t answer that until I have reports from our people on it, but I will report back to the member very shortly.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join with me in extending a warm welcome to 33 students from the Brookside Public School who are in the east gallery. They are accompanied by Mr. Cameron and Mr. Granger. I got it in in time this time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

COLLEGES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Hon. Mr. Auld moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting Collective Bargaining for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Lewis: So Bill 100 goes to the colleges. When do we amend civil service legislation? So this is Bill 100, for the community colleges, eh?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Not quite.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, the bill provides for the making and renewing of agreements between the Ontario Council of Regents, on behalf of the boards of governors of the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology; and employee organizations which represent the persons employed as academic or support staff. Provision is made for the appointment of a fact-finder and for a choice by the parties of voluntary binding arbitration or final offer selection.

The bill prohibits strike action unless no agreement is in force; every reasonable effort has been made in good faith to make an agreement; and the fact-finding procedure has been carried out --

Mr. Lewis: They are giving them the right to strike.

Hon. Mr. Auld: To continue: The last offer of the council has been rejected by secret ballot vote of the employees; a strike vote has been taken and at least five days’ notice of the strike and of the date on which the strike will commence has been given by the employee organization to the council.

Mr. Lewis: The Tories are extraordinary.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The bill sets out the procedures to be carried out in the case of a lockout.

The college relations commission is established with, among other duties, those of monitoring negotiations between the employee organizations which represent the employees, and the Ontario Council of Regents; the compiling of statistical information and the assisting of the parties in the making and renewing of agreements.

Provision is made for application by an employee organization to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to become the bargaining agent. Existing bargaining rights are continued and representation rights procedure provided for displacement of bargaining rights as well as the expression of freedom to join an employee organization of the employee’s choice.

Mr. Martel: Is the House leader going to stick with the rest of the government?

Mr. Lewis: These people used to be covered by CECBA.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: What about the rest of the Crown employees? When does that come? Very nice for this group. Will the Crown employees get it? Come on, when is the government going to bring it in for the Crown employees?

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Auld moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act, 1971.

Mr. Martel: That’s the height of irony.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, this bill is complementary to the bill I introduced a moment ago.

ONTARIO HOME BUYERS GRANT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Haggerty moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Ontario Home Buyers Grant Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory note is that the present legislation, rather generous, permits foreigners access to the Ontario Home Buyers Grant Act and only compounds the existing problem of the shortage of housing accommodation for Ontario residents, adding further to the already high cost of ownership.

The amendment provides that only persons who are Canadian citizens or residents for the preceding 12 months may apply for a grant under this Act establishing top priority for Ontario residents.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I have nothing to add to my earlier statement, sir.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

SCHOOL BOARDS AND TEACHERS COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moves second reading of Bill 100, An Act respecting the Negotiation of Collective Agreements between School Boards and Teachers.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Does the minister want to make a statement?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Yes, there will be amendments.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Why not tell us what they are?

Mr. Deacon: Maybe the minister would indicate any changes he wants or does the minister want to make a comment?

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have an opening statement on second reading?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, Mr. Speaker, I think I made a very full statement on first reading. I think someone asked if there would be some amendments; of course, there will be some housekeeping amendments and some amendments to make the wording and intent of sections more clear when we come to the committee stage in standing committee.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Speaker, certainly, along with most members on this side of the House -- in fact, I think all members -- I welcome the principle of fair collective bargaining which has been introduced in Bill 100. It certainly is an important step in the efforts to bridge what has become a real chasm between school trustees and teachers; a chasm which broke open after the Premier (Mr. Davis) imposed on the schools of this province the bureaucracy of big country-wide boards of education.

We think several features of this bill are just great; such as the deadline for starting negotiations -- I want to talk about that later -- the fact-finding procedures; the final offer selection procedures; the attempt at objectivity through the Education Relations Commission; and the secret ballot to determine whether or not to withdraw services. The poor features include the fact that principals and vice-principals -- principal teachers and vice-principal teachers -- do not have the right to withdraw; they are considered essential. The fact that voluntary extracurricular activities are included in the legislation itself; I don’t think they should be stated. The fact that negotiations could be restricted by ceilings and we want it to be clear that they are not. The Education Relations Commission could be a commission in which one party or the other doesn’t have confidence and I think steps should be taken to ensure that wouldn’t occur. We want to be sure that the fact-finding responsibilities don’t include generalities and motherhood statements such as the clause which indicates they have the responsibility for stating facts that they think are in the interests and welfare of the public in general. It’s just too general a responsibility for a specific group such as the fact-finding commission.

The other point is that we don’t like a ballot before a strike that doesn’t apply to both parties. We think the trustees in the past probably have not been as fully involved in support of the negotiating committees in the same way that teachers sometimes have been; therefore, there should be provisions for both parties.

We’re also concerned about the possible inability of teachers to maintain their fringe benefits in good standing during a withdrawal of services, and we think that should be provided for as well.

To go into this in more detail, Mr. Speaker, the deadlines, lack of deadlines and procrastination in negotiations certainly have been one of the prime causes of breakdowns in negotiations in the past. There is a need for deadlines to exist right from the beginning, but there is not now in this legislation a clear indication when the existing contract terminates and there is no continuation of the terms of that contract beyond the termination date unless agreed to. In fact, this legislation states the contrary.

We think it is important that both parties recognize the deadline of the expiration of that contract. I think that the procrastination and the aggravation of procrastination should not only be dealt with by deadlines in these negotiating procedures, but it should be very clear insofar as the existing contract is concerned that nothing holds beyond the expiration date, and that whatever happens after that must be part of the new contract; whether it is ratifying and confirming the existing terms or otherwise, it should be specifically part of it.

One point we are concerned about, in terms of having conterminous negotiating dates, is whether there is going to be a problem at some time regarding the availability of assistance from the ministry or from the fact-finding groups during negotiations because everything is coming up at one time. In principle, conterminous negotiating dates have worked out well, and the dates suggested by the ministry make a good deal of sense. There is one area, though, that we are concerned about in connection with the dates that are set, and that is if the ministry continues to be so slow in getting its own guidelines out to the boards, how can the board know the general areas in which they can be assured of grant support from the ministry as they get into these negotiations.

The second area that I want to go into in some detail is the matter of the fact-finding group. As I mentioned earlier, I think fact-finding is a very important basis for improved relations because people will be able to work from a common understanding of the facts. I don’t know if there is anything that has caused greater confusion in the minds of the public and everyone concerned in negotiations than when both sides have differing bases from which they are working. I think this is an important move to try to eliminate the differences but it’s a mistake, as the minister has provided in this bill, to have a clause -- clause 22 -- which states as follows:

“In inquiring into and ascertaining the matters remaining in dispute between the parties, the fact-finder may inquire into and consider any matter that the fact-finder considers relevant to the making of an agreement between the parties including, without limiting the foregoing ... the interests and welfare of the public.”

Now, those things are generalities that I don’t think have any part and should not have any part in a fact-finding body’s directives. I can see that the conditions of employment in comparable occupations and the other points that are set out are quite logical, but to have something as vague and as motherhood as the interests and welfare of the public is something that I don’t think should be part of a fact-finding body’s responsibilities.

The next point I wanted to cover is the matter of final offer selection. I know that the party to our left is opposed to this principle of final offer selection, but we are delighted that the ministry has included this procedure, the appointment of a selector. This whole principle of final offer selection is one which emphasizes justification of positions, good reasonable positions, because it’s a matter of the selecting by the selector of the more reasonable of the two positions, the more justified of the two positions.

I am delighted that the ministry has put this in detail. It is a comparatively new and unknown approach to negotiations, but I am confident that it, combined with the fact-finding procedures, could do a great deal to change the tendency of the past to both parties to take extreme stands and to hold to them in the hope that somehow or other in the end the mediation will come down somewhere between the two extreme positions. That doesn’t encourage good-faith bargaining. I would think that in view of that fact, as my colleague, the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) has said, this could almost be described as the good-faith bargaining bill.

I think the minister should be commended for bringing that into the legislation, because it could do a great deal to improve the good faith on the part of both sides in any dispute.

The next area is the Education Relations Commission. We are quite pleased that this has been set up in a different method to that suggested by the Reville commission. In that one it was suggested that the two parties each appoint two of their members and the fifth member be agreed to by each of the two appointees. This would tend to place all the responsibility on the chairman. I would think that that would be a mistake. Whereas, the appointment by Lieutenant Governor in Council should, if it’s properly handled, provide for appointees who have the confidence of both parties -- all of them would have the confidence of both parties.

In order to ensure this, I would think the minister should include some provision whereby both parties have the right of veto in those appointments. This could be complicated in a way, but I don’t think that if we are really going after a commission that has the confidence of everyone, and in view of the fact that there has been cause for feeling in the past of a lack of complete objectivity by government in different situations, I think that this power of veto could be one that could be used as in the selection of a jury to give both parties a feeling of confidence in the objectivity of the members of that commission.

The other point that I think should be provided for is that these members of the commission should be appointed for a maximum of two terms. If you don’t provide for that, there tends to be a continuation of the same group year in and year out. And even though those people may be excellent, you are losing the advantage of gaining now, fresh approaches; of gaining new insight that can only come from new blood coming in.

And surely with the staggered terms that are provided for here, and by the fact that people could be on there for six years, one can be assured of continuity in procedures and sufficient experience on the education relations committee to provide for the best type of membership and the best type of results from that committee.

The area, Mr. Speaker, is the matter of the secret ballot. It certainly will provide for confidence on everyone’s part. No doubt they have been properly carried out in the past, but this ensures there will be no pressure and provide for complete objectivity.

But I think that it’s got to cut both ways as far as the availability of the final terms to both sides is concerned. In other words, before the trustees refuse to budge from their final position, before a strike is taken, they also have a chance to question their representatives in bargaining in the matter. Certainly, last year in the York county dispute we saw some differences and misunderstandings that arose between the negotiating committee and members of the board at large. We think it’s important that there be that same right, that same responsibility to give to the trustees as well as to the teachers the opportunity to vote on any last position prior to a strike.

I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, what we feel are some of the major points in the bill. We want to be sure as we proceed with this legislation in committee that the gaps are covered. We think this matter of the principals and vice-principals being part of the team is particularly serious. Last year in York I really found some breakdowns that have been very difficult to heal. They have carried over because of this situation. I want to emphasize that one because I don’t see how we can look for any sensible post-breakdown situation if the teachers don’t feel their principal teachers and their vice-principal teachers are not also with them in the whole situation.

It is not a normal management-labour situation. What use is the school if there is a strike? How can a principal carry on anyway? It is only to fulfil the requirements of continuation of grant that a school continues to be open but there’s nothing really carrying on in that school during a strike. If we do not include the principals and vice-principals where they have the full rights and obligations of all other members of the bargaining unit, then I think we are just kidding ourselves that we are providing some sort of protection to the public in this way. Certainly last year with the schools being open in York County, nothing went on that was of any real value.

If we break down the relationships between the staff through this type of divisive legislation, it is a mistake. I think it is something we have got to look to whenever we come to the point of a work stoppage. We recognize the fact that after it is over we want as quickly as possible to regain normal relationships. We certainly aren’t going to do it as long as we have this point at issue.

I also want to point out that there’s no reason why the trustees can’t have a school open if the parents want to carry on and there are no teachers in it. They can have their own system if there is some system they want by going outside the normal staff. I am sure we don’t want to have it where, in effect, those on strike can stop the schools being opened if there is another way that the parents and the trustees work out of carrying on. But I just think it’s a mistake for the ministry to force the principals and vice-principals to come to a division with the people they are going to have to work with later on.

Let’s recognize this is a strike. Let’s recognize that those who are served by the schools, the students, are going to be inconvenienced by it. The parents are going to be inconvenienced but they still have got the school property available to them and it could be available to them without the principals and vice-principals necessarily being there. They probably could get the co-operation of the teachers, as was evident in York last year where a lot of the teachers did help students who were coming up for matriculation and exams and wanted to be able to pass so they could get into the universities or whatever the next stage in education would be.

I don’t see why that would change, but I think the most important thing for the minister to recognize here is that we cannot break up the bargaining unit. We have got to recognize that these are principal teachers. They are not part of management. They are the head teachers in the school and as such they are members and they have voted overwhelmingly to be part of the overall bargaining unit. I think it’s wrong for the ministry to put them in a position where they would not be clearly understood to be part of the team.

Last year I saw some very serious breakdowns in relationships in York which I don’t think are healed over yet because of what happened there. There was some leavening of the situation because of the special situation there seemed to be in York with the director of education. A lot of people felt the principals and vice-principals had no choice, although some of them did go out. I don’t think that we should foster that kind of division in the staff.

I want to emphasize again this matter of including extracurricular activities in any legislation. Certainly the teachers agree that a walkout or strike would be considered a withdrawal of services. They don’t disagree with that principle as set out in the legislation. I think it is wrong for us to put in legislation the activities and the work of teachers which go on beyond that which is set out in the contract at the school. It’s terribly important that we maintain the spirit of voluntary involvement. That is what builds up school spirit, and to try to legislate that is a great mistake. I hope the minister will agree to the amendments which we will be putting forward to change that.

In emphasizing that matter of the principal and vice-principal I also want to emphasize we will be bringing in other amendments to clarify the points I have mentioned in my remarks prior to this. On the whole, though, Mr. Speaker, we think the minister has made great strides and we commend him for his efforts to try to bring good faith bargaining into the realm of teacher-trustee negotiations.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have in front of me somewhere -- yes, right here -- all the collective bargaining Acts from the various jurisdictions in Canada -- from Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia. Then I look at Bill 100, the Ontario Act, An Act respecting the Negotiations of Collective Agreements between School Boards and Teachers. I am reminded of a very popular television commercial which says “For $1.49, it’s a pretty good lighter.” Mr. Speaker, for an 18-month gestation period -- we don’t begrudge that time -- Bill 100 is a pretty good bill. I think we’ll support it. Frankly, it’s much better than we dared hope for 18 months ago.

I know that you, Mr. Speaker, and, I must admit, a number of my caucus colleagues, have urged me already to read into the record the complete text of the collective bargaining Acts from those provinces I mentioned a few moments ago but in spite of the urging from my colleagues I will not do so. I will resist that temptation because, as I say, our bill, the Ontario bill, although by no means perfect, is not at all bad. Although it has some flaws, we will support it on second reading -- this debate on principle -- because the intent of the bill is very good indeed. My colleagues and I approach this bill, Mr. Speaker, in good faith. It is our sincere hope that everyone, the public, the taxpayers, the trustees, teachers, students, politicians and even editorial writers will give it a chance to work.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Good point.

Mr. Foulds: Bill 100 gives full collective bargaining rights including, if necessary, the right to strike in almost every area of contract negotiations except for pensions which, of course, are covered by other legislation, the Superannuation Act. The bill encourages fair bargaining enforcible by law. The legislation has the availability of conciliators, arbitrators, mediators, fact-finders, selectors, what have you. It also has an Educational Relations Commission to provide comparative measures of what constitutes a reasonable offer and a reasonable demand, and the bill makes the commission available to all parties and the public in advance of a dispute breaking out. The bill keeps the level of bargaining at the traditional level; that is, at the local level between individual school boards and the teachers employed by those boards. We have some concerns about clause 4 as it relates to Metropolitan Toronto negotiations. It may be that a close reading of that particular clause indicates there is an incentive built into the clause which will, in fact, fragment the Metro negotiations. We can, of course, discuss that more fully in the clause by clause debate and we in this party shall do so.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that in the past too much of the debate over collective bargaining between teachers and boards has centred around the concept and the word strike, so I want to say what this bill does not do, in my view. It does not, in my view, encourage strikes or lockouts, as some alarmists would have us believe. It does, however, make them possible. But I am convinced that the bill is a genuinely sincere attempt -- as the bill itself states in clause 2: “The purpose of this Act is the furthering of harmonious relations between boards and teachers.”

This bill will not eliminate strikes, but the intent of the bill is such that it will probably make them far less likely than they have been in the past. We must also remember that in the past there have in fact been very few strikes, considering the number of collective agreements that there are over the province.

For example, I believe we have had only five breakdowns in collective bargaining over the last three years, out of some 525 collective agreements over the same period; something like less than one per cent have broken down and resulted in strike action.

I believe the fact that the bill itself provides for a wide scope of negotiations will do much to avoid some unreasonable salary demands, and because the scope of negotiations is wide -- conditions and fringe benefits and that kind of thing being bargainable -- will make confrontations over any single item much less likely.

It is my hope that teachers and trustees, over the next year, will strive to make the bill effective. The bill does contain, as the minister claimed, a number of innovative provisions, the most noteworthy being the establishment of the Education Relations Commission. It may be immodest of us to say so, but this is an adaptation of a policy proposed by the NDP over the last several months, and we certainly welcome this step.

The Education Relations Commission, of course, will have a very heavy burden of responsibility. If it works, it may very well be a model to be extended into other areas of collective bargaining. I’ve already been pre-dated; the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld) has extended that principle this very morning to the teachers in the colleges of the province. It is my hope that the minister would extend the principle, now that it is enshrined and in place, to the special education teachers who work for his own ministry and the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Correctional Services.

If the Educational Relations Commission fails -- and this is why the burden on it is so heavy -- it will damage not only collective bargaining in the educational sector, but it will have an adverse effect on collective bargaining in other areas, such as that between the government and its civil servants and that collective bargaining including hospital workers.

As I say, we welcome the establishment of the Education Relations Commission. However, the composition of the commission is a matter of real concern to us. The members of that commission, of that board, will simply have to be knowledgeable, prestigious, unassailable and inspire the full confidence of trustees, teachers, public taxpayers and every party interested in teacher-board negotiations. It is absolutely crucial that the decisions of the Education Relations Commission be impartial and be seen to be impartial.

Some of the names that randomly came to my mind, some of the people, if they were available, people of the calibre and the reputation that I would like to see appointed to the commission, were names like Emmett Hall, Mr. Justice Osler, Owen Shime perhaps, Dan Hill, Tom Eberlee, Tom Symons, Walter Pitman, people of that stature, of that commitment to the province and to the public service and to education in Ontario.

On the other hand, if the minister really wanted to scupper the commission --

Mr. Laughren: Don’t give him the names; he’ll use them.

Mr. Foulds: -- and if he really wanted to undercut the work and the intent of the Act --

Mr. Martel: The Premier, the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): The members for Sudbury East, Cochrane South (Mr. Ferrier) and Nickel Belt.

Mr. Foulds: If he really wanted to destroy it, he could appoint a Judge Reville or a Colin Brown or a John Bulloch.

Mr. Martel: The member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot).

Mr. Foulds: All right, the member for Timiskaming.

An hon. member: Oh, God help us all!

Mr. Foulds: And I think that those contracts indicate the importance of the commission and those contracts indicate the real authority and the real power that commission has. We will all be watching it, praying and hoping it will work wisely and well.

Mr. Laughren: Don’t include the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. J. R. Smith).

Mr. Foulds: I am pleased that the bill itself, in section 52, could provide for a proper grievance procedure to handle those matters which may arise out of a signed agreement in effect during the life of the contract between boards and teachers.

I had difficulty writing this speech because there is so much which is good in the bill. I don’t want to appear negative but we do have four or five fairly serious reservations.

Mr. Laughren: We haven’t had much practice writing speeches about good bills which those guys have brought forward.

Mr. Foulds: I wanted to put it on the record.

Mr. Martel: That’s the difficulty we have.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, it’s almost a new experience, in the length of this parliament, that we’re speaking to the principle of a bill we can whole-heartedly endorse. I think all parties endorse it. It’s refreshing and it certainly cleans out the cobwebs. It makes one approach this Legislature with, perhaps, some hope --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The minister should reconsider that. I think he had better reconsider this one.

Mr. Foulds: -- and with some desire that the Legislature may work, the parliamentary political process may work.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Does the NDP like it?

Mr. Foulds: Yes. The minister is going to force his colleague to reconsider it, watch him.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): I am worried.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): As a matter of fact, I wonder whether the rest of the cabinet saw it.

Mr. Martel: Somebody must have been after him.

Mr. MacDonald: Certainly the minister must have seen this Act but the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Winkler) hasn’t.

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

Mr. Martel: When did he introduce this, in the dark of the night?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: Quit saying nasty things. It wasn’t like Bill 274.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Port Arthur continue on the principle of the bill, please?

Mr. Foulds: By all means, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kennedy: He strayed from the principle. He likes it.

Mr. Foulds: My greatest single reservation comes over what I consider to be a serious flaw in the drafting of the bill. I would like the minister and his officials to pay particular attention to this. I’m not Machiavellian enough, Mr. Speaker, to believe that the flaw I perceive is intended; I believe it to be accidental. However, if section 15 and section 63 are taken in conjunction and strictly interpreted as they now stand, as I understand these, they could effectively deny teachers the possibility of strike action. Consider clause 63, subsection 1(c):

“No teacher shall take part in a strike against the board that employs the teacher unless all the matters remaining in dispute between the board and the branch affiliate that represents the teacher have been referred to a fact-finder.”

Fair enough. But you compare that or take it in conjunction with clause 15:

“The commission shall appoint a person as a fact-finder during negotiations to make or renew an agreement if the parties have not referred all matters remaining in dispute between them to an arbitrator or a board of arbitrators as provided in part IV, or a selector as provided in part V; and

“(a) the commission is of the opinion that an impasse has been reached in the negotiations;

“(b) one or both of the parties gives notice to the commission that an impasse has been reached [here is what I think is the flaw] ... and requests the appointment of a fact-finder and the commission approves the request.”

As I read that, the Education Relations Commission has discretionary power to appoint a fact-finder. Certainly, the Education Relations Commission, if I interpret those two sections correctly in conjunction with each other, has discretionary power as to the timing of the appointment of the fact-finder and thus could indefinitely delay the collective bargaining process.

If I am correct, and this is what I’d like some clarification of as we go through the debate, it would appear that the commission has total power over the right to strike. What I would like an assurance on, Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, is whether or not clause 15(c) is intended, in effect, to be the equivalent of a no-report clause in the Labour Relations Act.

I will just read clause 15(c) because I don’t quite understand how it fits in with the conjunctions that are used in the clauses. This is the heading in the section:

“The commission shall appoint the person as a fact-finder during negotiations to make or renew agreement if the parties have not referred all matters remaining in dispute to them to an arbitrator or board of arbitrators as provided in part IV or a selector as provided in part V and...

“(c) the written collective understanding that was in effect or the agreement that was in operation in respect of the parties expires during negotiations between the parties to make or renew and agreement, and fact-finding has not taken place as provided in this part.”

Is that the equivalent of a no-report clause in the Labour Relations Act? If it is, then I think we are probably okay. If it is not, then I think my misgivings are very serious and the bill is indeed most seriously flawed. As I said at the outset when I discussed this most serious reservation that I have, I don’t see that as being deliberate or Machiavellian but I do see it as an error in the drafting of the bill that we must correct.

The second serious reservation that we in this party have is clause 64 which we believe should be struck from the bill. We shall make our arguments against section 64 which prohibits principals and vice-principals from participating in the strike vote and in the strike itself. We shall make our arguments against the section in detail during the committee stage. Briefly for the record now, I would just like to put a few of those objections on the record. One, the principal and vice-principals are not managers; they are principal teachers. They do not have the traditional authority of management personnel.

Mr. Martel: Thank God.

Mr. Foulds: They cannot, for example, hire and fire other teachers, or the custodial staff for that matter, although they sometimes are consulted about these matters. Although they are responsible for the discipline of the children or the pupils in the school they are not responsible for the discipline of the employees in the school, be they teachers or staff. They can, as I understand it, make recommendations on these matters to a board superintendent of personnel or some such officer or to the director of education but they themselves do not have the authority on those matters.

Secondly, we object to the clause because it portrays an inconsistency at its worst. The principals and vice-principals are, according to the Act, considered full members of the bargaining unit. They can participate in every step of the negotiating procedures except the strike vote and the strike itself. However, subsequent to these events, should they take place, the principals can even vote on a ratification after a strike has taken place, a strike in which they have not participated. That, it seems to me, is an inconsistency that is mind-boggling. I am awfully sorry I have mentioned it because I can see the solution but there is an inconsistency there.

Thirdly, in those rare instances where strikes do occur -- and as I ought to mention they occur very rarely and have occurred very rarely in this province in the past -- the relationships between principals and their teachers will be severely strained. It will be much harder for them to return to harmonious relations after such an occurrence, if principals and vice-principals are forced to stay in and are excluded from the full privileges and responsibilities of the membership in their bargaining unit.

That just seems to me to be quite contrary to the essential principle of the bill in clause 2 which is that the purpose of this Act is the furthering of harmonious relations between boards and teachers.

Mr. Martel: That will destroy it if anything does.

Mr. Foulds: In those rare instances where a strike occurs that section will make it harder to recover from that unfortunate occurrence. As Mr. Linscott, the chairman, I think, of the Ontario Secondary School Headmasters Association, said in his letter to the minister on June 2:

“Strikes are an unusual occurrence in Ontario education. The clause referring to principals and vice-principals introduces a questionable administrative practice for a short period of crisis.”

What this clause does is simply to make the principal and vice-principal administrative office boys, not principal teachers. And to us, and I am sure to most people in education throughout Ontario, that is an unfortunate backward step.

We also fail to see why in the context of the bill, principals and vice-principals are considered essential. If a strike or lockout is on, there will be no children in the schools to supervise. The school buildings and property can be adequately cared for and protected by the custodial staff, as they are now during the summer holidays and the Christmas holidays.

Very few people out there in the province understand that, but the custodial staff are not responsible to the principals. With almost every board that I know of throughout the province, the custodial staff are responsible to a superintendent of buildings. And I see no reason why they cannot protect the property and the buildings and, if necessary, occasionally call in the superintendent of buildings or the equivalent officer on a particular board.

And lastly, my objections to this section is that there is quite a serious loophole in it. One would have to be very Machiavellian, indeed, to use it. And I don’t for a moment assume that there is a board across the province who has an administrator who is this Machiavellian. But, however far-fetched it may seem, the board of education does have the authority under the Education Act to appoint anybody as a vice-principal at any time without clearly defining his duties.

In some rare instances, a board could avoid the threat of a strike simply by appointing everyone in their jurisdiction as a vice-principal without any increase in salary. In some cases the vice-principals in current agreements are getting less than a lot of teachers.

Mr. Martel: And if he demonstrates any leadership they take him out.

Mr. Foulds: Not assigning them any specific duties as a vice-principal, as I say, Mr. Speaker, would be a far-fetched possibility, but it is a course of action open. If there is any way that we can close that course of action in law, we must do so. And I firmly believe that the way to close that course of action in law and the way to plug that loophole is simply by striking clause 64 altogether. It’s not a good one.

Mr. Martel: Machiavellian, that’s what it is.

Mr. C. Samis (Stormont): Unreasonable, regressive.

Mr. Foulds: Now our third major reservation about the bill concerns clause 1(1)3, by which “discontinuance of the co-curricular or extra-curricular programmes in a school or schools” is defined as a strike action. The terms co-curricular and extra-curricular are not defined in the bill; nor are they defined, as far as I can recall, anywhere in the Education Act or the regulations. If my instinctive understanding of the terms are correct, I assume that co-curricular activities are assigned by the employer, such as supervision of cafeteria or study hall duty, or something like that.

An hon. member: Hall duty.

Mr. Foulds: Hall duty. And my instinctive understanding would be that extra-curricular activities are, in fact, voluntary -- drama club, some coaching, what-have-you. If this is so, then at least the term “extra-curricular” should simply be struck from the bill. And I think that that is probably the easiest solution to what is emerging as one of the most contentious issues surrounding the bill.

Mr. Martel: They don’t pay them. Didn’t the minister say yesterday he was going to pay these people for the extra-curricular work?

Mr. Foulds: No, no.

Mr. Martel: Bankrupt the province.

Mr. Foulds: Our fourth major reservation about the bill concerns the fact --

Hon. Mr. Wells: When did I say that?

Mr. Martel: The minister said it here.

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): I don’t know how he can stand up there and pick holes in this legislation.

Mr. Samis: They’re all constructive suggestions.

Mr. Foulds: They’re all constructive suggestions, and I have had so much practise in this Legislature with other bills. One gets used to getting the fine-tooth comb out if it’s necessary.

Mr. Maeck: The member is just so used to being negative that he can’t be positive.

Mr. Samis: He is being very positive.

Mr. Foulds: Look, the whole tone of the argument is very positive.

Mr. Samis: We’re trying to make a better bill for a better Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: Our fourth major reservation about the bill concerns the fact that all collective agreements must terminate on Aug. 31. Surely it makes more sense in terms of the workload for the Education Relations Commission and its fact-finders not to have all the agreements expire at the same time. Surely it makes more sense to add some flexibility here and to allow some agreements, where they are negotiated as such, to expire on Dec. 31.

If this is not done and the resultant changes in the bill that would be necessary to carry out this change in principle, suggested by me, are not made, I really shudder to think of the workload of the Education Relations Commission and the number of fact-finders that may be necessary when every single agreement in this province expires, as every single one undoubtedly will expire under the terms of this Act and the previous agreements and understandings, on Aug. 31, 1976. We won’t hit the crunch this fall but as sure as God made little apples, we sure as blazes will hit a tremendous crunch on Sept. 1, 1976.

Mr. Martel: The government will have to hire Judy LaMarsh and Betty Kennedy.

Mr. Foulds: At that time the commission will have only been in place for about a year. I really worry about this very noble experiment that the minister is trying to achieve in this bill by the creation of the Education Relations Commission, a body that could be a model for other sectors. What really worries me is that it will be discredited not through any fault of its own, and not through any fault in the concept, but simply because the workload will be so overwhelming in September, 1976, that it seems to me it would be unrealistic to assume it could meet all of the responsibilities laid on it at that time unless we provide for the flexibility so that some of those agreements can expire in December.

Mr. Samis: Right.

Mr. Martel: We are moving toward province-wide bargaining.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, in order to get some idea of the impact of this piece of legislation, I had Beatrice Schriever of our research staff, who has been simply heroic in terms of the work she has done over the past 18 months for me and for our caucus on teacher bargaining --

Mr. Samis: Very capable.

Mr. Foulds: -- in taking a look at the other legislation, analyzing it and bringing it forward -- I had her do some additional research as a sort of fillip on the whole process that we in this party have been engaged in for the past 2 1/2 years, all told.

I had her do a survey of editorial opinion across the province; those reactions, on a scale from one to 10, from the very negative to the very positive, frankly came as a surprise to me. I want to deal with them briefly, if I can find them. Well, I don’t seem to have brought them with me but, on a scale from one to 10, as could be expected, the Globe and Mail was most negative. That was to be expected; we all expected that. The Hamilton Spectator and the London Free Press were also relatively negative. But, interestingly enough, after that the Kitchener-Waterloo Record and the Kingston Whig-Standard were grudgingly positive, with the Whig-Standard saying, as I recall, something a little inconsistent but really quite interesting; it said, “Although the bill is wrong in principle, it’s a sensible alternative to the current chaos.”

As we went through, we tried to do as fair a sample as we could. The Toronto Star gave quite a positive editorial as did the Sault Star but I think what was most interesting in those editorial opinions which I desperately wish I had with me to quote from --

Hon. Mr. Wells: I have some.

Mr. Foulds: Has the minister got some of them? Does he want to rush them over to me?

Mr. Samis: Help him out.

Mr. Foulds: What was most significant was a lot of Tory comments which the bill has received in the press in Ottawa and Windsor, in those two areas where there have been disruptions over the past year.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am holding my breath waiting for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Foulds: So am I. I haven’t seen it yet.

Mr. Martel: Is that a Thomson paper?

Mr. Foulds: The significant thing is the Ottawa Journal was quite positive but the Ottawa Citizen and the Windsor Star were very laudatory about the bill and certainly, having had the experience they had in their communities, saw this as workable, sensible and worthwhile.

Somewhere in here, I wanted to give you an idea there is by no means, as is commonly thought, a united front among trustees or boards across the province opposed to the bill. They have, as teachers have, reservations about some of the clauses. We did a telephone survey of some trustees and board chairmen throughout the province. I won’t identify them because in many cases, because their boards were unable to meet collectively by the time we phoned them, they asked if their identities could remain anonymous.

A trustee from the Windsor board felt the bill was fine. This particular trustee agreed wholeheartedly that section 64 should be struck and he thought most of the board members at Windsor would agree with him.

A trustee from the Ottawa area, one of the areas seriously affected this past year, felt that the bill was good, by and large, and saw no problems with the scope of the negotiations, as his board had negotiated such a wide scope, a wide range, of matters in the past. When we were talking to him, he felt his colleagues would be positively relieved that finally the ground rules have been set.

A Toronto board trustee felt some apprehension over the wide powers of the Education Relations Commission, but otherwise felt the bill was fairly sound and was certainly worth trying.

Another Toronto board trustee felt that perhaps the fact-finders and the commission itself should have something equivalent to subpoena powers but -- and this was interesting -- this particular trustee felt the exclusion in clause 64 of principals and vice- principals from the full participation in the bargaining process was contradictory, at least in tone, to the Education Act. The Education Act does stress the educational as opposed to the administrative aspects of the principals’ roles.

Another trustee from within the Metropolitan Toronto area -- not with the Toronto board itself -- thought her main concern was making sure of the qualifications of the people that we name in the bill -- the fact-finders, arbitrators and selectors. She had some qualifications about those. She did feel a great unease about the uniformity of the contract expiring on Aug. 31 and was really quite worried about the ability of the commission and its fact-finders to cope when the negotiations all came to a conclusion.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points of clarification that I and my colleagues will be seeking during the committee stage. We hope the committee stage of debate will be thorough and fruitful. We trust the Legislature will make full arrangements to accommodate all of those many parties who will no doubt wish to make representations to the social development committee. We certainly plan in our caucus to make our examination of the bill at that stage very detailed, very thorough and very exhaustive.

We plan to introduce a number of amendments in order to improve the bill. We do not, as I have repeatedly said, intend to be negative. But we do, as I have said, intend to be very detailed, very exhaustive and very searching. During the committee stage it will not be an easy passage for any of us, but when we are through it is my hope that this Legislature will feel we have done an important service for the people of the province and for the education system of the province.

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

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my support to the principle of the bill. My colleague has spoken already concerning certain items in the bill. I myself as a result will not be as lengthy as I normally could have been. I may say that even though the bill may not be as perfect as one would like to have had it, we are extremely pleased that finally now some definite guidelines have been established in an attempt to resolve future school board-teacher negotiations.

When the bill comes before the standing committee, Mr. Speaker, you can rest assured that we will give it a very detailed scrutiny. We have certain reservations concerning clauses, parts of clauses or sections, and we hope at that time to put forth amendments that will, in our estimation, improve this bill.

One of the things that did impress me very much concerning the bill is that as you read through it you see an awful lot of dependency upon good faith bargaining. I am pleased to see that that is not only included but emphasized in the bill. Were we to have good faith bargaining in other labour legislation, I imagine many of the problems could be resolved quite quickly. In the bill itself, good faith bargaining is mentioned in clauses 12, 23, 25, 36(2), 49 and 60(1)(f) so that one can see on six different occasions emphasis is being placed on good faith bargaining and, justly and rightly, that is the way it should be.

The bill before us is designed to provide as many avenues as possible to avoid the ultimate -- that is the strike -- which neither the board, nor the teacher, nor the student who is the consumer, nor the public wishes to have taken place. We would like disputes to be resolved in a very amicable fashion.

Not everyone agrees with the bill. May I say, in my own experience, I have received only one communication from anyone in my community who opposed the principle of the bill whereas I have received a fair number of letters and telegrams agreeing with the principle but disagreeing with certain sections of the bill. In the course of the discussions in the standing committee, the minister can rest assured that the viewpoint of those who have contacted me will be put before the committee.

The following schools have contacted me, agreeing with the principle, and they are: St. Edmund’s School in the city of Windsor; St. Joseph’s School in Windsor; St. Charles’ School in Windsor, St. Bernard’s School in Windsor, and St. Alphonse’s School. One of the unusual things that does strike me from that is that they all happen to be separate schools. I would assume that over the weekend telegrams and letters from other schools in the community will cross my desk.

Mr. Deacon: Maybe the separate schools have had a few more problems in Windsor.

Mr. B. Newman: The schools in Windsor have gone through some very trying days, especially the school board which has been confronted with the strike of recent date.

As one goes through the various sections and clauses of the bill, one comes to areas where we would hope the minister would reconsider the bill as it is and introduce amendments so the discussion in the committee stage could be very minimal, because the minister has had the opportunity to listen to the debates in the House and used good common sense to resolve the problem.

Rather than go through certain topics, it would be easier to take the areas in which I can foresee some strong objection registered by teachers, students and others, and respectfully hope that the minister will give consideration to improving these sections.

For example, in section 1 (e) (iii) as two previous members have already mentioned, a strike is referred to as the discontinuance of co-curricular or extracurricular programmes in a school or schools.

I can understand the discontinuance of co-curricular activities which, I assume, are responsibilities of a teacher as a result of being in a certain discipline. For example, I can see the physical education teacher being required to coach the football team, the basketball teams and other athletic teams in the school. Likewise, I can foresee an English teacher being required to conduct some type of drama, and a music teacher to take care of the school band or prepare for some concert.

However, I am concerned with the latter half of that statement where it mentions extracurricular activities. I look upon the extracurricular activities, Mr. Speaker, as being voluntary activities, which the teacher does because he or she has a special skill and would like to use that skill in furtherance of the spirit of the school and in the furtherance of the rounded education of the individual. I have had a lot of experience in this field, having taught for a number of years and having coached athletic teams ranging from football, basketball, to swimming, diving and other specialized activities.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, had I been forced to do the activities, I would have done them, but the same spirit would not have been with me in the performance of those duties. I was not being paid; although eventually I did receive $50 a year for coaching some 200 days during the course of the year. It was just a nominal amount, which other athletic coaches in the school received. I didn’t consider that really compensation. I did it because I liked to coach the activity. As a result, a person doing something that he likes will put more of his heart and soul in it. He will do it in a better fashion than would the individual who is forced to conduct or coach that activity.

I can understand certain co-curricular activities such as hall duty, such as the detention room, such as maybe even being responsible for the sale of tickets to various athletic games. But when it comes to voluntary activities, be they before school, be they during the lunch hour, be they after school, I don’t think they should be an item around which you could accuse the teachers of not doing that, and have that the reason for a strike or for calling a strike.

I can’t accept that at all. If that second half of the clause, “extra-curricular activities,” remains in there, I can see the teachers then wanting to be paid for doing what they have been doing for a number of years as voluntary; doing it on their own time and at their own wish. I don’t think these extra-curricular activities should be included in that section. In section 2, Mr. Speaker, it reads:

“The purpose of this Act is the furthering of harmonious relations between boards and teachers by providing for the making and renewing of agreements and by providing for the relations between boards and teachers in respect of agreements.”

I also thought that there were also principals in the school. In this clause, the principal has been left out completely. Really, the draftsman of the bill has assumed that the principal is a teacher. So later on in the bill it is mentioned that “principals and teachers should not be part of the bargaining unit.” Yet in section 2 of the bill, for “harmonious relations,” it refers to the relations being between boards and teachers. So when the minister talks about principals, he is really referring to them as teachers in section 2 of that bill.

The other area in which I find some concern is in part 7, section 59, and that is where there is the establishment of an Education Relations Commission. I am pleased to see that we have this type of vehicle, and this approach being used in an attempt to resolve the problems.

Where I am concerned is that the five persons appointed here are going to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council without necessarily the concurrence of the two sides to a bargaining procedure.

I would like to see both the teachers’ federations, and likewise the board associations, have some right to veto some of the appointments. I would have preferred to have seen maybe a dozen appointments made. Of the dozen, the jury approach should be used by the two parties to select the five individuals they would want to be the Education Relations Commission.

Likewise in that same section, Mr. Speaker, I think the chairman of that Education Relations Commission should be appointed by the five members themselves and not imposed on them by the government.

There is the fear on the part of the teachers that you are “stacking the deck” and I don’t think we want that to remain with teachers. We want to emphasize good faith. I think you could emphasize good faith by using a jury approach to the selection of the five persons forming the Education Relations Commission and also allowing that commission to appoint its own chairman.

Section 60 of the bill has the conducting and the supervising of votes by secret ballot. I think that is an excellent approach. I think that that type of an approach should be carried out and put in other legislation so that the decision to strike is always a secret decision. The standing up or the raising of hands is an unfair way because you immediately are identifying yourself and you may be subject to some type of abuse from an individual who is very much opposed to the position that you are taking.

The other area of concern in the bill is section 64 where principals and vice-principals are not considered essential employees and shall not take part in a strike or in a strike vote. Mr. Speaker, as a result of the situation in the city of Windsor over the past year where certain principals did report to their schools and others did not, I think you did not have a good situation.

The principals are the principal teachers in the school; they are the ones who sort of direct the whole educational approach in the school. The teachers look to them for leadership and guidance, whereas if you separate or build that barrier between the teacher and his principal, I think you are creating relations that are not in the best interest of the student or the consumer in the educational system. Principals and vice-principals should be part of the bargaining unit just as they are mentioned as being one in clause 2 of this bill which I mentioned when I first spoke.

Mr. Speaker, not all schools have principals who act as sort of business administrators. In fact, I would state that in the majority of the schools the principals actually teach. If the school is a small school -- and in my community there are many eight- or ten-classroom schools -- the principal quite often teaches a half-day. Here he is a member of the teaching staff and the minister wishes to separate him from the teaching staff. What you are going to do by doing that, Mr. Speaker, is you are going to add costs to the provision of education in a community because you are going to have to hire business administrators rather than have the principal take care of the overall operation of the school and in many cases actually teach in the school.

In the discussions just the other day in London, one of the comments made by one of the board members there was, “You might as well hire business administrators as principals. You don’t need teachers for the job because you have relegated them to be nothing more than branch managers, if you take principals out of the bargaining unit.” By not having the principal as one of the members of the bargaining unit, Mr. Speaker, I think you are asking for an aggravation of the problems that could develop in the school.

I’ve made all of the comments that I had hoped to make, other than maybe to express a little concern over the implementation of a uniform date. I am afraid that with the uniform date, the Education Relations Commission may find a tremendous workload imposed upon it all at the one time, I hope that doesn’t happen.

I hope this legislation is the means by which we will not be confronted with situations like the ones we have had in the past few years. I hope that both sides understand that it is good faith and good faith that can resolve many of the disputes between the teachers and the boards.

I endorse the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker. When the bill comes up for discussion in the standing committee, I sincerely hope that everyone who has a concern makes his appearance in there so that we can get a diverging point of view, and that we can come back into this Legislature at a future date -- in the not-too-distant future -- with legislation that will meet with the approval of the majority. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Foulds: Let’s hear it for the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill for two fundamental reasons. The first is that it reserves the right of teachers to withhold their labour if an agreement is not reached with the school board. Second, it provides reasonable grounds for collective bargaining -- ground rules that I think will reduce the number of confrontations that lead to disruption in the educational process. We in this party have always believed that collective bargaining in good faith implies an attempt on the part of both management and labour to avoid a disruption in service. We believe, as well, that unless there is a threat to public health or safety, working people have a right to withhold their labour.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Now he changes his mind.

Mr. Laughren: Not at all.

Mr. Reid: Oh, it used to be “Strikes for everybody.”

Mr. Foulds: What a bunch of balderdash. He is the Liberals’ so-called labour critic.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Nickel Belt is making his speech.

Mr. Foulds: The member for Rainy River has had too much ozone.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member be allowed to proceed and will he do so, please? Thank you.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I was not being provocative in the least. I would say, however, that it is truly remarkable to hear a member of the Liberal Party --

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): Liberal-Labour.

Mr. Laughren: -- that votes to send workers back to work commenting on the consistency of the New Democratic Party’s position. It is truly remarkable.

Mr. Reid: We are responsible people; the NDP are irresponsible. That is the difference.

Mr. Laughren: He is responsible to his own expediency only.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let’s get on with the bill.

Mr. Laughren: Let it be clearly understood, Mr. Speaker, that this party now and in the past and in the future will support the right of people to withhold their labour if there is no threat to public health or safety. There is nothing new about that, there is nothing novel about that, and it is a responsible position.

Mr. Reid: That is a switch in policy.

Mr. Laughren: To have the member for Rainy River suggest otherwise is dishonest on his part.

Mr. Reid: That is not true.

Mr. Laughren: As a matter of fact, if one wanted to talk about consistency one would not use the Liberal Party of Ontario as a model. We believe very strongly in this, but I’ll say more than that. I’ll say that not only do we believe in the right of people to withhold their labour if there is no threat to health or safety; we believe as well, as a natural addendum to that, that the convenience of the public should be regarded as separate from the health and the safety of the public, and that’s fundamental to our belief in the right of people to withhold their labour.

During recent years there has been considerable turmoil within our educational system. Generally speaking, as a result of that turmoil, teachers have become more militant, and primarily, I think, as a result of their awareness of their relative economic position in our society.

While it is always popular to point to the maximum salaries received by teachers or to the teachers who do not occupy themselves during the summer, that is not the reality in most cases. The fact is that most teachers are not overpaid and that most teachers do not relax in the sun all summer.

More important, I believe that the job of a teacher is becoming increasingly difficult. While I have not been a teacher now for four years, and I have certainly not been in the high school system for seven or eight years, I believe that the job is becoming increasingly difficult. If I am correct, and it is becoming a more difficult task, then the deteriorating teacher-board relations have aggravated that problem of making the job more difficult. I think that is another reason that teachers have become more vocal and more militant and, as a result, more politically aware.

As a result of that new awareness, this government should not delude itself into thinking that this bill will serve as a deathbed repentance. It is all too transparent. Three or four months before the next provincial election this government brings in a bill that attempts to neutralize the teachers as a political force. I would suggest to the government that it is much too late for that. Its cynical manipulation of the timing of this bill is all too obvious.

However, I am pleased with the bill, except for one section, which I will deal with later. I am primarily pleased with the bill because of the precedent it will set in the Province of Ontario. It is an obvious model to which others can aspire and, as my colleague from Port Arthur said a few minutes earlier, it is already evident in the bill that the Minister of Colleges and Universities introduced this morning, that other groups in our public service will tolerate nothing less than the model established by this bill.

Can you imagine, sir, the civil servants in the Province of Ontario continuing to be employed under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act when they see the teachers at the elementary, secondary and now the college level being governed by Bill 100 and the bill that was introduced this morning by the minister? How do you explain to the civil servants in the Province of Ontario, Mr. Speaker, that their service is more essential than that of the teachers? It is a very difficult position to argue from. The civil servants will not, and indeed I think should not, tolerate anything less than full bargaining rights for themselves.

Section 64 is the section I want to comment on briefly, Mr. Speaker. Subsection 1 says: “A principal and a vice-principal shall be considered essential employees and shall not take part in a strike vote or a strike.” We think that section is wrong and that it has no place in this bill; we think it is wrong because it formalizes a kind of employer-employee relationship in a school. This bill cites as the reason for that, that principals and vice-principals are to be considered essential employees.

I deplore this trend to shifting importance away from classroom teachers on to administrators, which started when we created the county or super-boards in the Province of Ontario. We know that since that has happened, control increasingly has been taken out of the hands of elected people and of teachers and put in the hands of highly paid administrators. We regret that trend; I think that is very wrong.

The essential people in a school are the teachers and the students. All other people are there to facilitate that happening -- the teaching and the learning process. To imply that the administrators, namely the principals and the vice-principals, are essential, and by implication that the teachers are not essential is a regressive move and we regret it very much.

I hope the minister will reconsider and bring in amendments before the committee and not detract from an otherwise good piece of legislation by this act. It is a small and a miserable section of the bill. If the minister deletes it from the bill, he cannot be accused then of trying to drive a wedge between the administrators and the teachers in our schools. Let him put aside his management bias for once and look upon our schools as a co-operative learning and teaching experience, with some teachers doing administrative work rather than classroom work.

I don’t know how he as a minister convinced his cabinet colleagues to bring in the bill in this form. I don’t really care how he did it. I think it is a progressive step. I would hone that the next step that we take in the Ministry of Education will deal with the education of our children in the Province of Ontario. That is the real task before us and I hope that we can get on with it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, sir. I welcome the bill in its principle. We hope there will be amendments brought forward by the government dealing with at least the two salient matters that my colleagues have put before the minister.

We have heard a good deal about the inclusion, for example, of principals and vice-principals in the bargaining unit or as active members of the federation. I thought perhaps as a former teacher myself I might say something about this. I know, sir, that your interest is along the same lines.

I can recall in the early days of my own teaching experience being very much impressed with the principals in those days in the early 1950s who had been active in the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, not just in its formation, because it was considerably older than that, but in making it an effective organization in which it could present alternatives to school boards, have a role to play in the salary situation and as well as that continue their concern for the quality of education.

My point is that the principals felt themselves almost the backbone of the emerging OSSTF in those days. While occasionally there would be a principal who would indicate that he would like to be considered management, almost unanimously there was the strong feeling then which still seems to pervade the principals and vice-principals today that they are, as has already been described, principal teachers.

They associate themselves with the profession rather than with management and probably feel it is one of their jobs, as I do, to bridge any misunderstandings that might occur between the teaching profession or the school board employees in the administration and the school board as managers. I feel myself that it would be an unnecessary disruption if the bill in its present form went forward excluding the principals and the vice- principals from full participation in the activities of their teachers through OSSTF, through OTF and through the provisions of this bill.

I don’t know whether any further statement has been made by the government but it seems to me that the minister, who has had apparently plenty of arguments with his colleagues in private about this, might well see the merit of amending the bill so that the principals and vice-principals would maintain their traditional position within OSSTF.

There is no thought in any way that they would provide anything other than the input from an individual member. But their additional experience and perhaps different responsibility and, in my view, their advice and perhaps moderation as an input to the negotiations and the stance of OSSTF would be of benefit not only to the teachers and the school boards but to those interested in education and its quality in general. I would hope there might be some substantial possibility of an amendment along these lines.

In talking to teachers and trustees, I found most of them are prepared to welcome the basic principle involved in Bill 100. I had one interesting communication, particularly, from a separate school trustee who felt the inclusion of all the conditions of employment might be ultra vires of the establishment of the separate system, being a system of education directed toward the Catholic community and the Catholic religion.

I don’t know whether or not this point has been made to the minister but it is something which I know some of the separate school trustees are concerned with and were good enough to bring to my attention. As a matter of fact it hadn’t occurred to me but it is something which, as the bill travels through the House, might be worth some consideration before it is enshrined into law, if there might be some dislocation provided by the amendments and the bill before us.

I do feel that our work, in conjunction with putting into better order the ability of the trustees and the teachers to negotiate, is not by any means complete with this bill even if it is amended along certain lines in the next few days. There is still a strong feeling that the teachers would benefit, as would the education community at large, if the principle of negotiation and the relationship between the teachers and the boards and the Ministry of Education were substantially enlarged. There is still the feeling that, although they are designated as a profession and we in this House refer to them that way, most often very properly, the teachers come perhaps too directly under the supervision of the hierarchy of the boards and of the Ministry of Education itself.

The minister has commented on more than one occasion on an alternative which I feel is a very important one. That is that this Legislature must move much more effectively toward recognizing teachers as a profession. I believe the present Teaching Profession Act and the establishment of the OTF should be redrawn so that the responsibilities as a profession are laid out more clearly and, the responsibilities are increased dramatically. I see no reason why the teachers, under a new Act, could not be joined by teachers from the community colleges and from the university faculties if those particular groups wanted to participate.

The introduction of the bill by the Minister of Colleges and Universities this morning obviously is going to remove the community college and other post-secondary teachers from the ambit of civil service negotiation and give them the same status as other teachers. I would like us as members of this House, Mr. Speaker, to accept the goal of doing much more toward giving teachers from all different types of positions and responsibilities -- whether they are elementary, secondary or from the post-secondary level, Catholic or Protestant, female or male -- an opportunity to organize under a new Teaching Profession Act.

My own feeling is that these divisions among the teachers are archaic and perhaps have largely outlived their usefulness. I don’t believe it is the responsibility of this House to impose on the teachers any kind of an organization which deals with their internal requirements. But the fact that teachers are still separated by sex, by religion, and by teaching category seems to me to be something they themselves would look toward remedying.

I would like a reformed Ontario Teachers’ Federation to have a board which would represent the various component teachers. In addition there would be, by order in council, substantial representation from the community at large.

Such a board would then have the powers to control the education of teachers and to establish the levels of attainment they as a profession feel are necessary to carry on education in this province. I believe in addition they should be given responsibility to discipline their members. The continuing problem of weeding out a non-professional or ineffectual teacher from the system should not be solely with the employers -- the board -- but the teachers should have something of a well-understood responsibility in this regard.

I feel if we are going to the teaching profession as a profession these moves are going to be necessary. The minister has been most reluctant, I suppose, to accept this sort of responsibility on behalf of the teachers. I think his response was, “You are prepared to give everything away to the teachers.” Obviously, this is not the case.

This bill does come into line with the position that we have taken. In fact, the government has dramatically changed its position, in spite of the Chairman of the Management Board -- who is now glowering at me over the rail. He lost that battle. As a matter of fact, those on the losing side are not even here to listen to the debate and left the minister, in his glory, to listen to the comments, both in favour and opposed by himself.

But that must have been a great battle. And I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, in the presence of those who in the Tory party feel that probably they have given in too much. It is not a question of giving in; it is a question of giving the teachers an opportunity to react responsibly and professionally to a very very dramatic change of climate in the educational system -- that they and all of us are concerned with the quality of education; that they and all of us are concerned with the cost.

But, surely, the basic response is to establish a true teaching profession with an ample degree of self-governance, with the kind of board which represents the requirements of the community and which would maintain, to some extent, the role of the minister and this House under the British North America Act, to establish the goals of education in this province and carry them out.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York North.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): I want to rise on this occasion on Bill 10.

Mr. Speaker: May I ask, will your remarks be long?

Mr. W. Hodgson: Very short. I just want to report on the letters I have been getting from constituents in my area in favour of Bill 100. A surprisingly large amount of mail is coming in. One reason, I suppose, is that we had a real strike going for us a year ago and the people are still quite conscious of it. Their reports are very favourable toward the bill, except for the one objection -- and that objection is that principals and vice-principals should be included in the same group as the teachers.

The minister probably has a very good explanation as to why he thinks the legislation shouldn’t contain this; but I felt it was my duty to report on behalf of those people who have been writing me during the last two or three days. This is the main objection to the bill, but the rest of the bill has been received very favourably by teachers, trustees, residents and parents.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Good work.

Mr. Speaker: Any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill?

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Because of the courtesy of the member for Stormont, we let the member for York North speak then, but the rotation surely should have been the Liberal speaker -- who was the Leader of the Opposition -- the member for Stormont and the member for York North.

Mr. W. Hodgson: Conservatives have a right to speak once in a while.

Mr. Deans moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, we will return to this debate on Monday, to be followed by item No. 2, Bill 86. This will be followed, as I have called other pieces of legislation this week, by items No. 8 and 9 on the order paper, Bills 95 and 96; and also we want to deal with government notice of motion No. 5, standing in the name of the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) -- which will follow in that order.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Before the adjournment of the House, Mr. Speaker, are we then to know that Bill 77, the Power Corporation Act, would come at the end of that suggested list, or is it the intention that it would follow Bills 100, 86, and 96?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I am not absolutely certain, because I think the minister has some obligations next week. But if he is available to me, and depending upon the time frame, I would call that bill following Bill 86. That I am not sure of today.

Mr. Breithaupt: One further point: Could the minister advise us what estimates will follow in committee when Consumer and Commercial Relations is completed, as I would expect it may be completed fairly soon?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The Office of the Assembly and the Provincial Auditor, probably in that order.

Clerk of the House: It’s the other way around.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Sorry. It is arranged anyway, and the hon. members will be notified.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1 o’clock, p.m.