The House resumed at 8 o’clock p.m.

KIRKLAND LAKE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS’ DISPUTE ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. Speaker: When we rose at 6 o’clock the member for Nickel Belt was about to make his contribution.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I listened with considerable interest to the previous speakers, both from this party and from the Liberal Party, because I was interested in knowing what they would say that would differ from what they had said in January when the Metropolitan Toronto teachers were legislated back to work.

I don’t know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I certainly have a sense of déjà vu standing here tonight; and I’m wondering --

Hon. Mr. Wells: That was used an hour ago.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, well I have it too.

Mr. Foulds: Even more true now.

Mr. Laughren: Even more true now.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister has thought about what it means when you allow one group of one school system to be shut down for -- what was it? 38 days in Toronto -- and you now have gone slightly over 40 days at Kirkland Lake. What that means is that it is setting a kind of benchmark for other disputes in Ontario if they result in a strike. It seems to me that the minister and his government are painting themselves into a corner; because how do you then say to any school board, or any group of teachers any place in Ontario, that we are not going to let your strike go on as long and we are going to let this strike continue beyond those number of days? I don’t know how you are going to do that. Once you have served notice that there are so many days’ limit to each strike, then surely there goes the whole spirit of Bill 100 and the right of teachers to bargain collectively and to go on strike if they feel they must.

So, here we are again, despite the assurances of the minister I that compulsory arbitration does not encourage strikes and does not predetermine the length of those strikes. I really wonder if the minister is prepared to deal with the fact that there must he, or there is a better way to resolve these disputes than legislating teachers back to work.

I think it should not be overlooked that teachers are professionals; they are well educated. They are traditionally moderate, both socially and politically. What is it that has forced these people or made this group of people in our society move from this traditionally small “c” conservative behaviour to shutting down our school system?

I wonder if the minister has really thought that through. Because if we look back over the last 20 or 30 years, surely we can see that teachers 20 or 30 years ago, even relatively speaking, did not have as good wages as they do now; did not have the same fringe benefits; did not have the same working conditions. And yet it is today that the school systems are being shut down. So if working conditions -- and I am including fringe benefits and salaries -- are better today, then I think it is time we took a good long look at the educational system. I would suggest that any examination of our educational system should examine the attitudes of students in it.

I am particularly concerned about the whole attitude of students in our secondary school system. My own suspicion is that an alienation has developed within the school system and that our traditional educational techniques and programmes are not able to deal with it and that is one of the reasons for that alienation. If I am right, and this alienation is developing, then it makes the job of teaching a very difficult one indeed. Not just difficult, but increasingly difficult; and that bothers me a great deal.

I feel that we, as a Legislature, and in particular the minister and the Ministry of Education, are going to continue to pour water on these little fires all across Ontario rather than attempting to prevent the fire in the first place.

I know the minister could say that what I am saying is fine in theory but that it is a very complex problem; and I agree with him that it is a very complex problem. But I really feel that we have an educational system that is devoid of any philosophical commitment, which is the strongest condemnation I have of this minister and the ministry. There really is no philosophical commitment.

That means we have an educational system that really exists as an institution, rather than as an agent in a society to improve people’s lot in life; to give them more of an incentive as they head out into the world; to make their role in life more meaningful and more productive. I would say to the minister that as an institution our educational system has no equal and that it really is a tribute to the wisdom of Ivan Illich. I know that the minister, or I think he is aware of Ivan Illich’s contribution to educational philosophy, and that’s what bothers me about the education system in Ontario.

When we legislate teachers back to work, we are not dealing with the underlying problems. We are like a helicopter hovering over the North Atlantic, blasting off the tops of icebergs in order to make shipping more safe. That’s not getting at the problems in our educational system.

I am sure there are at least three dimensions to the problem: One is educational, one is financial and the other is the whole process of collective bargaining. I suspect that the minister is only looking at one dimension, namely collective bargaining and how to get the teachers back into the classroom, how to get the schools open and to get the students through their academic year. It’s not that simple.

We have a situation whereby teachers are in the public sector, and at the same time they are making these increased demands we have a fiscal crisis in the public sector. Everyone acknowledges that; and certainly this government with the whole constraint package, has made it very clear that it understands that. What do we do?

The minister, I would suggest, is not dealing with the underlying problem. I am not suggesting that the Minister of Education can take a look at our society and say that he, as Minister of Education, can solve this problem. But I wonder if he is talking to his cabinet colleagues and saying to them that there has got to be a better way. He’s reeling from one confrontation to another, and in the long run that’s not going to solve the problem; it will just extend those confrontations indefinitely into the future. I don’t think that’s what he wants.

If we are going to have a well-paid, highly educated, satisfied public sector, we have to be prepared to pay them well. And we have to be prepared to make sure that they feel that they are making a useful contribution, that they are not sacrificing a standard of living because they are in the public sector.

If we listened to those groups that we pay to warn us of impending dangers, we wouldn’t be so badly off. If we listened to the Economic Council of Canada, we would have known -- well, some of us did know -- that there was going to be a crisis in the public sector long before it came upon us. But this government just doesn’t listen to them.

I know that this minister doesn’t feel that he can do very much to create the kind of wealth in our society that would allow us to support a thriving public sector by industrializing the economy. That has nothing to do with this bill, but I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in the long run that really must be the long-run solution. We are just not going to solve it by treating our educational system as a series of collective bargaining conflicts, and that’s how the minister seems to be regarding it.

I would like to speak very briefly about the whole collective bargaining process in our educational system.

I feel that compulsory arbitration never has been and never will be the solution to conflicts, and I think that events are proving this to be correct. We know that the community, the students, the teachers, the school boards, the minister, the legislators -- all are concerned about students jeopardizing their academic careers. It really bothers me that a student can spend 12 or 13 years in this educational system in Ontario and have it all jeopardized by a two-month conflict, by being out of school for two months. There is something wrong with that kind of educational system.

As for students who are not graduating, I don’t understand why two academic years couldn’t be regarded as one time frame for purposes of learning a set body of knowledge --

Mr. Nixon: Why not 13?

Mr. Laughren: Pardon?

Mr. Nixon: Why not 13 academic years at a time?

Mr. Laughren: Well exactly. So why is two months such a critical period of time for students who are not graduating?

Now for students who are graduating, I think it says something about the system that the students have spent that length of time in the educational system and now it all hinges on two months. There is something wrong with that kind of educational system. I see no reason why students at lower grade levels couldn’t be regarded as having this year and next year to complete a certain amount of work, and that all would be required to be completed by June 30 of this year. Because of a highly quantified educational system, we are required to undermine the collective bargaining process in Ontario. And that’s surely not the purpose of the Minister of Education or of this Legislature.

Finally, as long as this Legislature continues to resolve these disputes, such as we are doing now with Kirkland Lake, we will be called upon to do so at an ever increasing rate. That bothers me a great deal.

I deplore the legislation but even more than that I deplore the education and the fiscal conditions which have brought us to this last resort.

[8:15]

Mr. Nixon: I wanted to respond to one or two of the comments made, particularly by the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), who think gave as usual a very reasonable address. The idea that by the passage of this bill, thus assuring that the schools reopen this coming Monday, we are setting some sort of a benchmark in time which would mean that negotiations in the future, and actually those that are still going on, would be in some way hindered, I feel doesn’t make much sense when the amendment which he and his party want to support admittedly will open the schools on Monday and remove from the teachers the real weapon which they have been using, and which is recognized in negotiations in this jurisdiction, in a strike. I can’t see the strength and value of the amendment which his party is putting forward as retaining that value. For that and many more reasons, we will be constrained not to support it in the consistent approach to this matter that our party is well known for.

It seems to me his idea was that despite the fact that the kids in the school have missed 40 days, or whatever it happens to be -- too many days -- if we look at a two-year range that’s not very much. My interjection that if you look at 13 years it is even less, I hope should not be construed as my support for that concept. As a parent and a teacher, a taxpayer and as a member of this Legislature, I feel that if we members of this House accept the responsibility given to us under the constitution to see that we have a school system in this province that is going to achieve the goals we set for it -- and hope that we realize it is our responsibility and no one else’s -- to leave the kids out on the street or wherever they are for 40 instructional days has got to be a severe impediment to their continuing education. I can’t agree with the minister who even feels that 40 days is not a serious impediment, nor can I agree with the member for Nickel Belt who feels that it could go on for much longer.

It’s true, however, that this bill and the one we were called into session to deal with in January may have to be repeated, and this would be regrettable indeed. I’m not sure who has to learn a lesson, whether it’s the members of this House, the members of the teaching profession, the members of boards or the taxpayers in general. Maybe it’s all of us. Surely the concepts in Bill 100 are that we, all of us in this House, unanimously support the concept of free and open negotiations. But also all of us must accept the responsibility that finally, in our own judgement -- and it has to be subjective -- the power of this Legislature has to be brought to bear to end any strike which is deadlocked and which does not show any indication or signs of a solution.

It may very well be that the teachers in Kirkland and the board in Kirkland have looked at the example set by the previous bill that was before us in January and said: “Well, we might as well stay out on strike until the Legislature takes whatever steps it sees fit.” In my opinion, that is probably what happened. I believe that the strike in Toronto that was culminated by the action of the Legislature would have gone on almost indefinitely with the sure and certain knowledge that eventually this House would have acted to end it in the interests of the students, the teachers and the community in general.

The fact is that this may have to be repeated. It’s now being repeated once and we may have to do it two or three more times. It’s extremely regrettable, but I believe each and every case has to be judged subjectively. We, as members, have to make a personal assessment as to whether we, in our opinion, feel that the strike has to be brought to an end; that is that further negotiations would appear to be fruitless and that it is our responsibility to see that the greater good is served.

One of the concerns I have continues to be with the commission, the Education Relations Commission. I was somewhat critical of it in the January circumstances because I sensed that its members were unwilling to take any particularly strong actions until the minister telegraphed to them that he felt it was time such actions were taken. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis), who is just now assuming his seat, made it clear at that time that he personally had a great deal of confidence in the commission; and the minister did as well, since they are personally familiar with the background and the abilities of the commissioners.

I don’t want, in any way, to question those abilities but it seems to me that the information available to us on the action of the commissioners must make us question their understanding of the situation. The strike in Kirkland Lake has gone on for a longer period of time than the one here in Metro and it wasn’t until the minister inquired of them what they thought about it that they said “My God, there is a strike up there. We had better go and see what is going on.”

I understand the commission didn’t go up in total. The chairman went up and convened some sort of a meeting and found out what the teachers and the board thought. Unlike the situation in Toronto the teachers did not believe that the programme of the students was endangered, but even then the chairman of the commission summoned them to Toronto for a further meeting. Perhaps it is to his credit -- I am not at all sure that it is -- that he used the occasion of that meeting to attempt one last settlement. I am not sure whether that was his responsibility or not. I somehow doubt that it was, under those circumstances.

My strong feeling, Mr. Speaker, and I know the minister is listening to my strong feeling in this regard, is that once again, for a person who looks at this maybe subjectively and without too much expertise and without a personal knowledge of the chairman or any member of that commission, it appears that they swing into action only when the minister telegraphs to them that somehow they had better do something.

In the case of the Toronto strike, the chairman was here listening to the discussion -- perhaps he is now; I don’t know the gentleman -- but there is a certain carelessness about this. It may be that the chairman and the members of that commission do not consider their responsibilities as important as we see them. I said at that time and others said the same, and I feel it very strongly now, that it is up to the minister to convey the concern expressed in this House. That commission has to upgrade its concerns. Maybe the commissioners are going to have to have much more active participation in these negotiations and not sit back until there is some sort of public pressure or ministerial pressure -- maybe even personal pressure, who knows, because the Leader of the Opposition always likes to take a leading role in these matters. Maybe it’s a personal communication that activates, that triggers the action of this commission.

Under the statute the commissioners are self-activating and, in my view, so far that self-activating mechanism has been inadequate. I put that forward as my opinion. I don’t know what anybody else I thinks but I would suggest to the minister that that’s one area in which he had better concern himself because I have the suspicion that this commission was designed in Bill 100 as sort of a safety valve for the minister. He never himself had to say, “I think it’s time to end the strike.” There was always somebody at a distance -- not elected; somebody respected in the community certainly -- who would say, “Yes, we now think the government should act”; and, by God, the government then acts.

That’s not good enough. I don’t believe it’s responsible and I want to convey my concern on that matter to the minister, hoping that by legislation or by regulation or even by mutual understanding the situation can be improved.

The negotiations and the lockout intent have already been discussed in this House. The subject was raised by my hon. colleague, the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. Spence), because, of course, in that area it’s a matter of major concern.

One can search even the erudite columns of the Toronto Sun and not see any indication of it at all. One would almost think that the Toronto dailies are the ones in which the decision is made on whether a strike should end or not. Certainly the Toronto Sun would be having banner headlines and having its foremost columnists on the scene writing the sort of material that would tend to activate the commission or the minister. But they never heard of Kent, for God’s sake, because their circulation doesn’t extend there. I don’t blame them; they’re in business. But the minister isn’t, because his responsibility extends over the whole province and he knows that; he knows that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) keeps me informed about that -- daily.

Mr. Nixon: Okay. But our position is unchanged from what it was in January. We believe as a party that a time comes when the individual members of this Legislature must rise and vote to end a strike when it is clear that further negotiations will be fruitless and that people affected by the strike have rights that must then become paramount. So we do not hesitate in supporting the legislation, and I would suggest to the NDP that it is of great concern to many people in this House and in the province that once again they cast their vote in a manner such as would not in fact serve the system in a strong and effective way.

Mr. Burr: That’s what we are going to do.

Mr. Laughren: Changed your position.

Mr. Nixon: All right. The hon. member for Windsor-Riverdale says that’s just what they’re going to do.

Mr. Burr: Riverside.

Mr. Nixon: Riverside; well, whatever.

Mr. Bullbrook: We all have Riverdale on our minds today.

Mr. Nixon: Anyway, I believe that this is a mistaken policy of the NDP. They’re proud that they have never voted -- perhaps on one occasion they did vote -- to end a strike; one, yes. I have certainly heard the leader say on many occasions that he feels those people whose usefulness in the community is essential, whose activities in the community are essential for its health and welfare, should not have the right to strike. But it seems to me --

Mr. Lewis: Firemen and police, I said.

Mr. Nixon: Yes, health and safety.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I haven’t got to hospital workers, as you have.

Mr. Nixon: Anyway, it surely is our responsibility to end a strike, as this bill will end a strike when it is passed into law, when it is our information and valued judgement that further negotiations and delay would not be of value. So we believe the bill should be passed without delay. We hope that the teachers will resume their responsibilities on Monday and that an arbitrator will be able to arrive at a disposition of this situation without as much delay as was the case in the Toronto strike.

Mr. Bullbrook: Then you can send it down to Ottawa to see what Jean-Luc Pepin says about it.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, it is with a rather sad sense of déjà vu that I rise to speak in this debate.

Mr. Bullbrook: This is truly a bilingual evening.

Mr. Wildman: We seem to have gone through all of this once before and we probably unfortunately are going to go through it again. In January, the government introduced back-to-work legislation with compulsory arbitration; and now again in March we’re doing it again. After 37 days, the Toronto teachers’ right to free collective bargaining was abrogated; and now after 44 days Kirkland Lake teachers face the same abrogation of their rights -- the rights that were established by this Legislature not a year ago.

The government maintained that in the previous situation the legislation did not set a precedent; and now the minister I believe maintains the same opinion that this legislation does not set a precedent. What I’m concerned about is that we’re going to face a long series of so-called non-precedents -- that is, how long will it be before the government orders compulsory arbitration in other teacher disputes which are now in process across the province?

In my particular area there are two disputes which are of long standing and it appears that there may be the same situation there as we have now facing us in the Kirkland Lake dispute. In central Algoma the teachers are on strike and that strike now goes into a fourth week. In Kirkland Lake, the teachers have been on strike for something like eight weeks. The ERC has decided that the Kirkland Lake situation is serious enough that it has recommended to the ministry that the teachers there be ordered back to work.

[8:30]

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if I may digress for a moment, it is interesting that in the central Algoma situation, although they have only been out four weeks it is probably very similar to the length of time that the Kirkland Lake teachers have been out since they are under a semester system and every day under a semester system is worth two days under the full year system of education. I wonder how long it is going to be before we face this same legislation in the central Algoma dispute.

But the minister maintains that this is not a precedent. In the dispute in central Algoma the ERC is carrying out a mediation effort and we sincerely hope it will be successful, but if it isn’t does the minister anticipate introduction of this type of legislation in that dispute? If he does --

Mr. Speaker: I’d like to remind the hon. member that this bill deals specifically with the Kirkland Lake dispute.

Mr. Wildman: Yes, certainly, Mr. Speaker. My concern is does this set a precedent for these other disputes? The minister says “no.”

Mr. Ferrier: He has already set a precedent.

Mr. Wildman: There are many other situations like this. It’s a very serious situation. In Sault Ste. Marie, the teachers have been working to rule and have rotating strikes and the schools may be closed down there completely in the near future.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a part of this bill, I’d like to remind the hon. member.

Mr. Wildman: Again, does this Kirkland Lake situation affect it? I think it does.

Can the minister maintain to this House that this bill regarding the Kirkland Lake dispute and the previous one regarding the Metro dispute, which imposed compulsory arbitration, does not affect other education disputes or other disputes in the public service? I think they are indeed precedents and I think they are related.

Boards and teachers are being shown by this type of legislation that there’s no reason to bargain to gain settlements. They can remain adamant because they know that eventually the ERC will come along and say, “This situation is very serious” and recommend to the ministry that arbitration be imposed.

This has very serious effects on the whole collective bargaining process and it’s certainly not what was intended by Bill 100. For that reason, I am very concerned about the future of the whole education system in this province and what effect this legislation has on it.

I would hope that the members opposite would see the error of their ways in opposing this kind of legislation but not voting against it, and would support the reasoned amendment introduced by this caucus and the opposition members here on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate in this debate? The hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here for quite a few hours this afternoon listening to this debate. If one were to doze off and forget where he is one could almost think he was watching an old rerun movie at 1 o’clock in the morning on television. We have the same actors in place. We have the same minister introducing the same kind of legislation. We have the same group on our left in support of the minister; some of them with unreserved glee supporting this strike-breaking legislation which we have before us here this evening.

Mr. Norton: And the other side saying the same thing.

Mr. Wildman: Déjà vu.

Mr. Germa: There is no doubt in my mind that this government, through its past practices and the ease with which it has got away with these acts of violence toward working class people in the past, has been motivated, at the slightest provocation to continue to introduce the strike-breaking legislation. It is legislation which makes it compulsory for people to go to work or go to jail, or to go to work at a wage rate which they themselves have rejected. I would suggest that if the minister’s wages were subjected to that sort of procedure, he himself would not want to go back to work at the wages that the public would see fit to pay him. And yet he sees fit to impose his will upon the group of people who do not want to work at the wage rate under the conditions that they have presently before them.

I charge it up to the inexperience of this minister. I am sure he doesn’t even understand how a person gets on a picket line. I am sure he doesn’t understand; I am sure he has never been through the procedure.

I can speak with considerable experience as far as getting on picket lines is concerned, because I have been on picket lines against major adversaries at least six times in my working career. And the only time I ever went on a picket line was when I myself had voted to put myself on the picket line.

This is exactly how the school teachers in Kirkland Lake got on the picket line. They were not manipulated by some mysterious force of union goons or whatever you might think they are. They voted in a democratic process to reject the wage offer and working conditions and they voted to put themselves outside of the workplace on the picket line. By that same method, Mr. Speaker, those workers can vote to put themselves back at their place of work.

This is the simple fact of life as it relates to people being on strike. They do not need the minister’s wisdom. They do not need him to tell them when to go back to work. In fact, I consider it to be an infringement on their liberty as a right to participate in the workplace or not.

I am surprised at the Liberal Party, despite the statement from the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) that on each individual case -- I think it’s six cases now since I have been in this House that this government has forced people back to work -- he tries to tell us that on six individual cases he considered all the facts before him and in each case he saw fit to vote for compulsory back-to-work strike-breaking legislation. It seems to me that he hasn’t given these different bills proper consideration because in no circumstances could he have come to the conclusion that the elevator construction workers were going to ruin the economy of the country, were going to ruin the health of the Province of Ontario or were going to hurt anybody except the people who were on the picket line. And yet they chose to support that kind of legislation.

It’s within their bones. They are part of the establishment system that this government is representing here tonight. The longer we stand here the more we find out about people’s attitudes and I would like to quote, Mr. Speaker, from page 100 of Hansard of Jan. 15, 1976, the evening edition, wherein the member for Armourdale (Mr. Givens) was speaking: “It indicated to me that they were ill-informed and that they behaved like boors and like working slobs and they wanted to be just like any other group.”

That was the attitude of the member for Armourdale and that is the attitude that prevails in that caucus to my left. These people are anti-labour, as is the government. They have no compassion whatsoever for people who have to work for a wage because they have never had to themselves.

It is true that this strike has continued for 44 days. So what? Have we not had strikes longer than that in various other sectors of the economy? I have seen strikes go on for five and 10 years and yet the world still goes around. It is also evident to me that Bill 100, which the minister brought in kicking and screaming less than one year ago has not been functioning on at least these two occasions. I would suggest that he had better take a closer look at what is contained in Bill 100 and try to understand that these people who are on strike are on strike voluntarily and they had a perfect right to go there.

The legislation granting them this right is not a gift from this government. We know that it was forced upon them because of the discontent in the teaching profession. They just couldn’t put up with the situation any longer and they had to organize themselves into a group because individual workers in this society just do not have the power to correct some of the evils which exist.

The system used to work for the establishment, of course; when workers of all sorts tried to negotiate on an individual basis they had no power, and the system used to work then. But since that day the people learned that by organizing together, they could therefore exert the multiplied power of the association.

I will admit that there has been torment in society. It is a restructuring of society that we’re facing; it’s more than just a simple strike in Kirkland Lake we are talking about. We are talking about people who work for wages demanding their fair share out of the economy.

This government, of course, subscribes to the status quo; it wants no one to make any forward progress in society except itself, and it is going to legislate people back into their places whenever it is necessary. I don’t know why they haven’t learned a lesson. The election of last September should have taught them they were alienating people almost every six months by doing this kind of legislation; and yet here they are, continuing to alienate one group after the other. You cannot with impunity continue to alienate people and still maintain power. Of course, it might eventually lead to the betterment of Ontario when this government has finally alienated enough people and they are no longer sitting on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: There are too many conversations going on in the chamber. Will you keep it down, please?

Mr. Germa: There is nothing in this bill that I could commend. I’m opposed to compulsory back-to-work legislation --

Mr. Nixon: Are you going to vote for the amendment? Your amendment puts them back to work.

Mr. Germa: Even despite what my leader might have said, that on a certain occasion he might support back-to-work legislation for police and fire services, I myself have not come to that conclusion.

Mr. Nixon: Your amendment puts them back to work on Monday. How can you have it both ways?

Mr. Germa: I’ve been around the world probably longer than the minister, and I have yet to witness a situation whereby I would vote for back-to-work legislation. I have yet to see that kind of an emergency.

Mr. Nixon: Your amendment is a back-to-work law.

Mr. Norton: You are so beautifully and consistently inconsistent that it’s unbelievable.

Mr. Germs: This socialist party has not been in power yet in Ontario; we cannot be answerable for the sins of some other socialist party in some other mysterious place in the world.

Mr. Norton: What about the difference between you and Alberta on the oil prices? Don’t you agree with Alberta on the oil prices?

Mr. Makarchuk: If you want to compare, try yourself with something in Chile.

Mr. Norton: We don’t have to compare. We have our own reputation to stand on.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I must say it didn’t do Dave Barrett much good.

Mr. Germa: I’m not here to answer for the government of British Columbia.

Mr. Makarchuk: How would you like to compare with Chile?

Mr. Foulds: Tell us about Chile.

Mr. Norton: I’d like to hear what you have to say about the students. Let’s forget about the picket lines for a moment and talk about the students.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I am also incensed about compulsory arbitration because unless everybody in society is subjected to compulsion of wages then no one should be. We have many groups, such as the group sitting right in this chamber tonight, whose wages are not subject to public arbitration and public scrutiny.

Mr. Foulds: It’s the arbitrary decision of the Premier (Mr. Davis).

Hon. Mr. Wells: They are also frozen.

Mr. Germa: They are frozen at a very high level, you will admit.

Mr. Ferrier: They are cut back, though.

Mr. Bullbrook: Are you getting something we don’t know about?

Mr. Ferrier: He was the one who didn’t want that five per cent cutback, remember?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Germa: There is another thing I am concerned about, Mr. Speaker. I consider the government’s attitude, as enunciated in Bill 2. Then I look at the Speech from the Throne on page 5, wherein it says:

The Ministry of Labour will intensify its examination of the collective bargaining process with the aim of recommending substantive changes to reduce the incidence of industrial conflict.

[8:45]

That puts a quiver up my spine when I see this government with this attitude putting a vague statement like that in the Speech from the Throne. I just wonder what this Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) has in mind to reduce industrial conflict in the private sector? Is she thinking also along the lines of the Minister of Education to bring in more compulsion in the industrial sector?

We have to consider and watch very closely what this government has up its sleeve. I have no option except to vote against this legislation.

Mr. Ferrier: I want to engage in this debate for a few moments. I have been watching the goings-on in Kirkland Lake with some real interest and have been following it through the TV media in my own area.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It could defeat you; be very careful.

Mr. Ferrier: I noticed that on the first days the teachers were walking the picket line it was very many degrees below zero Fahrenheit, in the 30s and 40s, I believe. Yet these teachers were out there because they believed in what they were doing and they felt very deeply aggrieved, and I think they had some real justification for it.

I noticed that when the government decided they were going to intervene in the Toronto situation the situation went about 39 days. It has now gone 44 in the north and will be 45. Despite what the minister says, we know the government cares less about us in northern Ontario and pays less attention to our whole area of concern up there. We see it every day; we live with it. No matter how government members stand up in this House and talk to the contrary, they are hollow words as far as we are concerned.

I think that when students are out of school this length of time there is reason for concern. Reluctantly, I suppose we have to see legislation that perhaps legislates them back, although I find that this compulsory arbitration is a very unpalatable solution to strikes in any kind of sector. We saw the Minister of Labour, Fern Guindon, when he occupied that chair, say it was one of the hardest things he ever had to do to order the elevator workers back to work and he hoped it would not happen again. Then we saw the York teachers ordered back and the TTC here in Toronto ordered back. It has become easier and easier and easier for this government to step in and force people back with compulsory arbitration as the solution to the walkouts.

As to talk about precedents being set, they are set all the time and we will see this more and more often. Where it was hard for the then Minister of Labour, Fern Guindon, back around 1972 or 1971, it is very easy now and it is almost a matter of course with the government across the way.

I read an article in the Globe and Mail this morning and note this one paragraph attributed to the chairman of the Kirkland Lake board: “Mr. Archer said trustees have been willing to submit the dispute to binding arbitration since last September.” So they have been waiting for the government to bail them out and to make their decision for them.

I get increasingly annoyed at politicians in northern Ontario or wherever it might be who get elected to public office, accept certain responsibilities, agree to carry them out and then come out with a statement like that, that they want somebody else to make the decisions for them. What’s local autonomy all about if it isn’t that we can develop leadership in our own communities and develop a group of intelligent, responsible people who are prepared to make tough decisions, perhaps unpopular decisions at times, but at least are prepared to make those decisions and go to the electorate with them in two years’ time to justify their actions and to let the electorate decide on them? But here we have here a board which opted out of its responsibilities, I suggest, away back in September, knowing pretty well that grand-daddy down here at Queen’s Park was going to bail it out and I think that’s deplorable.

I really find that repugnant and I think that sometimes our politicians in northern Ontario sell us out when they are not prepared to make the decisions back home where they should be made and to stand by those decisions. They make it a lot easier for the government to wield the big axe and to play the “Big Brother” role down here in Queen’s Park when they act like that. We have seen it in health care, where the decisions have been made here without consultation at home, and we see it in planning decisions, where they say, “Well, we won’t make the decision. Pass it to the OMB and let them make it for us.”

I think this kind of legislation makes it far too easy for those kinds of politicians to act in that way and abdicate the responsibility that is given to them under the Acts of this Legislature to fulfil their responsibilities as committed to them by the electorate when they run for office. I notice, too, that these people in Kirkland Lake, according to what my colleague here, the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Bain), has said, have hired a professional negotiator to carry out the negotiations, again trying to act like pros, I suppose, and lay a heavy hand. Perhaps they are so insecure in their position that they can’t argue it out and come to an agreement like other boards do.

I believe that given the right frame of mind and the willingness to negotiate we could have had this situation settled a long time ago. I don’t blame the teachers in Kirkland Lake. The teachers in Timmins, Kapuskasing, Nipissing, and probably the Cochrane-Iroquois Falls board, are all away up. Kirkland Lake wants to catch up and that’s legitimate.

But one of the things that has sort of crossed the trail and to a significant degree has destroyed collective bargaining, whether it is for teachers or paperworkers or any kind of workers, is this Anti-Inflation Board legislation brought in by the Liberals in Ottawa. It is a dimension that has been injected into labour relations that has fouled up and has prolonged a good many labour disputes and has brought a lot of bitterness in its trail. No doubt this is another reason why this strike has gone on.

I believe that collective bargaining can and should resolve this kind of a dispute, and that’s why I strongly support the amendment as put forward by my colleague from Timiskaming. By going to compulsory arbitration, we are putting the responsibility on somebody to decide for the two parties what it should be and I don’t think we should be making it that easy. I think they should sit down there and they should work it out themselves and come to an agreement that they both can live with and justify to their own constituencies.

As my colleague said, the educational process must go on on Monday and it should go on in a fairly good educational environment, but I am not so sure that with the action we are taking here today we are making the environment as conducive to learning as one would expect and one should hope for.

I think we’re all concerned about the students. It has gone on a long time, and 45 days out of the classroom for some students who will be going on to post-secondary education could put them at a disadvantage, if it went on indefinitely. The students at Kirkland Lake, I suppose, have that right to get back into the classroom, and reluctantly we can at least agree to the teachers going back, but not imposing compulsory arbitration. The amendment says the two parties have to work it out.

I can’t say that this is déjà vu for me because I wasn’t here when you ordered Toronto teachers and students back, but I have to agree wholeheartedly with the reasoned amendment of my colleague and to say that I hope those teachers in Kirkland Lake at least get parity with what’s going on in the other parts of northeastern Ontario.

The education commission there felt on Saturday that it could still knock heads together. I think if there was enough give and take that it still could have been settled that way. With this kind of thing always in the background to rescue a group that is unwilling to make up its own mind and to stand by a decision, it just makes it easier and easier.

The only position that I’m prepared to espouse is that of my colleague, the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Bain) who, in my opinion, has played a very creative and constructive role in this whole dispute and deserves to be commended for it.

Mr. Samis: At this stage of the ball game, my colleague from Algoma --

Mr. Lewis: Of the what?

Mr. Samis: Ball game. What would you think I’d say? I thought the heckling came from the other side.

Mr. Lewis: You ain’t seen nothing yet. What has a ball game got to do with this?

Mr. Samis: Okay, we won’t talk about it. May I suggest that my colleague from Algoma (Mr. Wildman) has talked about déjà vu. I would add, coming from eastern Ontario, it’s not only déjà vu, it’s déjà entendu et déjà écrit, de nouveau, de nouveau and déjà vu as well.

Let me just make a few brief comments. I think in all reasonableness I can understand the pressures, political and social, being put upon the minister to resolve this dispute. I think those of us in the opposition do appreciate that. I think what we’re really disputing is how this executive power is being used. We’re not disputing that something has to be done in some way, shape or form.

The thing I would like the minister to comment upon when he does make his reply is that my colleague from Timiskaming (Mr. Bain) has made a reasoned amendment. It does meet the problem and the pressures upon the minister of getting the kids back in the school -- the students, that the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) was referring to, continuing their education. It does satisfy the demands of the parents, it does get the educational system in Kirkland Lake moving again. What my colleague has suggested does satisfy those problems and those pressures.

I would like the minister to comment on why that particular solution that he is proposing, supported by our particular party, is unacceptable to him, why it isn’t reasonable, why it doesn’t come to terms with the basic problem, even if we leave all the somewhat, sometimes doctrinaire talk about collective bargaining aside. I would like to hear the minister give us some concrete reasons why that particular solution is unacceptable to him, unacceptable to the various parties in Kirkland Lake and why he feels that wouldn’t solve the problem. I find the solution the minister is proposing is a very total -- I won’t say totalitarian, but total -- solution to the problem.

[9:00]

If you put that in the context of the anti-inflation guidelines, this is pretty restrictive control over the whole collective bargaining process. We have the federal government virtually emasculating, if not destroying, collective bargaining for the next two to three years; and the paperworkers of this province know that full well. The teachers will have to contend with that regardless of the settlement, as they do here in Toronto. So in effect, by this total solution without a compromise, the minister is imposing a double whammy on the teachers of Kirkland Lake.

My only request, Mr. Speaker, is that in his final remarks I would ask the minister to address himself to the compromise suggested, and not just say we are playing politics or posturing for political gain. I would ask that he address himself to the argument contained in that reasoned amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to get involved in this debate?

Mr. Lewis: Just for a moment.

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

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow my colleague from Stormont, whom I think --

Mr. Samis: Cornwall.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, Cornwall -- whom I think made some useful final observations about requiring or asking the minister to respond directly to the reasoned amendment. Mr. Speaker, this bill is in its own way a pretty ominous piece of legislation. It’s ominous, I think, on two fronts.

Number one, it is the second piece of legislation of its kind in a very short period of time, and maybe the precursor of yet two or three other similar pieces of legislation. If in fact we are faced in a period of three or four months, as is entirely possible, with four or five pieces of legislation, all of them requiring compulsory arbitration when ordering the teachers back to work, then the many voices now calling for an elimination of the right to strike will rise to a powerful and almost irresistible crescendo. That is the groundwork which the government, consciously or unconsciously, is laying.

If we -- well then, it is unconscious, it is not deliberate. But whether the minister realizes it or not, if we have a succession of compulsory arbitration return-to-work situations for the teachers, with Toronto and Kirkland Lake and then Kent, and then God knows what else, one after the other over a few months, we are inviting those people everywhere who would wish to eliminate the right to strike, to express a case that will be difficult for this government in this present atmosphere to resist. And that request will come as readily from members within the Legislature as from people outside; and I don’t think, and my colleagues don’t think, that that’s useful for the collective process.

Mr. Laughren: Subversive.

Mr. Lewis: There is another ominous portent to the bill. That is that if we begin to enshrine, in every piece of legislation we introduce, that same solution -- namely that of compulsory arbitration when ordering teachers back to work -- we will provide for the teachers a degree of resentment and hostility, cumulative over time, which is counterproductive, which is not good for the learning process, which just sets up an atmosphere of unhappiness and hostility within the school system. In both senses, then, this second bill, standing as an omen of what might occur, should be viewed I think in a way which is rather more reasonable.

My colleague from Timiskaming and my colleague from Port Arthur have put to the minister the realities of the negotiations, and some of their qualms about the Education Relations Commission. I happen to feel a very great personal friendship and regard for the chairman of the ERC, as the minister knows, but I too am beginning to have some qualms about the definition of the Education Relations Commission and the extent to which they are encouraged to get things going or to draw things to a close.

I guess what we are trying to say on this side to the minister -- and obviously without any great effect and none of us have any illusion about it -- is that there has to be a more creative way to respond to these teachers’ strikes or board lockouts than the traditional compulsory arbitration route; and that the succession of compulsory arbitration bills will result in a polarization in Ontario, either outside the school system or inside the school system, which is ultimately destructive. We’re not saying, “Don’t return the teachers to work.” We understand that schools have to be reopened. We’re not saying, “Don’t accept the advice of the ERC.” We understand the advice is offered in good faith.

We’re saying: At this moment in time, when everybody in the country is looking at alternative means of settling labour conflicts, when the government itself has a paragraph in the Throne Speech about alternative means of settling labour conflicts, don’t tie the government to one route and one route exclusively and don’t do it so dogmatically and arbitrarily so early in the game.

There is something, I think, both creative and beneficial in saying, “The schools must open. You must return to work; the kids have to have the education. Now listen, you two -- grow up, both sides, and bargain in good faith, having returned to school.”

I want to say to the minister, in good faith, that I think the catharsis of that kind of legislation and the invitation to both sides to function rather differently may have a quite remarkable effect. It’s certainly worth his doing or trying. He has absolutely nothing to lose. The schools are open; the teachers are back; the kids are learning.

Maybe they would reach a negotiated settlement having established, as has been offered, a floor for payment which doesn’t exceed the board’s last offer -- no taxpayers should be angered or irritated by a floor for payment which keeps the teachers feeling as though they’re being treated like civilized human beings. I really think it’s worth thinking about.

The crazy relationships in the Legislature -- the way this place functions sometimes and the way we’re forced to deal with reasoned amendments -- means that in order to support our view, we have to oppose the government and I understand the hazards in that. All of us understand the hazards that that is interpreted as voting against the schools being open but let’s put that falderal aside for a moment. Those who want to wage that war on the hustings are welcome to it.

What we’re putting to the House now as we’ve put before -- and we were excoriated for it in January -- we thought it through yet again and I think it continues to be an intelligent and thoughtful way of approaching an alternative solution: Open the schools; give them a basic payment and get them back to the bargaining table.

The minister knows as well as I that in this case the groups were so close together, they were separated by a hair. What was it? Twelve thousand dollars in total in the first year. That was the divide -- $ 12,000 in total in the first year. I want to say that that kind of minuscule separation in positions merits a more creative solution than compulsory arbitration, the thing we’ve always fallen back upon. That’s what we’re putting to the House.

I want the minister to know it is in good faith. He may reject it but my suspicion is that a few months down the road, after we’ve gone through this exercise another three or four times and everybody is clamouring to remove the right to strike or the teachers are gritting their teeth about the imposition of arbitration, we will regret that we didn’t at least try something else that achieves the same end rather more thoughtfully.

Therefore, the reasoned amendment; therefore, the position of the vote. Let me add a footnote to that which I think, Mr. Speaker, underlines the New Democratic case. The need for a different kind of solution is reinforced by the absurdity of the present process.

I don’t know how much we paid His Honour Charles Dubin. I have as much respect for him as most but that arbitration process was ludicrous from the outset. One didn’t have to be a Solomon to predict that His Honour would effect a settlement somewhere near one or the other of the board offers.

What did we achieve in all those weeks, because the settlement isn’t worth the paper it’s written on until it goes before the Anti-Inflation Board anyway? It took time; it raised tempers; it cost public money and to what end? As long as we have to work within the confines of what those of us on this side regard as unfair and unworkable anti-inflation guidelines, then let us at least try to do it in an atmosphere of labour relations which isn’t quite so combative, quite so adversary, as compulsory arbitration invariably makes everyone feel, so why not try a different approach? It, too, will have to go to the Anti-Inflation Board, obviously, if there’s a settlement; but on the other hand it removes the adversary component. The parties could possibly agree. The minister always retains the right to impose a settlement later if this continued negotiation doesn’t work. That’s always the ace he has in his hand. Why not give to both parties the kind of catharsis which could lead to a more intelligent use of labour relations, not cost the public any more, not have this endless array of arbitration and, at the same time, achieve the object the minister has in mind? I guess what I’m trying to put to him -- in an atmosphere which is much less charged, much less intense and much less sulphuric than the Metro teachers’ strike, which involved so many people -- what I’m trying to suggest is I really don’t think, and my colleagues don’t think, that there should be one dogmatic solution. We accept the need for the return to work. We’d like the minister to try, once that has been achieved, for a different approach for teachers and boards throughout the province.

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

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a very few remarks on this debate. I had originally intended to say a few words on the Toronto board-teacher dispute, particularly after I had listened to the perambulations of the leader of the New Democratic Party. I must say, for the first time in almost nine years, at that time I really felt sorry for the leader of the NDP for the kind of contortions he had to go through to justify the socialist position.

Mr. Renwick: Don’t bother to feel sorry.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, on a point of personal privilege, as I walked by the bench of the member for Rainy River after that debate he turned to me and said, sotto voce: “Now you know what it’s like to be a Liberal.”

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, previous to the election and to a number of the people who came in, I’m sure that the leader of the NDP would not have had quite as much of a problem rationalizing the position at that time as he has tried before.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, I feel comfortable in that position.

Mr. Reid: I join with him, and I’m sure we do on all sides of the House, in believing that there has to be a better way than this kind of strike confrontation situation. I must say probably the essential difference between this party, and even the party across, and the NDP, is that we don’t get the great delight out of the kind of confrontation and problems that arise from these things, nor do we try to get the kind of political partisanship out of them.

The leader of the NDP, the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) and the other members can say what they want, the essential point of this debate is whether or not those students are taught in the classroom tomorrow or the next day or whenever this bill goes into effect.

Mr. Bain: On Monday.

Mr. Reid: That’s the principle of the bill, that’s what we’re here to decide. None of the posturing of these friends of mine to my right, the socialist party, can get away from the essential fact that enough is enough, that those children’s education is in peril.

Mr. Lewis: The ultimate slur.

Mr. Reid: That’s what the situation is.

An hon. member: Crocodile tears. Sanctimonious pap.

Mr. Reid: We can go through reasoned amendments; we can go on all night. We can twist and turn. We can say we uphold the right to strike, which I’m sure we all agree with essentially, but there comes a point when responsible people have to take a responsible position and we have to look at the good of the community and the people most directly involved. That time has come. I’m going to tell you my friends, including those who are barracking behind me, that in the Province of Ontario they will not be the government for the very reason that they cannot get away from the ideological straitjacket that they find themselves in, where they say: “Freedom, yes; obligation and responsibility, no.” They can’t do that in this kind of society and the people of Ontario will respond to that.

Mr. Makarchuk: Keep it up. You’ve got the freaks on your side.

Mr. Warner: Keep it up.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

[9:15]

Mr. Reid: A funny thing, Mr. Speaker, I never missed the member for Brantford for the four years he wasn’t here, and he seems to be trying to talk himself out of the Legislature again.

Mr. Makarchuk: Don’t worry about it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member is in trouble.

Mr. Makarchuk: Not as much as he is.

Mr. Foulds: The minister should speak for himself.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I too join with those who are somewhat concerned about the Education Relations Commission and the role they have taken.

I made an interjection earlier today that the minister responded to, in which I think my comment was that he waited longer in northern Ontario, in Kirkland Lake, to come to this decision than he did in Toronto. I know it is only a matter of a few days, and perhaps that’s not really the problem we are facing. I think the problem we are facing is that the commission is obviously not doing its job. I, along with many people in this House, at one time in an earlier emanation was a teacher. Perhaps some of us should have stayed there. At the rate things are going we would be much better paid.

Mr. Foulds: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Reid: However, I cannot recall, in my limited experience as a teacher, that the children or the students could afford to miss the kind of teaching days they’re missing. I think that one of the things that should happen -- and surely from the experience in the last two months -- is that the Education Relations Commission should take a much more aggressive stance in these mailers.

We are playing with human lives. We are playing with the futures of people. I don’t think that we can afford the kind of postures that we see evidenced tonight by the NDP, or even by the kind of postures that the Education Relations Commission has taken in the last few months.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think first I would like to begin by just commenting about the Education Relations Commission. We always seem to get around to this when we have a discussion such as we are having on this bill, and as we had on the bill that we introduced in January. I think it is relevant to this particular debate. As my friend knows, one of the duties of the commission is to advise the government when they think the pupils programmes are in jeopardy; but the first and foremost duty of the Education Relations Commission is to carry out the duties imposed upon it by this Act and to do those things that are necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. And the purpose of this Act is the furtherance of harmonious relations between boards and teachers, and that this be fostered through the making of agreements and renewing of agreements in the collective bargaining sense between the boards and their teachers. Now, that is the purpose of this Act and that is the first responsibility of the Education Relations Commission. My friend who just spoke said they should take a more aggressive stance. The former leader of the official opposition said that he was concerned that they hadn’t been doing very much. There seems to be a sense in this House that the Education Relations Commission somehow is doing nothing --

Mr. Reid: They are waiting too long.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and is sitting around not doing their job.

Mr. Shore: Nothing.

Hon. Mr. Wells: As I said, their first and foremost job is to see that the purposes of Bill 100 are carried out. Now is there anyone in this House who knows what the Education Relations Commission has done since they were appointed last September?

Mr. Shore: Nothing.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t think there is a person who knows what they have done.

Mr. Nixon: You are supposed to speak for them.

Mr. Reid: We cannot find out what you are doing over there.

Mr. Nixon: Can we have a report from them?

Hon. Mr. Wells: All you have to do is ask the chairman. They will produce a report in this House, but all you’ve got to do --

Mr. Nixon: Then you tell us.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All you have to do is pick up the phone and ask the chairman of that commission.

Mr. Shore: Have you picked it up?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Ask him what the Education Relations Commission has done.

Mr. Nixon: Well, we are asking you.

Mr. Reid: You are responsible for him. That is what you are responsible for -- to stand in your place and tell us.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All right. I am very pleased to tell my friend then, because I did tell him during the debate in January -- and obviously he paid no attention to it.

Mr. Nixon: All right, but you are debating this bill. They didn’t even go up there to have a hearing until you phoned them up and said, “What about this strike?”

Hon. Mr. Wells: There have been 203 contract negotiations since Bill 100 was passed last summer on July 18.

Mr. Nixon: What has that got to do with this bill?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Education Relations Commission has provided assistance in 105 of those collective bargaining disputes.

Mr. Nixon: Good for them; it is irrelevant to this bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They’ve assigned 97 fact- finders, and there have been 24 mediators assigned. Settlements involving fact-finders occurred in 58 cases after the fact-finders were appointed; 13 settlements were arrived at through a combination of fact-finding and mediators. There was a compulsory arbitration settlement in Metropolitan Toronto; three of the settlements occurred because of final-offer selection as laid out in Bill 100.

The total number of settlements achieved with the help of the Education Relations Commission was 80. That’s 80 settlements in this province where the Education Relations Commission in some way helped the parties to come to a negotiated settlement as they were required to do under Bill 100. We are talking about five strikes in this province during all that time.

Mr. Reid: When did they get involved in those strikes?

Hon. Mr. Wells: There were five strikes in this province and 80 situations where the Education Relations Commission has helped them.

Mr. Nixon: We are talking about specifics.

Mr. Reid: When did they get involved in this one?

Hon. Mr. Wells: They are involved in every one of these disputes.

Mr. Reid: When did they get involved in this one? Did you call them or did they call you?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Let’s not talk about the gloom and doom. Sit down and look and listen to what the Education Relations Commission has done.

Mr. Reid: Do you think 44 days is long enough or too long?

Mr. Nixon: That is a very weak defence.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well, if my friend says that’s a weak defence --

Mr. Nixon: It’s no defence at all.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He made a charge that the Education Relations Commission was not effective.

Mr. Nixon: In this strike!

Hon. Mr. Wells: That charge is absolutely not true.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, surely we are talking about Bill 2 or whatever it is?

Hon. Mr. Wells: We are talking about Bill 2, but the hon. member is trying to slough over and cast some kind of an aspersion on the education system.

Mr. Nixon: Not at all. I was talking specifically about this particular matter --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister has the floor.

Mr. Nixon: They didn’t even go up there until you asked them.

Mr. Makarchuk: Throw him out!

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to continue to debate with the former leader of the official opposition, because I think his position on this shows why he is sitting in the place where he is today.

Mr. Deans: He is not the official opposition.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If there was some realization by the members of this House about what public service bargaining is all about -- and I must say I think that of all people the present Leader of the Official Opposition has some understanding of this; and there are one or two other people --

Mr. Nixon: You are so patronizing.

Hon. Mr. Wells: There are one or two other people in this province --

Mr. Nixon: Why don’t you hold hands with them a bit more?

Mr. Lewis: We have before.

Hon. Mr. Wells: There are one or two people --

Mr. Nixon: And you are not too sure about them -- just yourself.

Mr. Reid: That makes four of you -- you, the Leader of the Opposition, and those two other people. There are four people in the whole province who understand.

Hon. Mr. Wells: There are one or two other people in this province who, I think, have at least a pretty good appreciation of public service bargaining and negotiation.

Mr. Reid: That’s four of you.

Hon. Mr. Wells: And one of those people is the chairman of the Education Relations Commission, Mr. Owen Shime. Another is the vice-chairman, Dean Harry Arthurs.

Mr. Nixon: Did Dean Arthurs go up to Kirkland Lake?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, he didn’t. Mr. Shime went up.

Mr. Nixon: Ah yes, just one member of the commission.

Hon. Mr. Wells: But I tell you, if the hon. member wants to learn something about public service bargaining, let him go up and spend a little while with the chairman of the Education Relations Commission instead of mouthing off in this Legislature as he does.

Mr. Nixon: This is where I am elected to speak. You are the one who is shirking your responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend is elected to speak in this House and to make a little sense.

Mr. Reid: Are you taking lessons from John Smith or Taylor?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am not taking lessons from anybody, but I tell my hon. friend that I have a real, deep and abiding concern about public service bargaining in this province; and I always get back to the position that the Liberal Party of this province cares nothing about it.

Mr. Shore: What did you do before you read the article in the paper?

Hon. Mr. Wells: In fact, when I listened to the hon. member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) I thought he was just about going to come to the position that he thought the right to strike should be taken away from teachers.

Mr. Lewis: He did come to that position; he just didn’t say it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s right. I think he just missed that; he just didn’t say it.

An hon. member: He did not say that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: He just about came to it --

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. minister return to the second reading of the bill, please.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have a point of personal privilege?

Mr. Sweeney: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: You did come close.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Very close.

Mr. Sweeney: May I refer to a single paragraph addressed to the Ontario secondary school teachers? The Liberal caucus is also fully in support of the basic principles of Bill 100. We do not favour its abolition. We do hope that serious alternatives to strike action will be worked out, but in the meantime we respect Bill 100 as it is written.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister will continue.

Mr. Bain: Did that clarify something?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well I must say that is a rather ambivalent statement.

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: That from a minister who is planning compulsory arbitration?

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

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wells: You let me know when you have found the alternative methods.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is interesting, Mr. Speaker. I indicated the number of disputes in this province. There are about 20 strikes at present going on in the State of New York where the teachers’ right to strike is prohibited. Teachers are being put in jail, the governor of New York is commuting sentences and so forth.

Mr. MacDonald: You persuaded your own backbenchers; that’s what you are saying!

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we could return to second reading of this bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All right.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think that the ERC will eventually go down as one of the innovations in public service bargaining; and indeed will be copied in this province in some form in other areas.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Just so my friends opposite will not be completely neglected, I must say the only thing that offended me most in most of the arguments they made were the comments -- and I must say their leader didn’t make these comments but some of them made the comments -- that they were the only ones for the rights of the working man and for the working class people and so forth. It is my perception that this party I belong to has always been concerned about the rights of the working person, the working man in this province.

Mr. Nixon: He murmured some mild objections to the commission.

Mr. Lewis: Very mild.

Mr. Nixon: Even though he is one of the four people who understand these matters.

Hon. Mr. Wells: How about the human rights code; how about minimum wage legislation; how about hours of work; how about compulsory vacations?

Mr. Deans: How about the nurses and the hospital staffs?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps we can get back to the principle of this bill and debate that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: There are a lot of us over here who have worked for a wage, and have worked hard for a wage.

Mr. Nixon: Not so many.

Mr. Ruston: There won’t be many next time.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would tell you, that I would gladly change my salary for a proper hourly rate.

Mr. Deans: How about the --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Something more like some of the negotiated settlements, something like the plumbers or something like that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps we could leave debating the minister’s salary and return to second reading of this bill?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I just think it is absolutely offensive to us on this side to hear that you are the only ones who are concerned about the working people of this province.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Rather than prolong this debate, let me end it by just indicating the position of the government in these particular matters.

First of all, we believe that this bill should be passed as is because we believe the schools should be open on Monday because we are concerned about 1,650 students.

Let me deal with the reasoned amendment that has been put forward. I would like to say in very plain and simple terms why we can’t accept the amendment. First of all, it proposes that a floor position be put in, based upon an offer which now no longer exists, one which was put in during a negotiating session, which was put in without prejudice and which really no longer exists on the table. I don’t know how, in a piece of legislation, you can put in an offer which really would be very hard for someone now to be able to pull out and say this was the offer.

Interjections.

Mr. Reid: It’s just posturing anyway.

Mr. Renwick: The arbitrator in Toronto didn’t have any difficulty in resuscitating an offer.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Dubin found an offer that was no longer on the table.

[9:30]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, he didn’t, with respect. My learned friend, Mr. Justice Dubin, accepted the position put forward, during the arbitration, by the board.

Mr. Nixon: Very minor alterations. Are you going to let him do this arbitration?

Hon. Mr. Wells: It was the offer which was put to the teachers in October, but it wasn’t the non-offer or the nebulous offer which you suggested during the debate. In this particular case the offer that was made without prejudice isn’t an offer that’s anywhere around now. It was put in and rejected.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It was rejected completely and has no force in law. It is just a set of figures which somehow exists somewhere; perhaps you have a copy. It would not --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- be substantiated. In any event --

Mr. Lewis: That’s not undesirable.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- I don’t believe that in that kind of situation it is possible to put that kind of amendment into this bill. Further, what I think the member is really saying is that there should be compulsory bargaining. What the opposition is doing in its amendment is taking away the right to strike from those people. Until they arrive at a settlement, the opposition is telling them that they have to bargain by law in this bill.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is like passing an Act of this Legislature saying that the leader of the official opposition and I have to talk every day.

Mr. MacDonald: Presumably that’s what the law states now.

Mr. Reid: It sounds as though you are now --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Everyone has had the opportunity to participate in the --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Everyone has had the opportunity to participate in the debate. Things will go along more smoothly with fewer interjections. The hon. minister will continue.

Mr. Lewis: We have those early morning chats about the cabinet agenda almost every day.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is like saying that we are saying by force of law they have to bargain. I think it is taking rights away. It is taking more rights away than, for instance, our bill is taking away.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t think so.

Hon. Mr. Wells: He is saying somehow they have to bargain; they have to continue bargaining; they won’t have the right to strike as guaranteed under Bill 100 in this case.

Mr. Lewis: The Labour Relations Act says that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: But we will have no finality to this situation. There is no finality to the situation.

Mr. Makarchuk: How do the teachers feel about it?

Hon. Mr. Wells: How do the teachers feel about it?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. minister ignore the interjections?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t know how the teachers feel about it, but I think that --

Mr. Makarchuk: They will probably accept it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the only reasonable way that I can see to bring this particular situation to a conclusion is to adopt the same course as we did in Metropolitan Toronto -- to ask that it be put to arbitration in a speedy manner which will assure that there is a decision which is binding on the parties; a decision so that the teachers will know when they receive it exactly what they are going to get; a decision that will indicate to the board what it is going to have to pay; and a decision arrived upon in a speedy manner which can bring some resolution to this matter, and, hopefully, start everyone down the road to rebuilding a harmonious relationship in the schools in Kirkland Lake, which of course has got to happen.

It is not going to be easy; we have been through these before and there are certain lingering problems which occur. Hopefully the parties, upon the conclusion of the matter and a resolution being arrived at, can start back to building harmonious relationships. As I have said in every one of these disputes, the quality of education depends upon quality teachers and it depends upon a high morale in the schools. That’s what we have to re-establish, and it is not easy to do in some of these areas.

With respect to the opinions of other members of this House, we believe that can best be done through the passage of this legislation which will cause schools to reopen and the programme for the 650 students in this particular area to begin again. I would urge the members of this House to pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wells has moved second reading of Bill 2. Mr. Bain has moved that Bill 2 be not now read a second time but be read a second time one hour hence and that it now be referred back to have incorporated therein the following amendments -- shall we dispense with reading them?

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: We will vote, then, first of all on the main motion.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before we take the vote, since there will be a division and bells if that division and bells can be fairly quick, we might finish the bill clause-by-clause and third reading tonight.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, I hope that can be accomplished.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The motion is for second reading of Bill 2.

The House divided on the motion that Bill 2 be now read a second time, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Auld Belanger Bernier Breithaupt Brunelle Bullbrook Cunningham Davis Eaton Edighoffer Ferris Gaunt Good Gregory Grossman Haggerty Hall Handleman Henderson Hodgson Irvine Johnson (Wellington- Dufferin-Peel) Kennedy Kerr Kerrio Lane Leluk Maeck Mancini McCague McKessock Meen Miller (Muskoka) Morrow Newman (Durham North) Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) Nixon Norton Parrott Peterson Reed (Halton-Burlington) Reid (Rainy River) Riddell Rollins Ruston Scrivener Shore Singer Smith (Hamilton Mountain) Smith (Nipissing) Spence Stephenson Sweeney Timbrell Villeneuve Welch Wells Wiseman Worton Yakabuski -- 60

Bain Bryden Burr Davidson (Cambridge) Deans di Santo Dukszta Ferrier Foulds Godfrey Laughren Lawlor Lewis Lupusella MacDonald Mackenzie Makarchuk McClellan Moffatt Renwick Samis Sandeman Swart Wildman Young Ziemba -- 26

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 60, the “nays” are 26.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

[10:00]

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Committee of the whole House.

KIRKLAND LAKE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS’ DISPUTE ACT

House in committee on Bill 2, An Act respecting the Kirkland Lake Board of Education and Teachers’ Dispute

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments or amendments, and if so, to what section?

Mr. Nixon: Perhaps the minister might want to take advantage of a further opportunity to explain to the House, or even to the one or two members who criticized the actions of the commission referred to under 1(d), in the specific instance of this strike. He was able to explain a number of meetings they have had in the other negotiations, but the question at the time was the action of the commission in this specific strike action. Was it under their initiative that they went to Kirkland Lake to hold public hearings as to whether or not the school programme was in danger, or did the minister, in fact, ask them for advice in this regard?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, the Education Relations Commission was involved, of course, in a manner of knowing what is going on, before Sept. 11.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There is too much noise in the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Wells: On Sept. 11 the Education Relations Commission appointed a fact-finder in this dispute, and the fact-finder’s report came back to the commission and it formed the basis for mediation which took place with a mediator appointed by the commission. The commission supervised the final offer vote and the strike vote on Nov. 20. They again appointed a mediator, Mr. Pathe, who mediated and, in contact constantly with the commission, attempted to bring about a settlement of that dispute all through January and at different times in February.

Mr. Lewis: A better mediator could not be found.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s right; a very fine mediator who worked very hard under the aegis of the commission and appointed by the commission in this dispute.

The commission went to Kirkland Lake as a result of a letter I wrote to them asking them if they would give me an opinion as to whether the students’ programmes were in jeopardy or not.

Mr. Nixon: If I might just pursue that for a moment, Mr. Chairman. The question, of course, is really related to the responsibility of the commission to advise the House, or the minister, I believe, when, in its opinion, the educational programme is in jeopardy. The other things that it did are, I wouldn’t say routine, but they are set out quite specifically and in the past have been done by other, let’s say, officials in the ministry and under the minister’s order, I presume.

But I am very much concerned about the responsibility that under the legislation lies with the commission to advise the minister when the commission, in its opinion, feels that the programme is in jeopardy. I wanted the minister to put on the record, as he has done, that they went to Kirkland Lake -- I shouldn’t say they; the chairman went to Kirkland Lake -- when he was requested for an opinion in this connection by the minister. It almost looks as if the minister saw that little squib in the Globe and Mail a couple of days before the Legislature reconvened and he said, “My God, are they still out on strike? We are going to have to do something about that. I better get in touch with Owen.”

It’s just exactly the way it looks to, let’s say, an unsophisticated observer from this House such as myself. He had decided that it was time to take action and he required the justification of the commission.

I believe the concern that is felt in this connection by myself, and was referred to rather obliquely and gently by the Leader of the Opposition, who has had his fangs drawn in this connection just a bit by the blandishments of the minister and his multitude of friends in the education establishment --

Mr. Lewis: Not just a bit; almost totally drawn.

Mr. Nixon: It appears that you are fangless in this regard.

Mr. Lewis: Totally fangless, but at least I am one of four.

Mr. Nixon: Right. Well, maybe tomorrow he will decide to dismiss you from that special and select company, and I have a feeling that he will end up as only one person really knowing what is right for the board and the teachers and the students.

I want it clearly understood that the commission took no action to determine if the education programme was in danger until the minister asked it. He indicated the date of the letter; it was very soon before the House reconvened and it appeared to be more for the convenience of the minister and this House than for the good of the students involved.

I feel it is inadequate, and I would say if the minister -- he can respond any way he wants -- but I would hope that some time somebody will respond moderately and reasonably and look at the possibility of tightening up that specific responsibility. We are not in favour of compulsory arbitration except in those instances, and they have got to be individual instances, where obviously the greater good must be served by action of this House. But I have a feeling the commission, in this area of its responsibility alone, is simply acting at the convenience of the minister and that is not good enough.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Let me respond, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I think there was a misunderstanding. I did not intend, and I don’t believe I ever said, that I was one of the experts on public service bargaining, because I certainly am not and I certainly do not --

Mr. Nixon: I would agree that you are not. You and I are on the same side there.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I certainly do not include myself in that category. But I do include the chairman of the Education Relations Commission and I include the vice-chairman of the Education Relations Commission.

Mr. Nixon: We are not questioning the bargaining.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All right. But I think that that is very pertinent to the point; that these people are, I think, some of the well-known experts, and as far as the Ontario scene is concerned he is probably one of the top experts in public service bargaining in this particular jurisdiction. I think you are casting an aspersion on him which doesn’t deserve to be cast. The fact that I didn’t ask him doesn’t mean that the commission wasn’t aware of its responsibility and I have to assume it means that it concluded the pupils’ programmes were not in jeopardy.

There are two sides; they may not have been in jeopardy, and for the better good of the whole system and the desire to have a negotiated settlement, the commission felt that what it should do was appoint a mediator and keep that mediator working, rather than suggesting to me that the pupils’ programmes were in jeopardy and that somehow some legislated action should be taken. I have to assume that, based on their expertise, they felt that was the better way to handle this particular situation. They are sitting there, every hour of every day, with their staff and monitoring these situations in constant contact with the mediators who are working there, listening to their reports. They are very aware of these things and I don’t think that they abrogated their responsibility at all. If you think they did because they didn’t report to me earlier that the pupils’ programmes were in jeopardy, then I guess that has to be your opinion. I have to assume that because they didn’t report to me in that regard, they felt the programme wasn’t in jeopardy.

Mr. Nixon: Why did you ask them?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I asked them because the question was being asked of me many times once it passed the 38 days as in Toronto. It’s a very natural question; I am sure it would have been asked of me in this House, when I got in this House. It has passed 38 days; is the programme in jeopardy?

They had sent me a set of ground rules under which they would operate for this responsibility, one of them being that if I wished to have them give me an opinion, they would give it to me if I asked for it. The other was that under various circumstances, they would form their opinions themselves. I felt it would be my duty at that point in time to ask them. They could have come back to me and said, “No, the programme isn’t in jeopardy.”

Mr. Nixon: I won’t pursue it except for another moment, to say to the minister that he is just assuming it was a coincidence that after he asked them they replied, “Yes, the programme was in jeopardy.” It is probably the coincidence that concerns me more than anything else.

I am not questioning the ability of the commission in negotiations. As a matter of fact, I don’t think they did much negotiating. They simply saw that the arbitrators and the fact-finders and so on were appointed as is required under the statute. They are undoubtedly people of ability but it concerns me that they decided that the programme was in jeopardy only after the minister asked them; after it was convenient when the Legislature had been called and after it appeared to have been brought to public attention by the Globe and Mail. I just leave it at that. The minister defends them. I am not criticizing them. I feel the statute is improperly drawn in this connection.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I just point out to my friend that I think I indicated earlier -- it certainly wasn’t just because of the Globe and Mail; I just want to get the date correct -- that on March 1, the director of education wrote me and outlined concerns about the students’ programme; on March 1. I then subsequently asked the commission, after receiving that letter.

Mr. Bullbrook: If I might be permitted, I just want to ask so that I, as one individual member, may understand it: As a matter of clear logic, one has to come to the conclusion that if the Education Relations Committee has reported to you that the programme is in jeopardy, then it was in jeopardy prior to its investigation. As I understand my colleague, his concern is if it was in jeopardy prior to the report, when did it become in jeopardy? If it is incumbent upon the commission only to report when you require a report, again, as a matter of clear logic there might be a time when those student programmes are in jeopardy when nobody is investigating things. That’s what I understand the question to be -- that’s what I understand the question to be not responded to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: As I indicated, we made a certain assumption in this House when we passed Bill 100. Correct? That assumption was that teachers had the right to strike. We therefore assumed, much as we all believed and hoped it wouldn’t occur or, if it did occur, it would occur very rarely, that there would be work stoppages from time to time.

We heard people from all sides of the House, including the Liberal Party and the official opposition, say that it wasn’t going to matter; that the greater good of the bargaining process had to take precedence and that a few weeks of missed school wasn’t going to matter in the total general pattern. That’s exactly what we all voted for in this House in Bill 100 and that’s what we have.

Now the question is at what time does that withdrawal of services present a real problem to the students? I have to assume that the Education Relations Commission, given that duty, constantly have that in mind when there is a withdrawal of services. While they have hundreds of disputes to monitor and be concerned about, they only have a few -- a handful -- of places where there really is a strike occurring. They have mediators in those situations and they’re in contact; so they know what’s going on. They’re intelligent people and they’re capable people. If I didn’t hear from them, I would have to assume they didn’t feel the programme was in jeopardy.

[10:15]

One of the other crucial points in this whole thing is again the imminence of a negotiated settlement at some point in time. It may be when they investigate and look at both sides they see a negotiated settlement can occur within a day or so, and so the aim of the commission is to get that negotiated settlement, because there’s no question that the kind of atmosphere -- the harmonious relationships, the accord that’s built up through a negotiated settlement -- is better than anything else, and that is to be desired. It probably would win if you were to balance it off with another day or two of a withdrawal.

These are the kinds of things that have to go through their minds as they try to do what I think is a very tough and complicated job and one which they try to do very well. You have to remember they have only been in operation since last August. They have had 200-and-some-odd collective bargaining situations to deal with somehow, over half of them in which they had to become involved. I think they’ve done a pretty good job in that whole situation.

Mr. Bain: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to introduce two amendments to section 3. The amendments would be to subsections 4 and 5.

Mr. Chairman: We’re dealing with section 1. We’re dealing with the bill section by section.

Mr. Bain: I wasn’t aware the remarks on the ERC related to sections. I’ll give you notice that at the appropriate time I will introduce those two amendments.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, are we still going to discuss the Education Relations Commission then? May we still do that so that we don’t stray on it?

Mr. Chairman: We’re dealing with clause by clause, and we’re on section 1 of the bill.

Mr. B. Newman: Yes, and that’s 1(d) that I’m referring to and what the hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk did make mention of.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We’re not going to be debating the Education Relations Commission tonight. Mr. Chairman, the discussion on the ERC would be more appropriately on the estimates of the ministry.

Mr. B. Newman: Would not the minister agree that it would be better to have the ERC report to him at stated intervals during the length of a strike so that he would be fully cognizant as to whether the educational needs of the students are being put into jeopardy or not? They could be put into jeopardy in a short period of time. It might take a little longer, but at least you would have that information, I would think, maybe on a weekly basis once a strike has taken place.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, they do report to me weekly on an informal basis, on these disputes.

Mr. B. Newman: Informal is not good enough.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment on section 1?

Mr. Sweeney: May I just ask for a point of clarification on what I believe the minister said just a few minutes ago? I want to be sure I understand what he said. My hearing was that the Education Relations Commission hadn’t up until 40 days reported that the students’ educational programme was in jeopardy and, therefore, the minister has to assume -- I’m paraphrasing his words -- that the programme was not in jeopardy.

The point of clarification is, while I would respect the minister’s judgment that these gentlemen may be experts in the field of public service bargaining, does the minister accept their judgement as being equally competent in the area of judging that after 40 days, two months -- not a few weeks but two months -- the student programme had not at that time been in jeopardy? It is just a point of clarification. Is that what he said? Is that what he means?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I have to assume if they didn’t report to me that the programme was in jeopardy they felt it wasn’t. Yes, that’s what I’m saying.

Mr. B. Newman: They have all been sick.

Mr. Nixon: It is ridiculous.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I also draw to your attention that on the Education Relations Commission are a former teacher and a former school trustee and a community college board member. The community college board member and the trustee are one person.

Mr. Nixon: There are all those and only one of them went up there for the hearing? All those and only one went?

Mr. Sweeney: Does the minister concur that, given the Toronto strike and now the Kirkland Lake strike, we can take two months out of a school year and there’s no effect or it’s not a serious effect?

Mr. B. Newman: Is that what you’re saying?

Mr. Sweeney: Does the minister concur with that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: What I am prepared to say is that the time and the programme can be caught up, and that will depend upon the kind of situation that now comes into being between the teachers and the students.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 1 stand as part of the bill?

Section 1 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Section 2?

Section 2 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Section 3? The hon. member for Timiskaming.

Mr. Bain moved that section 3, subsection 4 be amended as follows: Add after the word “parties” in the fifth line the following:

including in the case of the written notice to the arbitrator from the board the non-prejudiced offer of the board dated Feb. 27, 1976, to the branch affiliate.

Mr. Bain: Since the next amendment is a companion amendment I trust that the chairman would allow me to make the combined companion amendments clear.

Mr. Chairman: Proceed.

Mr. Bain further moved that subsection 5 of section 3 be amended to read as follows:

The arbitrator upon receipt of a notice shall examine the non-prejudiced offer of Feb. 27, 1976, of the board to the branch affiliate and on the basis of that offer shall examine into and decide all matters that are in dispute between the parties as evidenced by the notice referred to in subsection 4, and any other matters that appear to him to be necessary to be decided in order to make a decision no less favourable to the branch affiliate than the non-prejudiced offer made by the board on Feb. 27, 1976.

Mr. Bain: Speaking to the amendment --

Mr. Chairman: Just a minute; let’s read the amendment.

Mr. Ferrier: Accept it as read.

Mr. Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee that it be accepted as read?

Agreed.

Mr. Ferrier: The minister accepts it with a smile on his face.

Mr. Bain: The purpose of this companion package of two amendments is to try to create a reasonably good atmosphere in KLCVI when it opens on Monday.

We feel the companion amendments are certainly not a solution as good as the reasoned amendment provided. It is important, nevertheless, to retrieve what we can from this very poor bill in an effort to build a harmonious relationship in the school. This is not going to happen just by our wishing to do it; we have to do it by giving both parties something that they will be able to point to and feel that they have accomplished something through their negotiations.

These two amendments build upon the successful aspects of the negotiations that occurred and, as has been mentioned earlier by myself and others, the two parties were within $12,000 on the complete monetary item package in the first year of the contract.

It is only by drawing upon this area of agreement we are going to be able to arrive at a reasonable settlement. It’s only by drawing upon this area of agreement that we are going to be able to have a board and a teaching staff at KLCVI that, although not entirely happy, will be much more predisposed to returning to normal teaching circumstances on Monday.

I hope the House will accept these two amendments. This, I feel very strongly, is a way to establish an atmosphere in KLCVI on Monday that will be conductive to learning.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to add, very briefly, that I think it is important that we establish a floor, as outlined in the amendment proposed by my colleague from Timiskaming. The floor we are proposing, that non-prejudiced offer, was one of the major reasons why the ERC, as late as last Saturday, thought there was a negotiable settlement possible. That was the basis for some hope, and one of the reasons that the minister has argued most strongly that the dispute could have continued in day terms longer than the Metro Toronto teacher dispute did.

I think it is important that in this piece of legislation we recognize the very fruitful bargaining that had taken place in Kirkland Lake up to that time. Both parties, both the board and the teachers, feel that the bargaining that has taken place and the number of meetings that they had engaged in, in mediation negotiations, were not in vain and that they had actually accomplished something. This floor and this amendment that we propose will give them that feeling of accomplishment, and the attitude and the atmosphere that my colleague from Timiskaming speaks about in Kirkland Lake and in the classrooms in the Kirkland Lake High School will be much better for that and for the feeling of accomplishment by those two negotiating parties.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for London South.

Mr. Ferris: Mr. Chairman, we will oppose this motion on the same basic theory as we did in the January one. I believe that it binds an arbitrator into a position which makes it virtually unworkable. It gives him much less of a degree of flexibility of how he perceives a proper settlement can be worked out.

Mr. Makarchuk: In other words, it is more important to the arbitrator.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I’m afraid that I must oppose the amendment. I think I indicated a few minutes ago that this non-prejudiced offer is really some nebulous thing that has no real substance and I feel that, as my friend has just said, it would hinder proper arbitration. I think that in this case both parties should put forward their positions and let the arbitrator do his work.

Mr. Deans: Can I ask the minister a question? Is there another offer that the minister would be prepared to accept as the suitable floor level? Since he hangs his hat on the fact that the non-prejudiced offer was not legally or formally on the table, is there an offer that he might personally feel would be one that would be suitable to be written into the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, at this time, Mr. Chairman, I don’t think there is.

Mr. Deans: Is it fair then to conclude that you don’t believe in setting floor levels at all? It has nothing to do with it being on or not on the table, not legally or illegally presented, but, in fact, you’re not prepared to accept anything.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Bain’s amendments to subsection 4 and 5 of section 3, will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Bill 2 reported.

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill without amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved third reading of Bill 2, An Act respecting the Kirkland Lake Board of Education and Teachers’ Dispute.

Mr. Deans: Just before third reading carries, I want to say something. I’m absolutely convinced that the more often we in this Legislature are prepared to deal with labour disputes, the more often we are prepared to pass legislation that will bring a resolution of a legally constituted strike, then the easier it’s going to be for intransigent parties to sit back and await our decision.

Frankly, I think we’re making a terrible mistake. I think we ought not to involve ourselves in these matters. There are many matters confronting many people across this province which deserve the attention of the Legislature; some of them much more long-lasting than the effect of this strike on the pupils or people of this area or any other area.

I want to suggest that I think we’re simply moving slowly along the road to the elimination of rights which most of us -- including the minister, I think happen to believe are rights that the people ought to have in the Province of Ontario, with regard to collective bargaining. I hope that we, as a Legislature, will spend some time in the next short while deliberating other ways and improving on the ways currently there of resolving the labour disputes which are coming before us in rapid succession.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of Bill 2 being read the third time will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to; third reading of the bill.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the legislative assembly and took her seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. P. M. McGibbon (Lieutenant Governor): Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the legislative assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed a certain bill to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said legislative assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour’s assent.

The Clerk Assistant: The following is the title of the bill to which Your Honour’s assent is prayed:

Bill 2, An Act respecting the Kirkland Lake Board of Education and Teachers’ Dispute.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty’s name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to this bill.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House may I indicate that tomorrow we will go back to the consideration of supplementary estimates, carrying on where we left off yesterday with the Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:40 p.m.