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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

---

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

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

Resuming the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 130, An Act respecting a Labour Dispute between the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology and the Boards of Governors of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think if we are going to be debating this kind of legislation, the least we can do is to have a quorum in here. I do not see one. Do you?

Mr. Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.

8:06 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that before supper I had begun my remarks outlining my three major points of opposition to this bill. I do not quite know where to fit this into the natural organic flow of my remarks, but I certainly would appreciate it if in some way during the course of the debate --

Interjections.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) has the floor.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister wish to make her opening statement? I would be glad to yield the floor to her now.

I hope during the course of the debate the minister will clarify the allegation by the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot), quoted in the Northern Daily News, that the minister had related to her caucus the allegation that one of the negotiators for the college teachers spat at one of the negotiators for the Council of Regents.

If that report of the honourable member is incorrect, I would appreciate the minister indicating that to the House. It would remove a cloud from the atmosphere of the negotiations. If she wishes to get up on a point of privilege or order to clarify that, I would willingly yield the floor.

The dictum of Sir Thomas More, which has always been a dictum in law, is that silence means consent. Therefore, I gather from the minister's silence that she consents to the report as relayed in the press.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I do not.

Mr. Foulds: Would the minister like to put that clearly on the record, as well as by interjection?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: At the appropriate time.

Mr. Rotenberg: Is that on the bill?

Mr. Foulds: No, it is not. Perhaps the voice of the angel of Wilson Heights would like to clarify what did happen in caucus. I assume he was there and heard the minister's remarks.

Mr. Rotenberg: If the honourable member wants to sit down, I will be glad to.

Mr. Foulds: I would be glad to yield.

Mr. Rotenberg: The member would lose his place.

Mr. Foulds: No, I would be glad to yield to the honourable member on a point of order. I am also very pleased the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) has indicated there is going to be a Conservative with the courage to participate in the second reading debate; someone on the government side actually will get up and speak on this legislation during the course of the debate in principle on this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: I was going to remind the member that is what we were here to do.

Mr. Foulds: I beg your pardon?

The Deputy Speaker: I remind the member this is what we are here to do. Let us not flirt with allegations or suggestions imputing anything to any other honourable member. If we can return to the principle of the bill, that is what we are here to discuss.

Mr. McClellan: It was reported in the press. It is a matter of public record.

Mr. Foulds: I would repeat for the record the interjection of my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) that it is a matter of public record. The allegations made by the member for Timiskaming were reported in the Northern Daily News. This report has not been repudiated either by that member or by the minister, and that has clouded the negotiations.

It is the kind of atmosphere that is promoted among government members that leads this government to bring in this kind of legislation with no rationale and actually with no debate substantiating its reasons in this very important debate on the principle of bringing in the legislation.

Let me just recap a few of the remarks I made before supper so that the full framework of the argument I am putting will be brought to the attention of all members.

First of all, I am opposing this bill because it is a fundamental attack, such as this government has made again and again during the last dozen years, on the full and free collective bargaining process, including the right to strike.

Second, even if one accepted the principle of compulsory binding arbitration, the arbitration that is outlined in this bill is absolutely the worse kind of arbitration that one could imagine: a single arbitrator appointed by a nonpartisan government -- ha, ha, ha -- an arbitrator who obviously will be totally independent of government influence, just as the Council of Regents is totally independent of government influence.

Interjections.

Mr. Foulds: The minister does wish to make her opening statement.

The Deputy Speaker: The minister does not have the floor.

Mr. Foulds: Oh, she does not have an opening statement.

Not only is the arbitration fundamentally flawed in format, but the bill itself, as a follow-up to the kind of legislation this government has introduced in the past in Bill 111 and Bill 179, hamstrings the arbitrator even from bringing in a reasonable and freely thought through, freely conceived arbitration decision because of subsection 5(5), which says, "In making his decision, the arbitrator shall consider as a factor the ability of the employers to pay in light of the existing provincial fiscal policy."

What is the existing government fiscal policy? Let me just outline three points very briefly. It is, first, a failure on the part of the government to collect the taxes that are already owed to the people of Ontario by the corporate sector. There are $2.2 billion in taxes owing to the public of Ontario from the corporate sector that this government has failed to collect.

If it collected that $2.2 billion, we could wipe out the deficit tomorrow. If we actually collected those taxes and actually did a combination of reducing the deficit, creating jobs and assigning that money to social, health and educational expenditures, we not only could have a more balanced budget, we could have a more balanced economy.

Second, what is the government's fiscal policy? The government's fiscal policy, as announced in a memo by the Premier (Mr. Davis) to his cabinet and leaked to the Toronto Star, is a severe curtailing of transfer payments and expenditures on health, education and social services. What we will have is a severe reduction. Part of the government's fiscal policy is to reduce those transfer payments to about three per cent.

According to the legislation that has already been passed in Bill 179 and Bill 111, we do not need to have a clear statement of policy. As long as the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) or the Premier says it, that is policy.

What is the third pillar of this government's fiscal policy? It is kowtowing to Wall Street, a simple obsession by the Premier, the cabinet and the members of the government party to keep the triple-A rating at any cost. What is that cost? How much does the government save this coming year by having a triple-A rating instead of a double-A-plus rating?

Mr. Kerr: Five seats.

Mr. Foulds: The member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr) puts it in the most honest way: it saves the government five seats. That is exactly what it does. That is all it does. The government did not plan to borrow any money on the capital markets this year.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Port Arthur was returning to the principle of the bill. Do not distract him, lest he get off into some kind of budget debate.

Mr. Piché: You cannot distract a one-track mind.

Mr. Foulds: At this stage of the game, I think the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) would dearly love to have a track to put his mind on.

Let me return to subsection 5(5) of the bill on which I was speaking. The arbitrator must consider the existing fiscal policy of the government, which is entirely negative when it comes to trying to remedy the chronic underfunding of the college system that has occurred in the past several years.

This bill fails to deal with the work load problem in any way, shape or form. It brings in arbitration. It says the dispute must go to arbitration. Both sides have agreed the centrepiece of the dispute in the several months leading up to the present impasse has been workload, but that is hived off entirely from the arbitration process.

I believe the member for York South (Mr. Rae), the leader of the New Democratic Party, was absolutely right this afternoon when he indicated to this House that his reading of that section of the bill is that it is contrary to the Constitution and that the bill is flawed constitutionally.

I want to illustrate the situation in the province by reference to the situation I know best, the one in Thunder Bay. I met with half a dozen students in my office on Sunday. They phoned and wanted a meeting because they wanted to see what could be done to remedy the impasse. This was a cross-section of students from accounting. auditing, industrial relations and the business faculties of Confederation College in Thunder Bay. What intrigued me was that not a single student wanted back-to-work legislation, and I found that --

Interjections.

8:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Port Arthur has the floor.

Mr. Martel: It was government policies that caused the strike.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. While we have this pause, let us remind all honourable members that the --

Mr. McClellan: We do not have a pause.

The Deputy Speaker: We did have a pause for a moment. I would remind all members that we were having discussions in all three caucuses that were distracting from the debate. Perhaps they can keep their private conversations low so the member for Port Arthur can continue with the debate on the principle of the bill.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, as I said, what impressed me and what surprised me, frankly, was that not a single one of those students thought back-to-work legislation would solve the problem. I told them at the beginning of the discussion that in all probability if there was such back-to-work legislation, I would not be able to support it in principle unless there was an extreme flexibility on the part of the ministry and an extreme humanitarianism on the part of the minister, which had never been previously displayed in legislation brought forward by this government or this minister.

They indicated to me -- and this quite surprised me -- that they did not think back-to-work legislation would actually solve the problem. I asked them, "What are the problems as you see them?" They gave me two answers. They said they felt that during the last two to three years in particular there were two major problems that were increasing.

One was class size and the other was the fact that as students they were not getting the individual attention they required, deserved and felt their teachers often wanted to give them. They gave me just three examples I thought illustrated the point fairly well.

First, most of them belonged to either an accounting class or an industrial relations class. What had happened with those two different streams, if you like, is that the course for statistics had been amalgamated into one class so that the class had 45 students. This was the number that presumably should have been taking the course after the class was amalgamated. As a result, between September and this date, a class of 45 had actually decreased to a class that ran around 25 to 28. In other words, about 20 of the students simply dropped out of taking that class because there were not enough desks in the classroom and there was not enough attention. There simply was not space for them.

That seemed to me to be a small, and perhaps mechanical, but very real illustration of what has happened to the bright hopes of our community college system. Members will recall that our community college system was founded in a spirit of idealism in an attempt to train and retrain those students who in many cases had not done all that well in high school. Somehow the high school education system had failed, and the major reason for the creation of the community college system was to help those students who might not otherwise have been able, for example, to go to university, to get a post-secondary education.

The system by its very nature requires more individual attention. The illustration they gave me indicated to me the system at this present time, in that particular class, was failing in that objective.

Another illustration they gave me was also a simple and mechanical but very real one. One class of 24 was put into a classroom, because it was the only classroom available, with 18 desks that were bolted to the floor. There was no way of getting an additional six desks or spaces in the classroom. That class was an auditing class.

The third illustration they gave me was of a first-year general business class. This I really found difficult to believe. They told me that from the beginning of the year not only was the classroom full, not only were students standing against the walls in the classroom attempting to take the class, but also there were students actually sitting in the hallway outside the open door of the classroom trying to overhear the proceedings inside.

If that is happening in our post-secondary educational system -- and I believe absolutely the story the students told me; I have no reason to believe otherwise -- it is a disgrace, and this bill does nothing fundamentally to remedy that disgrace in the post-secondary educational system of this province.

One of the students involved was a very interesting young man. He had been on strike as a Canadian Union of Public Employees worker in Thunder Bay this past summer and he was going to school full-time to upgrade his education in the hope of getting a better job opportunity with his employer when he returned to work. I want to read a couple of paragraphs from a letter he wrote to the editor of a weekly paper in Thunder Bay called Lakehead Living. He says this:

"The current faculty strike at Ontario's 22 community colleges is of great concern to me and thousands of other students. I have been a full-time student at Confederation College for the past one and a half years; I have an additional one and a half years to complete before I graduate. I have invested a portion of my life and a considerable amount of my money in my quest for a better education.

"Therefore, I have a great personal stake in the outcome of the present labour-management dispute. The point I wish to make, however, is that the outcome of the strike will have a far-reaching effect on all Ontario residents, if not all Canadians.

"Regardless of the rapid technological changes taking place in our society and the inclination of employers to automate and robotize the work place, Canada's most valuable asset is still the human resource. Although the new 'industrial revolution' is eliminating many traditional jobs, it is nevertheless creating an accelerating demand for people with the education, skills and training necessary to meet the future needs of business, government and society. Naturally, Canadian college graduates should be given the opportunity to fill these positions; we are certainly willing to do so.

"In the past, our standard of education has been ranked among the highest in the world. We have produced more brilliant minds than for which we had jobs. This is evidenced by the overwhelming number of Canadian expatriates who hold positions within the American NASA program. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, a 'brain drain' took place during which many highly skilled and educated Canadians were forced to seek employment elsewhere, because job opportunities in their related fields were practically nonexistent in Canada."

I will leave out part of the letter. He goes on to say:

"Therefore, it is important to recognize that quality of education, not wages, is the central issue in the college faculty strike. Class size is an important factor. The Council of Regents has steadfastly maintained that it wants to increase the size of classes. Last year there were close to 40 students in my first semester class, and we were packed into classrooms that were designed to accommodate up to 30 people.

"The early birds got the seats. The rest of us were forced to sit on the floor or lean against the wall, hardly an atmosphere conducive to learning. This year a class size of 50 people is not unusual. There is every indication that the situation is going to get worse before it gets better.

8:30 p.m.

"Another contentious issue is that of recognition of the work performed outside the classroom. Presently, only the hours spent by the faculty teaching within the classroom environment are recognized. The current maximums per teacher per week are 20 and 22 hours. Of course, anyone who has ever attended school knows that a teacher spends a great deal of time doing job-related work beyond the actual time spent instructing. Lessons must be prepared, courses must be revised, tests and assignments must be written up and marked and the student seeking assistance must be given attention.

"The Council of Regents wants to remove the 'caps' on the maximum classroom hours per week worked without giving due consideration to the out-of-classroom hours per week worked. Such a policy, if implemented, would result in one of two situations -- teacher work-to-rule or teacher 'burnout.' Either one would have a devastating effect upon the quality of education."

He goes on to make what I thought were two striking parallels. In the letter, this young man, Ron Smith, says:

"The council's stance is as unrealistic as it is unfair. If, for example, this policy were applied to a police force, the time spent completing reports and appearing in court would not be considered time worked. If it were applied to a fire department, only the time actually spent fighting fires would be deemed time worked. The firefighters would be expected to train and maintain and repair their equipment on their own time."

I think those two parallels speak eloquently to what is wrong with the present failure of the government, the failure of the ministry and the failure of the Council of Regents to deal with the work load problem.

Finally, after skipping a good portion of the letter, I want to read into the record his last paragraph:

"We, the students, wish to see the strike (or, indeed, force-out) concluded as soon as possible. We also want the end result to be an improvement, not a degradation, of the substance and quality of our education. This will not occur unless the Council of Regents changes its position and begins to bargain in good faith with the faculty."

I suggest that not only has the bargaining failed to come to a fruitful and worthwhile conclusion, but the role of this minister and this ministry has actually poisoned the atmosphere in which the negotiations could fruitfully take place. The chronic underfunding of the school system in past years has led to this inevitable result.

That letter puts it as eloquently as I could on behalf of the students.

Mr. Rotenberg: About 90 per cent of the students disagree with that.

Mr. Foulds: The member for Wilson Heights will get his chance.

Mr. Breaugh: Who threw the bone out at him?

Mr. Rotenberg: That member has one in his teeth.

Mr. Philip: This government threw the seniors out on the streets. Now it wants to throw the students out too.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: The member for Wilson Heights will get an opportunity to speak in this debate should he wish to take it. I want to conclude with these few remarks.

Mr. Rotenberg: Not if the NDP keeps filibustering.

Mr. McClellan: Has somebody written him a speech? Somebody should write it in crayon for him.

Mr. Foulds: The legislation does absolutely nothing to deal with the educational situation. The government and the official opposition are saying they are voting for this legislation because the students come first. I agree with the theory that the students come first, but what does this bill do for the students? Can anyone tell me in simple direct language how this bill improves the quality of education for the students?

Mr. Rotenberg: It puts them back in the classroom.

Mr. Foulds: Does it? Oh, it puts them back in the classroom. It puts them back in the hallways of Confederation College where they can overhear part of a lecture in an overcrowded classroom. It puts them leaning against the walls trying to take notes in a post-secondary course, trying to concentrate on a difficult subject. Does this legislation reduce class size?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Port Arthur wants to carry on.

Mr. Foulds: I want to get back to the point that the official opposition and the government are saying they are voting for this bill because they believe the students come first. As the member for Wilson Heights has put it in his blunt and eloquent way, it gets the students back into the classroom. At what cost? In what situation? At what cost to labour relations? At what cost to what has been in the past a fairly productive and a fairly amiable atmosphere in the post-secondary educational system of this province?

What does this bill do for the students? It does not reduce class size, it does not increase the individual attention the student receives from his instructor and it does not remedy the chronic underfunding of the post-secondary educational system by this government. Does this bill do anything fundamental to remedy the situation in which the students at Confederation College find themselves? Does it do anything to improve labour relations between the parties involved? Does it do anything to improve the educational atmosphere in that college?

The answer to all those questions must be no. Any of us who has been connected with education in any way know that the transference of knowledge, which is the beginning of wisdom, from a teacher to a student has to take place in a conducive atmosphere. This bill does nothing to create that conducive atmosphere. I must, therefore, oppose the bill.

I oppose it on the grounds that it is a fundamental attack on full and free collective bargaining, including the right to strike. It is the worst kind of arbitration legislation. The bill is fundamentally flawed internally in its own drafting. It does nothing to address the problem of work load. While it gets the teachers by the full force of law back to the classroom and entices the students back to the classroom, it does absolutely nothing to create the educational atmosphere in the classroom that will further the education of our post-secondary students in the community colleges of this province. For all those reasons, I oppose it.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to section 1(b) of the standing orders of this assembly which empower you to make decisions based on the usages and precedents of this Legislature and parliamentary tradition.

We are engaged in a second reading debate on very important legislation. To date, not a single member of the government has deigned to speak during this debate. The minister introduced the bill and sat down in her place. We have been engaged in the debate now since about 3:30 p.m. and not a single member of the government party has participated.

It makes a mockery and a farce out of all our traditions. It is a display of arrogance and contempt such as I have never witnessed in the nine years I have been in this assembly. There has never been a second reading debate in which the government has refused to participate. To treat the members of this assembly with this kind of contempt is intolerable, sir. I do not know what you can do about it. Because the government has made a decision to be so contemptuous of us that its members are not even going to participate in this debate, I wish at least to put it on the record and have it noted.

The Deputy Speaker: We have noted the member's point of order. I do not think one can presume who is going to participate and who is not going to participate in the debate.

8:40 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: I was under the impression that outside of a long opening statement or other explanation -- and one was given today at the beginning of the question period -- the usual practice for the minister was not to participate until all other members had their chance. I thought that, in actual fact, the participation of the minister involved closed the debate. If this is not right I hope the Speaker would correct me.

Mr. Foulds: On the same point of order: in speaking of the minister's responsibilities, let alone the government's, it is well known the minister has the right, in the debate on second reading, to both open the debate and close it. This has not occurred. The minister has not deigned to open the debate. Second, I think the government has a responsibility to debate the legislation and it has refused to do so.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Port Arthur will take his seat. There is no point of order. The member for Bellwoods raised some thoughts and we heard comments. With all due respect, the debate continues as the members offer themselves. The member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) was next. With all due respect, the Chair cannot force anybody to speak. The member for Etobicoke has the floor.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, before the standing committee on the administration of justice of this Legislature, a courageous president of a community college --

Mr. Piché: You talk in circles and say nothing.

Mr. Philip: I am sorry. If the member for Cochrane North wants to speak, I will yield the floor to him.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Cochrane North knows the member for Etobicoke has the floor.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, a courageous community college president got up to appear before a committee of this Legislature, even though he did not have to. If one reads Hansard of May 30, 1979, one can see the chain of events that has led up to this strike, that has led up to what we have been suffering for the last three weeks. It was predicted at that time.

At that time, the minister failed to listen to President Wragg when he talked, not only on behalf of his own college but on behalf of the presidents of colleges of applied arts and technology. President Wragg talked about the conditions existing back then in the community colleges. He talked about the major crisis that would occur in the community college system unless better funding came forth from the provincial government.

President Wragg talked about, in his words, "the noose getting tighter and tighter around our necks." It took a lot of courage for a man in his position to come before a committee of the Legislature and before the minister to spell out exactly what was happening in the community colleges.

If the minister had the sense to read Hansard or to listen to President Wragg, she would have realized she was responsible. She could have acted in those years not to have this strike in the first place and not to have this legislation before us now.

Since the minister obviously did not listen to President Wragg at that time I would like to remind her of some of the things he said. I think they relate directly to this bill and to the exercise we are now in.

First, he talked about the kinds of restraint. He said that under the former Bill 19, it would take a "super" minister to be on top of this kind of gigantic ministry. We can see the kind of super minister we have had since then. She is an expert on everything; she knows all the answers; and the people are out on the streets. These are the kind of results we got from that super minister.

We look at the kinds of figures he was quoting back then. He said, "When you're talking of budgets, and I am sure Dr. Stephenson" -- he was talking directly to her -- "is sick and tired of hearing about money, she probably goes nowhere but this is the main topic of conversation."

This was in 1979 when he was tracing the history of what had been happening to community colleges at that time. He said: "In the current year, the colleges' grant was increased by 5.2 per cent. The inflation rate last year was 8.9 per cent; a year ago, it was 5.7 per cent, the inflation rate was 8.4; the year before that the rate of increase was 6.3, inflation 9.5. Every year the noose seems to get a little tighter. The absolute miracle to me is that over these years the community college enrolment has just been going up like that. My colleagues and I say, 'Look, fellows, our job is to educate the students, and if it means sacrificing services, if it means dispensing with counsellors, with anything other than teachers, okay, that's the ball game.'"

He gave a rather colourful analogy. He said: "It's like the story of a couple of ants having a conversation near a golf ball. The swing comes and nearly obliterates them; another one, then one says to the other, 'You know, if we're going to survive, we had better get on that golf ball.'"

If we look at what is happening at the community colleges, all the teachers and counsellors have been getting on that golf ball. All the things we originally thought were essential and knew were in the benefit of the students such as the counselling services and the library services have been cut.

A colleague of mine asked President Wragg further on, "Is there any room to cut any further?" He said, and I do not have the direct quote here: "We have cut as far as we can go. There is no more to cut." That was in 1979. Of course, the cuts have been coming harder and harder and we are now faced with this situation.

It is too bad the minister did not listen to President Wragg at that time. It is too bad she did not look at what was happening in the colleges at that time. We would not be in this situation. It took a lot of courage for President Wragg to come before a committee of the Legislature and present that information. The same kind of professionalism that motivated him to come forward, face the television cameras and face the minister, his boss, and tell her she was wrong forced the community college teachers after years and years of professional frustration to take to the streets to try to take their message to the minister and to the public.

Many of them have personally lost considerable income in this particular strike. Wages are not in dispute. What the community college teachers have been fighting for and the message they have been trying to get through to the minister is that they are on strike because, as professionals, they must stand up for the quality of education. The issue is that we cannot have an increased teacher work load and expect quality not to decline.

The one issue this bill does not deal with is the very issue the people are on strike for. The one issue this bill does not deal with in any way that will expeditiously solve the problem is the same problem President Wragg told the minister was a crisis when he spoke on behalf of the community college presidents in 1979.

In June a report was prepared by a task force set up by officials of the Ministry of Colleges and University officials. That report was entitled An Analysis of Unit Operating Costs In Ontario's CAATs, 1978-79 to 1982-83. It shows that the work done by the colleges of applied arts and technology has increased by far more than the resources allocated to them by the province.

This study shows the real operating costs have been sharply reduced over this five-year period as a result of a 15 per cent increase in the average size of class sections, a 5.5 per cent reduction in the hours of in-class instruction provided annually to a full-time, post-secondary student, and a one per cent increase in hours taught annually by full-time faculty.

The summary of the college growth study report in October 1981 report by the Council of Regents expressed concern over "the lessening real support for the college system."

8:50 p.m.

It is interesting that instead of releasing that report the ministry has refused to do so. Instead, the Minister of Colleges and Universities has used the media to make threats against community college teachers and inaccurate and misleading statements about the number of hours the teachers are working. Contrary to the statements made by the minister, one recent study shows that post-secondary teachers work a total of 41.18 hours per week as compared to nonpost-secondary teachers, who work 37.55 hours per week. The Conservatives are trying to avoid the real issue. The strike will undoubtedly end when they legislate them back to work, but the problem will not end.

A number of years ago I was involved in running a number of professional development courses for community college teachers. Some of them are in the gallery tonight. I am aware of the number of hours they spend out of class in professional associations, in the preparation of their courses, in the preparation of exams, in the teaching of certain courses and in counselling students, for which they never receive a cent of pay. In some cases they work with professional organizations to develop the professions they originally came from.

When one has this knowledge of what community college teachers are all about and of the number of weekends they give not just to the college and not just to the students but often to their profession and professional association, one wonders how someone in the position of Norm Williams, the chairman of the Council of Regents, can be so bold or so ignorant as to tell the media that the teachers are only working a maximum of 700 hours a year, which means "literally that they have May and June off as well as 10 days at Christmas and 10 days at Easter.' Either he is so terribly poorly informed that he should not be in that job or he is deliberately and calculatingly misleading the public and the media. That kind of thing should be pointed out and chastised by all of us in this House.

The government -- to its credit, I suppose; although it has had 41 years to practise this kind of thing -- has been successful in its propaganda war. There has been a lot of misleading information in the press and in the media. Certain journalists, like Barbara Amiel, that great southern clone of the member for Timiskaming, write articles about the community colleges.

She is so knowledgeable about them. She says, for example, that the average faculty member's salary is $40,000 a year. We know, of course -- and she could have known if she had done any kind of research -- that the maximum salary that can be earned by a college teaching master is $43,034 and the maximum for a full-time instructor is $31,938, but that starting salaries are $22,035 and $18,812, respectively.

It takes 16 years for a teaching master to reach a maximum level, and since the colleges have been operating for only 17 years, it is mathematically impossible for the average salary to be anywhere near the figure that Barbara Amid cited in that article, unless you assume that all of the existing faculty members have been on the staff since 1967, which of course is not the case.

Then we have the kind of example that I think this strike is all about. Let me give members an example that was cited by Gary Noseworthy, a teacher at Humber College. He says that in this college teachers are trying to teach too many students in too little time and in too little space, and he gives the following example. He says his campus was designed to house 4,500 students; 7,800 students are currently enrolled. Writing classes have grown from 20 students per class, four classes for five hours per week, to an average of 27 students per class, five classes for four hours per week.

A writing teacher today, who has his or her students produce only 10 pieces of writing per semester, marks 1,200 papers, and most of them do so with care. That is the kind of work load we are talking about.

I know, from a very personal point of view, the work load community college teachers have. My wife, who is a teacher of nursing at Humber College, spends much of the Christmas holidays preparing exams and correcting papers. She spends hours at professional meetings of the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario and spends weekends travelling to Ottawa preparing exams for the provincial examinations.

When we look at her profession, the work load for nursing teachers is not 700 hours of contact hours per year, but 775 hours. Nursing instructors also put in as many as 28 hours in class alone. The reason is that the administration will not recognize clinical supervision in various hospitals as part of the in-class workload. It is that type of inequality the teachers have been asking the government and the Council of Regents to look at for the last few years.

This bill simply procrastinates further on that. The nursing faculty is concerned about patient care and student education. In 1979 I talked about this to President Wragg when he appeared before the justice committee I was chairing. He admitted there were safety hazards in increasing the student-teacher ratio in certain types of training courses.

Nursing teachers report that in clinical settings in the hospitals the number of patients per student has risen dramatically from two patients per student to 4.5 -- more than double. The faculty began with specific guidelines from health professionals who set a maximum of eight students per teacher for safe clinical conditions. It has now risen as high as 10 and even 12 in some cases.

We are talking about a group of people who knew they had a problem and tried to solve that problem in as conservative and as moderate a way as we could possibly ask. After years of being promised that committees would deal with it and that solutions would be found, they finally said in desperation, "We have to put our money where our mouths are, even though it is going to cost us personally." In the case of my family it has already cost us a couple of thousand dollars in salary.

They have gone out and tried to convince this minister that she should listen to the public, to the teachers and to what is happening in those community colleges. Maybe she should visit some of them and see what is really going on in the nursing classrooms and not stay aloof with her MD, thinking she knows everything about the medical profession as well as about colleges and universities.

Figures released by the Ontario Federation of Students show that the resources in the 22 community colleges are 25 per cent below what is needed to accommodate existing student enrolment. As President Wragg stated, the noose is getting tighter and tighter. I would be willing to consider any bill that would come to grips with that essential professional problem.

It was a professional problem the teachers were dealing with when they went on strike. This bill does absolutely nothing but procrastinate about the problem for a still longer period of time. The minister has no credibility in the community colleges or among the community college teachers. She has no credibility among such associations as the Ontario Association for Continuing Education. She has no credibility with members in the House and I think she should resign. I am voting against the bill. I hope she will see it not only as a vote against this bill but also as a vote of no confidence in her as an abominable minister who has no right to continue in that post.

9 p.m.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, the member for Port Arthur asked what this bill does. It does one very simple thing: it gets the students back in the classroom, where they belong. That is the prime, overriding, important issue. It is far more important than any issue that has been discussed tonight. It is more important than solving any other problem. The most important problem is getting the students back in the classroom.

I have had calls from many students in my riding. They all want to go back to class. There have been students demonstrating in front of Queen's Park. They want to go back to class. I have had parents call me. They all want to get their sons and daughters back in the classroom. I have had community college teachers call me, and they all want to go back. They want to go back now, and that is the prime situation.

The teachers are professionals and they want to exercise their professional qualifications. They want to teach. As one teacher said to me yesterday: "I feel I am being used. I want to get back into the classroom."

The answer is to get this bill passed now and get the students back into the classroom. If we believe in helping youth unemployment -- and we hear the opposition barracking and braying every day about youth unemployment -- let those students get back, get their knowledge, their discipline and their apprenticeships, get their certificates and let them get into the work force.

I know there are some problems in the community colleges. Those problems need solutions and they should get solutions, but they should get them in a calm, proper atmosphere where they can be discussed and not this atmosphere of confrontation.

There are hundreds of thousands of students out there being held hostage and the members of the New Democratic Party want to continue to hold them hostage for their own small problems. I say: "Stop it. Pass this bill tonight. Get the students back in the classrooms. Get the community colleges working again. Then in a calm atmosphere we can sit down and solve the other problems."

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, for a moment I wondered -- and I still wonder -- if the member for Wilson Heights is under some misapprehension that the teachers or students do not want to be back in the classroom.

Mr. Rotenberg: They want to be back tomorrow.

Mr. Laughren: Yes. They want to be back as soon as possible. But I think if we were to ask them how they wanted to be back, they would say they would like to be back as a result of the collective bargaining process. That is how they want to be back.

Every member in this chamber, even those who do not have a community college in the riding, has students and parents in his or her riding. Our phones have been ringing. I have certainly had my share of phone calls expressing concern about the strike. I understand that. Elected members do not lightly oppose a bill such as this. There seems to be a sense that we are opposing this bill for other than honourable reasons. It escapes me why people would think that.

It should not be lost on members of the public, members of the teaching profession and students that one reason it becomes easier and easier for the government to pass back-to-work legislation is that it knows, without exception, it can count on the support of the Liberal Party of Ontario. That is one of the major reasons.

If both opposition parties were opposed to this kind of draconian legislation, the government would be required to think twice. Now it can bring in legislation in a mindless fashion because it knows there is an overwhelming majority of members in this assembly who will support the bill regardless of how odious it is; and believe me, this bill is odious.

I used to be a teacher in the college system before I became a member of the assembly in 1971. I would like to go back to the college system some day. I would like to go back when I decide to go back, not when one of the other two parties might decide I should go back.

Mr. Gillies: We would like you to go back.

Mr. Laughren: I know the members opposite would, and I do not blame them for that. That is a compliment. I mean it when I say I would like to go back to the college system.

I know quite a few teachers in the college system in Sudbury and on three different occasions I walked on the picket line with them during this strike. I was proud to do so. The people on the picket line I knew back in 1970-71 were people who, when the colleges were new, by and large had come either from the business community, as I did, or from the professions, such as engineering.

It does not come easy for many people to go out on strike. It is a difficult decision to make and it is difficult to walk on the picket line. I was most impressed by the resolve shown by those teachers. While the member from Wilson Heights can say they want to be legislated back, I want to tell members I did not have a single college teacher, not one -- and I talked to many on those three different occasions on the picket lines -- indicate to me they saw this as the solution. They desperately wanted a solution but this kind of legislation was not what they saw as the solution.

Without exception they said: "Look, you understand the system, you understand what work load does to a teacher. That is our concern. That is why they wanted to debate that first before they got into money. I am sure the minister would have been much more comfortable if she could have precipitated the strike on the question of money rather than on work load. It would have satisfied her more.

The teachers were determined to maintain the quality of education in the college system. I know that when one teaches 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 hours as a post-secondary instructor, which I was, that is a heavy workload. I can recall having four different preparations to do for my teaching and I found that very difficult, and I had some large classes as well. When one attempts to take the cap off the work load one really is waving a red flag at any teachers who care about the job they are doing. If one simply wants instructors to go in and baby-sit, fine, one can do that. I do not think that is what people in Ontario want of their college system.

When the Premier announced he was resigning, a reporter asked me "What do you regard as the monument to the Davis years?' I said that in a funny way I did not think he should be remembered by his years as Premier, quite frankly, but by his years as Minister of Education and mainly for the creation of the community college system. I think it was progressive thinking at the time. That was back in the 1960s. It put us in the forefront of the college system in this country. It was a good move. I would not say it was ahead of its time but when that did happen it was timely.

I have always felt a continuing pride in the college system and I hate to see the system being degraded. When I talked to a number of my former colleagues at Cambrian College of Applied Arts and Technology I have occasionally mentioned to them that I wanted to go back. A surprising number of them, prior to this strike, said to me "You know, you had better think about it, because it is not the same as when you were here." When I pressed them on it they would say "Working conditions just are not what they were 10 or 12 years ago." That bothered me a bit but I never really thought too much about it until now, when we see what is happening with this strike.

9:10 p.m.

I am quite determined in my opposition to this bill. In sending the teachers back, it is saying that forever and ever, certainly for the foreseeable future, no college strike can last more than three weeks. When the minister replies, as I hope she will at some point in this debate, I ask her to tell me why the sides should settle next year when the contract comes up. Why should either side give up anything in the give and take of the collective bargaining process? I do not know why they would settle. They can sit back and say: "It is certain the minister will intervene. We can always count on the minister and the official opposition in Ontario."

Before then an election may intervene in the normal course of events around here, but nevertheless, I think the minister understands what I am saying. When a benchmark such as this is set, it effectively becomes the benchmark and it is very difficult for any minister of the crown to allow any strike in the college system to go on longer than that. The minister might say, "Yes, it should not go on any longer than that," but what she is really doing is serving notice to both sides that she is tough and will intervene after a certain time.

I can recall very well in 1978 or 1979 when the secondary school teachers were on strike in Sudbury. That was the most difficult time of my 13 years in this assembly, because if I think my phone has been busy recently I want to tell the members that during those three months the phone calls were most persistent and in some cases downright nasty.

Despite almost daily proddings during those three months from the then leader of the official opposition, Dr. Smith, and the Ontario Liberal Party to legislate them back to work, this minister stood in her place and persistently said: "No, they will settle collectively. They will settle through the collective bargaining process." Every time the then leader of the official opposition raised the issue of legislating them back, we could just feel each side digging in a little deeper in anticipation that they would be legislated back.

Strangely enough, the secondary school teachers -- those teaching grade 12 and grade 13 as well as the other grades -- could be allowed to miss school for three months. Here we have a three-week strike and the minister brings in back-to-work legislation.

I will not get into the particulars of the legislation itself; I will save that for the clause-by-clause debate. Besides, I know Mr. Speaker will rule me out of order. However, I really do have to scratch my head and say: "Wait a minute now, everyone understands a couple of things. One is that the issue is work load, but that is not to be discussed or decided by the arbitrator. It is specifically excluded in the bill; work load must not be considered by the arbitrator. One has to wonder about the wisdom of that.

The second thing everybody understands about this dispute is that the minister has been the major impediment. I do not think I am being unduly partisan, certainly not unfair, when I say that. Almost from day one it was clear to everyone that the minister was not at all sympathetic to the cause of the teachers and was four-square with the position of the Council of Regents. As days, then three weeks, went by, the evidence kept mounting that was precisely the case.

The minister might want to dissociate herself from another event that happened, but I think it reveals the sense over there in the Conservative caucus. That was the remark made by the member for Timiskaming when he accused a union bargainer of spitting in the face of a management negotiator.

Mr. Cooke: As reported by the minister.

Mr. Laughren: Yes. He said the minister had told him that. I do not know whether the minister said that, but it is an indication of the attitude of the Conservative caucus. The bias was there from the very beginning. Right from the beginning, none of us had any doubt about which side the minister and the members of the Conservative caucus were on.

That is what bothers us a great deal about the way they find it so easy to bring in back-to-work legislation. The government is really telling the public sector in Ontario it does not have the right to strike, except the government does not have the courage to say so. That is what it comes down to. The government would rather have the impression that the right is there as long as the public sector does not use it. It is unfair and dishonest.

One of the other things that bothers me is the argument that is always put forth about student jeopardy. As a former teacher, I had a sense of what I should teach students during an academic year. I can remember looking at my plans for the year before the academic year started. I was a teacher of economics. One year it would include certain topics. Another year, I might change that and include other topics. I might drop a topic or two and add a couple of new ones.

It might change from more of a teaching situation to one of learning, where the students learned more on their own by doing essays, research and so forth. I have always felt there is no perfect or ordained quantifiable body of knowledge that any student has to have in any one academic year.

I do not know how the government members and the opposition members seem to think they know when a student's academic year is in jeopardy. I do not know how they know the quantifiable amount of learning that must go on in any given year. It has always puzzled me when it comes to jeopardy.

When the high school teachers were on strike, when parents of grade 13 students were phoning, concerned about them losing the year and so forth, I said to myself, "Is our educational system so fragile that one, two or three months out of 13 years can cause a student to fail?" Is it not remarkable that we have hinged 13 years of education on one, two or three months? I do not understand that.

Mr. Rotenberg: What about a short course for training?

Mr. Laughren: Education does not begin and end in one year. It is a continuum.

Mr. Foulds: Maybe the member for Wilson Heights should take a couple of them. I recommend public speaking.

Mr. Philip: With that kind of thinking, the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Leluk) should be made the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Nickel Belt has the floor, please.

Mr. Laughren: So I do, thank you.

I was thinking of the work load issue a lot because I really attach a great deal of importance to that. I do not expect everyone will have sympathy for the teaching profession. It is difficult to look at 19 hours of instruction and say that is enough. I understand that. It is difficult for people to do that.

But if one talks to teachers -- everybody knows a teacher surely -- about their work load, one will know that is not nearly half of the time put in on the program. That survey by the Council of Regents indicated there was a lessening of real support for the college system. The minister did not ever release that 1981 study. It would be interesting to know why she has not, and perhaps it is about time she did.

The member for Etobicoke raised the issue of efficiency in the system, showing there has been a 15 per cent increase in the average class size and a 5.5 per cent reduction in the hours in the class by students in the last five years, and a 1.6 per cent increase in the hours taught annually by full-time faculty.

9:20 p.m.

The members over there cannot have it both ways. They cannot simply add on to the work load of teachers and then, once they have added to it, say: "Now that we have added it on, we want to take off the cap." Surely that is unreasonable.

I think the minister has been unfair in this whole dispute and I think she should be asking herself how she as minister has become an issue in the dispute herself. Surely if anyone ought to have been objective and ought to have appeared to be objective, it should have been the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Even if the minister protests and says she was objective, she would surely have to admit this has not been the public perception. The public perception has been that the minister has been an obstacle to the resolution of this dispute.

Mr. Rotenberg: That is your perception, not the public perception.

Mr. Laughren: No, I do not think that is true.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: I do not think that is only my perception. I believe it is a widely held perception out there that the minister has been an obstacle to the resolution of this dispute. That is why people were calling for the Premier to inject himself into this dispute. But did he? No, he did not do it because the die was cast and the minister had had the bit in her teeth from the beginning.

There was never any doubt whatsoever in the minister's mind about how this dispute would be resolved. The minister never had any illusions about that at all.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: By collective bargaining. That is how it was to be resolved.

Mr. Martel: By aligning herself with the position of the Council of Regents.

Mr. Cooke: Collective bargaining is fine as long as it comes to the minister's solution.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections. The member for Nickel Belt will continue, please.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to conclude my remarks shortly by saying my colleagues and I are becoming increasingly concerned about how easily this government can bring in back-to-work legislation. This is in itself a bit of a camouflage in the use of words, because what the government is really doing is taking away the right of people to withhold their labour.

I have always thought that if there is one benchmark of a civilized, democratic society it is the right of people to withhold their labour. But bit by bit by bit this government, with some relish, I feel, is taking away that right. We saw it recently take away the right of transit workers in advance of a labour dispute.

I will repeat what I said at the beginning. As long as there is only one political party in this chamber that opposes this trend of this government towards taking away the right of people to withhold their labour, then this government will see no reason not to proceed and not to continue to do it in the future.

That is why I say this, not to antagonize the official opposition, the Liberal Party of Ontario, but to ask it to think about what it is doing in automatically giving its stamp of approval to all back-to-work legislation this government brings into this assembly. I believe this is not the role of an opposition. After the next election it is quite possible that when the order around here is changed -- I do not want to predict anything precisely -- I hope very much that this kind of legislation will not continue to be brought in so easily and with so much relish by the government.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, one of the virtues of this party is that one is always allowed to speak on issues.

Mr. Breaugh: Usually on both sides of any issue, too.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bradley: There is no problem with that on this side. We are not prevented by the whip from speaking our piece.

I want to add very briefly to the debate this evening, because the government is intent on putting forward this bill and proceeding with it. If the bill is completed this evening, of course, it advances the date on which the students can be back in the classrooms where they certainly wish to be. I want to express, however, the genuine concern we have had in the opposition for some time about the negotiations that have taken place in Ontario in this very widespread work stoppage.

Day after day, or almost on a daily basis, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and others in this party rose to encourage the Minister of Education to find a negotiated solution to the dispute between the Council of Regents and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. At no time was there any advocacy of back-to-work legislation. I think it was our hope in the official opposition that the minister or someone else in the government would be able to assist in breaking the logjam.

In the early stages of the dispute, we were hopeful the Minister of Education would be able to be a positive and constructive force in bringing about a settlement in that she had --

Mr. Laughren: Did you really think that? Nonsense. You did not think that. Do not be silly.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bradley: I promise I will not say how --

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. Catharines will please address the chair.

Mr. Bradley: I promise I will not talk about David Barrett bringing in back-to-work legislation in British Columbia.

Mr. Cooke: Did he ever bring in a bill like this?

Mr. Laughren: He would not bring in a bill like this.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Turn around again, please. Now back to the bill.

Mr. Bradley: Or about Blakeney in Saskatchewan. I will not talk about legislating back the hospital workers in Saskatchewan. I promise I will not, because we know the enemy is over there.

To go back to the issue at hand, in the initial stages we were hopeful there could be some positive movement in this. That positive movement could have been forthcoming if the Minister of Education were perceived to be totally impartial in this dispute.

Mr. Laughren: You do not believe that. You are not being serious.

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections, please.

Mr. Bradley: I have the clippings. I keep them all the time. I will read from them about what happens when a New Democratic Party government is in power compared to when it is in the opposition. I will not do that, Mr. Speaker, because I know you want me to address this matter.

To continue my remarks, earlier we were hopeful the Minister of Education would be helpful in this because she had the power, I am sure, to persuade her colleagues that an injection of additional funds into the community college system, which those of us in the opposition have seen as a necessity for some time, could be forthcoming.

Indeed, in the middle of the dispute that took place, my leader suggested the Minister of Education would have sufficient funds to inject into the system. Each day the strike took place, there were salaries not being paid and the operations of the community colleges not being in effect. It was a positive suggestion that some of that money could have provided a basis for at least breaking the logjam in negotiations, if not bringing about an immediate settlement.

Initially, the Minister of Education took this as a suggestion to be considered, but the next day she started talking about buying the support of one particular segment or another. I thought it was a positive suggestion. It gave the minister the opportunity to break the logjam, but she did not seize it.

It was then obvious that only one person on that side would be able to have a positive effect on the negotiating process by virtue of the office he held. I am referring to the Premier who, I am sure, if he had decided to intervene personally -- and this is a province-wide strike we are talking about -- might well have had the effect of bringing the two sides together with a promise of the recognition of the problems over which the faculty has been striking for a number of days.

The legislation does not address the fundamental issue that the teachers, who are the employees in this situation, see as being the most important.

Mr. Laughren: However, you will vote for it.

Mr. Cooke: You are going to vote for it, though.

9:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bradley: It does not address the fundamental issue, just as David Barrett probably did not recognize it when he brought in back-to-work legislation in British Columbia, or Allan Blakeney in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Laughren: He would not bring in a bill like this.

Mr. Bradley: They do not want me to mention that? I am sorry. When they are trying to impress their friends, we should always bring to their attention what happens when they are in power.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for St. Catharines please address the chair.

Mr. Bradley: How easy it is now when they are in opposition compared to when they are in power.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bradley: But I will not address that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I would rather you address me.

Mr. Bradley: I certainly will. I will continue to address you in this matter.

Interjections.

Mr. Bradley: Those of us who are representatives of the 125 constituencies in this province have received from a good many students and parents pleas about the future. The students are afraid of losing their year. The minister should be mindful of this. We recognize the importance of the community college system in our province, and she surely recognizes this when she finally brings in this legislation. It is unfortunate that the minister and the government did not recognize this in the negotiating process.

Mr. Laughren: You talk this way and vote the other way. That is your only consistency.

Mr. Bradley: What did they serve for supper down there?

Mr. Speaker: Never mind.

Mr. Cooke: Are you going to vote on this bill or walk out?

Mr. Bradley: I will vote on this bill the same way the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) is going to vote.

We recognize that with the short and somewhat specialized courses, with the co-operative education courses that are offered, and with the unique circumstances facing so many students and the community college system, a prolonged strike has a detrimental effect. The total effect of the underfunding of the system has been known for some time and is an issue the Minister of Education must address. Those of us in the opposition will continue to remind her of that.

I hope the minister is serious in this legislation where it is indicated there will be some consultation. I hope we are going to talk to people such as the teachers at what I still refer to as the Mack school of nursing in St. Catharines. who are facing a work-load situation which is not conducive to the best education of their students.

I hope the minister will consult with the teachers at Welland Vale, who are involved in excellent retraining programs which are putting many people back into the work force. I hope those who are doing the consulting will consult with those in the school of horticulture in my community or with those at the main campus of Niagara College.

I hope they will also consult with the students who will certainly confirm the circumstances facing them as to overcrowding, regular lecture classes, labs and other activities that take place. Without a doubt, whether the minister or members of the government want to admit it her not, there is a genuine problem with many of the courses in our community colleges. This problem can be rectified only through addressing the work-load issue that has been brought to our attention through this strike.

We would have preferred that this could have been concluded through the collective bargaining process. That has not been the case. We would have hoped, if the minister was intent upon bringing in legislation, that even that legislation would address the work load issue as it has been presented in the negotiations.

The member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), the Colleges and Universities critic for the Liberal Party, will be proposing a very sensible amendment that the leader of the official opposition talked about in the question period. That amendment would provide for going back to the negotiating table for a period of at least 30 days to see if we could not find a solution to the work-load issue through the negotiation process. If that did not happen, then it would go, of course, to arbitration.

It is not a pleasant day in the Legislative Assembly when we debate an issue of this kind. It is not an easy issue to confront, but the blame for this situation must lie with this government. It must lie with the Minister of Education because she represents the government in this area. We are recognizing more and more that the confrontation tactics employed by the Minister of Education, representing her government, are not conducive to having the best education available in Ontario, and that, after all, is what we all seek.

I hope the government, having been faced with this critical situation, will now recognize this in its consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and in the re-evaluation of its policies, despite the fact the federal government is no doubt going to do it in soon with transfer payments. We will find that out soon.

I hope this ministry will take the leadership and that this government will show the leadership necessary to recognize the job being done by the community college system. It is an expanding and growing system that is making our young people and those being retrained much more competitive for the competitive world in which we live. I call upon the minister to address those issues. I call upon the government of Ontario to accept a very reasonable amendment that will be put forth by my colleague the member for Renfrew North.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to participate in this debate. I cannot remember in the course of the nine years I have been here an issue on which the government has so utterly lacked credibility. I have never seen a weaker government position on a bill in the nine years I have been here since 1975. It is reflected in the fact that only one Tory has spoken, for a total of about a minute and a half.

On the issue of credibility, I want to review quickly the events of Tuesday, November 6. At two o'clock in the afternoon, the Minister of Colleges and Universities made a statement in this House, saying, "The Ontario Council of Regents said it is continuing to seek a negotiated settlement with the union representing teaching staff at the province's 22 colleges of applied arts and technology...."

At about 3:25 on the same afternoon of Tuesday, November 6, during the debate on an emergency resolution, the Minister of Colleges and Universities stated, "There is negotiation going on at the present time; there is, indeed, an offer that has been put; there is a possibility of a settlement of this strike."

Concluding that statement, she said. "I certainly hope that at the end of this day we will be able to perceive some light at the end of the tunnel and an end of this dispute so that within the very next short period of time the students will be back in the classroom."

That was at 3:30 in the afternoon, fully half an hour after the Council of Regents had walked out of the negotiations at the Royal York Hotel and were en route to Sutton Place, where they had already booked rooms for the press conference that was held at four o'clock on Tuesday, November 6. They issued a press release that obviously could not have been prepared between three and four o'clock in the afternoon. I have the press release in my hand, dated Tuesday, November 6, from the Council of Regents.

9:40 p.m.

The arrangements for that press conference were made in advance of the minister's statement in this House at 3:30 in the afternoon. I am sure that the minister is familiar with the name of Mr. Ian L. McArdle, who is the chief negotiator for the Council of Regents. I have his name on this list, which is a photocopy of the index of the government directory of ministry staff. Under the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, staff relations/benefits section, 10th floor Mowat Block, 900 Bay Street, the staff relations co-ordinator is Mr. Ian L. McArdle. He is an employee of the Minister of Colleges and Universities and he was the chief negotiator for the Council of Regents.

He sat beside the vice-chairman, Dr. Diana Schatz, at the press conference at the Sutton Place Hotel at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, November 6, explaining how negotiations had been terminated by the Council of Regents. At 4 p.m. on Tuesday, November 6, an employee of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities announced to the world that the negotiations had broken down.

He is the chief negotiator for management and the minister is standing in this House half an hour earlier, telling us negotiations are proceeding, there is a light at the end of the tunnel and a settlement might be reached by the end of the day.

Mr. Martel: What has he been doing as a negotiator?

Mr. McClellan: We are asked to believe this. I do not believe it for a second. I am not mincing any words, I do not believe it. It is preposterous. It is totally absurd.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You have a devious mind.

Mr. Martel: From the ministry, the chief negotiator for the Council of Regents?

Mr. McClellan: I have a devious mind?

Mr. Breaugh: No, the member does not.

Mr. McClellan: No, I do not, and I also do not believe the version of events she related to this House on Tuesday, November 6. It is totally preposterous. All of the events in this dispute are preposterous and totally unbelievable.

I find it impossible to believe the cabinet of the government of this province approved a piece of legislation and a solution to a strike, the principal document being the final offer of management in the strike. I do not believe the cabinet understood for a second what trick the Minister of Colleges and Universities was pulling on them. Neither do I believe for a second the Minister of Colleges and Universities did not know the solution she proposed to her cabinet colleagues and now to this Legislature was also the final solution proposed by management in its last offer in the strike. We are expected to believe that too.

On the basis of the normal credence that is placed in the word of government and cabinet, we are somehow supposed to take this debate and this piece of legislation seriously. We are asked to --

Mr. Rotenberg: I wish the member would.

Mr. Martel: Has the member listened to anything? The chief negotiator works for her.

Mr. Rotenberg: So what?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Swart: It is taken for granted on the member's side of the House.

Mr. McClellan: We are asked to believe the document by the Council of Regents which showed, in effect, that the Minister of Colleges and Universities firmly supported its bargaining position somehow does not exist. We are asked to believe this document is some kind of fiction. It is not fiction. It is there. It is part of the public record.

It is a matter of public record that the Council of Regents has stated the Minister of Colleges and Universities supports its position, that she is firmly on its side. What kind of charade is the government playing here? Talk about devious. In the nine years I have been here, I have never seen such a devious charade as has characterized this strike over the course of the last three weeks.

Then we have the clownish behaviour of the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) who was quoted in the Northern Daily News as saying the Minister of Education told her caucus a negotiator for striking college teachers spat in the face of a college negotiator during negotiations between the two groups. I am quoting from the Northern Daily News, dated November 7. The member for Timiskaming first made the allegation the previous day, on November 6.

Just so we understand the allegation of the member for Timiskaming, it is an allegation that the Minister of Colleges and Universities told her caucus that a member of the union bargaining staff had spat in the face of a Council of Regents negotiator.

Nobody got up in the House and denied it, neither the member for Timiskaming nor the Minister of Colleges and Universities. It is out there on the public record, repeated twice in the newspaper. Nobody on the government side got up to say which is the correct version of events.

Did the Minister of Colleges and Universities attempt to whip up support within her caucus for the bill in front of us by telling it about a week ago that a member of the union negotiating team spat in the face of a Council of Regents negotiator? That is what little Eddie has said twice in the newspapers. Nobody has denied it. What kind of charade is taking place here?

I hope my colleagues to the right will come to their senses. There has been nothing such as this in the record of this assembly since 1975. The whole thing is bogus.

Finally, in the utterly farcical nature of Bill 130, the principal issue in the dispute is excluded from binding arbitration altogether, most likely rendering it illegal, as my leader has said, but certainly preposterously unjust.

The government can keep Bill 130. It can keep the poisoned atmosphere that bills such as this will create for years to come. It will continue to spread its poisonous effects in precisely the same way that Bill 179 has continued to work its deadly venom in the public sector over the past two years. Is that what the government wants: the confrontation that has characterized the record of the Minister of Colleges and Universities over the years, the polarization, the rasping aggression?

She is the Saul Alinsky of the Legislature, rubbing raw the sores of discontent wherever she finds them in whatever ministry, always the same pattern, always the same process, always the same polarization, always the same confrontation. We have it again tonight.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take a lot of time, but as a former teacher what bothers me most is the attitude being spread amongst the public over this. I had a phone call last Friday from a woman who said, "I know there is no sense calling you because you are a former teacher and you are going to support the teachers, but they only work three and a half hours a day and they make $40,000 a year." What a misconception. That is perpetuated by the government side over there. They fairly chortle at what they do and say about teachers over and over again. They might say it is garbage, but that is a fact.

If the minister was so factual, she would get up and deny she said in caucus what the member for Timiskaming was spreading throughout the north when he said a negotiator for the teachers spat in the face of one of the negotiators for the Board of Regents.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am sorry it was quoted in the media, but it is not what I said.

Mr. Martel: I am just saying what is quoted in the media. In fact, it was a member of the union from Kirkland Lake who phoned me to see whether I would raise the matter. The minister has not got up to deny it, because if she does she will make little Eddie appear to be somewhat -- I was going to say somewhat out of character, but that is not really true. That puts him right in character. They took the soundtrack out of the Legislature because little Eddie went after the Italian people. He got in trouble before when he went after the native people. Now it is the teachers. Just give him time and he will get to everyone. It is just a matter of time. It is like Elizabeth Taylor with men.

9:50 p.m.

The minister sits there. She will not go after him. As my colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) said today, her silence is an indication it is correct. As my colleague who just finished speaking said, it is the whole credibility around this issue: McArdle, the chief negotiator, an arm's-length negotiation. It must have been short arm.

Mr. McClellan: Stand up and say he is not a negotiator for the Council of Regents.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I will if the members opposite will sit down.

Mr. Martel: Let me tell members opposite Wacky Bennett does things in a more crude fashion than they do over there. I want to tell them the way they are treating the public service is every bit as foul and as bad as Bennett.

We came in this summer to force Toronto Transit Commission workers back to work three days before a federal election and 14 days before the Pope arrived. The government did not do the same in Mississauga. They did not move into Mississauga. It was great stuff though, before the Pope arrived, but that was not for political gain. No, they were forcing the workers back so the Pope's visit would be orderly. That is a lot of nonsense. They are legislating before the fact.

This minister brought that first piece of legislation in two years ago. I begged the government House leader then with respect to the teachers' strike that if it was not resolved by September, this act would take force. I warned members opposite then about that sort of legislation.

I thought they had smartened up as a government. Then they forced the TTC workers back. As I say, they are every bit as bad as Wacky Bennett, Jr., only they are a little more careful in the way they do it. They set the stage. When we fought Bill 179, we warned them that bill was going to come back to haunt us in many ways. Look at the strikes this past year. They have been primarily in the public sector.

Let me tell the minister how distorted some of the statements are. In her statement this afternoon she talked about money and wanting to go too high, exceeding the amount. She did not tell anyone there were a group of teachers who were frozen under the Bill 179 legislation. They cannot fit back into the grid in the appropriate place and if they go into the grid, there is not enough money left for the rest of the raise. They were exceeding what was being laid out before them.

But take the doctors. My God, the government could pump in how many millions? How many millions could they get for catch-up?

Mr. McClellan: I think it was $850 million.

Mr. Martel: They could find that, could they not? They could find $850 million, but they can get up here this afternoon and just play around with it. They do not say what led to the demand that would create more than five per cent, that it was catch-up that would entitle those people when the bill came out, or was no longer effective, to catch up. There is no money in there for it. My goodness, doctors had to catch up, but teachers, nyet. They are an interesting group over there. The more powerful the lobby the more willingly they are prepared to capitulate.

Mr. Piché: First it was the Pope, then doctors. Who is next?

Mr. Martel: I wanted to see the Pope, just like the member. I came down. I do not know if he did.

Mr. Piché: I did not know the member had something against the Pope.

Mr. Martel: Which Pope is the member talking about? The one from his neighbourhood or --

Mr. Piché: The one.

Mr. Martel: It must be Alan, then.

What is most frustrating is I tried to find out if the minister, when she was explaining this legislation to her cabinet colleagues and her Tory caucus, bothered to tell them that the method she is going to use to resolve the work load issue, the agreement that had been put forth on the table and was rejected by the teachers, was her proposal to study. There might be a few different words.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They are two different things.

Mr. Martel: Are they ever two different things. Maybe the minister would like to read both documents for us in full. I will sit down and she can do it. Outside of the odd word, is there really any difference in the final analysis? There is none. One might change a word here or there, but the principle is what the Council of Regents wanted and that is what it got.

That is what is totally unfair about the way the minister is trying to resolve this issue. She should have told her cabinet colleagues and her caucus that was the case. She did not because she could not have sold it to them. Some of them might have had enough integrity to say. "No, this is not fair." It is totally unacceptable, even to some Tories, to allow the Council of Regents to get by legislation what they could not get by negotiation.

I hope by the time we come back tomorrow some of the minister's colleagues will have enough integrity to look at both documents. They might just back out on her this time, because it is not the first bill over which she has had them in hot water. I think about Bill 127. I know how many of her colleagues from Toronto wanted to dissociate themselves from her on that bill.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, do you?

Mr. Martel: Yes, I do. The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), the member for Eglinton (Mr. McMurtry). My friend the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) says that is not the case. I want to tell him he is wrong.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am telling you you are wrong.

Mr. Martel: No, I speak to the member's colleagues as well. I hope some of the cabinet members have enough gumption tonight to go and look at both of those documents. They are so close to being identical that someone with some integrity over there might say, "No, we will not accept it over here."

The monetary issue is really not the key issue. It is something called work. As a teacher, I know that as the number of students increases, the work load increases, and not just in the classroom. I have heard the minister, who is an expert on everything, try to convince us over here about the quality of work and the quantity of work. Some of us who come from the teaching profession know something about extra work load, which depends on the number of students in any one class.

I am not sure how one quantifies that, but to accept the Council of Regents' request and use it as the basis for doing that is totally nuts. I hope a few of the minister's colleagues will question her on it tonight before they leave this place.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, it bothers me a great deal to have to be here this evening dealing with this piece of legislation. The bill itself bothers me a great deal, but I suppose even more than the things in this bill that bother me, the minister's attitude towards this debate is what I find most offensive about being here this evening.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Would the members opposite let me participate at some point? If they sat down, I would be able to.

Mr. Charlton: It is about time this Minister of Colleges and Universities started to listen and to take into account the things she hears and the decisions she makes, or resign.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do not need any lectures from the member.

Mr. Charlton: The minister is going to get one whether she feels she needs one or not.

I have heard a lot of talk around this place in the last two weeks about concern for the students. I think we are all concerned for the students, but some of us have extremely strange ways of expressing that concern.

I have a younger brother who is enrolled as a full-time student in the co-op program at Mohawk College. He is one of those most likely to be seriously affected by the whole fiasco of the last three weeks. The really sad part for him is that this is the second time he has been shafted by this minister and by her ministry.

10 p.m.

He started out in an apprenticeship program under the Ministry of Colleges and Universities as a mechanics apprentice. That apprenticeship is a three-year apprenticeship. Six months shy of completing that apprenticeship, he was laid off. The response of the ministry that runs the apprenticeship program was, "There is nothing we can do about it."

Three months later, the employer for whom my brother worked had hired another apprentice, a first-year apprentice. The wages are considerably lower for first-year apprentices than they are for third-year apprentices. The ministry's response? Zero. I have no doubt that the first-year apprentice who replaced my brother with that apprenticeship employer has long since gone without ever having achieved his or her apprenticeship. I do not know who it was who replaced my brother.

We have a situation in this province where the government, the minister and her ministry have screwed up just about everything they have touched in the last decade. In this situation, in this strike of community college instructors, there was only one possible avenue to a reasonable solution, and that, of course, was at the negotiating table. But in order for that negotiation to have had any hope of success, the Minister of Colleges and Universities first would have had to extract herself from the process, and second, would have had to stand up publicly and say to the Council of Regents and to the union negotiating team, "Sit down and negotiate a reasonable settlement of the issues at dispute and this ministry will provide the funds to fund any reasonable settlement."

But that was not the response of this minister. She tried in this House to play the game of being neutral, saying to this House that her real concern was for the students. But the documentation that my colleagues have referred to -- and I will not go through it all again -- made it abundantly clear, at least to those of us in this party, that the role she played in that negotiation made any settlement impossible and made all her comments about her concern for the students just so much rhetoric because there was nothing else in those comments.

Last evening I went up to my parents' place and spent about 45 minutes discussing the whole situation with my brother. I have had calls from dozens of students and from a number of teachers as well, as have most of the members in this Legislature, around this regrettable situation; but I went to talk to my brother because I thought perhaps I could have a fully open and reasonable discussion with him.

I asked him about its effects on his course and his ability to complete that course. He is in a term that ends at Christmas and he is supposed to be going into a work term right after the new year. He is worried, like each and every one of the other students who have phoned us, about losing this semester.

I said to him: "The minister announced this afternoon that she would be bringing in legislation to end the strike and to legislate the teachers back to work. What are your thoughts? Do you think it is necessary? Do you think it will solve anything?"

His response to me last evening was: "If there is no solution in that legislation to the work load question or to the quality-of-education question, the legislation will solve nothing. Ultimately the students will continue to suffer and ultimately we will be likely to have to go through this again before some of us finish our courses. None of us wanted this strike and none of us want to go through this again. So no, I do not think this piece of legislation will help at all. I would rather run the risk of losing this semester to see a real solution than to see the teachers legislated back with no solution to the outstanding problems."

There are not a whole lot of students who have taken that bottom-line position. I think all of us know this because all of us have talked to a hell of a lot of them in the last three weeks.

On the other hand, I seem to recall being at a student rally a week ago today at 8:30 in the morning out in front of Mohawk College. I did not count heads, but I would guess there were 250 or 300 students at that rally. A number of angry things were said during the course of that rally. There were those among the students who wanted the teachers legislated back right away and there were those who very firmly supported the teachers' position.

There was only one thing that was universally felt by those students at that rally: that they wanted to be back in their classrooms and the reason they were not in their classrooms was the attitude of the Minister of Colleges and Universities and of her ministry in this dispute. That was very clear in the minds of all the students at that rally. Not all of them spoke, but their responses very clearly indicated that.

The teachers who are going to be legislated back by this piece of legislation will experience difficulties in their relationships with some students for the next few weeks or months and will experience very strong and very positive support from others. But the questions that remain unresolved in this dispute, questions that will remain unresolved for some considerable period of time and likely into another strike some time in the future, are issues that not only will affect each and every one of the teachers in this province on an ongoing basis in their working lives but will also affect in a continuing way the very students about whom we are hearing all the platitudes about protecting them by legislating these teachers back to work.

Yes, I suppose it is true that all the teaching situations and all the classroom situations in the community colleges in this province are not equally bad. But it is still very real that in the worst situations the students we are talking about protecting will be affected to the greatest extent and in the less bad situations the students will still continue to be adversely affected, and those adverse affects will grow as these situations go unresolved.

10:10 p.m.

I find myself in a situation where I have some sympathy with all the people who have telephoned me, regardless of the position they have taken. I do not have a lot of sympathy for some of the solutions they have suggested, because for me and for many others an apparent solution, a solution that just ends the strike and nothing else, is a solution that will not provide much of anything for our community colleges, and for the teachers and students in our community colleges, either in the short term or the long term.

The Minister of Colleges and Universities may well feel she does not need any lectures from me. I may not be the most qualified person to lecture the minister. However, if I am not the right one to lecture her, she damned well needs a good lecture and perhaps even a spanking from somebody.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks this evening because most of us have had the opportunity in the last little while to be involved in some way in this labour dispute.

My first morning of the strike was not a pleasant one. A group of young people came into my office in Oshawa. They were nursing students. They told me it had been explained to them at the picket line by people who were in the administration that they either crossed a legal picket line and went back to school or they would fail. They said they had been told it did not matter whether they passed subsequent tests; they would get zero if they did not cross a legal picket line and go back to Durham College that morning.

They had no time to consider it, no time to consider what their rights were, or what the rights or wrongs of the situation were. They were told bluntly, "If you do not cross this picket line this morning, you fail; you lose your year."

These were nursing students. They know that much of the judgement in a nursing course is subjective. It depends on how well one gets along with the people who are in administration, who are on staff or who are nurses or doctors in a hospital. There are lots of occasions for young people to get a little intimidated in the process, even if they are good students.

They were somewhat beside themselves. I thought: "This is very strange. This is not Russia; this is Oshawa. People know what a legal picket line is. People know you have a right to make up your own mind about that."

I told them what I thought their legal rights were, that they did not have an obligation to cross that picket line. Far from it, in a free country they had a legal right to decide whether they would or would not honour a legal picket line.

I was a little taken aback the next day when I read in the newspaper -- not in quite such stark terms, but certainly in very clear terms -- that administration at the college was maintaining that position. It was softening somewhat and saying: "There are practical reasons why nursing students have to do this. They have to make career decisions."

A picket line is no place to make a career decision, particularly if one is from a community such as Oshawa. If there is any place in Ontario where the trade union movement is understood, it is probably in a community such as that. Many of these young people come from homes where their fathers, brothers, mothers and sisters have a good chance of being on another picket line in the same community.

That is quite a conflict in which to put a young person. It is quite a conflict to say to them: "We want you to decide here, at the picket line in the morning, whether you will or will not honour the picket line. Then we expect you to go home to your family at night and explain why you walked across the picket line." That is tough stuff.

I noticed that subsequently the minister had someone in the office go down and talk to the administration at Durham College. I noticed that the hard line taken on day one was changed somewhat afterwards. However, by that time the damage had been done.

I noticed that during the course of the debate this evening there has been a little rancour around the edges, but not much bitterness. I want to tell the members that there is a whole lot of bitterness all over Ontario in the case of young people who feel they have had their careers threatened by this and in the case of teachers who thought they had a right to free collective bargaining in Ontario. I guess they read the law and thought it meant something. Now they know differently.

What they fail to understand is that this government supports free collective bargaining in Poland; they are just not too sure about whether it should be rampant in Ontario. They have established that pretty clearly and they remind us of it regularly. Two or three times a year they reinforce that concept.

One other thing I wanted to put on the record today was my disappointment with the minister. Many members will know I am a fan of the minister. She is a Tory the way I look at Tories to be: in the mould of Darcy McKeough, big, strong and tough. I wish more Tories were like that over there, that there were not so many namby-pambies slithering around the front row in their bright yellow ties. I wish they were people who would tell us exactly what the right wing is all about.

So many spend most of their time and most of the taxpayers' money in convincing the people of Ontario they are not really very right wing at all. It is only on rare occasions such as tonight that we really see what they are like, that we really see there is a pretty strong right wing over there.

On Tuesday afternoon we were sitting here and there was no problem. On Wednesday morning there was a great panic. By Thursday the problem has become so severe that they do not even want to talk about it, they just want to legislate it.

I knew there was trouble last week. I saw my favourite minister on television coming down the hall in her wonderful manner -- kind of like a tank with a tutu. She was arrested by the scrum of electronic people upstairs and they managed to stop her for a moment or two, but she gave them one of her little laser-like looks and broke the batteries in the tape recorder.

Then she did kind of a Trudeau-like pirouette into a locked door. What surprised me was that the door held. This is a minister who would not normally have a problem with a small thing like a locked door. Maybe the Berlin Wall would slow her down for a bit, but there is no lock in the free world that would keep this woman out if she really wanted in. So I knew last week there was some trouble.

On Tuesday afternoon we were once again asking for an emergency debate. I thought it was strange that this strike in particular was not worthy of a debate in the Legislature. Apparently, it is not worthy of a debate again tonight, even when they are legislating them back. They do not want to talk about it.

The minister keeps saying now that after a little while she will talk about it when she gets a chance to wind up. But we have been here for an afternoon and an evening and the sole contribution has come from the member for Wilson-Heights. That is a pretty devastating comment on the position of the government. When they are down to the point where they have to have the member for Wilson-Heights put their case, they are in tough shape over there.

I notice where the minister is even lowered to the point where she is going to have to defend what the member for Timiskaming had to say back home. That is a pretty lowly position for the minister to be in. That is pretty tough when that is the best person she can muster to put forward the government's case and when she, with some reluctance, responds only at the end of the debate. It must be tough when the member for Timiskaming is the government's representative and talks literally drivel in this instance. That is his comment on this whole issue.

The other meagre defence is put forward by the member for Wilson-Heights. If those are the heavy hitters they have defending the government's position on this bill, they are in dire trouble.

I think the member for Wilson-Heights put the government's position pretty succinctly tonight. He believes education concerns where people sit, and if they sit in the classrooms now, this strike is resolved. He probably sincerely thinks that. He thinks that will be the resolution of the issue.

It is not. Education is not about where one sits. Education is not about whether there are students in the classroom. Education is about a lot of things, but it has not a great deal to do about where they sit tomorrow morning as opposed to this morning.

The government seems to have developed the notion now that all it has to do is put out the order. On Tuesday afternoon this was not a matter that was worth discussing in the Legislature. They all stood up in their places as they normally do and said: "That is it. There is no need to talk about this. We will not even bother having a discussion about it."

10:20 p.m.

I find bizarre the sequence of events that others have laid out for Tuesday afternoon. The Speaker will not let me say who misled me in this matter, but I certainly was misled on Tuesday afternoon. It may be that when the minister spoke at 3:30 p.m., she did not know what had happened at three o'clock. It is possible she did not know what her staff was doing that afternoon. I would have to believe the minister has a great problem with competence in her ministry, but I do not believe she has. The Legislature and the people of Ontario were misled substantially on Tuesday afternoon after the bargaining had been broken off by a government that took the stance that there was no problem.

There was a lot of foolishness in the course of this strike that we should get on the record. People threatened young students with the loss of a year. Those of us who have been in education for a while know that, no matter what the circumstances, being out of a classroom for up to about six to eight weeks surely will not threaten a student's year.

I notice that once the ministry staff addressed itself to that problem it took that position as well. There will be problems in rescheduling; there is no question about that. There will be problems in extending the school day by a few hours and extending the school year somewhat. There will be young people who will pay a financial price for the diddling that has gone on in the course of all this.

The crucial things that have to be addressed are not addressed in this bill before us tonight. I do not believe the minister has even provided a mechanism whereby they will be resolved. Whether or not one accepts that the proposed legislation is the correct way to proceed, one would have to be incredibly naive to think this legislated solution will solve very much.

What it leaves us with is the position put by the member for Wilson Heights. The legislation has the potential to get the schools open again and to get the students inside. It does not have much potential to resolve all the bitterness felt by the teachers who thought they were exercising a right most people have in a democracy. It does not resolve that.

In my view, it provides a mechanism that will not even address the major issue before us that caused the strike, the main issue of this argument. It does not do that. The government has allowed itself to fall into a mould in which it can do only two or three simple things. It all happened this week in this Legislature. At the beginning of the week, there was no problem. There was not even a problem large enough to talk about for an afternoon. Nobody would miss his year. The negotiations were proceeding amicably, we were almost told. There were new offers on the table. Either the minister did not have much of a grasp of the situation or we were given a series of statements by the ministry in various forms that were clearly wrong.

As one who has gone through two major strikes in the past month or so in my community, one at General Motors with the United Auto Workers and one with the teachers at Durham College, I can say that if one wants free collective bargaining to work, both parties must bargain. It is as simple and straightforward as that. One group cannot sit around waiting for the minister of the crown to roll in with back-to-work legislation. If both parties are free to bargain and want to bargain and if there is someone helping them bargain, the bargaining process will work. If one side simply does not want to bargain, it is not going to work.

The difficulty with the legislation before us tonight is probably not what is going to happen tomorrow morning. We know that tomorrow morning we will be back here finishing a debate on this legislation. It was rather silly of the minister and others to suggest we would open the schools again Friday morning. That would have been a particularly dangerous thing to do.

Unless the minister felt everybody in this Legislature would emulate the Liberal Party and roll over and play dead, she must have known this is supposed to be a parliament and there would be at least a debate on second reading. She has already expressed the need to take this bill back into committee to propose some amendments of her own.

She may have been very sure of herself yesterday afternoon, but by this morning she had already discovered she wanted to add yet another amendment. It is hardly perfect legislation. There is a reason legislation is not supposed to roll through this joint in an afternoon. The minister has proved that need already. We want to take a look at how the law is written and what its ramifications are.

For her to say yesterday, as I saw her say in a television clip last night, "We will just roll this through the Legislature of Ontario tomorrow afternoon and we will open the schools Friday morning," created a pretty sticky situation. There is going to be a need for a little bit of cooling off here.

I happened to walk a picket line at Durham College with a gentleman who taught, he told me, management psychology, whatever that is. He was rather interested in the fact that he was now getting some practical experience in management psychology on a picket line. He certainly was learning a great deal. It looks a little different when one is walking around the road than it does when one is reading a book. He was getting some understanding of what that was all about, and there was a pretty high level of bitterness there.

There was not exactly a lot of smarts being exercised in terms of what might happen in a normal strike situation. These people are hardly radicals or revolutionaries. Some are in the gallery here tonight. They are not used to this idea of hitting the pavement, and it is not a very pleasant experience. Most of us have had the opportunity over the years to walk different picket lines. Some of them are our own and most of them, for members of this caucus, are picket lines for somebody else.

Mr. Martel: If they heard those Tories speak out, they would get first-hand experience as well.

Mr. Breaugh: Perhaps.

Most of us who have had the opportunity to walk picket lines with different people know that it really does not matter what your social background is, what your economics are or how tough a trade unionist you are. There is no picket line in the world that is a pleasant experience. It is pretty tough. You give up your salary, for starters, which is not a pleasant thing. You do something you normally do not do and you do not like it. You try to keep your morale up, but it is a little bit tough.

Maybe a couple of other things should be said before I conclude this evening. It is no secret that we do not have television in this Legislature. The people of Ontario, the students of the community colleges, some of whom were here earlier this afternoon, will not have an opportunity to see what this debate was all about. I think that is unfortunate.

The teachers in other parts of Ontario who could not get down to see this afternoon's debate or this evening's debate will probably not know that the government of Ontario introduced this legislation this afternoon and then nobody even bothered to give the government's position, save one lowly back-bencher later in the evening.

The minister had the opportunity. She can shake her head, give me the laser shots and put smoke out of her ears and anything she wants, but she has been around here long enough to know it is customary for a minister of the crown, on introducing a bill such as this, to begin the debate. That should not be a shock to her.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I did. I made a statement this afternoon.

Mr. Breaugh: Oh, sure she made a statement. We understand that fairly well. A lot of us have been sitting around here for a number of years now too and we know it is customary for a minister to begin the debate on second reading, to make a statement usually earlier in the afternoon. What is a little unusual is that one does not normally introduce a piece of legislation on the same day as one begins the debate on it.

People around Ontario will not know that a big, silent, blank Tory caucus sat over there and said nothing all afternoon and all evening. Only one fool was anxious enough to get into the debate; that is all. Nobody put the position.

This Legislature is such a great inconvenience to the minister. She certainly does not want to enter into debate on a subject like this. On two occasions the government has stood in its place and said, "You do not need an emergency debate about this strike." Now we have the legislation to end the strike, and the minister still does not want to debate it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, I do.

Mr. Breaugh: Let me address the minister, who seems to be getting a little upset with me. I believe there is an obligation on the part of the government -- that is, all those in the cabinet and certainly one or two of the ordinary members on that side -- to participate in this kind of debate. I am prodding the minister somewhat that she has not begun the process, but I certainly would not be satisfied with having the minister make her great announcement in here and having nothing else said on the government side, but that is what has happened.

I believe that is a tragedy. I believe that tragedy will be compounded even further when this legislation is dealt with, probably some time tomorrow. To believe this strike is ended and that bitterness is resolved by passing this kind of legislation is folly in the extreme. The government should understand that the bitterness will continue, that it has not provided the mechanism that will resolve this argument and that it is now going to have to deal with it in some other way.

The government has scuttled the free collective bargaining process and put in place something that is quite wrong, will compound that problem and certainly is not worthy of the support of members of this Legislature.

On motion by Mr. Swart, the debate was adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the remainder of this week and next week. Tomorrow we will continue debate on this piece of legislation.

On Monday the House will not sit. On Tuesday, November 13, in the afternoon, we will deal with the no-confidence motion standing in Orders and Notices in the name of the member for York South (Mr. Rae), with a division at 5:50 p.m. In the evening, we will deal with second reading of Bill 82. On Wednesday, November 14, the usual three committees have permission to sit.

On Thursday, November 15, in the afternoon, there are private members' ballot items in the names of High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) and the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley). In the evening, we will continue second reading of Bill 93, with the likelihood of a division later in the evening. On Friday, November 16, we will consider the estimates of the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch).

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.