Journal des débats 1985-nov-26 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform the members of the House that on Thursday next, November 28, there will be a lockup from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. in committee rooms 1 and 2, at which time the Provincial Auditor will present his 1984-85 report before tabling it in the House in the afternoon.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FIRST-CONTRACT DISPUTES

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Later this afternoon I will be introducing an amendment to the Labour Relations Act to provide for the settlement by arbitration of first-contract disputes.

The proposed amendment affirms this government's commitment to collective bargaining as a fair and effective method of establishing terms and conditions of employment. Generally speaking, the collective bargaining system in Ontario is sound; our industrial climate is positive. But the framework for bargaining is not without its flaws, and we recognize our obligations to improve and strengthen the procedures on which the aspirations of working people depend.

Employees who join a union do so with the expectation that collective action will produce monetary rewards and enhance the quality and security of their employment. Certification has no inherent value unless the procedures that follow the acquisition of bargaining rights ensure both parties a fair opportunity to conclude a first collective agreement.

I am not suggesting a risk-free alternative to the present system. By its nature, bargaining is an adversarial process, and participants must be prepared for the sacrifices that may be necessary to advance their interests at the bargaining table. In the normal course of events, however, certification should lead to a collective agreement.

The failure of the bargaining process is not only a cause for disappointment within the work force; it may actually contribute to a deterioration in labour-management relations. Emotions often run high during an organizing campaign as individuals on both sides declare their support for or opposition to change. If certification is followed by a collective agreement, the foundation is laid for a longer-term, stable relationship with a mechanism to address outstanding problems. Where, on the other hand, the momentum of an organizing campaign and the desired expression of the majority for a collective agreement are frustrated at the bargaining table, there is a natural tendency for the employer to regard the union's defeat as vindication of its own position, and there is a risk that legitimate concerns of the work force may be ignored.

For these compelling reasons, the government believes that first-contract arbitration is essential. The bill would allow either party to apply to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for an order directing the settlement of a first-contract dispute by arbitration. Such an order will be made where it appears to the board that the bargaining process has been frustrated because of the employer's refusal to recognize the bargaining authority of the union, the uncompromising position of the respondent adopted without reasonable justification, the failure of the respondent to make reasonable efforts to conclude a collective agreement, or any other reason the board considers relevant.

I want to emphasize that the bill is simply not intended to add an additional remedy to the board's power to deal with complaints of badfaith bargaining. Certainly, arbitration would be available where serious misconduct has occurred, but the bill goes well beyond bad-faith situations and breaks new ground. The statutory language is intended to provide broad relief against the malfunctioning of newly formed bargaining relationships. In this government's opinion, bad-faith bargaining should not be a prerequisite for the right to have a first agreement arbitrated.

I think an illustration may assist in clarifying the intended scope for the first-contract procedures. In the absence of any misconduct, both the employer and the trade union may have adopted uncompromising positions at the bargaining table. A tough bargaining posture may be taken to protect legitimate corporate or union interests, and where both parties have made reasonable efforts to reach an agreement, there is no cause for intervention.

Equally, however, there are times when intransigence in negotiations is symptomatic of a more basic resistance to collective bargaining. Inexperience may also contribute to unrealistic expectations in first-agreement bargaining. In these cases, arbitration should be available to prevent the relationship from foundering.

At the same time, it is vital to preserve the incentive for parties to try to negotiate their own agreements. The two parties are responsible for negotiating their own agreements, and this is important for two reasons. First, the employer and the trade union are best qualified to decide what terms are essential to an effective day-to-day relationship. Second, the act of bargaining in itself affords the parties an opportunity to cultivate their relationship in preparation for the administration of the collective agreement.

The provisions of the bill are designed to encourage bargaining. The bill does not impose an onerous condition on access, but it does ensure that the negotiating process is not bypassed. For example, it will be open to the board to decline to grant arbitration where real progress is being made at the bargaining table. I might add that the bill creates an incentive for both parties to bargain inasmuch as it may be seen to be in their mutual interest to avoid the uncertain results of arbitration.

However, if arbitration is necessary, the bill will respond to the unique dynamics of a first-contract dispute. Time is truly of the essence in the trade union's effort to transform the momentum of an organizing campaign into tangible results at the bargaining table. The bill requires the board to determine the question of access within 30 days and imposes stringent time limits on the commencement and completion of the arbitration process. The expeditious resolution of first-contract disputes will enable bargaining relationships to stabilize and business operations to return to normal quickly.

The bill offers parties a choice as to the forum in which arbitration will be conducted. By agreement, parties may elect to refer the dispute to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. In the absence of such an agreement, the dispute will be heard by a private arbitration board constituted by the parties. One may expect that the participation of the parties in the selection of the arbitration tribunal will enhance the acceptability of the resulting award.

The bill will empower the minister to appoint a mediator to confer with the parties prior to the commencement of the hearing. The intervention of a mediator at this stage in the dispute will afford one last opportunity for a voluntary settlement.

Once access to arbitration is granted, the bill prohibits work stoppages from commencing and, if in progress, requires their termination. Employees on strike will be reinstated in accordance with their length of service and would displace strike replacements. Working conditions will be frozen pending the outcome of the arbitration process.

2:10 p.m.

The bill offers guidance to arbitrators in fashioning the terms of settlement. Among other considerations, the bill suggests that wages and conditions of employees in similar circumstances be considered by the arbitrator, as well as any other factors necessary to arrive at a fair settlement.

Arbitrated settlements will operate for a period of two years from the day of the award. This period of stability will afford the unions the opportunity to consolidate support within the bargaining unit and for the parties to become accustomed to dealing with one another. Arbitrators are also authorized to award retroactivity, which will encourage parties to seek a timely resolution of first-contract disputes.

The amendment responds to the actual problems which have been encountered in first-agreement negotiations and will afford relief against the frustration of the bargaining process without destroying the incentive for serious efforts to negotiate an agreement.

RED MEAT PLAN

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It is with great personal satisfaction that I rise to inform the honourable members of a red-letter day for Ontario's red meat producers.

Last Thursday, I informed this House that the day of signing the national tripartite stabilization program was close at hand. Yesterday afternoon in Ottawa, the long-awaited event took place. I signed the national agreement on behalf of Ontario with federal Minister of Agriculture John Wise. As a matter of interest, Ontario is the first province to sign the agreement.

Today, five months to the day since the Liberal government took office, I have the pleasure of delivering the tripartite agreement, an agreement that had been stalled for three years by the inaction of the previous administrations.

The historic signing, which happened yesterday shortly after 6 p.m., culminated three years of negotiations among the federal government, the provinces and producer organizations. I shared this occasion with Gerhard Schickendanz of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, Tom Smith of the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board and Tom Redpath of the Ontario Sheep Association, who witnessed my signature. That is in keeping with this government's commitment to keep the farm organizations and the farmers involved in our programs. I was particularly pleased to have these three representatives in our delegation. Ontario producers have been most patient and supportive of my efforts to bring the tripartite agreement to a successful conclusion.

Producer participation in the plan is voluntary, but I expect most producers to take advantage of the option to join. Under the program, stabilization plans are established for hogs, slaughter cattle and lambs. A plan for feeder cattle may be implemented at a later date. The plans for hogs and slaughter cattle take effect January 1, 1986; the plan for lambs goes into effect March 1, 1986.

In my statement last Thursday, I announced Ontario's intention to pay $30.9 million to Ontario producers, in effect to make stabilization retroactive to January 1, 1985. The combined provincial and federal contributions will mean tripartite-level payments for beef producers of $22.86 per head for slaughter cattle for the second quarter of 1985 and $79.75 for the third quarter. If the payment is based on pounds gained, the amounts would be comparable.

Farrow-to-finish hog operators will receive second-quarter payments of $10.11 and thirdquarter payments of $14.31 per hog. After consultations with the pork producers, the pork payment will be split between finisher and sow-weaner hogs. Lambs are also part of this transitional federal-provincial program, but payment calculations have not yet been completed.

Yesterday was an important first step. I hope the signing of the tripartite agreement will start Ontario's red meat sector on the road to new health. It is one more step by my government to bring stability to the agricultural sector.

VANIER CUP

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Munro) reflected on the valiant effort of her home football team and our province's representative in the Grey Cup, the Hamilton Tiger-Cats.

I am sure that you and all members of the assembly, whether alumni of the University of Western Ontario or not, want to join me today in wishing every success to my alma mater's football team, the University of Western Ontario Mustangs, who will represent us in the Vanier Cup, the Canadian universities football championship, on Saturday of this week.

The Mustangs, under Coach Haylor, defeated a team from the east coast last week in Halifax. They represent Ontario very well, and they will be playing against the Calgary Dinosaurs in the Vanier Cup this Saturday.

Although I know the members all join with me in wishing them every success, I want to add that I do sing and cheer much better than both the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the member for Hamilton Centre, but mercifully I will refrain from any demonstration of that kind in or near the chamber.

Mr. Gillies: If I may speak to the minister's point, I am sure all the Western graduates on this side of the floor would also like to wish the Mustangs well on the weekend. While I would not dare sing in this House alone, I would be willing, if we win, to join with the honourable member in a duet, which I warn him would be truly awful.

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION

Mr. Reville: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I consider that my rights as a member of this Legislature have been severely abridged.

On October 19, and again on November 2, I spoke at demonstrations in support of striking Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce workers, two groups of whom are seeking first-contract legislation and first contracts.

Yesterday morning, I attended at my local post office and picked up two registered letters, both of them from the vice-president of the Ontario region of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, at which I have done business these many years. One of the letters says:

"In the light of recent events that occurred at our Toronto Eaton Centre and Yorkdale Shopping Centre branches, the personal and business relationship which previously existed between us has been brought into question. As a result of your actions, we have decided to terminate our association."

Attached to these letters are three drafts. In addition, my personal demand loan in the amount of $10,000 is now considered to be due and payable, and I am advised that I may not enter on to any premises of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, notwithstanding that they are the holders of my mortgage and of several registered retirement savings plans.

I consider the action of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce is an attempt to use its economic power to discourage a member of this House from participating in important public events. I move that this matter be referred to the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am shocked to hear what the honourable member has just told this House, and I join him in considering it a very serious abuse of his or anyone else's privileges in these circumstances. It appears on the face of it to be a move calculated to shut off free discussion and free debate.

2:20 p.m.

I support the member's suggestion in this regard. In addition to that, I will undertake today to get in touch with the senior management at the bank to try to persuade them to change their position, which appears to me a very serious miscarriage of justice.

Mr. McClellan: I will be brief because I sense there is a consensus in the House. However, I want to stress how seriously we regard the threat to the privileges of the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) and indeed to each and every one of us. He has been threatened with financial intimidation with respect to a matter that is currently before this House. I refer to the bill that was introduced a few moments ago by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye).

If this matter is not regarded as a question of privilege and dealt with by the standing committee on procedural affairs, none of us who is subject to this kind of intimidation, from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce or any other bank, will be able to exercise his or her responsibilities with respect to the first-contract law or any other matters the banks may not want us to talk about.

Mr. Gillies: As Labour critic for the Progressive Conservative Party, I want to indicate to our colleague the member for Riverdale that in five years in this House I do not believe I have heard such an outrageous threat made against a member of this assembly. I want to say to the member our caucus is with him. We would like vigorously to pursue this matter in a standing committee of this House.

While we will have spirited debate with the Minister of Labour on the merits of the bill that is being put before us, the member may be assured our caucus will want to get to the facts of this matter with him to see that the rights of the member for Riverdale, as well as those of every member of this assembly, are upheld in this regard so that never again shall a member have such threats made against him.

Mr. Speaker: It certainly appears this is a breach of the privileges of a member of this House. The member has placed a motion that this matter be referred to the standing committee on procedural affairs. I will put that motion. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the members of the House will permit me -- I am not sure if it is a statement or whatever -- I would like to bring them up to date on my conversation just a moment ago with the chairman of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce with respect to the point raised by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville).

Mr. Speaker: Do the members agree?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I just phoned the chairman, Mr. Don Fullerton, and, to the best of my knowledge, he was not aware of this situation. He told me he was embarrassed, he was going to look into the matter personally and he would get back to me within half an hour after he had ascertained all the facts.

I asked him whether any other letters had been sent out, and he is going to try to determine exactly what went on. It is getting his personal attention. Within half an hour perhaps we will learn more. I just wanted the members to know where it is at this moment. I will continue to pursue the matter.

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: That is all very well, but I hope the chairman of the bank realizes these matters are not only going to be settled by conversations with individuals, but they are going to have to be settled before the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions. This House is entitled to have that bank come forward and indicate its policies, not only to individual members but to all the citizens of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the member that motion was passed by the House some time ago.

Mr. Grossman: Before my first question, may I say to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) that I know he probably left out several paragraphs in his statement. He would have wanted to acknowledge the fact that the single person in this country responsible for tripartite stabilization is the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell).

ORAL QUESTIONS

FREE TRADE

Mr. Grossman: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday the Premier finally tabled figures with regard to the potential job losses that freer trade could bring about in this province. Could he share with the House his calculations with respect to the potential benefits and job gains?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As the member knows, there is not unanimity on this subject. I am being very fair. A number of studies have been commissioned. We have been urging the federal government to develop a common data bank to discuss these matters, on which there is a variety of opinion.

At this point, it is still very unclear what the federal government has in mind with respect to the free trade initiative. We are developing a number of studies and are prepared to share them with all members of this House as they come through the system. There are no secrets as far as I am concerned. We would like to have the member's analysis of that information and his views. When I go to the first ministers' conference this week to speak on behalf of Ontario, it would be most helpful to have the support and advice of the honourable members in this House.

Mr. Grossman: To get back to the question I asked originally, and I am going to ask it again and we are going to continue this until we start to get some answers from the Premier -- I will wait until Edgar Bergen has finished.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: The question was not whether the Premier would be kind enough to receive advice from the people on this side whom he referred to as yahoos last Friday. That was not the question. We will get to that another time.

I will repeat the question because we want an answer. Yesterday the Premier released, quite understandably, an estimate of the job losses we may face as a result of free trade. He had said on an earlier occasion, "We do expect benefits to exceed costs from whatever course we choose to follow." That was said on August 20 to the Premiers' conference.

It has also been indicated that "Peterson admitted he would favour a free trade agreement" -- this was one day when he was in favour of it -- "if it could be proven that such an agreement would be beneficial to Ontario." Before he goes to the conference to outline, not the Progressive Conservative Party's position but the Liberal Party of Ontario's position on free trade, will he tell us what estimates he has that show the potential job gains from free trade agreements in Ontario? Does he have any?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I told the honourable member I have released what we have. If he has any other information he wants to share, I will be delighted to share it. We are releasing all that information; it is being shared with the members. I have answered the question.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier has none. He knows what the losses might be but not the benefits.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is talking about our position. We have been very strong and consistent --

Mr. Grossman: We do not want any arguments. We want to know the Premier's position.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Leading is listening; so the Leader of the Opposition might want to listen for a little moment.

Mr. Grossman: We just want the Premier's position. He gives us everything except his position.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member's position in this matter has been all over the map and at odds with that of his colleague the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell). He was quoted on September 9 as rejecting a comprehensive free trade deal. I saw him on television --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for York South.

Mr. Rae: Yesterday the Premier released information showing that more than half a million workers in this province are working in industries that have been described as either sensitive or highly sensitive to the impact of free trade. Just what kind of information would it take to convince the Premier that he should be indicating to the Prime Minister of Canada that an initiative for free trade discussions with the United States is simply not on? Precisely what would it take to get the Premier to get off his duff and to indicate clearly to the Prime Minister of Canada that is what is in the interests of the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the honourable member would rather shout about this issue than discuss it calmly. As members know, it is a complex issue.

A number of the so-called vulnerable industries are vulnerable regardless of a free trade agreement. We are in the midst of an industrial restructuring in this country. We are facing competition from a number of low-wage countries that are going to make an assault on us for a long time to come. It is our view that would be dramatically accelerated by opening the doors.

2:30 p.m.

At this point there is no indication that the federal government has any ideas on restructuring moneys or so-called retraining incentives. There is much yet to be determined from the federal government, which proposed this original initiative. It is for the very reasons the member has expressed, and I have shared with him and members of the public, not just yesterday but for the past several months, that we are proceeding with great caution in this matter. We will continue to register those concerns, not just on behalf of Ontario workers but on behalf of workers right across this country.

Mr. Grossman: I am sure the workers, if they ever understand what the Premier just said, will be very gratified that he will be going to the conference.

Since the Premier will not give us yes-or-no answers, I will give him a multiple-choice question.

Mr. Martel: He learned from the Tories.

Mr. Grossman: Not very well.

I want to give him a multiple-choice question. He may pick one of the five. Which of these positions of the Premier on free trade is he going to be adopting for the first ministers' conference? They are (1) September 24 in the Toronto Star, "Peterson added that negotiating with the US may help Ontario in the long run"; (2) two weeks later in the Toronto Star, "If I had a choice, I'd rather have some more work done on the subject"; (3) Hansard, November 4, "I personally and this government have strong reservations about jeopardizing our industrial base in Ontario"

Interjection.

Mr. Grossman: Listen for a second. Hold up big block letters.

Mr. Speaker: I hope these are very brief.

Mr. Grossman: There are many more, but I will just pick two more.

Mr. Speaker: Very briefly.

Mr. Grossman: They are very brief.

The Premier may want to select (4), when he said he "will be urging caution before any move towards free trade is made"; or (5) he might want to endorse the position taken by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) yesterday, when he ruled it out entirely. Which of the one to five positions would the Premier select tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In case there is any misunderstanding, the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) was asking me to ask the Leader of the Opposition about the elephants he was going to use at the convention.

It is none of the above, but let me tell him what it is not. It is not: September 19, the Toronto Sun, "Grossman also rejected negotiation of a comprehensive free trade deal with the United States"; Globe and Mail, "Mr. Grossman says he would favour a fair and free trade agreement with the Americans. He held up the auto pact as a model--"

Mr. Grossman: Which of the five?

Mr. Gillies: Trudeau is back.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to remind the members once again of standing order 23(b), which says, "When a member is speaking, no other member shall interrupt him, except on a question of order."

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect, they wanted an honest response and I was going through the three-part, multiple-choice questionnaire. The third part of it was in the Toronto Star, in which, "Mr. Grossman told reporters he would back a deal reached on an industry-by-industry basis."

There are three different positions in one day -- a marvelous piece of listening.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: None of them was in the regional debates.

Mr. Harris: What is the Premier's position? Is he suggesting that we go to the first ministers' conference?

Mr. Grossman: I say to the Premier that the ministers and the Prime Minister will be interested in my views at the next first ministers' conference.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr. Grossman: It is shocking and scandalous that the Premier would go with that sort of rhetoric. Give us an answer. No answer.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr. Grossman: I wonder whether the Premier, now that he has shown us his complete understanding of free trade, would be kind enough to tell us if he finds it "disgusting politics," to use his words from April 21, for someone in the government of Ontario to run around saying, "If you do not vote for us you do not get any services." Does he still find that disgusting politics?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Frankly, I have no idea what the honourable member is talking about. If he wants to ask me a question, I would be very happy to answer it.

Mr. Pope: He just asked it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Who is he quoting? Please be a little more forthcoming. I am very happy to answer any question he has.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier is not prepared to say he finds that disgusting. Let me say, in my first supplementary to the Premier, that he describes these politics as being "crass, offensive in the extreme and an abuse of power."

I would like to ask the Premier whether he feels the same way about the fact that one of his ministers, specifically the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines (Mr. Fontaine), said, and I will quote from an affidavit sworn by our member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce): "This tax gives me $100 million for roads. You voted against it. There will be no money for your roads, including Bending Lake road. The money will go to my friend, Gilles, for the Manitouwadge road."

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With respect to the honourable member's question, I think the original quote to which I was referring was perhaps some of his remarks during the last leadership campaign, when he was talking about a patronage office in northern Ontario, when he was trying to buy off the delegates. That was his first go-around. He will recall that. He may have seen some discussion with respect to that. I recall those discussions he had.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am very happy to address my mind to that. The honourable minister may want to respond to the affidavit which the Leader of the Opposition has, sworn to by one of his colleagues. I have no personal knowledge of that. If he wants to speak to it, I am sure he will and I will invite him to do so.

However, let me tell the member something; I have never seen such a blatant promise of patronage as his party employed. He will recall his former leader promising the road in Cochrane South, in Timiskaming, if they voted the right way. We do not do that kind of thing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pouliot: Today is my day to be appalled and shocked, but nevertheless the point is well taken.

I would like to ask the Premier whether he would give the assurance the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines will convey to his friend "Gilles" that indeed those roads will be paved in the great riding of Lake Nipigon.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My colleague the minister has been travelling widely in northern Ontario and I know a number of the members in the north, regardless of political affiliation, have been very helpful in trying to assist this government in fulfilling its responsibilities there. If my colleague had his way, he would pave every road in the north. There is no question about that.

He is the most active, thoughtful spokesman for northern Ontario I have seen in a very long time. I am sure he is going to approach this on the basis of objectivity and real need. He has already liberated substantially more funds than the previous administration for the north because he cares about the north, I care about the north and this government cares about the north. We care about all of them over there.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: I want to ask the Premier whether, having described this as "the most insulting brand of politics I can imagine," he is prepared to peruse this affidavit signed by my colleague the member for Rainy River. Take it to the Premier; he is the one sitting next to Edgar Bergen.

Is the Premier prepared to take any action with the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines -- Edgar -- and is he going to demand a complete apology or demand his resignation for being involved in "the most disgusting type of politics imaginable"?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have not seen the affidavit before, very obviously. I am not surprised the member would have to get an affidavit from one of his colleagues. There are a number of people who would listen to what he said only if he swore an affidavit. That is the position he puts himself in.

I have just been conveyed a message that the minister said he was joking. He can stand up in this House and explain the context of that. I accept at face value that my colleague was joking. He happens to be a pretty funny guy sometimes. I have never once in my life in our caucus or cabinet seen him exercise any favour on a partisan basis.

Many conversations and jokes go around this House among all our colleagues. For the 10 years I have been here --

Mr. Grossman: Is the Premier going to do anything?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me finish. I have seen this House function with good humour and good friendships between all sides, where we joke with each other. I am sure lots of us have joked about that kind of thing in the past. Certainly I have heard ministers in the past, when I was Leader of the Opposition, joke with me in that regard, and I frankly never took them very seriously.

Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition is now setting the rules for a new approach to human relationships in this House; if he is, then he has to take the responsibility for it. But I accept it at face value when my colleague tells me he was joking. If the member does not, that is fair enough.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I draw to the members' attention that more than 20 minutes has already elapsed in question period.

FIRST-CONTRACT DISPUTES

Mr. Rae: I feel like asking the Premier whether he has heard the one about first-contract legislation, but I would like to ask him a question with respect to the letter my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) received from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

This member, we understand, is not the only person to have received such a letter. Indeed, pictures were taken of individuals involved in the demonstrations on both days at the Toronto Eaton Centre and at the Yorkdale Shopping Centre, and other individuals have been treated in the same way by the bank. The bank has indicated that people who have participated in these demonstrations will be treated in a like manner.

Does the Premier not feel that this action on the part of a very substantial financial institution in this province represents an assault on freedom of association itself? Would he be prepared to discuss with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) the possibility of invoking some kind of charter action against the bank, which would prevent it from abusing its power in this way, not only against members of the Legislature but also against citizens of this province who feel the workers at Visa are entitled to a first contract with their employer?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As soon as I heard the member rise in his place and tell the story to this House, I turned to the Attorney General and asked: "What are the legal ramifications? Is there anything we can do?" He will study the matter. He is as concerned as I am, and if there is any legal remedy I can assure the honourable member we will pursue it.

I share the member's shock, even disbelief. Frankly, I cannot believe that in 1985 this kind of thing would happen at a so-called responsible institution, that it would try to intimidate anyone, as he says, let alone a member of this House. Fortunately, our colleague at least has a platform and a remedy by standing up in this House. I find it even more disturbing that other people were intimidated in this way.

I can assure the member that I will pursue this through my good offices and that the Attorney General will be examining his options and will report to the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Rae: In relation to first-contract legislation, the Premier will be aware that correspondence went out from him in April 1985, when he was Leader of the Opposition, indicating the basis of the test that would be applied with respect to the T. Eaton Co. Ltd. strike was that the workers would be able to apply within "a reasonable amount of time;" that would be the test that would be used to give them access to a first contract.

In the statement made today by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and in the legislation that is to be tabled, there is an indication that there are a number of other tests the board is going to be expected to apply and that the test of time is not the only test.

Given that it is women workers and workers without bargaining power who are the most vulnerable, I wonder whether the Premier could explain to us why he chose to listen to the powerful interests that wanted to resist access to first-contract legislation, such as the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, the T. Eaton Co. Ltd. and every other large employer that refuses to grant decent working conditions to its employees.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I thank the member very much for his supplementary question and congratulate him on his cunning in working the two together. Let me answer the question. There is no question that this government spent a great deal of time looking at the question of access in first-contract arbitration. There are a number of models, as the member will be aware, from bad faith on the one hand to automatic access on the other hand.

It was our view that we should not imperil the free collective bargaining process and that this should be a remedy in extreme situations. The member is quite right that I was written a letter on April 15 and that I responded to Mrs. Sheila Baron. I said to her in that letter that I believe the Eaton situation is the kind that is excessive and an affront to all of us. Our legislation would prevent that kind of situation in our view and in the view of the legal experts we consulted in this matter.

There are a number of tests one can use, as I am sure the member agrees, and time is one of them. However, we did not feel it was in the interest of the free collective bargaining process to have automatic access or to force a strike to get that access. We think this will maintain the integrity of the collective bargaining process and at the same time afford remedies in extreme situations such as Eaton's.

Mr. Gillies: One aspect of this question I want to return to is the circumstances the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) found himself in on the picket line. One of the circumstances that surrounds these exchanges and confrontations is some of the security devices available to sides in a dispute. The former Attorney General and the former Minister of Labour moved to remove lie detectors and similar devices from this type of dispute and from the work place.

Would the Premier ask the Attorney General whether, in his consideration of this issue, he would take a look at the other range of devices and activities that take place which cloud the issue on the picket line and make it more acrimonious than it perhaps needs to be?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer to the honourable member's question is a very clear "yes." I will discuss the entire matter. As he knows, the Attorney General is very knowledgeable about labour matters, and I will seek his advice on the questions the member raises.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I only hope that having sought the advice, he may on occasion choose to follow it a little more often than he has.

I assume the Premier is aware that the Visa workers are covered by federal legislation and is aware of all the jurisprudence, federal and provincial, that establishes that tough bargaining is not necessarily bad-faith bargaining. We now have the statement today from the Minister of Labour that a tough bargaining posture may be taken to protect legitimate corporate interests.

Does the Premier not realize that precisely the same legal chicanery which has been used by large employers such as the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce to prevent their employees from having access to a first contract can be used, simply on the basis of the reasonable test, to protect a tough bargaining position by an employer? He may be leaving employees in Ontario in the same vulnerable position that the Visa employees are left in today.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is impossible to predict exactly how the body of jurisprudence will go, but as members know we have put a tight time frame on this. It is not a bad-faith bargaining situation; there is a test of reasonableness. We believe it will correct those excessive situations. I am familiar with the member's view that there should be an automatic access or an automatic right, which I find somewhat in conflict with his general view of supporting free collective bargaining.

What we want to do is make the process work. We want to keep the integrity of the system and to keep them bargaining hard to solve these problems on their own. We believe, on advice we have taken from people who are very knowledgeable in this area, that this will satisfy those ends. That is why we have chosen this route. We think it is sensible. When the member has had an opportunity to see this function in real terms, I am sure he will be satisfied that the excessive cases he has talked about will be caught under this legislation.

Mr. Rae: The Premier runs the risk of leaving those who are economically the most vulnerable still the most vulnerable, because he has adopted the language of the jungle and not the language of justice; that is the problem with the position he has taken today.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Rae: My second question is to the Premier with respect to free trade. Many interesting reports were released yesterday, one of them by Mr. Nef, an American consultant who has- been involved in Canada-United States relations for many years. Is the Premier aware of the final sentence in Mr. Nef's report, which says quite simply and categorically, "Canadian opponents could sabotage the effort" -- he is referring to the effort to achieve a comprehensive free trade treaty -- "quite easily if they so wished."

The Premier has frequently described his position as Premier of Ontario as the second most powerful position in Canada. Yesterday, he issued a report saying more than 500,000 jobs could be wiped out in sensitive and highly sensitive industries as a result of a comprehensive treaty. He has the statement from one of the American consultants indicating that if powerful interests wanted to have the effect of changing the direction of the federal train, it could very easily be done.

What is the Premier's problem? What is his hesitation in clearly indicating where Ontario stands?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure we can take this discussion much further than we have in the past, because we have discussed this very issue in this House.

As I have said on many public occasions prior to this, starting at the Premiers' conference, we have those concerns and we have quantified those concerns. When we have talked about the vulnerability of those jobs, I have to be very frank with the honourable member, no one has said they are going to disappear automatically. There could be a dislocation factor that could take them, say, from $14-an-hour jobs down to $4-an-hour jobs.

We also have figures from Mr. Kelleher, the federal Minister for International Trade, as he told us in a private briefing, that indicate some 840,000 jobs, seven per cent of the jobs across this country, could be "dislocated." I again point out to the member that a number of these jobs are in tenuous areas anyway, which he has seen with the federal government's move of last week with respect to the footwear quotas. We are again going to be under very serious pressure there, and he knows the competition is coming up.

One of the things we shall have to do is concentrate more on the issue of industrial restructuring and making sure we have a competitive position in this world rather than just seeking the Holy Grail through bilateral free trade talks. I can assure the member that our delegation is extremely well prepared on this issue. It is generally recognized by all that we will be vigilant in protecting our industries.

If the member is asking me just to walk away from the table, shout at them and not talk, I do not think that is the sensible view at this point. However, I can assure him the views he has expressed -- we are perhaps different in the procedure we have in mind, but not that different substantively -- will be most helpful, just as are the views of a number of the members in the official opposition. I have studied some of their positions in the past, although they are all over the map at the moment. It would be helpful to me to be able to speak with one voice on behalf of all the people of Ontario.

Mr. Rae: If the Premier cannot answer the other question directly, can he answer this one directly? Can he tell us whether in his conversations with Mr. Mulroney, both public and private, he has ever indicated it is the position of the government of Ontario that the government of Canada should simply walk away from a negotiating table where culture and jobs are being threatened? Has he indicated that position directly to Mr. Mulroney? If not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I said very directly to the Prime Minister the things I have told the members publicly: we are very concerned about this, and here are our exclusions. We think the way this thing has developed is a mistake. We have very strong views on the participation process, and that will go on. The member is very well aware, because it has been discussed, that we have a number of jurisdictional questions. We are not prepared to say to them go ahead and run off and make a decision that is not in Canada's interests.

If out of these discussions a better deal can be made for our steel, cement and timber industries that does not threaten our other industries, then obviously it is in Canada's interests. At this point the frustration from our end on this discussion is that we do not know where the federal government stands. In the absence of any firm positions from them, it is very hard for us. However, the member knows where we stand because I have said this publicly on many occasions.

Mr. Grossman: None of us over here knows where the Premier stands on the issue. We are delighted to hear, to use his words, that the Ontario delegation is well prepared. From the briefing books they have prepared for him, from that extensive preparation, can he share with us how many jobs they have deduced free trade may bring to Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member just keeps harping, and I think I have answered that question.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I would like to find out where the Premier stands on one issue that was brought out quite clearly in one of the documents issued yesterday. This is in the background report of Dr. Baranson of the Illinois Institute of Technology, which clearly revealed the vulnerability of Canadian branch plants to a free trade agreement. The report stated that free trade will result in the withdrawal of US manufacturing branch plants along with related research and development facilities in Canada.

Will the Premier insist to the Prime Minister that any branch plant industry in which Canadians do not have ownership control over where the jobs and businesses are to be allocated be given exemptions from any discussions on free trade?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Because such a high percentage of our manufacturing areas are foreign-owned, the honourable member is asking for everything to be exempted, and that goes on and on. Obviously, one of the great concerns we have is the fact that we have such a high percentage of foreign-owned companies here. We do not want to see them just withdraw, because they were built here behind tariff barriers.

We are concerned about the issue of exchange rates being on the table as well. The member will be aware as well that there are some who argue that there could be some benefits in the steel question. Only two or three days ago, I met with a number of people from the member's home community who were concerned about the steel issue and who would argue that without exports to the United States, which are under severe pressure right now, his own community could come under increasing pressure.

One of the things we have to do is make sure we get better deals for our exports and at the same time not give away the store, as he was talking about. That is what we are fighting for in a knowledgeable and reasonable way, and I can assure the member there will not be any selloff of Ontario from our point of view.

3 p.m.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr. Gillies: My question is to the Minister of Labour on a new issue. I would like to ask him if he is aware that in the coming year some personnel at the Workers' Compensation Board will receive salary increases of up to 13 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The answer is no.

Mr. Gillies: I suggest that the minister make himself familiar with this. There are a number of disturbing aspects to this question.

The unionized personnel at the WCB recently settled for 5.5 per cent. Most public sector wage increases in the recent past have been in the range of four to five per cent, and yet some of the management personnel of the WCB will receive increases of up to eight per cent, plus performance increases of an additional five per cent.

I would say to the minister --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Gillies: -- furthermore, that in this day of so-called open government, this information was withheld --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question must flow out of the answer. It was a very brief answer; I was hoping for a very brief question.

Mr. Gillies: I got such a short answer I was hoping with a long question I would get a long answer.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We have asked, I do not know whether it is 200 questions or not, and we have not had a single answer, and yet you tell us the supplementary must flow out of the answer. Are you telling us that every supplementary that has been asked since we have been back here is out of order?

Mr. Speaker: I remind the member that this is question period, when members may ask ministers questions. They may not ask the Speaker questions. That really is not a point of order; if it were, I would reply.

Mr. Gillies: I ask the minister -- it is a very simple question -- does it seem equitable and fair to the Minister of Labour that the unionized personnel at the WCB settle for 5.5 per cent when some of the management personnel are receiving increases of up to 13 per cent? Does it seem open to the minister that when we requested this information, public information, of the personnel branch of the board, they refused to give it to us?

Mr. Speaker: Minister?

Mr. Gillies: We know it is a fact. Will the minister investigate this --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want to tell my friend the former government House leader that I was asked if I knew about it and I said no. It seems to me that is a candid, direct and full answer.

I will look into the entire matter my honourable friend has raised. Having said that, I remind him that we have a new corporate board of which this government and this minister are very proud. As I have indicated on a number of occasions, I would not wish to interfere unnecessarily with the duties and responsibilities of that corporate board.

REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEES

Mr. Ramsay: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs regarding his announcement yesterday in the north, in which he stated he would set up two regional economic development committees before Christmas -- this year, I presume -- one in Kirkland Lake and one in Sudbury. Who will be on these committees and how will the selection of these people be carried out?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Those responsible will be working at it this week. There will be an answer to the honourable member's question next week because we have not finalized. We have heard from Latchford to Hearst and from one council on the old Highway 11 or the old James Bay corridor. Before Christmas we will be looking at Sudbury and Thunder Bay.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Si j'ai bien compris la question tout à l'heure, il m'a attaqué d'avoir dit à un membre que je lui enlevais un chemin.

What makes me laugh is that I told the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce) yesterday I was going to his riding on the sixth. If he was that insulted, why does he tell me he is going to meet me over there, first of all?

Second, last week I spoke to the chamber of commerce in the northwest. Je leur ai dit que j'étais pour aller voir ce chemin-là, the Bending Lake that he is talking about.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I do not have to excuse myself, because they are talking as a joke over there.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I am not ashamed. The member should be ashamed himself. He should not talk about that. I do not have to excuse myself. I am going to visit his riding. Bending Lake is in my friend's ministry and he is looking at it too; so the member does not have to worry about that.

Mr. Ramsay: To get back to my original question, I heard the comments the minister made on the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. in Sudbury yesterday. He did say Kirkland Lake and Sudbury before Christmas. That is why I am concerned; I had not been informed of what the process would be in selecting the committee members for this. Since my riding is in one of these centres, I was concerned.

I would be interested to hear what the timetable is for bringing in the other economic development committees so we would know that all the communities in the north would be covered by this process.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: My deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister will be in town this week, and we are going to work on this one. I will send the member a letter or I will phone him about what is going to happen.

Mr. Laughren: After the fact?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: No, before.

Mr. Bernier: In his reply next week, will the minister explain to the House exactly what the function of the regional economic development committees will be and who will make the decisions? Will it be him and his cabinet committee or will it be the regional economic development committees?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Again I am going to tell my honourable friend the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) I will answer that when it is time. It is not time yet.

PHARMACEUTICAL LEGISLATION

Mr. Sargent: I have a question for the Minister of Health with regard to Bill 54, the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, and Bill 55, the Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act. The 1,900 pharmacies in Ontario are promoting an advertising campaign in which they say are very concerned that these bills will not be going to committee. Will the minister assure the pharmacists of Ontario here and now that the bills will be going to committee and will receive full public disclosure?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the honourable member for the question.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elston: These people obviously do not care to listen. They do not usually listen; so they obviously do not want to listen.

The member wants to hear that it will be going to committee. I have said to the Ontario Pharmacists' Association and to many people ever since the bill was introduced, and before it was introduced, that the legislation would be going in front of a legislative committee for review.

Mr. Pope: Since the minister is now prepared to admit what he would not tell the pharmacists of this province until the Progressive Conservative caucus indicated it was going to committee, why were they talking to him then? Why were they asking for it if he had already promised it? How often did the minister meet with the Ontario Pharmacists' Association?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I want to welcome the member for Cochrane South back to the House. I appreciate that he is visibly shaken by the fact that I am talking with a number of people continuously. I have spoken with the OPA and its district representatives. I have talked to individual pharmacists and independent pharmacists. I have spoken to all those people.

Ever since we have been in a position to look at drafting legislation, I have indicated to those people that there would be an opportunity to review this legislation in front of a legislative committee, as is usually the procedure in this House. Even though those people

Mr. Bennett: After we made a decision for him.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) was blocked when he tried to put it through.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: That is right. He did not have the guts to put it through.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The then Premier blocked him, did he not?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The minister made a mistake in his answer. He did not discuss draft legislation with the OPA.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

COURT RULING

Ms. Fish: I have a question for the Attorney General. The Attorney General will be aware, as are all members of this House, of the recent court ruling which is so damaging to rape victims in that the ban that had been in place dealing with the previous history of the plaintiff has been determined to be unconstitutional.

Given the critical importance of that ban in affording an opportunity for women to come forward properly when they have been victims of violent criminal assault, which rape is, will the Attorney General indicate to this House that he will appeal that decision?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am grateful for the question. We are familiar with the two cases the honourable member has referred to and the recent decision of Mr. Justice Galligan of the Supreme Court of Ontario which permitted the evidence to which she refers to be used in the case and remitted the case back to be heard on that basis.

The member probably knows there is a division of judicial opinion in Canada about that issue. Two provincial Courts of Appeal have supported the position taken by Mr. Justice Galligan and two have taken the contrary view. We are currently reviewing the decision. I anticipate there will be an appeal. A decision will be taken within the next few days, and I will be glad to advise the House and the member.

Ms. Fish: Until the Attorney General determines what I hope will be a positive decision to appeal, will he advise this House what steps he is taking to ensure that women who are victims of such violent sexual assault will come forward and continue to report these devastating crimes against them and feel confident that they can do so with a full measure of protection from our system of justice rather than being under attack for reporting those very crimes?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member's supplementary question asks us in effect to see what can be done to encourage people to come forward when they are victimized by these crimes and I presume to give evidence in court in support of the crown case.

The practical dilemma is that until the decision is reversed on appeal there is not much we can do to alter the transcript of the process. We cannot amend the Evidence Act to exclude this kind of evidence, and pending a successful appeal it will be open to defence counsel to engage in the kind of questioning that Mr. Justice Galligan contemplated and ruled on.

What we will do in the ministry, however, is give every assistance and assurance to complainants and witnesses in these cases and give them whatever physical and moral assistance we can in their coming forward and giving evidence in court. It will be difficult to go much further than that until the decision is reversed on appeal.

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Attorney General regarding Allied Heat Treat Ltd., the company I held a press conference about on November 8. Prior to the worker who attended that press conference with me even getting home, the owner of the company attempted to contact him and continued to do so throughout the weekend. On Tuesday of the following week, the company finally got hold of the worker.

Would the minister agree that the following statement constitutes a threat against Mr. Atcha? "We are getting the story here and he is not going to get away with it. In fact, if he ever plans to work in a heat treat anywhere, they might want a reference. He hasn't much chance of getting it. He has screwed his career as far as we're concerned." Does the minister consider that a threat and will he conduct an investigation, starting with a tape recording I have in my office that Mr. Atcha made when this company phoned him?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member was good enough to speak to me about this matter the other day. I indicated to him, and I now confirm, that if he will drop me a line confirming the details of the conversation, I will be delighted to investigate it. It is not as easy as it might be in ordinary cases to determine whether a criminal offence has been committed, because a criminal offence would be committed only if the threat made was a threat of criminal proceedings as opposed to a threat of civil proceedings. However, I will be glad to review the tape recording and any other material the member has to see what steps, if any, should be taken.

Mr. Martel: Since the lawyer for the company called me at my office with some veiled threats about action it might take against me, and since it threatened other action to obtain the file I have concerning the company and the workers who came to see me -- I refused to give it that information -- can the Attorney General tell us what type of legislation he and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) can introduce to prevent this type of intimidation of workers who are trying to protect their health and the health of fellow employees in the work place in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Apart from the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, about which the Minister of Labour will have to answer, I can tell the member that the Criminal Code provides certain remedies that I have already agreed to investigate in relation to the information my friend has provided.

The rules and privileges of this House, as we have seen as recently as today, provide another remedy if the member himself feels his privileges have been attacked. I get the sense that it would be a courageous employer who would advance on the member with any threat. However, confronted by that challenge, if he wants help from the likes of me, I will be glad to provide it to him.

Mr. Gillies: I have to agree with the Attorney General. Woe betide the employer who caught the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) in the wrong mood.

This is the second instance we have heard today where the right of working people to approach their member of the Legislature, worker advisers, the police or other people who are there to help them has been thrown under a cloud because of the actions of what would appear to be some rather irresponsible people.

Will the Attorney General and the Minister of Labour consider not only the action suggested by the member for Sudbury East but also communicating to both the employers and the union locals of the province the sanctions and rules already in place that protect the right of working people to approach people for assistance?

Hon. Mr. Scott: In so far as the privileges of a member are concerned, it will have to be left to all members who are approached by anybody in a way that offends their privileges to bring that matter directly to the attention of the House, as has been done today by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) and the member for Sudbury East.

However, if one is concerned, as the honourable member obviously is, about the rights of an employee who may be importuned by his employer or some other person, the fact is that there are a variety of remedies that may be open to him depending on the precise circumstances. If a threat of criminal proceedings is made against the employee, it may be that a criminal information can be laid. If certain things are said under the Labour Relations Act, there will be another kind of remedy.

It seems to me it would not be useful to try to catalogue the lengthy list of events that might give rise to some civil or criminal charge. Rather, at the relevant time it would be appropriate to tell working people out in the community that if they are dealt with in this fashion, they should immediately see their union representative or their lawyer and get the best advice they can to advance their rights.

3:20 p.m.

RED MEAT PLAN

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I would like to address some of the rhetoric he has put in some of his latest statements about his degree of input into tripartite stabilization, but I will refrain from doing that.

Will there be payments to cow-calf operators or any other beef producers, such as backgrounders or stocker producers, in 1985? Will there be payments to cover 100 per cent of the hogs produced in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Perhaps the member for Durham-York could help me to ascertain whether that question came from the chief agricultural critic of the Tory party, or did it come from one of the subordinate critics? I am flattered to have five agricultural critics. The leader should not underestimate his own colleagues. He should have more confidence in his people over there. However, to answer the question, no, the cow-calf operations will not come under the tripartite program for 1985.

Mr. Wiseman: Why?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Because we have just established the framework to get a cow-calf program going and for backgrounder cattle for next year; so no. One hundred per cent of the hogs will not be covered. The reason is that the federal Minister of Agriculture is concerned that if we were to cover the export hogs we would be subject to more countervail action than we already have.

However, the way the program is going to work in both the second and third quarters perhaps a fourth quarter depending on where the price goes -- is that the farmers are going to receive probably over 90 per cent of the last five-year current market price, which would be consistent with the existing national stabilization program. They still are going to get an excellent payout, despite the fact it will not cover all the hogs that are marketed.

Mr. Stevenson: I would very briefly comment that rural affairs involve a lot more than agriculture. Will future programs of beef marketing and swine development, and future developments of funding the red meat industry in particular, be affected by signing this? A number of producer groups are afraid the minister has signed this agreement handcuffed and blindfolded.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The agreement has not been signed handcuffed and blindfolded by any stretch of the imagination. We have paved the way for a stabilized program in this country, one we have been lacking for some time. We feel that by signing this agreement it will be an enticement for other provinces -- the prairie provinces and the Atlantic provinces -- to sign. We expect that will likely happen before the end of this year.

With the exception of Quebec and British Columbia, we are hopeful most of the provinces will be enrolled in tripartite. In that case, we shall have put the farmers right across the country on a level playing ground and stopped all the toploading that has been going on over the past number of years, something members opposite apparently were not able to correct for the number of years they were in government.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Partington: I have tabled with the Clerk petitions from 1,026 separate school ratepayers in the riding of Brock in support of Bill 30.

Mr. Ward: I have a petition containing several hundred names, which was forwarded to me by Annunciation of our Lord Church in Hamilton. It reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario regarding the legislation of the separate school system as follows:

"1. That full financial support be given to the school system; and

"2. That the separate school boards be permitted to maintain full control over the discipline and living out of the special Catholic religious character of the school system."

Mr. McGuigan: I have a petition signed by 159 respondents in favour of Bill 30.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that Mr. Pollock and Mr. Davis exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business and, notwithstanding standing order 64(h), that the requirement for notice with respect to ballot item 11 standing in the name of Mr. Davis be waived.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved, seconded by Mr. Polsinelli, first reading of Bill 65, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Van Horne, first reading of Bill 66, An Act to amend the Business Corporations Act, 1982. Motion agreed to.

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased to introduce the first reading of the Business Corporations Amendment Act, 1985. The purpose of this legislation is twofold. First, it clarifies the intent of the existing act through addition and elaboration. Second, it corrects certain anomalies that have resulted in some cases from different interpretations of the wording of the act.

In essence, this bill produces minor housekeeping changes to more than 20 sections of the existing act. Other changes of a more important nature will have an impact on the securities industry, and still others on the business community. Proposed amendments will permit securities dealers in Ontario to control the ownership of their publicly traded shares to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with the rules on ownership set down by the Ontario Securities Commission and the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Other amendments will permit clearing agencies to record transfers and pledges of securities, including those issued by governments or their agencies, by means of computer entries as an alternative to issuing and using securities certificates.

Under the bill brought before the House today, corporations will no longer be required to pay a $55 fee to register their changes of address. The bill will permit a corporation to change the address of its registered office by special resolution, free of charge, rather than by articles of amendment.

These are only the highlights of the Business Corporations Amendment Act. I urge all members of the House to endorse it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WELLINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved second reading of Bill 63, An Act respecting the Wellington County Board of Education and Teachers Dispute.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I do not have a lengthy opening statement on second reading, simply because I indicated the position of the government in this matter with the introduction of the bill yesterday. Of course, I am most anxious to hear from my learned colleagues across the aisle, and I would simply be anxious to have the benefit of their wisdom on this matter, about which I know there is general concern. I will make some summary comments at the end of the second reading debate.

Mr. Davis: I would certainly like to concur with the direction of the government in recommending that the teachers go back to their classrooms for the welfare of students in this province, especially the students in Wellington county. It is of interest to note that, since the first part of November, members of this party and myself have been very concerned about the welfare of those students. We have constantly asked the minister to intervene; we have asked the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to intervene; and we have asked the Education Relations Commission to hold jeopardy hearings.

Some time on Friday, the commission indicated to the minister that the students in Wellington county were in jeopardy. One could wonder why that recommendation did not come forth a little sooner, understanding that there are very few criteria to decide when a student's welfare is in jeopardy.

We take some exception to the total suggestion of the government party in its recommendation that the mediator's findings should be the agreement. When both parties had finished the mediation, they rejected the mediator's report for a variety of reasons, I have been told. We believe in its present form it is poor legislation, poor labour relations, and that it ignores the essential differences that exist among mediation, factfinding and arbitration.

I would point out to my learned colleague that there is an essential difference. The role of mediation is to effect a settlement without regard to reasonableness. The role of fact-finding, under the provisions of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, is to determine the facts of the dispute and make recommendations for a reasonable settlement. The role of arbitration is to make a settlement based on facts, rationale and reason. By ignoring sound labour relations, the previous fact-finder's reports and the arbitration process, the proposed legislation will be imposing an unreasonable settlement on the parties.

One of our greatest fears is that in this process we will undermine and destroy the whole concept of mediation across this province. As I have been led to believe, as my great-great-grandfather once told me, the individual parties go to a mediator and in that process share their total expectations very openly with the mediator. That is confidential.

In the government's proposed legislation, what now can happen is that parties will no longer be that open. They will be very reserved and will protect the issues they wish to put on the table for discussion. In effect, what happens is we destroy the credibility of mediation, not only in the labour disputes we find in the teachers' collective agreement but also in all labour negotiations across this province.

Second, a concern we have is that we will be setting a precedent, that we will be able to look back and say: "The strike in Wellington was settled this way; therefore, mediation now will become the be-all and end-all of settlements." We eliminate the public interest in those debates, in those concerns. As I understand Bill 100 in my limited knowledge of it, the process that should be followed when the teachers are ordered back to work is that they should move to binding arbitration with an opportunity for both parties to discuss the unresolved issues and to discuss why they believe their position is valid and should be included in the new agreement.

Anything less than that type of discussion and opportunity for the groups affected also destroys public opportunities and interests, and deals are made in secrecy. It seems to me the process Bill 100 outlines should now be enacted. If the government feels it is not a correct process to follow, it could move to a review of the totality of Bill 100. The government's suggestion is short-sighted and insensitive to all people who have concerns with respect to the process of negotiations.

I emphasize again it is the position of my party that we first and foremost have the interest of students as the basis of our concerns. We believed they were in jeopardy well over a month ago. There is nothing in Bill 100 that affords a board, a student, parents and even teachers input whereby they can say, "The students' educational year now is threatened and in jeopardy."

It is all very well to sit and say students are resilient, can adjust and cope. As to whether there is research that shows the students affected still continue on to university and become achievers, if I am correct in my understanding one needs to point out to my learned and concerned colleagues in this House that 70 per cent of students in this province do not go on to universities and colleges; 70 per cent of students move into the work force.

3:40 p.m.

In effect, as the student who now is struggling to achieve passing grades moves through his educational years, he will probably continue to struggle. Those students are now at risk. The ground rules are laid for that individual student who in grade 9 takes the basis of geometry and does not pick that subject matter up again until grade 12. That student is at risk, especially if he is a student who experiences difficulty in the process of learning.

I would like to come back to the suggestion of the government that the mediator's proposal should be the agreement. That suggestion moves away from the whole issue of fairness and justice for both parties. There needs to be an opportunity for those groups and their representatives to articulate their case and their concerns before an impartial arbitrator who then makes a ruling, taking into account the concerns they have all expressed to him.

I have deep concern that this precedent could affect other areas of labour negotiations in this province. There is nothing I am aware of that prevents a government in power to order individuals or groups of people back to work. It would be a sham for those numbers of individuals in this House, within the labour movement and within the teacher groups, those people who have struggled over the centuries to develop what they believe are fair and just negotiated processes, to have those processes removed very quickly on an arbitrary decision of this government to effect a settlement. The effect of that settlement is to ignore the concerns of both groups who have already turned down the mediator's recommendation.

The government is again showing and indicating its insensitivity to people and the citizens of this province.

As one goes through the normal process, the government by this kind of mandate is being unsympathetic to the parties involved. I want to tell members the stories about those communities. One of the things we forget is that teacher strikes across the province do not affect only the teachers. It is a very difficult thing for a teacher to become a person who withdraws his or her service to students. Teachers are professionals. Teachers have a great deal of compassion and care for the young people they work with.

Teachers in this province have gone out of their way, in situations where there have been impasses, to continue to deliver extracurricular activities. They have continued to afford young students opportunities of learning. Before teachers move to withdraw their services, they seriously consider the impact that is going to have upon them as individuals, upon their total profession and upon their relationships within the community in which they live.

Teachers and communities are affected by strikes. What happens is that communities draw lines. I am not for one minute suggesting that we ever take away the right of teachers to strike. That is an important right they have under the whole process of collective bargaining. It would be wrong to ever suggest that such is the position of the Progressive Conservative Party or my position. In years gone by it may have been my position. All I am saying is that when teachers withdraw their services there is hurt within a community; parents against teachers, families against families, students upset.

It is interesting to note there are a number of admissions in the local hospitals in Wellington county that doctors are describing as a syndrome caused by students not being in school and trying to adjust to a kind of vacuum they are in, with deep concerns and fears about the future of their education, especially those in grades 12 and 13 who will be moving on to community colleges and universities.

It is all well and good for the government to suggest that we are going to speak to the universities and the colleges to incorporate these youngsters into their system. When a student is on a semestered program and loses more than half his school year, he will experience difficulty as he progresses in his education.

Students are affected by strikes. Their relationships with teachers are rent asunder. There is a trust relationship that is threatened. It is incumbent upon this Legislature to ensure, as we continue to examine, review and look at Bill 100 and look at the strikes that occur across this province, always to bear in mind that we have indeed a very heavy responsibility for the welfare of the young people of this province. We also have a deep compassion and concern for the rights of teachers and school boards and the process of negotiations.

I want to point out again as strongly as I can that we support the proposed legislation of the present government to order the teachers back into the classrooms, and we do so because of the well-being of students. But we have grave concern over the continuation of that legislation, in which it recommends that the mediator's proposal become the agreement.

For the first time in history, I believe -- I could be wrong and I stand to be corrected -- a government in this province is not only legislating teachers or a group who are on strike back to work, be they teachers or any other body; it is also legislating the agreement. That has never happened before.

That is a bad precedent for this government to establish; a government, I would like to remind my honoured colleagues, that has advocated a sense of openness, justice and fairness as the foundation stone of this new government. I dare say the openness, the justice and the fairness are certainly in question when one moves away from the traditional model of negotiation and enforces an agreement that, in the middle of the month, neither party wanted.

I would like to indicate that we will be moving an amendment. In that amendment we will support the immediate return of teachers to the classroom. We are prepared to sit here all day and all night to debate the bill to get it through for the well-being of students in the province. Our amendment will be that those items to which both parties have agreed will immediately come into effect as part of the collective agreement that will be forthcoming, and those issues that have not been agreed to -- and I am not aware of them all; I am aware of a few of them, such as salaries and staffing -- will then be submitted immediately to binding arbitration. We will ask the Education Relations Commission, through the minister, to appoint an arbitrator as soon as possible and we will follow the process outlined in Bill 100.

We believe this is the fairest and the most just way to go. We believe that in the process of labour negotiation across this province it is the correct way to go. When this motion moves to committee of the whole House, we will make other remarks with respect to this issue.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Allen: I rise to address the bill before us, An Act respecting the Wellington County Board of Education and Teachers Dispute, that the minister laid before the House yesterday. We are proceeding with second reading today, which presumably is a discussion in principle of the bill.

I want to say at the outset that I am rising to speak against the legislation both because it legislates a return to work, which we find is inimical to the whole process of free collective bargaining, and because it legislates the terms of reference of a contract.

This strike we are addressing today is obviously a troubling one. It has troubled all members of this House. The contract negotiations began 21 months ago. Throughout that period there have been numerous opportunities for both sides to resolve the dispute. I am sure all of us wish they had taken any one of those opportunities to find the common ground that is there and to resolve their differences in a way that would not have led us to this point.

The 582 teachers who are involved in this strike -- and I hate to use the term that is sometimes used, "teachers' strike." I prefer to use the phrase "a dispute in the education sector" or some such phrase. We all know when it comes to such an event as a strike, it is not fair to lay the burden of that event upon one party to a dispute. It is precisely because that burden has been laid historically on one party to a dispute, not only in the education sector but also in other economic sectors, that the workers in trade unions who take this course are the ones who usually come in for the heaviest flak and publicity. They are the ones whose names constantly recur with reference to the dispute, thus prejudicing the whole issue in the public mind. I do not want to use that language; rather I want to talk about a labour dispute in the education sector whenever I speak of a dispute of this kind.

The 582 teachers clearly are a body of professionals who have functioned in most cases year in and year out in the classroom in ways that have been broadly approved and appreciated by their community. One would find very few people in Wellington county who might dispute that fact. Nor would one find many of the students who now find themselves suffering under this dispute holding the view that the teachers had in any way served them badly over the years.

It is the more regrettable and tragic that we have come to a time like this in the course of a difficult and protracted period of negotiation when, while there are undoubtedly faults on both sides, there has been a remarkably intractable board at work which I believe has felt the judgement in the recent election that took place in that county.

I do not want to minimize in any respect the tragedy of the situation that overtakes a community when a strike of this nature occurs. When we begin to get polarization, such as the kind of upset in families the honourable member just referred to, that leads to symptoms that are more than just passing notes of distress. In a family situation, they quite possibly have a reflection on one's health itself, usually being laid upon the other burdens of life most of us carry in one way or another. Every dispute, every issue and every controversy that arises close to one's family exaggerates those symptoms.

The human dimension of a strike is very present to us all and certainly no less to those of us in this party. When we debated this issue in the guise of an emergency debate, I referred to the fact that there had been a relatively protracted dispute recently in my own community of Hamilton.

In that dispute, I know how upset families that I know well were over an event that had not nearly the proportions of this one, as it was substantially broken up by the summer holiday period. In the midst of that dispute, I found it was possible to speak with the parties in question quietly and insistently, to make arguments and points and in some respect to affect the course of the dispute, as on one occasion my colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) and I did.

I was upset to learn that the member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro), who unfortunately is not in the chamber at the moment, has for many weeks been referring to the likelihood that his government would soon be intervening in the dispute to bring it to an end. That is the worst course of action any of us in this chamber can take in these circumstances.

It communicates to the parties in dispute that they can relax their efforts somewhat, that they can hold out a little longer against this or that point in the bargaining process, that they can delay, and that at the end of the day they will find the government will come to their rescue and they will be forced into a compulsory arbitration situation that has all sorts of downsides to it. I will come back to that later.

When a member constantly makes the point in his own community when a strike is happening that intervention will happen, he inevitably delays the dispute and brings on that intervention almost as a foregone conclusion, unfortunate though that intervention is in all our minds.

The Bill 100 process has been followed meticulously. One of the good things about disputes in the education sector is that there is such a well worked out procedure in the legislation and that the legislation allows for several points at which the parties may break out of any locked-in position in which they may have found themselves.

It provides for fact-finding and for mediation, and mediation has been going on in this case ever since last May. It provides for the ongoing monitoring of the dispute by the Education Relations Commission so a third party may bring its judgement as to whether students are in jeopardy. As of last Friday, that determination was made. The legislation does not require that the ERC make that judgement in any particular form or format. It does not require hearings or submissions. It can make that judgement on its own. Of course, it frequently does receive submissions and it can hold hearings.

4 p.m.

In this case, it received submissions to that effect, not only days but also weeks ago. Among them, in the course of time, was the board's. At that point, the commission decided the students' careers were not in jeopardy. On Friday, it so judged, and it did so appropriately. In my estimation, they are probably right. In arguing the case with respect to this bill, I do not think anyone in this party would want to seriously deny that point.

It is obvious that a strike such as this has a much more severe impact on students who are in a semestered program than on those who are in a year-long program, which provides more flexibility for making up the work and the time that has been lost. These students are in a semestered program and, therefore, they are substantially vulnerable. None of us is concerned to argue it otherwise.

There are many people who are telling us that, given the circumstances of Wellington county and given this strike, we need to have substantial changes to the legislation under which disputes in the education sector are governed. I want to comment in that regard, because under Bill 100 the record of disputes in the education sector has been remarkably good in the years since the bill came into existence when contrasted with prior years.

For example, in the three years prior to the passage of Bill 100, there were 28 disputes; in the four years immediately following, there were 18. In total, in all the years that have passed, there have been hardly more strikes since the passage of that legislation than there were in the three or four years preceding.

The lengths of the disputes have been on average 21 to 23 days; they have not been prolonged events during those years. Only the occasional strike has gone the length of the Sudbury strike, for example, which went to 56 days, and this one, which now ties for the second-place record with another strike at 51 days.

We would be ill advised to use this occasion to attempt to substantially modify the processes laid down under Bill 100. When such proposals were made in the period 1979-80, a commission was established, headed by Mr. Matthews. He and his group concluded that Bill 100 has substantially "improved the collective bargaining process and reduced the level of conflict between teachers and boards." That would be the judgement of most of us with respect to disputes in the education sector.

We should reject those counsels at this point and look rather to doing what we can in local communities, through our professional organizations and trustees' organizations, to see that the postures and positions we adopt are conducive to dispute resolution.

We in this Legislature, including the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway), need to look as well at the issues that hang around most of these disputes, which are fundamentally financial and fiscal in nature.

One of the problems we have had in the education sector is the impact of restraint legislation, for example, upon the collective bargaining procedures in the educational community as elsewhere in the public sector. Some of the disputes we have at the moment arise out of that and the constraints that were laid down in the course of the restraint legislation, Bill 179, and later Bill 111.

Clearly, funding levels are critically important to the whole question of dispute resolution. We cannot expect boards that have teachers who are moving up on salary grids and boards that are trying to meet nonsalary costs whose indexes are higher than the cost-of-living index to be put in the position where they are constantly struggling with above-inflation demands and trying to meet them from below-inflation funding.

That has been the record in recent years, and that continues to be the record as of the last budget we have seen in this House. Notwithstanding the 5.4 per cent, which has some accommodations in it, when we look at it carefully it does not reach beyond the inflation level in all critical particulars.

With those words in mind and those circumstances that we all need to ponder and reflect upon as we address this situation, with respect to the bill itself and what it intends to accomplish, this party will be happy to see teachers back at work in the classrooms tomorrow morning; this party will be happy to see students back at their desks learning and making up for lost time.

This party would not be unhappy with the solution that has been proposed by the mediator. I have looked at the document and gone through it as carefully as I could in the short time I have had it in my hands. It seems to me to be an intelligent, sensible and balanced position, one that lies between the two positions. Sometimes it looks ahead to a further study of an issue or two to resolve them better the next time round, but on the whole it is a good solution.

I am not opposed to the teachers being back tomorrow morning, I am not opposed to the students being back tomorrow morning and I am not opposed to the precise resolution of the dispute that Mr. Bernstein offered a week and a half ago, which was in significant measure somewhere within the ball park of the teachers' objectives but which, being repudiated by the board, was then repudiated by them. While accepting that as a basis of solution, I stand to oppose the bill.

It appears to me and to our party that in the midst of these debates it is critical that somebody stands up and gives voice to the central importance of the free collective bargaining process and gives voice to the many workers who in the course of time, disadvantaged as they are so frequently in the collective bargaining process, have found themselves legislated back to work and in the end disadvantaged in the process.

4:10 p.m.

While we are debating this bill in principle, I want to register my objection to it on the ground of principle. The principle is one that lies at the basis of a free and democratic society. If there is one essential that is necessary in our society to the maintenance of all the rights of association and freedom of expression, it is the freedom that lies around the whole process of bargaining for one's wage, bargaining for the support that maintains one's life, bargaining for those conditions and relationships that will pertain in the work place where most of spend most of our waking hours.

It is those freedoms we must stand by and we must guard and treasure as long as we have breath. That is why this party has so insistently taken the stand it has with respect to legislation, whenever it has come before this House, that would force workers back to work against their will or even, in the course of a recent case, force them back to work before they even leave their jobs to strike.

Therefore, I want to conclude my remarks simply by underlining the principle which I think is so important in the background of this dispute and which we want to emphasize as strongly as we can.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to speak in support of Bill 63 and the amendments proposed by my colleague the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis).

I support the concept that we, as legislators, are doing something finally to bring about a long-overdue solution to this strike. I am relieved it will soon be over. I personally want it to be finalized tonight and the students back in the classrooms on Thursday of this week.

I am bit concerned about the comments of the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen). He spoke very eloquently in favour of the collective bargaining process. We have many people who could stand in support of the teachers and boards and their rights, but very few expressed much concern about the future of our young people.

We talk about the principle on which the teachers and board have stood for 52 days and could not resolve their issues. They both felt they had very strong positions to uphold. I wonder who would stand on the principle of guaranteeing the students of this province a right to an education. I think that is a responsibility we have, as members of this Legislature.

I would like to make reference to Hansard of November 22. I was a bit concerned about the comments of the Premier in reply to a question from the member for Wellington South. The member is quoted as saying, "We are going to do nothing but continue with the charade going on with the ERC." I compliment him on the remarks because I share the same concerns. I hope I can say I shared them.

However, the Premier in response -- I will just take one section -- says, "We could spend the entire time of this Legislature solving labour management problems or we can leave the decisions where they correctly belong." I am concerned with that comment. This is not a matter that can be settled at the local level; it is something that is a responsibility of this Legislature.

The Premier went on in that comment to say, "It is a local situation and it is a local responsibility, not ours." I feel it is this Legislature's responsibility. When the two sides in this dispute, the teachers and their board, cannot come to an agreement, then surely it is the responsibility of the Minister of Education and the Premier to become involved before the students lose their year.

The question always implies: "At what time do they lose a year? When is it in jeopardy?" I do not think anyone has the ability to say it is a certain number of days, because in every instance it depends on the individual students and how they can accept a loss of any amount of time.

I feel it is fully irresponsible for us to allow a strike to go on to the point that it is in the 52nd, 53rd or 54th day before it is resolved, especially in a semester system that affects 4,200 students, and not say it has jeopardized the education of a large number of them.

I personally have talked to many students who have told me they are not going back to school; they are disillusioned with the whole process; they are quitting school and many of them will never return. We have failed those students, and we have a responsibility in this House not to allow it to happen, but we do.

A few days ago, the member for Wellington South very eloquently expressed the deep sense of loss and despair in his community, and the same prevails throughout my section of Wellington north; it has torn the community apart. Many teachers tell me their friends no longer speak to them; they have relatives who are deeply concerned about the issues.

Small communities feel this more than cities. All our communities, such as Mount Forest, Fergus, Palmerston and Erin, are suffering this social breakdown as well as the loss to the students. It is an extremely emotional issue. It is unfortunate it has to happen. We have a responsibility to try to make changes.

I am pleased the minister has brought this legislation forward, even at this late date. If I were not such an nonpolitical person, I would take credit for the emergency debate last week forcing him into this situation. Setting politics aside, together we should be able to solve this problem, hopefully tonight -- in fact, not hopefully; I hope we do not leave this place without a settlement unless the board and the teachers have the good sense to settle it themselves.

I would like to read a press release dated and sent out October 17. I will refer to it later, so I would like to read it into the record.

"In the face of the continuing teachers' strike in his riding, Jack Johnson, MPP for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, today called the Education minister to establish an all-party committee to review Bill 100. Ten years have passed since Bill 100 was introduced and it is high time for a review of the effect it is having on the students' rights to education in this province. The teachers' strike in Wellington county has dragged on for months, and for the sake of our young people it must be resolved and a recurrence prevented.

"I recognize Bill 100 gives teachers the right to strike, but the Education Act of this province guarantees students the right to an education. These young people, who have been taught to believe in our school system and the critical role it plays in their career aspirations, are now being used as pawns in a costly game of chess. I have to wonder if students' rights, as guaranteed under the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are not perhaps being violated. It is my conviction that responsible time frames should be established to ensure good-faith bargaining on both sides in this type of dispute. Students should not have to pay for the inability of adults to reach a mutually agreeable settlement."

When we talk about the collective bargaining process, I have a great deal of difficulty relating a teachers' strike to the collective bargaining process which prevails in the labour market. I can understand workers striking, if they are making washing machines or cars or something of this nature; it is a matter between labour and management. If they stay out too long, they suffer. The workers stand the chance of losing their jobs. The company stands a chance of going out of business. That is fair. I do not mind that. Each side has an opportunity to make its decision.

4:20 p.m.

It bothers me when we bring in the third party. In the teachers' strike, the teachers are guaranteed their jobs, no matter how long the strike goes on, and there is no loss of income -- sorry; there is a loss of income but there is no loss of a job. The board members pay a very small price. In this last instance, some of them suffered a defeat at the polls. They paid that price. Ordinarily, neither the teachers nor the board pay the same price as they would in another type of labour negotiation. In this instance, instead of washing machines, televisions and cars, kids are involved, students. They are the ones who are paying the price, and every strike is heading into that class which does not have the means to protect itself. To me, that is totally unfair.

I have just one other comment to make, and it is just to emphasize the deep despair the people in my riding have experienced in the past 52 days. It is an extremely unfortunate price we have to pay for a system that could indeed be changed in some way so as not to put these people through the terrible agony they have had. It is the 11th week, nearly three months since the schools were closed, and it is extremely unfortunate. In my home town of Mount Forest a year ago, we fought the problem of a school closure, and within a year we have schools closed because of a strike. It seems an impossible situation.

I have one last shot to the minister. On behalf of my constituents, especially the young people of Wellington, I demand that he give consideration to reviewing Bill 100 and the Matthews report in the hope of making amendments that will better protect the rights of the students of this province.

Mr. Grande: I am happy to participate in this debate on Bill 63, An Act respecting the Wellington County Board of Education and Teachers Dispute. I am happy because I can be here to speak, but I am very sad at the fact that this debate is going on.

I am sad in the sense that we in this province have to legislate teachers or workers back to work. I want to say at the outset that I and this party, as the Education critic has said, will be voting against this legislation because we firmly believe that back-to-work legislation is wrong. It is wrong because it does not take into account the two parties that are trying to effect a local contract and, I say to the member who just finished speaking, it is wrong because it does not take into account the educational process or the needs of those students about whom he is talking so much.

Let me tell him at the outset, before he or somebody else from his caucus gets up to speak on this, that this party is very deeply concerned about the students in the education system. This party and I, as a former Education critic for this party, fought tooth and nail with the previous government because of the way it treated, not only teachers but also students and parents in the education system during the past 10 years in this province.

This party does not need any lectures, with all respect to the member, whom I have known for several years and who I think is a very nice fellow. However, I must say that, with the kind of speech he just made two minutes ago, he is not doing any service whatsoever to the quality of education in this province, to the quality of education to which I am sure all members of this Legislature on all three sides are committed.

The final process of our education system is the delivery of education services to our children, to our youngsters and to our adults so they can then pick up the reins of this society and carry society on from where we will be leaving it.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: What has the member done for the 8,200 kids in Wellington?

Mr. Grande: I will come to that with respect to what we have done.

All the members of this Legislature speak with the sincerity and the commitment they have had to the educational system in this province for a very long time. I am not any different in that respect. When we talk about the concerns of students, the concerns for their courses, the quality of education and the concern that the possibility exists -- the Education Relations Commission has said the possibility is real -- that they will be losing their year and their courses, the members of this party are deeply concerned about that and deeply committed to ensuring that does not take place.

The back-to-work legislation, however, is wrong. I will say that to the members and I will say that to the minister when he comes into the Legislature. I am sure he is here. There he is. Back-to-work legislation is not right legislation for this province. It is not right because, in the words of the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), one breaks the trust that exists in the educational system among teachers, students and parents in our community. We have that holy trinity, to borrow a religious phrase. Unless it works well and works together, no education can continue and no proper education will exist.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: It does not work.

Mr. Grande: The member says it does not work. Let me remind him that it was his party in government that brought in Bill 100. It was his party in government that refused to do anything or bring in any legislation as a result of the Matthews commission report.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: That is why we are going to change it.

Mr. Grande: The member is going to change it now in opposition. When he had his chance, he did not do it. Now he wants to do it.

I do not intend to get into a cross-fire with my friends on the extreme right in Ontario. I am interested in saying something to the Minister of Education -- I am sure he is listening carefully to this -- and to the member for Wellington South, who I understand has been under intense pressure in the last little while by way of telephone calls and letters as a result of the dispute that has taken place in his particular riding. I can understand that.

There is one thing, however, which I do not understand or at least I do not appreciate very much, about a back-bench member of the government. While each one of us is free to talk about our opinions in our communities, the Minister of Education should have spoken to the member for Wellington South about appreciating the position of the government, which, as far as I am concerned, was enunciated correctly and fairly through the minister, that is, that we insist that a local settlement be effected no matter where the dispute may be in Ontario.

4:30 p.m.

I am not going to bring forth the other disputes the present Minister of Education and I have had in this province from the time we have been in this Legislature. We have gone through the Sudbury and the Leeds and Grenville disputes and other disputes. At any given time, even the former Minister of Education twice or three times removed, Tom Wells, was insistent that a collective bargain and a local settlement had to be reached. I applauded Tom Wells because I thought that was the correct course.

If we keep on bailing out the teachers and the boards by bringing in back-to-work legislation, the next time there is a dispute we will have to bail them out again. I am not talking in opposition to boards or teachers, but they have a concern and they should settle their own disputes. They should do it for the benefit of the students we are all concerned about and the educational programs of those students.

I hoped the minister might have communicated to the member for Wellington South long before this the position the government is going to take in regard to this dispute. Unfortunately, that member and other members from the other party began to stoke the fires of dissension, making a local collective bargaining contract almost impossible to attain.

As my leader once said to the Premier of this province, sometimes it is good to keep one's mouth shut about these things and to let the people deal with the matters before them in a free collective fashion, as opposed to having those people expect that somehow the mighty hand of the provincial government will come down and solve their problem.

After we are through with this bill, while the teachers will be back to work and the students will be back in the classroom, a little bit of the relationship I consider to be of utmost importance in the educational process will be lost. The minister knows it, I know it and I hope some of the members of the other party will begin to appreciate and understand it. As the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), who was Minister of Education before the present minister, was fond of saying, the quality of education is directly dependent upon the quality of the teaching profession. On that point I agree with her.

A teacher is central to that educational process. We can force teachers back to work, and obviously we will be forcing the teachers back to work, but we cannot force teachers to deliver good educational services in the classroom. We cannot do it by back-to-work legislation. We can do it by saying to them: "Get busy, develop a contract, settle this. It is your responsibility." The Minister of Education should give as much encouragement and the resources of his good offices as will make sure that a local situation is effected.

Mr. Runciman: No time limits.

Mr. Grande: My friends on the other side of the House can scream all they want. They will remain marginal henceforth to the politics of Ontario for a long time.

Mr. Runciman: The New Democrats are going to disappear. They are going off the edge.

Mr. Grande: While we all know the present legislation in the province that deals with collective bargaining and educational business in education is good legislation, it may need a little change here and there, but we do that every four or five years. We take a look and decide changes are required. None the less, that process works well.

It has worked ever since 1975 and it can continue to work, provided the goodwill of the' people in this parliament and every member elected will allow local situations to work themselves out without calling every day in this Legislature, either in question period or by going through their communities inciting people, for back-to-work legislation. This will not serve the purpose of students or parents and definitely not that of teachers. Hence, it will not serve the purpose of quality education in Ontario.

Mr. Haggerty: I want to address myself to Bill 63, An Act respecting the Wellington County Board of Education and Teachers Dispute. I have been listening with intent to the critic from the Conservative Party, the member for Scarborough Centre, and the one from the New Democratic Party, the member for Hamilton West.

It was rather difficult to follow. They both wanted the strike settled. They did not want binding arbitration. They wanted the students and teachers back in the classrooms. I do not know how else we are going to get them back in either of those areas after negotiating for some 21 months and almost three months out on strike. If that does not tell me there is an impasse in negotiations, then I do not know what is.

I had experience on a strike issue, looking at it from management's side and being a union representative, the chief steward. When there is an impasse, it is something both parties have to consider. I worked in one of the largest fabricating plants in Port Colborne. We built steamship vessels and did major marine repair work. That strike lasted about four or five months. We returned to work and, about four months down the road, the plant closed because of the strike. If we had had legislation such as today's that industry would still continue to operate and there probably would be 300 to 400 persons employed now.

When there is an impasse -- and I believe on three or four occasions we have had to deal with college teachers' strikes -- this Legislature has had to be called in to be the negotiator or the special body to resolve all the areas of dispute. I feel, as does the member who has just spoken, that often this Legislature is used for the purpose of resolving a long-standing strike issue. It should not be that way. If they cannot find a solution through the normal negotiation process, then government must respond.

Some may be critical of the member for Wellington South, who was saying the strike must be settled. When I was sitting on that side over there, or even on this one, when there was a teachers' strike in any of the communities in Ontario, members stood up asking the Minister of Education to do something, we cannot jeopardize the education system in Ontario.

The two critics who spoke talked about the teachers' rights. The teachers do have rights, but surely under the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms, students have rights too. They should have a right to an education system and their education needs for that school term. It should not be disrupted for a period of three months, 49 days or 55 days. I think it has been one of the longest ones. Surely those students have that right. Is it not a form of discrimination that they cannot continue in the educational system in Ontario? Should we not be looking to make some changes to Bill 100 so these events do not take place?

4:40 p.m.

All members receive letters from students or parents who are not happy with the educational system. When a student misses even two or three weeks of high school or secondary school, which could be caused through illness, it takes quite a bit of work to catch up. Three months or 49 teaching days is a long period for youngsters to catch up on. Many of them will not catch up on their educational needs. Some will call it quits.

Teachers have rights. Students should have rights. Do not parents have rights, too, under the new Charter of Rights, equality of rights before the law now and after?

After three months out of school, we never see school boards go back to the taxpayers, who pay the biggest shot, to say, "You are going to get a refund on your taxes this year because your children have been out of school for three months or 49 teaching days." Nobody talks about that. Should there not be reimbursement for tax money that should have been providing an education?

I have sat here and watched what has taken place over the years. I have a private member's bill, Bill 10, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act. The intent of the bill is in an amendment that would bring in a special arbitrator to try for 30 days to negotiate an agreement, saying, "This is the final stage or final offer."

It is tough for the minister to move in this area. My bill says, "The purpose of the bill is to provide a mechanism whereby the Lieutenant Governor in Council can order a 60-day suspension" -- this is a 30-day suspension -- "of a strike or lockout and order a return to work where a strike or lockout constitutes an immediate or serious danger to life, health or safety" -- we could put in "the educational requirements of our students" -- "or seriously disrupts the economy of the province or any area of the province."

It brings in a cooling-off period where a conciliation officer, the best one can find in the province, can sit down and get the parties to work.

If the government of the day, and I suggested this to the previous government, wants to be up to date on resolving labour disputes, this is the area we are going to have to take a look at because it gives the minister a little clout. It is not used very often. It is taken from US legislation. The federal government has never had to use it to date. However, it is there. This can be proclaimed at any time by the minister or the Lieutenant Governor. It is good. It has worked very effectively in the United States. It has been justified by some fair wage settlements. There are faults in Bill 100 and there have to be some improvements in that area.

One member talked about establishing a committee. I think it would be wise for this Legislature to have a select committee on education to continue to look at the public school system in Ontario because there are many problems that need to be resolved. The government is going to have to respond to some of those issues.

The public school system may well be destroyed unless we set up a committee to deal with the issues. There are concerned citizens and concerned parents in this province who want to see drastic changes made in the public school system in Ontario. We should not go about it by the strike method currently available through Bill 100. I do not like to remove the right to strike from anybody, but when an impasse occurs a third party has to step in and I regret it has to be the Ontario Legislature every time.

There are many who say: "We can take the hard line of bargaining in negotiating for a new settlement. We do not have to worry about it too much and we can prolong it for two years, three years, 21 months or whatever. We know there is a third party out there that is going to step into the picture and resolve it for us." The Legislature should not be used for that purpose.

I have to support the bill because I have more concern for the students than I do for the teachers or for the school board. We have a responsibility here in the Legislature to see that our children in Ontario can continue with a good education program that is not going to jeopardize their school term.

Mr. Jackson: I too would like to join the debate on this very important bill. I would like to compliment the minister, not on his timing but certainly on the intent of the bill before us.

Like all members of this House, I was not very surprised to hear the minister make that announcement on Monday, November 25, given the comments made by the new member for Wellington South the previous Friday.

I have watched with interest the development of our new Minister of Education in Ontario. He is a learned, veteran member, but he is a new and learning minister. I have had the pleasure of watching his performance as a member of the standing committee on social development and I have enjoyed his company in many centres around the province in Bill 30 hearings.

Those of us who had a very modest background in education cannot avoid an opportunity such as this to rate or even mark the minister with respect to his performance to date and, more important, his performance on this bill. Although some people would rate us from one to 10 or whatever, we in education tend to refer to a report card. I want to assure the Minister of Education that the A the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Nixon) lost two weeks ago has not found its way on to his report card, given his conduct with this bill. I will give an A to the member for Wellington South for his theatrical performance on Friday last, so his caucus is not completely without good marks in its performance on this bill.

In referring to this bill, I wish to talk about what has motivated the minister to come to this piece of legislation. This is very important, given that we will see why he has taken the unusual course of avoiding the track that Bill 100 clearly sets for him in going to binding arbitration. Instead, he has chosen to go the mediator's route.

I found very interesting his comments in this House that the commission delivered to him "an advisement" regarding this Wellington dispute. That puzzled me until I read further his comments in which he states very clearly, and he quotes the Education Relations Commission, "In summary, it is our opinion that the continuance of the strike with no reasonable prospect for a negotiated settlement will place in jeopardy the successful completion of courses of study for the students of Wellington county."

That puzzled me because I thought the minister had finally come to the conclusion, as I am sure his ministry staff had, that the students in Wellington county were indeed in jeopardy. Apparently, that was not his motivation in bringing this bill before us. One has to ask what that motivation was if it was not to save the academic year, especially for those students on semester. Was it a political response? Perhaps we will never know.

4:50 p.m.

He goes on to refer to this as a fair proposal, this being the mediator's proposal. That confuses this piece of legislation even more. Why would it be a fair proposal? Why, if the ERC appointed the fact-finder, would his findings not be considered a fair proposal? Who went through the selection process in deciding this legislation? What was to be fair? Was it the ERC-appointed fact-finder or was it, conveniently by his choice, the ERC-appointed mediator?

It has raised considerable confusion about the minister's approach to this very important and delicate piece of legislation. Clearly, he has not earned the A for which he so ardently strives.

Again he refers to the ERC, that this proposal "is close to what would have occurred in the way of a settlement had the parties negotiated their own agreement." That draws a very unusual conclusion as to the progress of negotiations. We asked him many times in this House whether he had talked to the parties to the dispute. Who was briefing him? How can he draw those conclusions?

He hastens to say he has not provided for compulsory arbitration as a method of dispute resolution. Why has he avoided this when Bill 100 clearly sets out this course? Is it because one of the parties to this dispute has been pleading for some weeks to go to a third-party arbitrator? Is it a political response that, in fairness to the students, in the fairness of an arm's-length settlement, he would avoid the option of arbitration?

This political problem seems to resurface with this piece of legislation. But the minister draws the conclusion that it would be "the best and fairest solution....It sends out a signal to other negotiators in this province that they should resolve their disputes through local negotiations and mediation." It sounds a lot like, "You had better do it right or we will step in and hand-pick which mediated settlement will have its impact in your jurisdiction." Not very arm's-length at all. I am concerned that this piece of legislation has ignored the provisions of Bill 111, the Public Sector Prices and Compensation Review Act, 1983, when I am led to believe that the settlement is in excess of five per cent in the first year. Why would the government propose legislation which flies in the face of other policy guidelines set down by this House? Why would it allow for the mediator's settlement to be greater than the stated guidelines? Is this not a contradiction?

I am very confused, as one of those who watches the minister. I have asked him why he makes many of the financial decisions he does on educational matters. I was intrigued that in the matter of the extension of separate school funding and the second-year plans for Bill 30, there was a tremendous amount of impact by the Minister of Revenue on that very important issue. There was an admission by the Commission for Planning and Implementing Change in the Governance and Administration of Secondary School Education in Ontario to that effect, and yet here we do not see any evidence of the Treasurer's very steady, conservative hand on the finances as they are applied to education in this province.

It seems to be another contradiction in the government's policy as set out in this legislation. Why is the government inconsistent on this point? I cannot see where they have earned even a B on the report card for this legislation.

One of the things that disturbs me is the extent to which this legislation would use the mediator's settlement, and it has a dramatic impact in Wellington county in the area of the gap between the elementary and secondary teachers' grids. It flies in the face of the historical trend in that jurisdiction to narrow that gap. To date, I would note that the Minister of Education refuses to make a clear and concise statement about the fact that the elementary teachers are paid considerably less, and I am led to believe that gap has gone from an average of $91 to more than $1,000 because of imposing the mediator's settlement instead of taking the arbitrator's route which is provided for in Bill 100.

Perhaps one of the things in this legislation which frightens me most has to do with the fact that it flies in the face of good, sound labour negotiation. It does not provide for an adequate cooling-off period for the implementation of the two-year agreement.

Like several members of this House, I have had considerable experience in free collective bargaining. I went through the very uncomfortable experience of a 22-month agreement. We were fortunate enough to settle for a three-year agreement after that. The reason we did and the reason the arbitrator imposed that upon us is very simply this: in Wellington county, the teachers will have to contact the school board trustees within five weeks of this settlement to begin negotiating their 1986-87 agreement, and it does not provide a two-year agreement. It does not provide for an adequate cooling-out period, which is required. The legislation is deficient by a year in this regard.

The minister is aware of situations in which the natural professionalism of the teachers and the natural tensions existing in the community need time to both melt and reconstruct. I hope the minister will re-examine that very important area. However, we have noticed that during question period they have great difficulty with cooling off.

The final point that concerns me about this legislation has to do with the fact that by choosing the route the government did and going to the mediator's option, it may have closed the door permanently to the option of arbitration and perhaps final-offer selection. I say that because the government will have set a standard publicly in this House that in its opinion the mediated settlement is a fair and equitable one. In not allowing a neutral third party, devoid of the very serious tensions which have occurred in the last two weeks since the mediator made that statement, it may have signalled all parties that the only option left now is mediation because an arbitrator would clearly be influenced by this government and the minister's public statement.

In summary, I compliment the government. The timing is a little late. Some points of the legislation are a little rash. However, the children of Wellington county will be well served by legislating the teachers back. I urge the minister to reconsider the point of the two-year agreement, given that tensions in that community have gone on too long, too far and too hard.

5 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: I want to speak briefly on the bill. I do so both for reasons of principle and for personal reasons. I have never voted for back-to-work legislation in this assembly, whether it affected teachers or elevator workers or transit workers, because I believe if we have established in legislation the right to full and free collective bargaining, we abrogate that principle at very grave risk.

The risks are twofold. One, we are abrogating the general principle the Legislature has passed. What we are saying when we bring in particular back-to-work legislation is, "Yes, you do have the right to full and free collective bargaining, except in these circumstances, except now." My problem is that far too often the exceptions we make because of so-called trying circumstances become so great as to abrogate the general principle.

For my sins, I was once the Education critic of this party for some six years, and I remember very vividly the 11 pieces of back-to-work legislation the former government brought in during the years immediately after Bill 100. It seems to me we were in very grave danger of weakening the principle of Bill 100 at that time.

What we have shown over the years is that the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act is basically a good piece of legislation; it has worked. There have not been nearly as many disputes since the bill as before the bill, and we have on many occasions used the bill to good effect.

My colleague the member for Hamilton West talked about the principle of freedom of association. I oppose the legislation not merely because it abrogates that principle of freedom of association and the freedom of free collective bargaining but also because we are relieving the local parties of responsibilities, and I do not believe that we should relieve them of responsibilities. There is a responsibility to negotiate in good faith; there is a responsibility to come to an agreement. If we in this province believe the best administrative unit for education is at the local level, then we interrupt or rupture that process by a bill such as this at a very grave level.

I do not think we should relieve the local board of its responsibility. The good people of Wellington county have taken steps to remedy that situation by replacing what is now a lame-duck board with a new board. It is unfortunate, I believe, that this legislation comes in at a time when there is a week's hiatus between a lame-duck board that frankly would not negotiate, and would certainly not negotiate after its defeat, and the assumption of that responsibility by the new board, which presumably would negotiate. We know that negotiations are going on today. We do not know the status of those negotiations.

Before concluding my remarks, I would like to say that I do very much understand the position and the situation in which the member for Wellington South and the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel find themselves and the paramount concern they have for the students in this situation.

Obviously, public service sector strikes and disputes are among the most difficult, and education disputes are among the most difficult of those public service disputes. However, we have to consider what our education system is and what it does in these circumstances. Are we saying our education system is so fragile that an interruption of 50 days in a 13-year period will irreparably damage that student?

I submit to members that should a student's educational process be interrupted for 50, 100 or even 200 days for reasons of illness, we would not say a student's educational career, opportunity or future was jeopardized. I draw that to the members' attention as a parallel because I believe our educational system is strong enough. I believe the resilience of our students all across this province and in the good county of Wellington is strong enough to withstand an interruption of their so-called formal education for a period such as the one they have experienced.

Although I will be delighted to see them back in the classroom, I am far more concerned that the quality of what they get in the classroom is a quality we hope and assume they are getting rather than merely time. Far too often in the past 10 to 12 years we have tried to quantify education; we have tried to say a certain number of hours, days, years and credits gives one an education. I submit that is simply not so. The quality of education is dependent upon the participation of the student and the teacher and the interaction that takes place between them at the opportunities in the time that they get the education.

I submit the students of Wellington county will bounce back from this dispute with flying colours in the future.

Mr. McKessock: I rise to support this legislation to put an end to the teachers' strike in Wellington county. I want to congratulate the minister for bringing this about.

I have received an enormous amount of mail and telephone calls from constituents asking for this to happen, as long as two months ago. What is happening today is certainly due. Besides letters, I have also received resolutions from school boards, township councils and town councils requesting not only that teachers be legislated back but also that changes be made to the legislation so situations such as this might not happen in the future.

I would like to read a couple of letters I have received that show the feelings of the people in the riding. This one is dated September 29, which is now approaching two months ago. It states:

"Dear Sir:

"Grey and Wellington high school teachers are on strike. Our children are victims in a stalemate between teachers and school boards. There are no signs of an early settlement and no scheduled talks. I urge you to start back-to-work legislation as soon as possible. I realize this legislation would be controversial and would interfere with the teachers' right to strike. However, right now my children's right to an education is being mutilated and if a choice has to be made between the two rights, the children's rights should be winning hands down."

Mr. Cousens: When was that dated?

Mr. McKessock: This was dated September 29, almost two months ago.

"The situation should have been foreseen by politicians when the teachers were given the right to strike. In the long term, I urge you to amend Bill 100 and remove the right to strike from teachers and replace it with compulsory arbitration in case a settlement cannot be reached by negotiation.

"There are numerous other groups of workers whose jobs are considered as essential by society and who do not have the right to strike. Surely our children and their education is the future of this province and this country and are as essential as any of these other groups. Compulsory arbitration by an independent arbitrator has worked for these groups and could work for teachers as well."

5:10 p.m.

Shortly after this strike began, I also had a delegation of students come to me from Norwell District Secondary School in Palmerston in Wellington county, which is part of my riding. The students were first off the mark to come to speak to me about the problems they were going to encounter with the strike. This is a presentation made to me by a group of students from Palmerston:

"We as people have rights. No person should be allowed to take another person's rights away. Since the bargaining between the teachers and the board came to a halt, our rights to an education have been temporarily terminated. Sure, we have been told we can go to other schools; yet some, after trying, have not been accepted, being as we are from a striking school. In the schools which will accept us, we will have problems with scheduling and the curriculum differences.

"After talking to several of the teachers, I have discovered they prefer not to go to binding arbitration voluntarily because they say it is a matter of principle, such as honesty and trust between them and the board. What about the honesty and trust between the teachers and students? The tension and anger which will most likely be present in the schools after the strike will make it harder for students to concentrate on their studies.

"There should be a back-to-work order given as soon as possible, not within 40 to 45 school days, which is approximately three months. No student can afford to lose three months of education. It is hard enough for some students to miss one day. Average and below-average students may not be able to make up for the lost time, or do they not count?

"To prevent any other unfortunate destructive steps, there should be compulsory binding arbitration. This way, there would be an agreement reached and any further strikes and lockouts would be prevented. In my opinion, the government should step in and order the teachers back to work, as school is an essential service."

That was from the students of Norwell District Secondary School in Palmerston.

One other letter states:

"I write as a concerned taxpayer and a parent of a grade 11 high school student.

"The Wellington county secondary school system is now down for its second week. It is my understanding the board has offered to have this dispute settled by binding arbitration and the teachers have refused. While not wanting to take sides due to lack of sufficient factual information being released by either group, I find it totally irresponsible, and perhaps even immoral, for teachers to walk away from the students for who knows how long.

"I believe the educational system should be classified essential and the teachers' right to strike taken away by legislation. Disputes such as these, which are so detrimental to the education of young people who will eventually run our country, must be settled by some kind of arbitration board. Strikes of this nature only serve to lower the quality of education in Ontario and disillusion our young people."

From the present legislation, there seems to be a lot of pressure put on both sides to settle. Of course, when a strike occurs, that pressure mounts. It does seem to be difficult to reach a conclusion. If the board suggests its final offer right at the start and fails to negotiate any further, it is accused of negotiating in bad faith. It has to be willing to dicker and deal, and this certainly goes on for a long time.

I feel that in good negotiations both sides have to be responsible. Generally, the employer would increase his offerings and the employees would lower their demands. In Grey county, something a little different happened: the board was increasing its offer, but the teachers were also increasing their demands.

When it gets down to the final negotiations, the employer has to be first. Sometimes we argue about what comes first, the chicken or the egg, but I have no trouble understanding that employers have to come first. I lost the support of a teacher or two when I had conversations over the phone with them and suggested that was the way it should be. However, if we in this country ever get to where we say employers do not come first, then we are in real trouble.

If no one gives in a dispute, then we find ourselves in the circumstances we are in today, and we have to legislate them back. Teachers are professionals; they are certainly respected in my riding and looked at as just that, professional people. During the strike, nothing was said to me against the teachers except that they were respected, but their demands were not.

I know the teachers are concerned about this legislation as to whether this strike will force some of them into layoffs. It is suggested that perhaps six per cent of the students will not return to Wellington county schools, and this could leave the board in a position to lay off more teachers. I am not sure whether the minister is thinking about whether the teachers are going to be given some consideration in this regard.

I want to close by saying that in a strike, nobody wins. Certainly the students are kept as hostages, and this is very unfair. There should be a way to settle these disputes so the students are kept out of the situation altogether. I am certainly pleased that, as of today, this strike is going to come to an end.

Mr. Cousens: I too take pleasure --

[Applause]

Mr. Cousens: -- in receiving such fine applause from my honourable friends.

The Minister of Education is not here to take part in or listen to the debate, I guess, and it is too bad he is not. Considering the support being given and the other things being said, it would be good if he were here. Mr. Speaker, would you like me to stand by? Is he coming back?

The Deputy Speaker: Will the member please carry on?

Mr. Cousens: It is such an important debate, and time is of the essence. I know we are all anxious to proceed with getting the young people of Wellington county back to school.

Before I launch into some remarks pertaining to the bill, I would like to say first of all how impressed I have been with our own member, the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, who has been so supportive of getting a solution to this problem from the very beginning. His remarks this afternoon epitomize my position.

The responsibility that we as members have to our constituents is manifested supremely well in the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel. I look upon him as one of the most respected people in our caucus and as one who has the best interests of all the people of Ontario at heart. Certainly, in searching for a solution to this problem and in his recommendations to the Minister of Education, I know his heart has been in the right place.

I also commend the member for Scarborough Centre. He is a new member to the House, but he is showing the kind of expertise and talent that is the strength of our party, and I am very proud to call him a friend.

When the Minister of Education stood up yesterday, there was a sigh of relief from all of us to know that suddenly something was happening, some concrete action was being taken to resolve this prolonged impasse that has existed in Wellington county.

When the minister rose and made his statement, he said a number of things. The fact that he is getting the students and teachers back to school is the number one issue. I laud and support that. I regret, however, the time it has taken him to reach this conclusion, and I regret the ingredients in the legislation he has before us in Bill 63.

5:20 p.m.

I lament what the Education Relations Commission has done. There was evidence long before last Friday, when they submitted their advisement, as they called it, to the minister. The chairman of the board, Mr. Nelson, communicated the jeopardy of the students he was concerned about on November 12, 1985, outlining some of the things which I regret to say the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) and other members may not be aware of. In the mind of the chairman of that board, these students were in jeopardy two weeks ago, but no action was taken by the minister.

Approximately 165 students, representing about six per cent of the total graduating-year students, have already deserted Wellington county schools and are receiving instruction elsewhere. While the fact that some of them are receiving instruction elsewhere is a good sign, there may be a number of others who have now left school and will not be back or whose careers in education may be thwarted,

This strike is a jeopardy to their lives. I believe what the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) said last week and what the member for Port Arthur is saying today, namely, that where one young person's future is jeopardized by virtue of not having the education, the foundation, the basis of building his or her life, there is a serious injustice. I cry for them.

I only hope that from this whole situation something can be brought back. Perhaps one of the last things the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education can do before it becomes University of Toronto is look at the long-term effects on the young people in Wellington county who have been hurt, some permanently, by the strike. I would be pleased to see that kind of evaluation done. Perhaps we can learn from it for the future and we will not see the same kinds of problems happen.

I am concerned about jeopardy. I am concerned that the ERC did not call the shot earlier, or perhaps the minister did not call the shot earlier. I wonder who begins with what. Why did the ERC not start off with some firm resolution to review what was going on in Wellington county? Were they looking? Were they aware? Were they informing the minister how bad it was? I question that. Out of this strike, possibly the minister could review what the ERC is all about. Are they doing the job the way they should be doing it?

I strongly believe that is an important process included within the original Bill 100 and included in the act for negotiation procedures. The ERC has a role to play, and I regret having to say I do not believe it has played its role well. It has played it badly, and the young people, teachers and other people involved in that dispute have suffered because of it.

If that is what it took for the minister to respond as of last Friday noon hour, there has been something missing. The evidence is there that it was an impasse long before that, an impasse having a detrimental effect on the future of the young people. That advisement was late in coming, and I regret it was so late. I also regret that possibly there was no way of responding to it earlier.

Last week we had an opportunity for an emergency debate in the House on the Wellington county strike. At that point, the minister had called the negotiating parties to Toronto for a meeting. I am led to believe, and I would appreciate it when the minister is speaking on this bill --

Interjection.

Mr. Cousens: The minister did not meet with them at that time? There was no personal involvement by the minister that could be seen by either negotiating party. The minister was not present. He did not meet with them. What influence, if any, did the minister bring to bear on the negotiations at that time?

I would be most anxious to know what he did. It obviously did not have any impact. When I spoke to one of the members of the negotiating team, he indicated he did not feel any change in the negotiating pressures or anything else. It was just another meeting. If he intended to bring about a speedy solution to that problem, it was not happening by virtue of any visible effort by the Minister of Education.

There was an opportunity to do something about it. Last Thursday would have been a chance for us to have discussed this bill. I wish we had been because a few more days were lost to those young people's futures and education.

Other members have spoken on the kind of legislation that is being brought before us. As one who has spent many years in negotiations, I have never yet seen the kind of imposed solution the Minister of Education is bringing through Bill 63. I believe it is bad and wrong. I do not think the teachers are going to like it. I know Peter Gayfer, who is up there in the gallery, cannot like it. An imposed settlement such as this is not the way to bring about a solution nor to bring parties together.

Mr. Pouliot: Vote against it.

Mr. Cousens: I want to see the thing solved. I do not like the way this is being brought upon us. I know enough about negotiations to realize that when mediations obviously fail, there has to be another approach and that is within the bill. It is within the provisions of the old Bill 100 and the revised one that we then bring about compulsory, binding arbitration.

I hope the honourable minister will look at an amendment or approach that will allow for that kind of bringing together of parties and facts without using a mediator in this way within a settlement. The mediator is working with both teams. He is bringing forward suggestions and recommendations, trying to come up with a solution. What he has developed and what is being used as the settlement within this new bill are not a fair approach. It is not a fair approach in the use of a mediator.

It is not the traditional approach and it is not one that is going to leave either side happy. I think it is going to affect all future negotiations in this province. People who are in negotiations are going to say a mediator will now be able to have his view, suggestions or whole plan imposed on them. Because the minister is doing it this time, it can happen another time, and that becomes a new role of a mediator. The mediator now becomes the imposer.

I do not mind the mediator having powers. I have seen the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) in negotiations. He was a most persuasive man and he could make us do things and dance. We would come together and roll and rattle and he would force solutions, but he did it through his personal suasion, through a tremendous power of his own personality, strength of knowledge and his own being.

What the minister is doing is bringing in a sergeant-major's approach to a solution. He is taking a stick in his hand and he is not going to allow that process to be as it was. The mediator's role has changed. All future negotiations that take place in this province will change if this goes through. I would ask the minister to please review that fact because it is not in keeping with the negotiations we have had in this province for the last many years. He has a new wrinkle and I do not like that wrinkle.

One of the things the member for Port Arthur said was that it was a lame-duck board and it had not negotiated, or something to that effect. It is wrong for us here at this point to say anything of either party. I am more interested in the process of both sides coming together and resolving this impasse. It is wrong for either myself or any other honourable member to try to impose some kind of intentions on either of the negotiating parties. I hope the member for Port Arthur did not really mean what he said, and maybe he did not, but I think the fact that he said it is wrong.

As we move into the negotiations we now have, I see an increase in tensions. I see a whole new era taking place in Wellington county. Though people will be happy to have the children back in school, though many teachers will be glad to be back at work and though many trustees will be glad to have this thing solved, there will be a deep "dis-ease" at the way it has been done; Dis-ease as a sense of dissatisfaction and unhappiness at the whole process.

5:30 p.m.

Before the minister does that, he still has time to reconsider. The whole process has gone on far too long. The Kitchener-Waterloo Record has a reporter, John Roe, who should receive the Award of Merit as soothsayer or reporter of visionary truth. On September 24, he said, "Although Ontario Education Minister Sean Conway is keeping a sharp eye" -- and I question how sharp it has been -- "on high school teacher strikes in Wellington and Grey counties, the walkouts could paralyse classes for more than two months before he takes any action." Mr. Roe just about hit it on the head. That was September 24, and we are just past the two-month period.

We are talking about children and young people who have been hurt by the lack of action from our government, and I regret that. The member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) talked earlier about Tom Wells. I remember during the York county strike in 1973 Mr. Wells was involved personally in negotiations with the members of the board. We knew he was interested, we knew he cared and we appreciated it.

I would like to know how many times this minister has been involved. There are two things he could have been doing for the last while, one of which was to be personally involved in intervening in that strike. He chose not to do so.

He also had the option of accelerating the ERC's report on jeopardy, but he did not. I find him wanting on both these counts. On that basis, he is now leading into a piece of legislation that solves the problem temporarily. For that I am grateful, but he is leaving something on the table that was not there before. It has to do with a new level and a new approach to negotiations, which I believe will have a long-term, serious, negative impact on the future of negotiations in this province.

When the minister is winding up with his speech, he may be able to tell us how many more times he is going to impose settlements. He has set a precedent, if this legislation goes through. Is this the way he is going to do it in future? I do not think he is making any friends in the long term with the teachers, the board or the students. They all know they have been diddled with.

Mr. Mackenzie: I rise to oppose the bill before us. It should be clear to anyone who takes the time to do a little thinking about this matter that it is never a fair proposal when it is imposed from on high. Every time we ignore the free collective bargaining process in this province, every time we deny the basic rights of workers, it gets easier to do it the next time.

As I see it, we are paying the price of years -- certainly the years I have been in this House -- of insensitivity to the rights of working people by the Tory party. I have to smile at some of the Tory members' concern over this bill. They are experts at back-to-work legislation. Since I have been in this House, we have had Tory bills ordering workers back to work after short strikes, long strikes and before they even went out on strike, depending on the politics of the issue. I wonder what their real position is and what kind of a game they are playing.

The Tory amendment is about as bad or worse than the government bill. Compulsory arbitration, especially that which reconfirms the 1984 contract, is an insult to the teachers involved, which I suspect is not going to be very well received. Not only does it get easier every time the government engages in this kind of an operation to order workers back to work, it undermines the collective bargaining process and it removes any incentive for the parties to make collective bargaining work. It just invites more third-party involvement. It gets one party or the other off the hook, and that is exactly what the minister is doing.

When were people in this House worried about the rights of the students involved in terms of the days they are losing in school? I wonder whether that concern extends to the lesson we are teaching the students and the legacy we are leaving them with respect to the rights that working people in this province have under the free collective bargaining process.

One of the messages we are giving them is that those rights are in every way lesser rights, rights that a lot of people have fought long and hard for. In the long run, a more serious result of this back-to-work legislation, and legislation such as this, may be in terms of the rights, the opportunities and the basic priorities the students themselves have. That is something this House should worry about.

I cannot support this bill and I could not support the amendment when it is on the floor. I hope I am never in a position where I will be one of those running around encouraging, as I have seen members in this House do for the last several weeks, and calling for back-to-work legislation. Rather than helping the matter; I suspect the members who have followed that route in this House have made it easier in the days gone by for the board not to engage in meaningful collective bargaining.

Mr. Ferraro: I rise to speak briefly -- I know we are short of time -- in anticipation of the passage of Bill 63. I wish to make a few personal comments. I want to thank the members on all sides of this House for the consideration, encouragement and concern expressed to me with regard to the situation in my riding. It is nice to know we do not always argue philosophy or ideology and that we can care for one another, as we did this afternoon, and justifiably so, when the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) indicated the travesty that was occurring as far as he was concerned.

I want to thank my friend the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel and the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock), but particularly the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel for his constant offer of co-operation. I suppose misery loves company and he was good company.

I want to thank the minister, his staff and his parliamentary assistant. I particularly want to thank the minister for his constant support, his 12:30 phone calls, his understanding and encouragement and for coming up with this legislation. Although one might argue it is late, I am grateful for all he has done and for the concern expressed to me and my constituents in the past.

Last Friday I stood in this House and asked my leader some pretty tough questions. Indeed, in the scrum outside, I said he was insensitive. If he was insensitive on Friday, it is only fair that I say publicly he was very sensitive on Monday. He is a fine leader and I am proud to be part of this party. I appreciate his understanding and the fact he was a gentleman.

Mr. Gillies: What a difference a weekend makes.

Mr. Wildman: He crumbled, did he?

Mr. McClellan: Do not grovel. You were right the first time. Stick to your guns. He was insensitive.

Mr. Runciman: Is this an apology?

Mr. Ferraro: I may have blown my cabinet spot, but I mean this.

Mr. McClellan: What does he mean by "may"?

Mr. Andrewes: There is lots of room over here.

Mr. Runciman: There is a future for the member over here.

Mr. Ferraro: Those guys should pray I do not get to the cabinet.

This is not to detract from what I have said; I meant it. I want to thank my colleagues in the caucus for their support and concern. It is nice to know they are my friends.

Yesterday when the legislation was introduced, somebody asked me whether I was happy. No, I was not happy and I am not happy, but I am relieved. There is a big distinction. This is not the best solution; I know that and everybody in this House knows it. There are no winners in this situation, but there are those who will not lose as much.

My community -- not just the students, although they are directly affected -- will begin to heal the deep and sensitive wounds and get on with our lives. That is justification enough for this legislation. I wish to conclude by saying I fully endorse looking at Bill 100 to see whether we can make it better to prevent further need for unnecessary and tragic disasters such as occurred in my community in Wellington South.

5:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Brock.

[Applause]

Mr. Partington: Thank you for that applause. I welcome this opportunity to address the House on this important matter. Most labour disputes have at least two sides that in and of themselves make them difficult to solve. Disputes such as the one being debated today are particularly problematic, given there are four sides involved, the most obvious being the teachers and the board of education. These two sides have the responsibility of negotiating a settlement to the end of the teachers' strike, but after 51 days they have been unable to do so.

The other two parties involved in this strike are the students, who have been denied their education for the 51-day period, and the parents, who I am sure believe their children have been the pawns in a tragic game of chess. In a game such as the one we have seen over the past two months, there cannot and will not be a winner. There are only losers.

The strike has not been resolved even though the teachers have been sent back to the classroom. It has simply been ended, and at what expense? Teachers have been given the right to strike. It was that right they chose to exercise. The students, however, had no say in the matter. Those students have perhaps been given an education in labour disputes and negotiations unprecedented in the history of education in this province. What impression must this dispute have left on these young people?

Students have ingrained in them the belief that they have the right to expect quality education, and they have not been given a choice of whether they go to school or not. At age five, they go. That is the law. What do we tell them now? How do we explain the fact that rules change, even when those rules directly affect their future?

The Minister of Education has determined that, in the best interests of the students, the strike must end. I support that. To do that the minister has imposed a settlement which was rejected just two short weeks ago by the two principals in the dispute. That imposition by the minister concerns me in that it sets a dangerous precedent for future negotiations. It also, in my estimation, sends out the message that mediation and even binding arbitration are no longer alive and well in Ontario. Will this now be the norm in difficult labour disputes involving the public sector?

Why, then, ask the two sides to attempt an equitable resolution to such disputes? Binding arbitration is one thing. Imposing the terms contained in the mediation report which has been rejected by the two sides to the dispute is entirely another.

There have been 51 school days lost. For some students it will mean the difference between successfully completing their school year or having to repeat it. In this group will be a number of students who decide they may as well give up. These young people will not return to the classroom at all. For others it is the difference between acceptance or rejection at a college or university of their choice.

Last, but far from least, the loss of 51 days for some Ontario students will determine whether or not they qualify for specific scholarships. Those who do not qualify as a result of this strike may indeed be without other financial means to pursue a higher education.

I referred earlier to the parents of these young people. Every success, failure, concern and pleasure experienced by a member of a family has a direct effect on other family members, and it is no different in this case. The assurance that their son or daughter is in school preparing for his or her future is reassuring to Ontario parents. It allows them to plan ahead days, weeks, months or even years. This lengthy strike has taken its toll on the families involved. It has added yet another burden to already troubled times. Parents have had to endure the concern of everything from where their teenager is while they work to whether the family finances will be able to carry the costs of university if the sought after scholarship is lost because of the strike.

In summary, I believe it is the responsibility of the members of this House to do everything within their power to ensure that we never again see a recurrence of such a lengthy strike in our education system. I do not believe the answer lies in the imposition of mutually unacceptable terms such as we have seen in this instance. I do believe the answer lies in the equitable resolution of disputes. To achieve that end, I believe a review of Bill 100 is not only desirable, it is also imperative.

Teachers have rights and students have rights. The days of one set of rights infringing on those of another must be put to an end. Finally, I urge all members to support the review of Bill 100 to enable us to better serve the needs of the citizens of this great province.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to thank the several speakers who have addressed their minds and thoughts to the legislation now before the House. I would make some summary remarks in dealing with the presentations that have been made this afternoon, some of which have been truly exceptional, almost breathtaking, in the light of recent history.

Before I do that, I want to pay a particular tribute to my friend and colleague the member for Wellington South, who throughout this very difficult 11- or 12-week period has kept me informed on a very regular, almost daily, basis of the situation in that part of Ontario. I want to take this opportunity to commend him for the very fine job he has done representing the people of his constituency and the efforts he has made on behalf of the 8,200 secondary school students affected in this matter.

I should say a word of thanks as well to my old friend from Mount Forest, the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel who, as he does so well, tendered very good advice throughout the entire duration.

It is important for me as Minister of Education to make it very clear to this House that the minister and the government believe very strongly in the process set out in the legislation that has been agreed to by this assembly. I will not remind honourable members opposite which administration brought Bill 100 to the assembly and worked with it for 10.5 of its some 11 years' existence.

It was interesting to hear the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) talk about what Tom Wells did in 1973. I submit to my colleague and friend from Markham that it was the very situation to which he directed our attention which forced that government to move in the direction of Bill 100, because it was not found by people such as the then Minister of Education to be a particularly useful or prudent exercise to be going around involving himself in trying to resolve those situations.

I have said repeatedly that I believe very strongly in the process and I was determined to see that through. We have agreed that collective bargaining should be the means by which these matters are resolved in education. As a Legislature, we have given the responsibility to both parties to work out those settlements at the local level. I said that throughout the piece, on occasions when it was sometimes difficult.

It has been asked, when and how often did the honourable Minister of Education speak to the parties? I can recall for the attention of the House two conversations I had with the chairman of the Wellington county board, Mr. Nelson.

Mr. Davis: Only two?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Yes. My friend the member for Scarborough Centre is right.

In the first conversation with Mr. Nelson more than 10 days ago, when he was very vigorous in his protestation that we must intervene as a government and legislate an end to this strike, I said that was not our preference; we believe in the legislation and the process. I warned him he ought not to look to this Legislature to absolve him or the other party from their obligations and responsibilities. I warned him repeatedly that he might regret the very thing he sought.

I must say, I am very disappointed that in Wellington we did not get and we have not yet got, at 5:49 of the afternoon of November 26, what we were able to get in Grey just a few days ago. I regret that. We still have time. I am making it very clear to both parties that if they can work it out between themselves, we will certainly allow and encourage them to do that.

One of the reasons we have moved with the method of dispute resolution as we have, is to send a very clear signal to the educational community in this province that we expect the process to be adhered to and we expect local parties to undertake their responsibilities to work it out between themselves and not to look to this Legislature to let them off the hook. I know it is difficult and I know my friend the member for Scarborough Centre knows that, however difficult, it can be and is most often done.

5:50 p.m.

A few weeks ago it was said that the Grey parties would never settle; it was hopeless; there would be no settlement. Ten days ago they reached a tentative agreement, which agreement was ratified a few days ago.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say to my learned friend the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) that I fully expected the parties in Wellington would do what the parties in Grey were able to do.

There is a signal in this legislation; the member is absolutely right, and I am sorry that my friend the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) is not here. The signal to the parties in education in this province today is, "You will get no more from this Legislature than you could have worked out between yourselves with the collective bargaining process." That is a very important signal.

Mr. Davis: Only with a mediator.

Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Scarborough Centre says, "Only with a mediator." There has been talk here about this mediator and about his proposal as though it were the work of somebody who was not very experienced or very involved. The Education Relations Commission has had a very experienced mediator in the Wellington dispute for more than four months. He has been involved in more than 300 hours of mediation. I dare say that with all his experience in general and his specific expertise in this matter, there is no one who understands that situation as well as Norm Bernstein understands it. I said in this House as recently as yesterday that I honestly believe his judgement is about as good a judgement as we are going to get from any new arbitrator who might be brought in.

The signal we want and intend to send out with this bill and with the dispute resolution mechanism we have chosen, the mediator's proposal and I know my friend the member for York Mills appreciates this -- is that no better deal will be offered in this Legislature than could have been worked out between the parties. That is an important signal and it is a signal I want sent out.

There has been a lot of talk about the Education Relations Commission. I know I am getting the signal from my friends opposite, to whom I gave a very wide berth and whose very many representations and questions I entertained with a great deal of interest.

Mr. McClellan: We can come back at 8 p.m. and vote.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I know. I will quickly conclude.

But in this case we followed the process. I do not know what the previous Ministers of Education did with respect to the Education Relations Commission, but I will tell members what I did: I did not interfere. I was very careful to contact the ERC on a daily basis to get the latest reports on the Wellington and Grey matters. And yes, late Friday afternoon it offered an advisement about jeopardy in Wellington.

I moved the very next day in so far as the House is concerned, on Monday, to legislate an end to that dispute, which I want to say to my friend the member for Scarborough Centre is a lot more expeditious action than we saw five years ago in Sudbury when a jeopardy advisement was offered on the 47th day and eight or nine days were allowed to lapse before a settlement was finally arrived at.

Let me say to my good friends in the official opposition, let he or she who is without sin in this matter cast the first stone. In that connection, my friends in the official opposition --

Miss Stephenson: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: There was indeed action in Sudbury, and although my sins may be very much greater than those of the honourable Prince of Wales, I really feel very strongly that the action that was taken should not be so denigrated. At the end of the eight or nine days, the minister herself brought the two parties together and in 12 hours we achieved a settlement.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I just note for my friends opposite: at the 56th day.

Miss Stephenson: At the 54th day.

Hon. Mr. Conway: That is when that dispute ended.

This government is very serious about protecting the interests of the students in Wellington and in other districts of this province, but we intend to follow the procedures and spirit of Bill 100.

In conclusion, I look forward to this bill passing in this assembly today so that those students can return to school at the earliest opportunity. As I indicated in my statement yesterday, we have already undertaken to contact the various post-secondary institutions through the Ministry of Colleges and Universities to see that they make the necessary accommodation. We have asked the Education Relations Commission, once this matter is resolved, to undertake some counselling and some improvement in the relationship between the new board of Wellington county and the local of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation.

6:03 p.m.

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Conway's motion for second reading of Bill 63, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bernier, Bossy, Bradley, Brandt, Caplan, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Cousens, Cureatz, Curling, Davis, Eakins, Elston, Epp, Eves, Ferraro, Fish, Fontaine, Fulton, Gillies, Grandmaître, Gregory, Guindon, Haggerty, Harris, Henderson, Hennessy, Jackson, Johnson, J. M.;

Kerrio, Keyes, Knight, Kwinter, Lane, Leluk, Mancini, Marland, McCague, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McNeil, Miller, G. I., Morin, Munro, Newman, Nixon, O'Connor, Offer, O'Neil, Partington, Peterson, Pierce, Poirier, Pollock, Polsinelli, Pope, Reycraft, Riddell, Rowe, Runciman, Ruprecht;

Sargent, Scott, Sheppard, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sorbara, South, Stephenson, B. M., Treleaven, Van Horne, Ward, Wiseman, Wrye.

Nays

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Foulds, Gigantes, Grande, Grier, Hayes, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Morin-Strom, Philip, Pouliot, Rae, Reville, Wildman.

Ayes 80; nays 22.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

The House recessed at 6:08 p.m.

26 novembre 1985