L052 - Tue 26 Nov 1985 / Mar 26 nov 1985
WELLINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT
WELLINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
House in committee of the whole.
WELLINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 63, An Act respecting the Wellington County Board of Education and Teachers Dispute.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Davis moves that subsection 2(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"2(1) The teachers who are on strike against the board shall, on the first school day following the day this act comes into force, return to and resume their duties and the board shall, on the first day following the day this act comes into force, resume the employment of such teachers.
"(a) All matters currently agreed upon by the teachers and the board shall become part of a new written collective agreement and contracts of employment effective immediately.
"(b) All matters remaining in dispute shall be submitted immediately to binding arbitration.
"(c) The last collective agreement and contracts of employment shall apply in respect of all matters remaining in dispute until such time as the decision of the arbitrator becomes effective."
Mr. Davis: It gives me great pleasure to make the amendments on behalf of my party. I would like to say a few words as to why we have made those amendments.
I must commend and applaud the decision of the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) and his colleagues to move in this dispute to bring about a resolution by which they will ask the teachers to return to the classroom on behalf of the young people of the county of Wellington.
I point out to the minister, as I am sure he is aware, that not only has he an obligation to ensure there is fairness and justice in negotiations under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act but also his primary responsibility is to ensure the welfare of students in this province by the delivery of education.
I further point out that when the welfare of students, their educational year, is in jeopardy, it is incumbent on the government of the day, whoever the government may be in the future, that it must take the necessary steps to ensure that students' rights and obligations are protected.
I premise my remarks by saying there have been dramatic changes in the delivery of educational programs across this province. In the strikes heretofore, a majority of students have not been on semestered programs.
To enlighten my colleagues of the House, all those who are here present for this great debate, this important event, I point out that the process of semestered schools is such that young people take approximately four credits -- they can take five -- for half the school year. In effect, they take their energies and all their abilities and direct them to four or five subjects rather than to eight or nine.
For many students across Ontario, this affords an opportunity that was not afforded to many members of this House, including me, when we had to take nine credits. They have the opportunity to concentrate on four areas of study. As my colleagues know, they go to school from September 1 to the end of January, when the first semester ends. The second semester begins around February 1.
One of the problems the Wellington board has illustrated for us is that within the context of Bill 100, there is no criterion for deciding when a student who is in a semestered program is in jeopardy. The totality of a jeopardy hearing lies primarily with a recommendation of the Education Relations Commission, which takes a position that a student's year is in jeopardy. I point out that a student who misses three months of schooling certainly stands in grave difficulty in obtaining his school year.
For the welfare of students, we are prepared to support the government's legislation, which asks, demands and orders teachers back into their classrooms as soon as this motion is approved. However, we have great difficulty with the rest of the recommendations.
I reiterate, as I did this afternoon, that to my knowledge, nowhere in this province has any government ever intervened in the dramatic way that the present government has done. In essence it has stripped away the whole process of what many people in the province have fought for in the process of collective negotiation. Not only has the present government legislated back a group of strikers or a group of people who have withdrawn their services but also, for the first time in history, this government, under the direction of the Minister of Education, has mandated the conditions of settlement. That has never happened before.
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That is responsible government.
Mr. Davis: The minister may call it responsible government. I call it government by mandate, government without consultation and, provided no one jumps on me because my name is Bill Davis, I suggest to the honourable members of the government that it is government by decree.
Mr. Ferraro: That is the pot calling the kettle black.
Mr. Davis: That is the pot calling the kettle black; correct. However, I believe the present government has put into serious jeopardy the whole process of negotiation.
Interjection.
Mr. Davis: The members opposite are just the present government; they may not be there next time.
I would like to inform my learned colleagues in the government how the process of negotiation operates between boards and representatives of teacher affiliations. It is stated in Bill 100 that both parties must indicate by January 31 their intent to negotiate; if that intention is not declared, the present agreement continues.
Hon. Mr. Bradley: Is this a sermon?
8:10 p.m.
Mr. Davis: No, it is not a sermon, although sometimes the honourable member may be in need of a sermon, especially when he tries to quote Scripture.
I point out that by February 28, those issues that are to be discussed are to be placed on the table, and the negotiations continue from February through. I also point out to the minister on behalf of trustees and teachers that, come the middle of June, it is examination time and negotiations do not occur. Along come July and August, and for a variety of reasons, they do not wish to meet.
Hon. Mr. Bradley: Was the member around for the Sudbury strike?
Mr. Davis: No, but I will talk about the Sudbury strike.
Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is where jeopardy was declared, and the minister did not even intervene after jeopardy.
Mr. Davis: The minister should not interrupt me. I do not interrupt the minister. I allow him to make his statement. I will make mine.
Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member interjects all the time.
Mr. Davis: When the minister is quiet, I will continue.
There is a deadline that teachers and trustees are forced to recognize. If there is no settlement by August 31, the Education Relations Commission must appoint a fact-finder. It is the hope of both parties that the negotiations are settled by then.
One of the flaws of Bill 100 is the time frame, which could be examined to see whether there is a more appropriate mechanism to bring about the kind of resolution that is made in justice, fairness, concern and compassion so that, come August 31, most of the negotiations are settled.
The fact-finder has 30 days to produce a report, and we are now at the end of September. School has been in for one month. The parties have seven days to respond to the fact-finder's report before it is made public. In essence, we are looking at the Thanksgiving weekend before the next process can occur. Then there is an opportunity to continue negotiating, or one of the parties can ask for mediation.
With the situation in Wellington county, the ERC appointed a fact-finder, who then made the findings and made comments on the ability of the local community to respond to salary demands. If I am correct, the fact-finder suggested the status quo should hold position with respect to staffing.
The fact-finder was appointed by the ERC. The fact-finding information was put out, and along came mediation. I would like to take the opportunity, not to lecture my colleagues or to preach at them, but to let them understand how the process of mediation works.
My learned colleagues to the left are quite aware of how mediation is accomplished. It is my understanding, and I always stand to be corrected, that the mediator calls in the teacher representatives, and they place their concerns, their agenda and their issues on the table, alone and in private. Then the board representatives come in.
The trustees of this province represent the people of this province. We must never forget they are the spokesmen for the public. The minute we disregard that important piece of information, we find ourselves in jeopardy, as I believe the present government finds itself in jeopardy.
The board comes in and makes its presentation. The mediator states his considerations and then makes his recommendations. In the process, the mediator's responsibility is not to be fair; the mediator's responsibility is to make proposals that will bring about a settlement.
I have been informed that the present mediator stated to the negotiating representatives of the board of education, and it has been reported, that his report has nothing to do with fairness; it has to do with bringing an end to an intolerable situation in the county of Wellington. It has nothing to do with fairness, but what will bring a settlement. I do not think I need to repeat that again.
If it is permissible, I would like to read into the record a piece of information from the Matthews report; I hope my learned friend the Minister of Education will take it to heart. It talks about Bill 100 and states the rationale for it:
"In assuring certain rights to teachers and to school boards, we expect that the bargaining process will be carried out in a reasoned and responsible fashion by persons of goodwill and with constant reference to the heavy responsibility each bears for the education of our young people."
I contend that the proposed legislation, the arbitrary action of the present government to mandate a settlement that is not based on the practice of labour negotiations across this province, whether it be between boards and teachers or in any other avenue where labour negotiations take place --
Interjection.
Mr. Davis: That is not what I said. Where there has been no opportunity for either party to defend its position in front of a neutral arbitrator, what in effect the minister has said is that the settlement is that of the mediator.
I point out again that the mediator's responsibility, as I understand it and as he stated, is not to be fair and just but to find out those issues that will bring about a settlement, regardless of the other kinds of constraints that are upon him; such as are found in Bill 111, I believe it is, which talks about the ability of the local community to pay the kinds of salary increases.
I point out to my learned colleagues on the government side that the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has stated the increase to boards of education in this province will be four per cent. The present proposition before this House allows for salary increases far exceeding four per cent.
Is the government telling the people of this province that teachers and trustees can settle above the Treasurer's recommendations and that it will pick up the additional costs through the legislative grants and they will not fall upon the shoulders of the public through increases in taxes?
Mr. Epp: Why is the member against the students?
Mr. Davis: I have not finished yet. We will get to them.
I point out also that I understand the rationale stated by the minister in this House at approximately five minutes to six just past, when he said in effect: "I want to send out a very strong message to the teachers and boards across this province that the government does not want to intervene in future strikes. In fact, we do not want to resolve any future strikes and if we must as a government, we will resolve them not through the normal process of collective bargaining but by taking the mediator's report and enforcing it upon both parties."
8:20 p.m.
That in effect is what the minister has said. His assumption is that board and teacher representatives will be afraid to come before this House on the mediation report. I suggest to him in all humbleness that what will happen is that parties discussing the negotiations will say, "Let us see what the mediator has to say, and if it is good for us, then we will go to Queen's Park because we will get the settlement we want." That is the message the minister has sent out.
Hon. Mr. Bradley: No matter what we did, the member would have opposed it.
Mr. Davis: No, I would not. I will give the minister the solution. I will rescue him again.
One of the interesting developments in this discussion has been with my learned colleagues to the left, the members of the third party. They have stated they are not going to support the bill. I applaud them for that because they fulfil the mandate they believe they have in this province to be the voice of labour, to protect the rights of the labourers. I support them for that. That is right, fair and just. I have no problem doing that.
Therefore, by saying they are voting against the bill, I assume they are saying in essence they must support the amendment put forth by my party because it follows the normal process of labour negotiations. Nowhere have I ever seen the third party stand up and suggest to anybody in this province that it is prepared to support legislation that not only orders workers back to work but also, for the first time in history, has a government setting each issue of the negotiations.
I ask my learned colleagues if they defend that position, or do they no longer represent the whole labour movement across this province? It seems to me they have only one option in this case and that is to support the amendment, to follow through the natural and just course people such as Mr. Woodsworth, Coldwell, Stephen Lewis and their present leader have fought to ensure not only across this province but also across this country. When they were the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, they were born out of the movement in the western provinces towards social justice and concern for the workers. Are they now abandoning that position? I do not think so. I can assure members that in this case they really have no option but to support the amendment that continues the natural flow of Bill 100.
Interjections.
Mr. Davis: I suggest to the learned gentlemen on the other side that they should sit and listen. They may learn something. I would point out to my learned colleagues that leadership includes listening whether one likes it or not. Tonight they are going to listen. If they do not want to listen, they can leave. They can read it in Hansard, because it is just as effective.
Hon. Mr. Bradley: Is the member filibustering?
Mr. Davis: I do not know what "filibuster" means.
Mr. Chairman: Carry on with your comments, please.
Mr. Davis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will carry on.
Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is filibustering.
Mr. Davis: I am not filibustering.
Mr. Chairman: Would the members please let the member for Scarborough Centre continue without interruption.
Mr. Davis: In the institution I left, when we had individuals who were disruptive within the assembly, our ushers used to ask them to leave.
One of the interesting issues in this debate is the concern for students. I find it interesting that all through this debate my learned colleagues to the left have been very silent about the welfare of students. Our compassion and concern were articulated in a letter to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) as early as October 14. It took three government members to not only suggest but to state last Friday that the Premier of this province was insensitive to the wellbeing of students in Wellington county, to the kind of fractioning that was occurring in the communities in Wellington county and to the fact that teachers, as they moved in and out of associations in those local communities, were being discriminated against and found themselves at odds with friends and their own families.
Now, all of a sudden, the government has become enlightened. It has stated that we must order the teachers back to work because students are now in jeopardy. On November 1, Mr. Nelson, chairman of the Wellington County Board of Education, and Mr. Forsythe, director of education, sent a letter not only to the Education Relations Commission but also to the Minister of Education and to the Premier, articulating the rationale why they believed students in their jurisdiction were now in jeopardy.
It is of interest to note the Premier made one phone call on September 30 to the chairman of the board to express his concern. All other phone calls were unanswered. The position this government has now taken shows its insensitivity and inability to govern, to understand the totality of the problem.
When the Minister of Education made his first official contact with the chairman of the board on November 18, some time between 11:30 and 12 at night, he indicated he was returning the call of the Premier who has indicated to this House and the people of this province on several occasions that he is accessible to anyone if they wish to phone him; he will talk to anyone and he has compassion and concern for their problems.
I can tell this House that the board of trustees, teachers, students and parents in Wellington county do not believe the Minister of Education and the Premier of this province are accessible. They do not believe there is compassion and concern.
Late that night, the Minister of Education suggested that the chairman of the board, along with the director and those necessary, meet to discuss the issues. The implication was, if not stated at least suggested, that the minister himself would be present; that there would be, in the words of the chairman, "a couple of heavies along to at least help to effect negotiations."
When they gave up their day of work, changed their calendars to meet, it was the mediator and a staff member from the ministry who placed on that table -- there were no options or discussions -- the mediator's report.
8:30 p.m.
The phone call by the Minister of Education occurred on Monday, November 18. On Tuesday, November 19, colleagues of my party, through the graciousness of the House, were able to bring about an emergency debate on the strike in Wellington county. It was because of that debate, because of three government members who stood up in contradiction to their colleagues, and probably against the wishes of their leader, to point out their deep concern, that we found at 12 noon or shortly thereafter that the Education Relations Commission recommended to the minister that the students' wellbeing now was in jeopardy.
I would like to ask the minister when he returns whether he might tell us why it took him until Friday of last week to meet with the ERC to find out that the students were in jeopardy. Why did the Premier at 2 p.m. or shortly thereafter stand in this House and say that the government would not intervene in the situation in Wellington county, knowing that the ERC had already suggested and recommended the students were in jeopardy? Why did he not have the forthrightness to stand in the House as Premier and say, "As of noon today, the ERC has said the students are in jeopardy"?
I thought my colleagues in the government and in the third party to my left, who were in the House prior to my admittance to this illustrious body and who continually hark back to the Sudbury strike, had followed the same pattern, so I made some phone calls. I found that when we were in government, in every situation the Minister of Education met with the parties involved. This Minister of Education in my opinion has abdicated his responsibilities to meet with those representatives and at least to give them a fair hearing.
Mr. Harris: In the opinion of most of Ontario.
Mr. Davis: In the opinion of most of Ontario and in the opinion of three of the government's own colleagues who urged the minister and the Premier to become involved.
As a novice in the House, what I find extremely interesting is that the Premier had the audacity to stand before his colleagues, all of whom I respect -- even those who cannot play hockey now -- and suggest that he did not interfere and in no way affected the negotiations with the Toronto Transit Commission. However, he took all the credit. If he is going to take credit for something he did not do, then he should also be chastised for something he should have done. He should have at least intervened or talked to them.
One of the interesting things about the debate is that all of a sudden my learned colleagues in government have discovered there is such a thing as the jeopardy of students. I would like to ask the minister, now that he is again present, why he did not meet with the ERC before to ask about jeopardy.
On October 14, November 1 and November 12, the minister received correspondence from the chairman of the board and the director of education of the Wellington County Board of Education, indicating to him their belief -- and they are his representatives of education -- that the students were in jeopardy. I also believe his members were contacted by parents and students in those areas indicating the same concerns. He refused to meet with them.
I have heard a great deal about the minister's sense of justice and fairness, about his vision and his sense of fairness when he was on this side of the House. I point out to him that in the debates that went on he exercised a sense of zeal, a sense of commitment, a sense of concern and compassion for students. I would especially point out to him his words on the issue of the strike of college teachers. Is he now telling the people of this province that when he moves to the heights of power on the other side his vision becomes blinded, his compassion diminishes and he is no longer concerned for the wellbeing of students, teachers, parents and communities?
I would like to know why the minister has decided not to follow the normal course in labour negotiations but rather to move to a mediator's recommendation and to place that as the settlement. Can he tell this House why he did not recommend to this House the two options that are outlined for him in Bill 100? One of those is very simply, as we recommended in our amendment, that those items that have been agreed upon be in the collective agreement; on those issues that are still outstanding, the parties would have an opportunity to go before an impartial judge who has not been involved in the hearings to this point, state their case as to why they believe their position is correct and the other party would have the opportunity to debate it.
This is not part and parcel of the process of mediation. Mediation is done in secrecy. In mediation there is no opportunity to contradict one another. Or why did he not simply move to final-offer selection?
Perhaps I could suggest to the honourable minister, the government and the Premier of this province that if they really want to become involved in negotiations, if they really were to begin somehow to change the process, for which my colleagues in the third party have fought for so long in respect to the normalcy of negotiation, we should move to final arbitration the minute that mediation is over. The teachers can then present their position, the boards can present their position and the government, through the mediator, can present its position. An impartial person who is trained in labour negotiations can sit and decide. Then the minister would take his risks, along with the boards and along with the teachers, as to which one he will select.
Mr. Martel: Does the member know anything about collective bargaining?
Mr. Davis: A little bit more than that member probably does. I would suggest to my learned colleagues on the left, who I sometimes think should be over on the opposite side of the House, that in the process of negotiations they may be wise to read a few articles, one of them dealing with the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, and they might become informed. If they are not informed, I would suggest they read it.
What I find interesting -- and I would like to articulate it again because I think they need to know the lesson -- is that the group to my left, which has continually defended the process of negotiations and has continually championed the rights of the workers, is now throwing them aside. They are now saying, "We are not going to vote to put you back to work," and that is fair and just. But they know what is going to happen; they know this party on this side has first and foremost the wellbeing of students at heart. Although we cannot agree with the direction of that government, we will ultimately support its decision.
8:40 p.m.
My colleagues to the left say, "We are going to vote against it." They are going to vote against the natural course of negotiations. They had better remember the prophecies that once were articulated by such great men --
Mr. Breaugh: The member got his nose into the holy water tonight, I see.
Mr. Davis: -- as Elijah and as Moses, the great social conscience of the prophets of old.
I can assure the gentlemen to my left that the labour people across this province are going to watch their actions tonight and they are not going to be thrilled.
At question period on October 18, 1984, the present Premier addressed this question to then Minister of Colleges and Universities:
"I have a question for the Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities with respect to the now two" -- I would like to reiterate "two"; I would like to spell it for my learned colleague, t-w-o -- "two-day-old strike of the community college teachers. I would like to ask the minister a number of questions, but what are her plans with respect to some of the students whose courses are now in jeopardy?"
Two days and college students' courses are in jeopardy. This government waits 50 days before the students of the county of Wellington are in jeopardy.
I would like to point something out to my learned colleague the Minister of Education. I do not have the quotes in front of me -- I could not find them, but I have them -- in which he made a suggestion to the then Minister of Education, the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), on the issue of jeopardy. If it was not his quote, it was certainly the quote of his leader, who might then have been Stuart Smith. He asked, "Does the minister need to be told by someone outside when a student is in jeopardy?"
I would like to ask the minister another question. This time I will ask it, then sit down and see how he responds. Could the minister indicate to this House for what time frame he personally believes a student can be absent from class and not be in jeopardy? I do not ask him to stand in this House and suggest what the Education Relations Commission would suggest to him. He is a learned individual, an intelligent individual, a person who has some experience in education. He should be able to make that decision for himself, based on the criteria in which he is knowledgeable.
In what period of time does he believe a student missing classes is in jeopardy?
Mr. Martel: Is the member finished?
Mr. Davis: No, I am not finished. I am going to wait for the answers. If not, I will stand up again.
Interjections.
Mr. Davis: All right. I thought he was going to answer the question. He did not move; so he can just mark it down.
The Deputy Chairman: Please carry on.
Mr. Davis: I saw him move and I thought he was rising to respond to the question.
Mr. Martel: It was not a very good question.
Mr. Davis: I think it was pretty good. The member for Sudbury East would not know a good question if he saw it.
I believe the present direction this government is taking is threatening the whole process of negotiations across the province, especially in the negotiations between school boards and teachers. In essence, what will happen is the parties will go to the mediator and, where now they go with a sense of confidence and place all the items on the table, what they are going to say from now on is, "I am not going to place all the items on the table, because if an impasse is reached and a declaration of jeopardy is made, I am going to have to live with a mediator's recommendation."
In effect, what the government has taken away from those parties is the right that is inherently theirs, through Bill 100, to appear before an arbitrator and defend their positions. How the arbitrator makes his decision is not as important as the right for those parties. One party represents a body known as teachers, who have a standing in society for compassion and concern for young people, who have a deep interest in education and the delivery of educational programs and a concern about working conditions so that students benefit. The other party is the board representatives, who represent the people of this province.
In effect, the minister has eliminated public input through trustees in the negotiating process. He has acted in an arbitrary, unjust and insensitive manner. There is no option now for either party to present its case. The minister has eliminated that. There is no option for the teachers or the board to defend a position. There is no option for the teachers to defend why they should have more staff. There is no option for the board to suggest that the cost of the increases is a heavy burden for the taxpayers of that community to bear. There are no options. The minister has eliminated them.
He has ruled with an iron fist and he has said in defence of his government, to show action: "You are going back to work; and not only are you going back to work but the items you wish to negotiate are no longer negotiable. They are now settled by the mediator."
Mr. McClellan: That is why the member is supporting the bill.
Mr. Davis: No, I am not. I will respond in a very general way as to why I am supporting the bill. I am supporting it because my colleagues on the opposite side -- the government -- have very distinctly and intriguely tied two pieces of legislation together. To vote against the bill means I vote against the wellbeing of students and I would never do that. To vote for the wellbeing of students, the minister has put this House in jeopardy by saying, "You must vote for the wellbeing of the students; but to do that you must also vote for the direction my government and I are taking." It is a mandatory settlement that abrogates the process of negotiation under Bill 100.
To vote against the bill would mean students would be placed in further tremendous jeopardy. The young people in Wellington county on semestered school systems normally take four credits and spend 70 to 80 minutes a day on a subject. If we were to work it out, it means they spend about six hours a week on math, 30 hours per month. For the five months, that is about 120 hours, which is mandatory by the Ministry of Education for accreditation.
Hon. Mr. Elston: This is placing the House in jeopardy. Sit him down.
Mr. Davis: Let me finish. There is an unwritten rule that suggests students can miss a proportion of the 120 hours and still receive credit. Prior to the change of power -- for some with the tremendous elation of a move and for others deep regret -- there was in this province for a number of years this kind of proposition, not articulated but evident, that in recognition of the ability and the creativity of the teachers, the totality of a credit would be mandated, but teachers would be allowed some opportunity of experimentation and creativity to enliven the interest of students.
About 40 per cent of a course is therefore given to the jurisdiction of a teacher and 60 per cent is what we call the core curriculum, which is mandatory. When we work it on that kind of percentage in Wellington county, the young people are in jeopardy because they have lost now into that 60 per cent factor.
8:50 p.m.
One wonders what this says to students across the province. Does the minister say to young people in the province, "It is all right if you miss 10, 20, 30, 40, 60, 72 hours out of your subjects" -- which the students have now missed in Wellington county -- "you can still gain your credit," in the light of what the Education Act says about 120 hours in order to achieve a credit?
It seems to me that my colleagues in the government have been insensitive, and I say this in all due respect, to the Wellington county students. I do not think they have done this deliberately. I would not suggest for one minute they have done it as a political ploy; I think it would be beneath them to do that. I might suggest, but I would be surprised, that perhaps the accord had something to do with it, that the leash of control had been loosened by their colleagues to my left and that it is now okay to bring a settlement; but I do not think they would do that either.
I just think they do not understand education. I think they do not understand the process young people go through. I do not think they understand what happens in a classroom.
Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Do you?
Mr. Davis: Yes, I do. I also understand the problems of the north.
Mr. Foulds: Is this clause-by-clause or second reading?
Mr. Davis: We might go clause-by-clause if the member would like to try it; I am pretty good at that, too.
What we have found through the Wellington strike is that Bill 100 has some deficiencies. With the understanding that across this province the majority of students, if they are not in fully semestered schools are in partially semestered schools, the primary deficiency is that there is no criterion by which the ERC defines a student in jeopardy. There is no criterion that the Minister of Education uses to decide.
I find it very difficult to believe a man of the minister's integrity, passion and concern has not been able to find time since the early beginnings of September, especially as we moved into the latter part of October and into November, at least to pick up the phone before a week ago Monday and ask the two parties to come down and talk.
That is government by distance: "Let the ERC do it. I phoned the ERC every day and talked to them." The problem is that they did not talk to the people. If I understand government, if I understand my responsibility, it is to talk to people. I want to say again that the people in Wellington county, as three members of the government have articulated very distinctly, believe the government is insensitive to their concerns.
With all due respect to my colleagues in the government, I suggest the process they are now following will bring elation for the moment because the children will be back in school, I hope tomorrow morning. However, when they sit down and see that this government has cut off the process by which their representatives could present to an independent third person their concerns and has taken a mediator's report -- and the mediator has said "it is not fair, nor is it just" -- in order to get a settlement, then that government is in deep trouble.
It is another indication of their inability to listen and to be involved. All we asked through this debate was for the minister or the Premier to intervene personally and to sit down and talk. I have been informed that the phone calls of the chairman of the board were not responded to. I find that intolerable.
With respect to my esteemed colleague who is now the Minister of Education, I find it especially difficult to understand why he did not at least talk. In the past, as we went across this province on Bill 30, he was very interested in what people had to say. He went out of his way to afford opportunities for members of this party, the party to my left and the public to meet him. On this crucial issue, somehow he has forgotten that ability and he has distanced himself from a situation that needed compassion and concern.
I would seriously ask the minister to reconsider the legislation before this House, to examine the previous positions of government when it had to order back teachers who had withdrawn their services because there was an impasse. I suggest most strongly that he afford to the teachers, the school board and the public the opportunity to meet a mediator and through arbitration to defend their particular positions.
The minister's direction and the motion before this committee -- not my amendment -- again moves against public input. It moves against public interest because the minister has abrogated the natural course of negotiations. I implore the minister, as I implore the members of the government, at least to reconsider his position, to remove his recommendation and allow the amendment my party has put forward to carry in the name of justice, fairness and equality.
I reserve the right to ask more questions of my learned colleague later in the evening.
The Deputy Chairman: Does the minister wish to respond?
Hon. Mr. Conway: In the fullness of time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rae: I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the debate. I was taken back to my Anglican childhood for almost an hour this evening.
An hon. member: Kidnapped.
Mr. Rae: I was almost kidnapped in an intellectual sense. That would be the word to use. I do not know how Elijah or Moses would have voted on Bill 63, but I would be very surprised if they would be supporting the member for Scarborough Centre in some of the more outlandish arguments he made this evening.
What he represents and what he has represented is not some position of theological rationality, not some position of grandiose objectivity, not the position of final arbiter and not the position of abstract justice. What he represents is the position of the employer, the trustees in this dispute, who were rejected even by their own electorate in the county of Wellington. Those are the arguments the member has made this evening, and that is precisely why he is proposing the amendment he is putting forward.
9 p.m.
I did not have the opportunity to say to the minister on second reading what I want to say briefly to him now. I think he has done us all a disservice in failing to bring the parties together himself and to make the one final effort that had to be made in those last days to bring the parties together to be in that room for however long it would take to get a settlement.
I happen to believe there comes a time when the intervention by the minister to try to get the parties to come to an agreement is what we have to come to expect of Ministers of Education in every dispute of this kind. That is what my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) recommended very strongly during the Sudbury dispute.
Mr. Sargent: It does not work.
Mr. Rae: I hear the honourable member's angelic tones. The former member for Wilson Heights used to sit in that seat, and the voice is disarmingly similar. It has the same buzzsaw angelic quality. I only hope his political longevity exceeds that of David Rotenberg.
Hon. Mr. Elston: It has already.
Mr. Rae: That is right.
On reflection, I believe the minister will come to the conclusion that, as unpleasant and difficult as it may sometimes be, it is necessary for the minister to get involved personally and to go beyond the level of whoever has been handling the dispute before and indicate very clearly just what importance the government of Ontario attaches to reaching a reasonable settlement within the spirit of collective bargaining.
Collective bargaining, in my experience, is a very human and very malleable feast. It is something that has to show a degree of the realities of the bargaining situation and the realities of the interests of the students. I do not think the students have been well served by the delay. I do not think the students have been well served by the legislation either. I certainly do not think the interests of collective bargaining have been satisfied by the legislation that is being proposed.
The only thing worse than the legislation that is being proposed is to accept the amendment put forward by the member for Scarborough Centre. I want to indicate why very clearly. I was in my office listening on the squawk-box to the comments that member was making, and they moved me out of my chair and into this chamber. The member was saying the Conservative proposal was a solution that not only had some kind of special quality of abstract justice to it but also was somehow to be seen as something the labour movement would be standing up to fight for.
I have some experience in these matters. I know most of the people who have been active spokesmen or leaders in the labour movement. I have met with a number of people on the shop floor and talked with an awful lot of people in the labour movement in my political career, and I have been vilified by members of the Liberal and Tory parties for having done so.
I want the member for Scarborough Centre to know I cannot think of a less helpful solution to this problem than to force both parties to play Russian roulette, to go back to square one, to pretend there has been no bargaining since January 1984, to pretend there have not been 400 hours of mediation, to pretend there has not been a long and protracted relationship between the two parties that must be brought to a conclusion.
I hoped, and I still believe, a negotiated settlement was the best solution and the most possible solution. I happen to believe that if the minister had intervened, a solution might have been possible. I also happen to believe that if that had not happened, the replacement of the old board with the new board would have produced an immediate result. Either one of those would have produced a result in almost the same time frame as has been proposed by the legislation. That is why we are opposed to the legislation and why at 10:15 p.m. we are going to be standing in our places opposed to it.
All I can say to the Tory party is, if it thinks the legislation is so God-awful, why does it not find the courage to stand up and vote against it so we can get the parties back to the bargaining table? I will tell the Tories why. Because they are ready to knee-jerk; they are the kind of knee-jerk opposition that says: "There are people out there who are unhappy. Let us try to slap them back to work, but let us do it not on the basis of" --
Mr. Wiseman: Let us do it for the children.
Mr. Rae: The member says, "Let us do it for the children."
Mr. Wiseman: Let us hear about them.
Mr. Rae: Let me say to the member for Lanark, yes, of course, but let us not pretend. The members of the Conservative Party have no monopoly on concern for children in the public school system. No party has a monopoly on that concern. We are all concerned about the children. What we are determined to do is to find a solution that makes the most sense for the kids, the teachers, the board and the taxpayers. That is what this is all about.
I say to the members of the Conservative Party who are proposing this amendment, we are in a position where we have to choose between two proposals for an enforced settlement. One proposal, put forward by the Conservative Party, is to go back to square one; everybody get a new lawyer -- that will be good for the bar association -- prepare a new brief, go back to square one and go back over all the old arguments, but do it according to the very restrictive rules for arbitrators set out in Bill 111, which the Tory Party imposed, which the Liberal Party voted for and which we voted against.
There is not a labour negotiator, there is scarcely an arbitrator in this province who has any degree of respect for the restrictions and shackles that have been placed on arbitration by Bill 111. That is one very profound reason why we have no intention of supporting the amendment that has been placed by the member for Scarborough Centre.
What we are suggesting and what I believe the minister is suggesting is that a settlement should take account of the history of negotiations between the two parties. What is arbitration? Is it some kind of abstract justice that falls from the sky? Is it something that falls from the heavens when somebody comes down and says: "Here is your agreement. Be grateful. I have found you the abstract, just solution." We get some nice person who knows nothing about the problem, who has never been there before, who knows nothing about the history of bargaining between the two parties and who says: "Here is your settlement. Live with it for two years. Why not live with it for three?"
Our experience has been that it does not work very well. In fact, the parties have a hard time living with that kind of agreement. All kinds of things are brought into the agreement that are extraneous to the life between the two parties. That democratic give and take which is part and parcel of the wonderful democracy that can be collective bargaining and that should be the world of relations between employers and employees is frequently ignored as some arbitrator tries to find the abstract solution to a problem.
I say with all respect to the member for Scarborough Centre that I would have thought of a practical, Aristotelian approach as opposed to a Platonic approach, which I know he would adopt, an approach that would say: "Let us look at the reality of this relationship between the two parties, at the ground that has been made up, at the 400 hours of mediation, at the fact that bargaining goes back to January 1984. Let us look at the fact that there has been unsuccessful, difficult bargaining -- not a pleasant process; it is not one anyone can look back on with any tremendous degree of pride."
The fact of the matter remains that two mediators have been appointed, Mr. Stockton and Mr. Bernstein. They have met with the parties for hundreds of hours. I think one can fairly say Mr. Bernstein's proposal represents some kind of indication of where all this grist and chafing between the two parties was wearing down.
I happen to believe, with the experience of Mr. Bernstein and Mr. Stockton behind him, the minister would have been able to get those parties to reach an agreement, not in the best of all worlds but indeed in this one. The minister has decided otherwise. I happen to believe one has to have that one face-to-face session before coming into this House and making this kind of a conclusion. One has to have that one-on-one before being able to say, "I, Sean Conway, Minister of Education, have done everything possible to see that a settlement was reached."
I do not think the minister can say that, which is why we are voting against the legislation.
9:10 p.m.
Mr. Cousens: Well, we agree on something.
Mr. Rae: I know the members are going to be there at 10:15 p.m. They are going to be there, ready, aye, ready, voting with these guys, just as they always have on every piece of compulsory arbitration, every enforced settlement, every attack on the labour movement. These two parties have been together, and they will always be together when it comes to those kinds of issues. Nothing will change. We will have sanctimony of the highest order, but every time when it comes to a vote the mace will have to be replaced by a crowbar when it comes to labour relations matters between Liberals and Tories. As we have always said, they are always stuck together on these issues.
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That is not fair. Good things come out of this Legislature. That is an unfair statement.
Mr. Rae: I say to the Minister of Natural Resources that it would be a mistake in labour relations terms for a government to say to the parties and to say about the mediation process that it has all been a complete and utter waste of time. I would have thought a wiser solution would have been to say, "Let us try to take that last step and get the parties together, get them in the office, talk to them, lock the bloody door if that is what we have to do to get the agreement." That is what was not done.
Since the minister did not do that, I do not think the answer is to introduce some deus ex machina out of the sky, saying: "Let us go back to scratch. Forget all about the mediation and bargaining; throw all that into the wastebin of history. Let us start from scratch and produce some agreement out of the sky under Bill 111, which restricts the right of employees and severely ties the hands of arbitrators." That is an even worse solution than the one being proposed by the government.
I want to indicate to the minister that I think more could have been done. I think it would have been possible to go that extra few feet to reach a settlement. I know the minister takes a different view; obviously that is why he came into the House. I also know the Premier takes a different view, but I happen to disagree with that.
I say to the member for Scarborough Centre that the solution he is proposing is nothing more or less than the position that has been put forward by the employers in this dispute. It would be unbecoming for this Legislature, if I may say so once again, to merely do the bidding of employers in public sector disputes. Life is hard enough as it is without this Legislature adding its heavy hand to the already heavy hand that has been so clumsily wielded by the Wellington county trustees in this matter.
With that, I simply indicate that we will not be supporting the amendment proposed by the Conservative Party.
Mr. Davis: Are you going to support the bill?
Mr. Rae: We will not be supporting the bill.
Interjections.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Hon. Mr. Conway: It is a committee of the whole debate, as the opposition House leader realizes, and honourable members are free to engage in --
Interjection.
Hon. Mr. Conway: I recognize that the official opposition has additional interveners.
I must say that any debate ranging from a reference to the prophets Elijah and Moses to a reference to a deus ex machina, one comparing an Aristotelian solution versus a Platonic solution, is certainly a debate worth joining. It has been an interesting evening. I am sorry I did not get to the dentists' dinner, but obviously it has been a pleasant evening.
As always, I listened with great interest to the views of the members of the House. I must say at the outset that on behalf of the government I want to indicate our rejection of the amendment put by the member for Scarborough Centre. In dealing with the amendment, I want to touch on a number of the issues and questions he put during --
Mr. Martel: Is the minister responding? Other people might want to speak.
Hon. Mr. Conway: I realize that, and I do not want to deny them that opportunity. I do not want to be put in the unhappy position I was in earlier today when I was squeezed against the adjournment hour at six o'clock. Those who know me know that --
Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister did not get past the preamble.
Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Scarborough West is quite right.
Mr. McClellan: The minister should get on with the main body of his speech.
Hon. Mr. Conway: I have learned in my new responsibility, and my friend the member for Bellwoods should know that. I shall try to be more pointed in my remarks, and I shall do that this evening.
Mr. Laughren: We will believe it when we see it.
Hon. Mr. Conway: The member should believe it.
I was interested to hear what the member for York South (Mr. Rae) said. I appreciate his advice. Obviously, I do not agree with it, and I will deal with the matter of my personal involvement in a few moments.
It was interesting listening to the member for Scarborough Centre make representation on this matter in the light --
Mr. McClellan: That is not true.
Hon. Mr. Conway: It is true. It is quite interesting listening to the member for Scarborough Centre making representation on this matter. As we all know, he brings to bear considerable experience in these matters of educational policy.
Hon. Mr. Bradley: He was against Bill 127.
Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend the member for St. Catharines reminds me of that with which he has been associated on previous occasions.
It is interesting that for so many days the official opposition prevailed upon the minister to end the dispute in Wellington county because the patience of the official opposition had long ago been exhausted. It is said that surely the Minister of Education must have known that in early November the chairman of the Wellington County Board of Education had determined that a state of jeopardy existed in that county.
My question to the member for Scarborough Centre is, since when has it fallen to one of the involved parties to make a determination of jeopardy?
Mr. Harris: Nobody else was interested.
Hon. Mr. Conway: I say to my friend the member for Nipissing, who knows too much about the reality of the process, that is just not so. I guess I have to come back to the process.
Mr. Harris: The members of the New Democratic Party called on the minister to do the same thing we called on the minister to do, to get involved.
Mr. Chairman: Would the member for Nipissing please wait? He will have his chance to speak later.
Hon. Mr. Conway: As Minister of Education, I came to the responsibility quite knowledgeable about what Bill 100 contained by way of process and mechanism. I would be the first to admit that like a lot of other enactments of this assembly, it is not perfect and we may want to review it.
I have said to my friend the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), and I will repeat it now: an all-party committee to look at Bill 100? To be sure. He should come to the estimates of the Ministry of Education, which will be considered by an all-party committee of the Legislature that I gather is going to be the standing committee on general government this year.
He should come to the estimates of the Ministry of Education and make representation as to what it is he thinks should be done with respect to the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. As Minister of Education, I would be most anxious in that all-party committee of the Legislature to hear the representations of honourable members.
9:20 p.m.
The legislation clearly sets out a framework, a timetable and a mechanism. One of the most important aspects of that legislation is the Education Relations Commission, which has a clear responsibility to monitor the dispute situation and to make a finding of jeopardy. That is the rule by which we play this game so long as Bill 100 is in place. My friend the member for Sudbury East knows that, my friend the member for Nipissing knows that and my friend the member for Scarborough Centre knows that.
I am interested to know what one of the parties in the dispute feels about the jeopardy question. I take note that the chairman of the Wellington County Board of Education had been for days and weeks calling for a legislated end to the dispute.
Mr. Martel: Sure. They do not have to negotiate then.
Hon. Mr. Conway: I take note of that. As I said, I had two conversations with the honourable gentleman, the chairman of the Wellington County Board of Education, and let me repeat for the benefit of my friend the member for Scarborough Centre what I said to him. I said I expected both parties in that dispute to come together and to work it out between themselves. I wanted those parties to know that I meant what I said, that it was not just an innocent little homily and that the chairman of the Wellington county board would be very wise to hear what I was suggesting, because he might be surprised to find that a legislated intervention did not satisfy his every requirement. I repeated that on at least two occasions.
My friends ask, "Why did you not get involved?" The leader of the New Democratic Party invited that question. What happened last week? A lot has been said about what was so different on Monday, November 25, from Wednesday, November 20. Let me just review the last eight or nine days in Wellington county, because it was a week ago Friday night that we --
Mr. McClellan: Never mind.
Hon. Mr. Conway: For the benefit of the House, particularly the members of the New Democratic Party who quite wisely offer advice, to which I listen very carefully, I do not want my friend the member for Bellwoods to become impatient but I do want him to know what --
Mr. McClellan: I do not want to know about the last eight days in Wellington.
Hon. Mr. Conway: I am simply going to take the member for Bellwoods through the last few days to have him understand why I have done what I have done.
It was a week ago Friday night that both parties in the Grey dispute came to a tentative settlement. It was a tentative settlement that had not been predicted, because it was argued by many in this House that there would be no settlement in Grey. They came to a settlement a week ago Friday night. I had some expectation that the settlement in Grey, which was ratified last Wednesday night, would perhaps have a salutary effect on the negotiations in Wellington, and I wanted to see whether such an effect would obtain.
By early last week it was clear that the Grey settlement was not having any appreciable effect on the negotiations in Wellington, so on Tuesday of last week I asked the chairman of the Education Relations Commission to invite both parties from Wellington to Toronto to see whether a change of venue might alter the circumstances of the negotiations.
That was done. Both parties came to Toronto in mid-week. While it is true that both parties met with the mediator on Thursday, the chairman of the Education Relations Commission, Dr. Bryan Downie, and I were standing by, ready to get involved if, on the basis of the information being supplied by the mediator, our intervention might help the situation.
Regrettably, when the parties met in Toronto last Thursday, there was no progress to report; to the contrary, the parties seemed to be going in the other direction. Our very able mediator in that dispute suggested to me that a personal intervention by the minister would not help the situation and I chose to follow that advice. I am interested but not upset to hear that some honourable members in this assembly choose to differ with me, but I take my responsibilities seriously and I will exercise the authority the government has placed in me in so far as these matters are concerned, I am quite happy to tell members of this assembly.
On Friday the Education Relations Commission met and, with no encouragement from me whatsoever, made a finding of jeopardy in the Wellington county situation and so communicated to me late Friday afternoon. I say to my friends in the official opposition that upon receiving that advisement of jeopardy and recognizing at that time we were at the 49th instructional day with very little prospect of a negotiated settlement, I was quite prepared to meet my cabinet colleagues on Monday morning and fulfil the responsibility vested in me as Minister of Education.
I do not care if some members in this assembly tell me they would have done otherwise. It was my decision to make and I am quite prepared to make it and face the responsibility. The buck stops on my desk. I make no denial of that. I am standing here with a government action I am quite prepared to defend. The people will judge me and this government in that connection.
I was asked why I did not meet both parties. Upon receiving cabinet authority on Monday morning, I called both parties to my office and told them what the intentions of the government were.
Mr. Davis: The meeting lasted three minutes.
Hon. Mr. Conway: I do not think it lasted three minutes. It might have lasted 90 seconds and I hope the message was very clear.
I said: "Listen, there will be for you, the parties in Wellington county, one last opportunity to do what most other parties in most other disputes are quite able and willing to do; that is, find the best solution, which is a negotiated solution. Rooms are available across the way at the Sutton Place Hotel this very instant for you to retire to that place to get on with it. We will not call this bill for third reading until late tomorrow evening, so you have 36 hours to get on with it."
Mr. Rae: Why would they not?
Mr. Davis: They already gave the minister a mandate.
Hon. Mr. Conway: The members have made their case. They are not going to support us in this initiative. I respect their views on that matter. I am trying, with all due respect, to explain some of the timetable and some of the process that brought me to this conclusion.
Mr. Martel: The minister left it too late. The timetable was screwed up and the minister knows it.
Hon. Mr. Conway: I say to my friend the member for Sudbury East that it is my responsibility and I am explaining how I came to this matter.
Mr. Martel: You should have followed a little advice sooner. Some of us have been through this before.
Hon. Mr. Conway: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: Order. Would the minister please address the chair and it is more likely there will be fewer distractions.
Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Sudbury East says some of us have been through this before. How right he is.
This Minister of Education, seven or eight years ago in his responsibility as a member of the opposition, was part of a secondary school dispute that lasted 44 days in late April, May and early June of that school year. I want to share one of the memories I have of that experience with my friend the member for Scarborough Centre.
In that Renfrew dispute in 1978, the ERC made a finding of jeopardy that the government of the day, I think a Conservative government, chose to ignore. They said at the time, "It is very interesting that the ERC has made a finding of jeopardy in the Renfrew county secondary school dispute, but the government chooses to ignore it and we expect both parties to settle."
Mr. J. M. Johnson: How many days?
Hon. Mr. Conway: I think the finding was made after 41 or 42 days. Interestingly, a settlement was arrived at a few days later. In the dispute in Sudbury, to which the former House leader of the third party makes continuous reference, a finding of jeopardy was made at the 47th day. A negotiated settlement was arrived at 10 days later.
9:30 p.m.
Mr. Martel: We asked the minister to intervene personally and she did.
Hon. Mr. Conway: Because the member for Scarborough Centre invited my comments about jeopardy, I am simply telling the members what the legislation calls for. I take a determination of jeopardy from the Education Relations Commission.
I received that late Friday afternoon and I chose to act on Monday, not only on account of what the ERC was advising but also because of what was being suggested about the state of negotiations and the likelihood of a negotiated settlement. I chose to go to cabinet on Monday morning to seek approval for what is now Bill 63.
It is interesting that the member for Scarborough Centre pointed out that never before has any government intervened in such a fashion. It is true that the dispute resolution mechanism that is contained in Bill 63 is different. How different is rather interesting and we want to talk about that in just a moment.
I was interested to hear this afternoon the very learned member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) suggest, along with others in the official opposition, that Bill 100 clearly suggests binding arbitration is the sole dispute resolution mechanism. The official opposition made repeated references to the fact that binding arbitration is all that is intended or contemplated in Bill 100. It is interesting that Bill 100 makes reference to binding arbitration and final-offer selection, but it does so on the basis of where both parties agree that is the mechanism that could be agreed to; it is only a voluntary means. The member for Nipissing, among others, knows that.
I have said, and I repeat, that this government and this minister intend to send a clear signal to the educational community that it will not get from this Legislature any better deal than it would have been able to have negotiated itself. It is very important for those who have it in their minds that, "Let us not negotiate, let us take it to Queen's Park and they will have to give us an opportunity to thrash the old straw."
I have no interest in bringing in another arbitrator in this Wellington county dispute after -- as the leader of the New Democratic Party pointed out -- we have had more than 500 hours of mediation, 300 of which were mediated over the last two or three months by the very able and experienced Norm Bernstein.
I am reliably informed that the mediator's proposal, which is not only comprehensive but I believe is also very much a fair and reasonable one, is in net effect about the kind of settlement that the parties would have negotiated, or in net effect the kind of settlement that an arbitrator is likely to produce. That is the judgement I have made on the basis of some expert advice provided to me by the Education Relations Commission.
Mr. McClellan: Time.
Hon. Mr. Conway: I will, but sometimes I get provoked by some of what is said.
Mr. McClellan: The minister is in love with the sound of his own voice.
Hon. Mr. Conway: No, I am not. I want to say to the member for Bellwoods that I have been very careful to be silent as all other members have spoken. He is going to have to listen to 20 minutes of me in this debate, I am sorry to say. I have always appreciated his interventions.
To the member for Scarborough Centre who said, "Never before have these kinds of things been written into legislation," I want to point out a little history which he will know. If he does not, the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) will quickly point out to him that in 1974 the sainted Tom Wells of happy memories, in legislating an end to the dispute between the York County Board of Education and certain of its teachers, put in that legislation a salary grid below which the arbitrator could not go.
The member for Scarborough Centre might like to go back to the annals of this Legislature in 1974 to inquire about that legislation and how it contained a salary grid below which the arbitrator who was being brought in could not go. That is part of the Conservative past.
I believe very much that what we have in this legislation is a fair and reasonable adjudication of a strike which, in my view, has gone on too long. Yes, I take very seriously my responsibility to the 8,200 secondary school students in Wellington county.
I have said to the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, when I am asked whether I am aware of the anguish, pain, suffering and dislocation in that county and how can I be so heartless as to appear not to respond to it; yes, I know the dislocation and the difficulty of these disputes. I have great faith in the reasonableness and good judgement of the people of Wellington county. My question to the questioners is: what is it about the parties in Wellington, the good people who are representing the board and the teachers at these negotiations, that they are so apparently insensitive to this difficulty in communities such as Guelph, Erin, Alma, Harriston, Palmerston and all those other wonderful places in that great county of Wellington? Surely they have a first-line responsibility to deal with that community pressure. They have chosen not to do so.
This government and this minister are quite prepared to discharge their responsibilities. We will do so tonight with the passage of Bill 63. Not with any particular joy; because the New Democratic Party spokesmen are quite right in repeating what I said here yesterday: this is not the best way. The best way is a negotiated settlement. I regret to say that, after we have exhausted what I believe are all steps and all reasonable measures, apparently we are not going to achieve a locally negotiated settlement in Wellington county.
Therefore, this government will act tonight, with the support of this Legislature, to get on with the business of bringing an end to the 51-day-old dispute, reopen the schools, begin the process of building a better relationship between the new board and the secondary school teachers, and take every possible measure to ensure that those students graduating this year from Wellington county secondary schools into post-secondary institutions will be provided for, as my colleagues in the Ministry of Colleges and Universities have given every indication they will be.
Mr. J. M. Johnson: I take exception to the comments made by the member for York South. He talked about the give-and-take relationship between labour and management. He talks about intervening in this process. He implies everything is okay if one leaves the two parties alone.
What about the students? Is the member not concerned about them? Why does he not talk about them once in a while. It is always labour or management, never the kids. My people in Wellington-Dufferin-Peel are very concerned about the students and it is time the third party took some interest.
I would like to ask the Minister of Education, in good conscience, why does he keep saying we can review Bill 100 and the Matthews report in his estimates when he knows that with the limited time available we cannot even get into it, let alone have hearings or any public input? It is an impossibility and the minister is hiding from the fact he does not want to review it. He has to look at it.
I would like to emphasize one concern I have expressed on numerous occasions, and that is lack of protection in the legislation for our students. I requested the government's intervention in the strike several times in the past couple of months. I was told we could have a locally negotiated settlement, but that is not going to happen. After 52 or 53 days we are heading for a new record. Finally the minister has decided to move.
The Sudbury settlement took 56 days but it was not a semester system and part of that time was in July, when the education process was over for the summer. This has been one of the most destructive teachers' strikes in the history of Ontario. If members question that statement, I challenge them to go to Wellington county and talk to the parents and teachers and students and other people involved. Wellington is one of the most wonderful counties in this province, with friendly, kind, gentle people who have been torn apart by this strike. It has pitted neighbour against neighbour and friend against friend. The question I ask is why.
9:40 p.m.
In Wellington it has long been acknowledged by most people that an early settlement to this strike was impossible. I brought this to the attention of the Minister of Education on numerous occasions and to the Premier. They both repeated the refrain that only a locally negotiated settlement would be acceptable and that it was the responsibility of the members affected -- that is, the member of Wellington South, the member for Grey and I -- to go home and encourage both parties to settle. So we went home and encouraged both parties to settle, and all we did was to stir up more animosity, more trouble and more friction. There has to be a better mechanism.
Some members in this House, especially the members of the third party, have indicated that, if left alone, everything is going to resolve itself and there will be no problem.
Mr. Martel: Aw, put it in your ear.
Mr. J. M. Johnson: Perhaps that is true, I say to the member for Sudbury East, but I have just one question: how long does he want to let it happen? Just so it goes past 56 days?
Does anyone in this House consider the students of this province to have any rights, let alone equal rights? I do and my Progressive Conservative caucus does, and that is why we are supporting Bill 63 and the amendments proposed by the member for Scarborough Centre.
In a local paper this past weekend there was an advertisement promoting the Futures program of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. It is an excellent program, but on the opposite side of the page was a story about the strike, about the students who would not have any future because they had to leave the school system because the same government that is promoting the Futures program would not take the responsibility to do something to bring the students back to the schools so they could gain an education and have a future in this province. Where is the future for these students? Where is the minister?
Since the strike started 11 weeks ago, the students and parents have asked me why the system does not protect the students' right to an education, and I have not been able to give them a satisfactory answer. I did promise them one thing. I would do my best to try to bring about a change in legislation to do that very thing, and I have only started. Tonight let us pass legislation to bring about an end to this strike, and tomorrow let us move to bring in legislation to give our young people equal rights under Bill 100. Surely the minister and the Premier will have the intestinal fortitude, the courage and the sense of responsibility to our young people to do at least that much.
I will leave the minister with one thought. Thomas Henry Huxley said, "It is not who is right but what is right that is of importance." Tonight I am talking about the rights of our young people, 8,200 students in Wellington county. It is not who is right, the board or the teachers, but what is right. Is it right to take away the future of young people for any reason? That is of importance and that is the question the members of this House will have to answer later this evening when they vote on this bill. May they vote for what is right, not for who is right.
Mr. Chairman: Would the leader of the third party and the Treasurer have their conversation elsewhere instead of in front of the Minister of Education?
Mr. Martel: If I could use the word "provocative" in this House I would use it tonight; but I cannot use it, so I will not.
I sat through a strike of 56 days and I have listened to the pompous comments of my colleagues to the right about the children. I wonder where they were during the Sudbury strike. I wonder where their government was then. I recall well that strike went on for 56 days.
Mr. J. M. Johnson: Did the member ask for an intervention?
Mr. Martel: I am going to come to that. The members of that party did not say a word. They were silent because it was a Tory government then. They did not have the courage to say a word because the member for York Mills, the former Minister of Education, might have bopped them. She would have put them in their places very quickly. They did not say a word.
I have heard the sanctimony about the kids. As a teacher, I worry about kids, but I also worry about the type of settlement that is being imposed. I asked the minister last week to bring both parties in because it was time he met with them both. That is how we resolved the strike in Sudbury. On the appropriate occasion I said to the then government House leader, my friend Tom Wells: "I think they are ripe for the plucking. Bring them both in. Sit them down in a room."
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Can members not imagine the member for Sudbury East and the member for York Mills bringing them together in sweet reasonableness?
Mr. Martel: She did not. I have heard it was anything but sweet reason. When my friend the former government House leader brought them in, or persuaded the then minister to bring them in, she met with them for 12 hours and at the end of 12 hours we had a settlement that was not imposed.
That type of settlement is wrong, but it is not as bad as what is being offered. My wife went through a strike last May during the election and they agreed to binding arbitration.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: The things that lady goes through.
Mr. Martel: Yes, I do not go shopping at night.
In binding arbitration, the arbitrator, who was none other than Mr. Bernstein in the strike my wife was involved in last year, said to the board, "One of the things you have to determine is to lay down guidelines for personal day leave." Just a week ago Friday, my wife was at arbitration. The board having been told by the arbitrator that it had to come down with the criteria for personal day leave, seven months later there is a whole raft of arbitrations because the board has not bothered to follow what the arbitrator said it must do, that is, lay down the criteria by which people would have personal day leave.
As I said a week ago on this issue in the emergency debate, in the separate school board in Sudbury I venture to say there will be another strike this year because what the arbitrator told the board it had to do, the board has chosen not to do. We can try to impose things if we want, but when one side decides it will not listen and will not reflect what it has been instructed to do, that just creates more animosity.
I listened to the nonsense from this side of the House about imposing arbitration and the silly amendment, because Tory members did not want simply to support the government. They had to have something different. That is really what it is. If they knew anything about arbitration and collective bargaining, they make worse sense unless they want to say it is an essential service. If they want say it is an essential service, then they are going to end up with more than they have now. They cannot have it both ways.
They cannot even have it both ways when they go after the government of the day, because in the Sudbury strike they were found wanting. None of the Tories, and many of them are sitting on that bench, said a word about the strike in Sudbury. Maybe that was because a Tory riding was not affected. They sat there with their fingers in their ears and their brains in neutral, the same place they are tonight.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: They are in reverse tonight.
9:50 p.m.
Mr. Martel: Are they in reverse tonight? I thought they were in neutral. They did not say a word. George, you were in cabinet. Why did you not say something? It was not a Tory riding, was it, George? You could let them --
Mr. Chairman: Would the member for Sudbury East please address the chair and cease using first names in the House. Address the members by their riding.
Mr. Martel: Whom did I call by his first name? George?
Mr. Chairman: Several people.
Mr. Martel: Sorry, pardon me. What is his riding? Some obscure name such as Durham West.
He did not worry. You will recall that, Mr. Chairman. You were here, I believe. No one from the Tory side of the House seemed to be overly concerned about the kids in Sudbury in the middle of that strike, which lasted 56 days. I believe it was the longest in the history of this province.
When I hear the pap and the sanctimony out of those jokers, it is a little tough to take. When they come in with a solution that is not going to resolve a thing, it is even worse. They stand there as though they know something. They know something about preaching, but collective bargaining, I am not sure.
Mr. McClellan: I am not so sure about preaching after tonight.
Mr. Martel: Maybe I am wrong on the first two.
I told the minister a week ago to take one kick at the can of bringing both sides in, to lay a heavy on them that he wanted a settlement. Then the timetable the minister gave was really irresponsible. We have heard tonight how long it took. However, if the minister had sat with them over the night for 10 or 12 hours, he might have got -- I know he is tired. He is an old man.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: He should have brought in the member for York Mills.
Mr. Martel: I would not wish it on him.
It happened in Sudbury. They both reach a point where they want somebody to resolve it for them. They really want somebody to step on them and say, "You are going to settle." The minister could have done it without this.
My friend knows 51 days has now become the benchmark for strikes. We know if we get one into 25 days from here on in, they will sit around and wait. They know. They will say good old -- I cannot say Sean, can I, Mr. Chairman?
An hon. member: No. The minister.
Mr. Martel: Right. The minister.
They will say as it gets closer to 51, the minister is going to start talking about legislation, and they will sit waiting for it. That is what the government has established when it does this. It sets the benchmark, which will be the benchmark for other people to reach. As they get near the end, they will get what they want. I suspect what most of them wanted was return-to-work legislation. The minister accommodated them, rather than sitting them down in a room, as the former Minister of Education, the member for York Mills did. She sat with them and she really pushed them.
I asked my friend to do that. It would have been a lot better had he brought them in last Friday. The minister has nothing to do on the weekend. He could have sat with them and held their hands, both sides, on Friday afternoon, Friday evening and Saturday. Eventually, he would have had an agreement by late Sunday morning. He could have done it.
I find this sort of procedure the most offensive because it does not resolve anything. What is even worse is the proposal from my friends, who finally recognized the rights of children, although they did not do it in the Sudbury strike, which went for 56 days. Most of the members sitting on those benches tonight were cabinet ministers then. I could name some of them, George, could I not? I did not tell you which George I am talking about, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: The member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague).
Mr. Martel: Thank you for your help.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: No trouble.
Mr. Martel: They did not care. They wanted something different from what the minister has said, which is more draconian, because we can go back to square one. I wish he had followed a little bit of advice from us who have been through it. We went through the longest strike.
I must say my friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) was threatened during that strike. We hung tough. We did not demand. My friend the member for Nickel Belt was threatened more than once, and we hung tough. It was not easy and it is not easy. I understand what the member went through, what my friend from Dufferin-Simcoe went through and what the minister went through.
Those are tough situations. We always say what about the kids. As a former teacher and the parent of four kids, I recognize the difficulties, but I also recognize that the only solution is a collective agreement arrived at by positive collective bargaining.
One can only achieve that when one forces them to bargain. One never achieves a lasting resolution of a problem by legislation forcing them back to work or even by arbitration. I venture to say to my friend the minister, that come next May we will see a strike in the separate school system in Sudbury because, although our friend Bernstein made recommendations, the board chose not to follow them. When that happens, one is in serious trouble. That is what is going to happen here as well.
From here on in, people will find that benchmark. The minister, or some minister, will eventually use that as the benchmark, and we will never have a strike longer than that. The minister has done a hell of a disservice and I wish, with his youth, he would have followed a little advice; he might have followed those of us who have been around here a little longer.
Mr. Runciman: I want to point out one thing. I have been advised that the Minister of Education dredged up a 1974 example. I was not around here, but Bill 100 passed in 1975. It is not really an appropriate example to be indicating to the House in suggesting that the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) was incorrect in what he said earlier in this debate.
I am going to make some brief comments. I thought it was quite interesting when the member for York South came in earlier and suggested that he rushed into the House after listening to the squawk-box and hearing some of the comments of the member for Scarborough Centre. We were talking about jeopardy, and I think that is really what precipitated the member for York South to rush into the House, because if anyone or anything is in jeopardy it is that party to the left.
I think he appreciated the accuracy of the remarks of my colleague and felt he had to rush in here to get something on the record to try to counteract the very honest and accurate statements the member for Scarborough Centre was delivering in his comments. We talk about sanctimony.
The member for York South also mentioned that our reaction in dealing with this bill is knee-jerk opposition. I think we would rather be knee-jerk opposition than phoney opposition. Let us face it. We have some credibility as an opposition and that is something they cannot say.
Mr. Wildman: Why are you voting for it?
Mr. Runciman: We will get around to it.
Mr. Wildman: It is pretty tough to be in opposition and still vote with them on this.
Mr. Runciman: Not at all.
We talked about a negotiated settlement being preferable. I do not think anyone disagrees with that. That makes eminent good sense. I agree with some of the things the third party has said with respect to intervention by the minister or the Premier. I think it would have been appropriate at an earlier stage. By his own admission, the minister suggested the meeting might have lasted something like 90 seconds or three minutes at the most.
If he has been criticized, it is perhaps that this was bad judgement. I do not know. I think it was more inexperience in his new role. Perhaps he should have sat down with the parties and said, "We have to work hard, around the clock if necessary, to achieve a settlement; we are going to put you in a hotel room and we are going to resolve this thing," without saying, "If you do not resolve this in a day or two, I am going to legislate a settlement." I think that was an inappropriate way to proceed.
I may be wrong, but I understand the New Democratic Party supported Bill 100. As the minister has indicated, the Education Relations Commission has indicated that jeopardy has been found. Our member has suggested that although we agree with settlement of the strike and with the urgency of settling the strike, we have some disagreement with the particulars of the legislation and we are suggesting alternatives.
10 p.m.
I do not see any suggestions from that party with respect to alternatives. It is blindly voting against this and is ignoring the genuine problems and concerns of the school children in this province. In my view, it boils down to a feeble effort to distinguish itself from the Liberal Party, its bedmate since June. That is the essential purpose of what the NDP is doing here tonight.
Mr. Martel: We thought your party was voting with them tonight, as it did this afternoon.
Mr. Runciman: We think there are some things wrong, but we feel it is important to legislate an end to this and get the kids back to school where they belong, unlike the third party which seems to say: "Let this go on endlessly. Let the process work its way out, even if it takes two or three years. Who cares?"
Mr. Martel: Is that what the Conservatives did in Sudbury?
Mr. Runciman: Perhaps we have learned. The member was suggesting the former Minister of Education, the member for York Mills, would not intervene. I will remind him of Bill 124 in 1981, where the then minister did indeed indicate her interest --
Mr. Martel: Ahead of time.
Mr. Runciman: Ahead of time, she jumped in. That strike had been going on for more than two months and the then minister acted. We are not suggesting everything was perfect in the past, but we have learned; obviously the Liberal Party has learned. The New Democratic Party has not learned.
We will put a couple of quick things on the record about the legislation and we want to endorse some comments made by some interested parties in this whom we support in their views. We feel it is ignoring the recommendations of the fact-finder. It ignores the provisions of Bill 111, the Public Sector Prices and Compensation Review Act.
It ignores the historical relationship between elementary and secondary teachers, and what should be important to the NDP, it ignores sound labour relations practice. It also denies the parties an opportunity to present their relative positions to an arbitrator who will make a decision based on the facts of the dispute and the merits of the positions of the parties rather than political expediency.
I am not a fan of Bill 100, as most members know from our debate on Bill 124, but this bill, with the amendment that has been proposed, I believe merits the support of the House.
Mr. Wildman: With regard to the time, I will speak very briefly. I will not deal with some of the rather silly arguments that have been made with respect to what was termed the "natural flow of collective bargaining" which apparently leads, according to the Conservatives, to binding arbitration; nor will I deal with the arguments that have been made very well this evening with regard to the failure of the minister to exercise proper influence to try bringing about a settlement before imposing this kind of legislation.
What I want to deal with are the comments that have been made repeatedly this evening concerning the fact that not enough has been said about the students. As a former educator, I am very concerned about them and I recognize the concerns that have been raised by members in the House tonight and by the parents involved about the immediate future for their children and the students in the secondary schools.
It is incumbent upon us, as legislators in a democratic society, to consider what effects this legislation may have on the views students have and what they learn about democratic rights in our society. I do not think anybody has addressed that this evening.
What are we as a Legislature, in passing this kind of legislation, teaching young people about free collective bargaining and how it operates in our society? What are we teaching students about the protection of democratic rights? What are we teaching them about responsibilities, both of teachers and elected boards of education, in a democratic society?
I submit we are teaching students to be cynical about all of the pious statements made by members of all political parties about democracy and the rights and responsibilities of both parties when we bring in this kind of legislation, which basically tells everyone, not just the students but also the parents, the boards and the teachers, that there is no need to live up to one's responsibilities in negotiations to bring about a just and reasonable settlement, that because one can depend on a third party to come in and impose something, one does not have to make the compromises that are necessary in any real collective bargaining process.
For those reasons I cannot support either the legislation proposed by the minister or the silly amendments being proposed by the official opposition.
Mr. Baetz: I would like to speak very briefly on this in conclusion.
Mr. Chairman: Before you commence, might I ask all honourable members to carry on their private conversations outside or somewhere else, particularly not in the vicinity of the Minister of Education.
Mr. Baetz: We have heard a great deal tonight about the process we are engaged in here in trying to find some justice in this settlement. Those of us who have sat here for hours have drawn for inspiration on Moses, Jeremiah, Aristotle and even Huxley.
I have some concern about my very good friend the Minister of Education for the way he has conducted himself in the course of these very difficult negotiations, and my concern and my disappointment really rest on the great admiration I have for this young minister. I have sat here in this House on the opposite side. I have heard him speak with great inspiration over the years. I fully expected something very different when he went to the government side on the basis of what he had been saying on this side, and I have been slightly disappointed.
To illustrate this disappointment -- as I say, we have been hearing about Huxley, Aristotle and Moses -- I would like to quote a nursery rhyme that will illustrate the feeling I have about this young minister on this subject.
The nursery rhyme is simply this: "Pussy-cat, pussy-cat, where have you been? I have been to London to see the Queen." Of course, the moral of this nursery rhyme is, my God, what a fantastic pussy-cat, so extraordinary, so wonderfully different. Then it goes on to say: "Pussy-cat, pussy-cat, what have you done there? I chased a mouse right under the chair." Then, of course, comes the enormous disappointment that this pussy-cat is just like any other pussy-cat and acts in exactly the same way.
In a sense, I have this kind of disappointment with the minister. We expected so much and yet we have found during the course of these very difficult negotiations that this young and good friend the minister really very quickly became a captive of the system, as may have been the case with other ministers who have gone before him in this House and in other Houses. My real disappointment was that he tended very quickly to become a rather passive captive of the system.
In the last few weeks he has come back time and time again and told us he has to conform to the process, he is a part of the process, he has to listen to the Education Relations Commission and so on. That has been a point of real concern in all of this. Then when he hears my distinguished colleague and when our party attempts to introduce an amendment that would try to improve the process, once again we see this young minister defend the system.
10:10 p.m.
How disappointing. How very much he acts like all other ministers of days gone by. So in all of this it has been a real disappointment that he has become really a passive captive of the system. I hope we will support the amendment, because really we all know that the process we agreed to some years ago was not perfect. Time has proven that. We have had strikes since then. We have known that students have been very seriously damaged in the process of these strikes.
We are trying here to improve the process and the system, at least slightly. Yet, instead of finding this young, exciting, intelligent minister saying, "My God, you know maybe we have something here; I am ready to support you," we find the minister falling back, protecting the system, protecting those nameless, faceless advisers, who say, "No, no, Minister, you cannot do that."
I appeal to the minister to have an open mind to improve the system because, as the member for Sudbury East said, there are going to be more strikes. We know that. There are going to be a lot more strikes and a lot of young students are going to be hurt over the years.
Frankly, as a parent of a student who was very seriously hurt in a long and protracted strike in the Ottawa Board of Education, I thank God she finally graduated with honours in English from Queen's University. She had to drop mathematics, however, because of the long school strike. It cut down her opportunities.
We are trying to improve the system. I speak here somewhat more personally than the young minister can. Some day he may marry a school teacher, as I have. Some day he may have children going through the system who will be hurt by it, as my daughter was. I hope we are not going to depend forever on some nameless, faceless group of people with the acronym ERC to determine when our children are in jeopardy
Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is really good.
Mr. Baetz: Yes, I am going to wind it up right now.
Mr. Wildman: Never mind the Treasurer; the member did well.
Mr. Baetz: I would hope we could have more parents on panels such as this, so the minister would not simply throw up his arms in the last few weeks and say, "It is the ERC." The ERC has now come to the point where it has decided, in its judgement, that there are children in jeopardy. I suspect if more parents and students were on the ERC, the alarm signals would have gone up long before this.
Finally, I have one more thing to say to our distinguished party to the far left down here. We have heard tonight, as we have time and time again, that we are dealing with basic human rights and freedoms. It is all a part of this and we have to respect these rights; the rights of freedom of association, the right to strike, etc.
I suggest we cannot forget in all this the fundamental right the children of this province have: a right to an education. That is the basic right and, quite frankly, I have been very disturbed because that is one right that has been absolutely disregarded, overlooked and destroyed in this whole process. That is why I hope the members will support the amendment, to see if, jointly, we can improve the process and avoid these kinds of human disasters in the years to come.
Mr. Ferraro: I was not intending to speak again but, much to the chagrin of my colleagues, I am compelled. I cannot sit here any more without saying a few things. I do not know if I am ever going to make it in this business of politics. One of the advantages of being a rookie is that one can sit here objectively and listen.
I listened tonight to the leader and the members of the third party talking about history, as did other members, and talking about the rights of labour.
I listened to the members of the opposition talking at great length about history. They are so concerned over there that the Education Relations Commission is not working even though the legislation has been brought out. Their sincerity was shot down the toilet when their biggest concern today was to have the office of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) call the newspaper in my riding twice to make sure that he and the Conservatives got credit for this legislation. They can have the credit. Let labour get the credit.
Nobody in this House can tell me about my community. My community overwhelmingly wants legislation. It wants it now and the rest is all baloney.
10:25 p.m.
The committee divided on Mr. Davis's amendment to section 2, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 39; nays 67.
Section 2 agreed to.
Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole House reported one bill.
WELLINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Conway moved third reading of Bill 63, An Act respecting The Wellington County Board of Education and Teachers Dispute.
10:30 p.m.
The House divided on Mr. Conway's motion for third reading of Bill 63, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes
Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Bossy, Bradley, Brandt, Caplan, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Cousens, Curling, Davis, Dean, Eakins, Elston, Epp, Eves;
Ferraro, Fontaine, Fulton, Gillies, Gordon, Grandmaître, Gregory, Grossman, Guindon, Haggerty, Harris, Henderson, Hennessy, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Kerrio, Keyes, Knight, Kwinter;
Lane, Leluk, Mancini, Marland, McCague, McFadden, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McNeil, Miller, G. L, Morin, Munro, Newman, Nixon, O'Connor, Offer, O'Neil, Partington, Poirier, Pollock, Polsinelli, Pope;
Reycraft, Ridden, Rowe, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sargent, Scott, Shymko, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sorbara, South, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Sweeney, Turner, Van Horne, Villeneuve, 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, Ramsay, Reville, Swart, Wildman.
Ayes 84; nays 24.
The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.
ROYAL ASSENT
Hon. Mr. Alexander: Pray be seated.
Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed a certain bill to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.
Assistant Clerk: The following is the title of the bill to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:
Bill 63, An Act respecting The Wellington County Board of Education and Teachers Dispute.
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to this bill.
The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.
The House adjourned at 10:40 p.m.