Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to introduce, sitting in the gallery, 30 pupils from Sunnyside Public School in the city of Sudbury, their principal, Forbes Stoodley, and four adults who are accompanying this group for a three-day visit to the city of Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

SUMMER EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMME

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the hon. members that the Ontario government will employ close to 18,000 young people this summer. Summer employment in the Ontario government is divided into two parts, the $9 million Ontario Experience ‘74 programme employing some 7,400 young people in 20 special job projects, and the regular summer replacement hiring which will employ more than 10,000 young people.

Hon. members have received copies of the Youth Secretariat summer employment information booklet. This booklet represents the first time that all summer opportunities offered by the government have been catalogued in such a manner. It is our intention in producing and distributing this booklet to high schools, colleges, universities and Manpower Centres across Ontario, that young people in the province have as complete information as possible concerning the opportunities available.

As a backup to the booklet, an information centre is in operation which young people can call collect, or write to, if they require further information. The number and address of the centre is in the booklet.

As hon. members will note in the booklet, the Ontario Youth Secretariat is responsible for the co-ordination of the Ontario Experience ‘74 programme. Through the secretariat, the programme development, budget, evaluation and information functions of Ontario Experience ‘74 are being coordinated.

The application procedure and hiring for the Ontario Experience ‘74 programme and for the regular summer replacement positions will be the responsibility of the various ministries and the agencies involved, and I want to emphasize that point.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the hon. members to the guidelines we followed in developing the Ontario Experience ‘74 programme. Briefly, these are:

Ontario Experience ‘74 jobs must be jobs that need to be done -- jobs that will bring concrete benefits to communities in Ontario jobs that will provide real value for the taxpayers’ dollars.

Ontario Experience ‘74 jobs must be tied to local concerns and be administered by agencies that can identify these concerns. Our reliance on existing agencies -- agencies that are involved in their communities on a year-round basis -- provides local supervision and local accountability in every programme.

Ontario Experience ‘74 jobs must provide opportunities for worthwhile learning experiences for those employed -- experiences which in many cases will aid young people with career decisions. Many of our programmes will involve young people in fields of interest which we expect will grow significantly in the future and thus offer good potential for future occupations.

Ontario Experience ‘74 jobs must provide opportunities for young people to bring their special talents to the work situations, their vitality, their enthusiasms, their training, and their youthful approach. In many programmes, young people will be able to use their own initiatives and ideas in finding new ways to deliver services or in adding new elements to existing programmes.

Mr. Speaker, within Ontario Experience ‘74 there are a number of new programmes. The new youth and the arts programme of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities will provide employment with various cultural organizations such as the McMichael Canadian Collection, the Ontario Arts Council, the Art Gallery of Ontario, and public libraries and local museums across this province. Through these agencies young people will be involved in such tasks as cataloguing museum collections of artifacts, acting as research assistants in museum curatorial departments, and providing educational information to the public concerning various art works.

The consumer advice programme of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations will employ young people in a pilot project consumer storefront office. CAP, as we call it, will enable the young people involved to assist consumers in acquiring specific information about goods and services, and also to assist consumers who have encountered problems with retailers, wholesalers and/or manufacturers.

The Ministry of Labour, through its labour experience internship programme, will provide placements with labour unions, labour councils, industrial relations units and the like, exposing young people to the field of industrial relations, its role and operation. The construction safety inspection internship under the same programme will give civil engineering and civil technology students invaluable exposure to the provincial construction safety programme.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other programmes that I could go through, but I want to make the statement as brief as possible. Consideration has been given to an equitable distribution of Ontario Experience ‘74 jobs throughout the province. However, I want to point out that many of our programmes such as SWORD and Youth in Action will stress provision of jobs in areas where there is not a large industrial base to absorb young people into the employment market. We expect to provide in the neighbourhood of 1,600 Ontario Experience ‘74 positions in northern Ontario alone.

Consideration has also been given to provision of jobs for both secondary students and university and community college students in the Ontario Experience ‘74 programme. Just over half of the jobs will be available for college and university students. The rest have been designed specifically for secondary students who, because of their shorter summer break, cannot always compete with students from colleges and universities.

I should add that the Youth Secretariat has prepared contingency plans, and will monitor the employment situation during the summer. Some of our larger programmes have been designed so that they can be expanded quickly to meet needs that might arise if student unemployment becomes exceptionally high in any specific geographic area of the province.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): It’s like OFY.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. members will be interested to learn that the secretariat will be co-operating with the federal government in a review of the OFY projects for this year. The secretariat will receive the OFY applications and forward them to the appropriate ministries of the Ontario government for comment. We will collect the comments and return them to Ottawa. It is hoped that this scrutinizing procedure will help us to avoid instances of duplication of services, conflicts between programmes in communities, and the like.

Mr. Martel: Wasn’t that sent out two weeks ago?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We are also consulting with the federal government in regard to the design of their evaluation of all of their summer programmes in this province.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Is OFY good now? Or better or second best?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We are doing this as we are concerned with some aspects of the federal programmes, their accountability, their supervision, the relevance of the experience offered, and the possible creation of dependencies in communities which the communities are not prepared to assume after the summer.

We hope to encourage the federal government to take a look at these kinds of concerns this summer, with a view to ironing out some of the difficulties the federal programmes have tended to create for our communities in our province in the past.

Mr. Speaker, although Ontario Experience ‘74 is a large programme, it will not employ every young person in the province, nor is that our intention. Most summer employment will be provided by the private sector, and we think that’s the way it should be.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): I am sure the government does.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Before I finish, I would like to inform the hon. members that in Ontario Experience ‘74, wherever possible, we will try to employ handicapped persons who might not otherwise be able to find employment. We are asking all of the ministries and all of the agencies to give special consideration to these people. We ourselves will be contacting the special groups and institutions that work with the handicapped to provide them with special assistance in finding employment in our programme.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to my involvement with the Ontario Experience ‘74 Programme. I anticipate that the programme will provide rewarding work experience for the many young people in Ontario who will participate in it. I will visit as many of the projects in Ontario Experience ‘74 as I can this summer, and I would hope that when I do, the hon. members who represent the people of those areas will be able to accompany me.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me assure hon. members that I will strive to carry out my duties as the minister responsible for the Ontario Youth Secretariat as effectively and as productively as my predecessor, now the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch).

Thank you.

TASK FORCE ON POLICING

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I will be tabling the report of the task force on policing in Ontario. The Solicitor General established the task force in May, 1972, to review the administration, organization and efficiency of police in this province.

Under the chairmanship of Edward B. Hale, the task force has conducted an extensive examination of all aspects of policing as they relate to the people of our province. Its membership includes a diverse range of citizens; for example, active police officers of various ranks, a high school principal, a lawyer, municipal politicians and citizens. They were backed up by a professional research team which included specialists in business and criminology.

The task force conducted public hearings in 15 different cities in the province. Also, in order to compare policing in Ontario with that in other jurisdictions, task force representatives went to other provinces in Canada, as well as to the United States and Europe.

Mr. Singer: How come we didn’t read this in the Globe and Mail this morning?

Hon Mr. Kerr: The task force received over 200 written submissions at its 14 public and five in camera hearings and, in addition, obtained extension information from interviews and conversations with police officers and citizens from all walks of life.

The report covers the analysis and forecast of the extent and nature of policing in the future; the division of responsibility between various forces; the financing of police services; manpower training and development; administration; the function of the Ontario Police Commission, local police commissions and other governing bodies and the relationship between the police and the public. This relationship also becomes the theme of the entire report.

The report makes 170 recommendations, Mr. Speaker, which will now be examined by my ministry.

COMMUNITY-SPONSORED HOUSING PROGRAMME

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the members a broad outline of a programme my ministry is introducing to provide assistance to community groups in developing and managing their own housing projects.

The programme, which we are calling the Community-Sponsored Housing Programme, is aimed at assisting such groups as non-profit and certain co-operative organizations, as well as housing companies set up and operated by the municipal governments.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The purpose of this new programme is two-fold -- to promote cooperative and non-profit housing generally as another means of producing accommodation for moderate-income earners, and to establish another method of integrating public housing units in the community.:

Community-sponsored housing is part of the diverse range of policies already announced, or being developed, within the Housing ministry. The programme will relate closely to two federal amendments made last year to the National Housing Act. While these amendments are most helpful, we in the provincial government feel they do not go far enough, particularly as they relate to persons and families in the lower- and moderate-income ranges.

The community groups to be assisted will include people of many income levels and with a wide variety of special interests and goals -- such organizations as service clubs, charitable bodies and those dedicated to aiding the elderly and the disabled.

The programme will complement the federal assistance and add to it in basically three ways:

1. It will provide grants of up to 10 per cent of the value of the housing projects, to be paid progressively over a 15-year period in order to reduce the mortgage payments.

2. It will financially assist in the rent payments of those in the lower- and moderate-income groups through the rent supplement programme. In return for the grants, the community-sponsored groups will provide generally up to 25 per cent of their units for use under the rent supplement programme.

3. It will make available ongoing support, in the form of expertise or other assistance, in the areas of both the development and management of housing projects.

As well, as a partial or whole alternative to the grants, my ministry is prepared to lease provincial lands, where available, to community-sponsored groups having difficulty finding sites at reasonable cost.

Presently, the NHA amendments I referred to provide such assistance as up to $10,000 in startup funds, mortgage loans of up to 100 per cent plus a 10 per cent capital contribution, and grants of up to $2,500 per unit for the rehabilitation of existing housing for use by non-profit groups.

When added to this federal assistance, the new Ontario programme will, I believe, result in rent levels which are within the reach of those persons and families needing assistance the most.

That is the broad thrust of the programme. There are still certain mechanics and details yet to be worked out and, so that we may complete these in consultation with those who will be closely involved, my ministry -- in conjunction with the federal government, through Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. -- will be hosting a conference on the subject in Toronto on March 25. To this conference we are inviting representatives of the municipalities and many non-profit, charitable and cooperative organizations which are involved or which have indicated a desire to become involved in developing housing of this type.

Once we -- and here I refer to the groups and municipalities, the federal government and the Ontario Ministry of Housing -- have finalized these details, it is my intention to get the programme in operation as soon as possible, hopefully in the early part of May. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): The government was saying this 10 years ago.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): What does the hon. member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) say to all of that?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Sorry, the member can’t ask her a question.

ALGONQUIN PARK YOUTH CAMP

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you and the hon. members of the Legislature that a provincially-sponsored youth camp is to be established in Algonquin Provincial Park, in line with the government’s policy objectives for the park as announced last July.

Campers will be recruited from the metropolitan areas of southern Ontario who might not otherwise have the opportunity to share a wilderness camping experience.

While the costs of development and the operation of the camp will be borne by the Ministry of Natural Resources, it will be operated on behalf of the ministry by the camping service of the YMCA of Metropolitan Toronto.

The camp will initially be designed to accommodate 56 campers in each of four two-week camping periods for boys and girls in the 12-to-16 age group. Fees will be minimal to assist the government in providing this experience for the less advantaged children from urban areas.

The camp programme will include normal youth camp activities such as hiking, boating and water sports, but special emphasis will be placed on interpreting the relationship between man and his natural environment in accordance with the objectives of wilderness camping.

Arrangements are currently being completed to ensure that the camp is operational for this coming summer camping period.

I am sure that all hon. members will join with me in expressing the appreciation of the government to the YMCA of Metropolitan Toronto for the close co-operation and assistance they have given to my ministry in the design and development of this new public camp in Algonquin Provincial Park.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Is the minister going to recruit all the campers from Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, no.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The hon. member for Kitchener.

SIMCOE COUNTY STEEL PLANT

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment: Is the minister aware of the proposal by Automotive Hardware Ltd. to build a $25 million steel melt shop and rolling mill on the banks of the Nottawasaga River in Essa township, Simcoe county? Has the minister undertaken any studies of the environmental impact of such a plant?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): I am not familiar with that in detail, but certainly we will be looking at it. I do appreciate the member bringing it to my attention and I will get some details back to him.

Mr. Breithaupt: A supplementary of the minister: Since Essa township has no official plan, will the minister deal not only with the Treasurer (Mr. White) to ensure that there is no approval given before environmental and planning considerations are done, but will the minister also deal with his colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) to inquire just as to the agricultural value of these lands, which are in lot 22 of concession 6, before any such plans are proceeded with?

Hon. Mr. Newman: I certainly will. I will consult with my colleagues on that.

Mr. Sargent: Attaboy!

ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING BOARD

Mr. Breithaupt: The minister is so cooperative I will ask him another question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister considering any legal action with respect to Disposal Services Ltd., the firm that has been dumping garbage on a site in Maple since January, even though the site has not as yet been approved by the Environmental Hearing Board?

Hon. W. Newman: This is a very complicated matter. I just happen to have a few facts about it here today, because I thought it might be coming up.

This matter is very complex and a provisional certificate of approval was issued which stated that the company had to stop taking waste to the site by August, 1973, since the 43 acres were full. The company appealed this to the Environmental Appeal Board on the basis that the certificate was for 63 acres even though it was currently using only 43 acres. The appeal board ruled that 20 acres was not covered by the certificate and that a hearing by the Environmental Hearing Board would be required with respect to the 20 acres.

The company subsequently appealed the decision of the appeal board on a point of law to the courts, and to the minister on a question of fact. The court case is set for April 29, 1974. In the interim period the municipality passed a bylaw prohibiting the use of the 20 acres as a waste disposal site. The hearing board is also considering whether or not the bylaw should apply to the site. The reason we have not stopped this at the present time is because our legislation prevents us doing so in some terms and conditions under certificate of approval until final disposition of the appeal.

However, I’ve asked our legal people to get on this and we are looking at several ways in which we may deal with this matter.

Mr. Breithaupt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Since it would appear that the site may well be filled by the time the court case comes up --

Mr. Lewis: It is filled already.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- what, in fact, is the minister going to do to go along with what the chairman of the Environmental Hearing Board said, which was that this was an illegal use in the first place?

Hon. W. Newman: This is what I’m just saying -- we have three alternatives open to us; we can either file an injunction, we can start prosecution or we can put a stop order on it.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Why not put a stop order on it?

Hon. W. Newman: Our legal people are looking at it. We just don’t want a stop order that they could take to the courts and change in 24 hours. We want to find the best procedure. We would like to stop --

Mr. Bullbrook: Use one of the other alternatives then.

Mr. Singer: Why not use all three at once?

Hon. W. Newman: We would like to stop this until the matter is cleared up in the courts. We are very anxious to do this.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Was that free legal advice?

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the government by its own delays has been directly responsible for the prolongation of this dumping of garbage by an additional 43 weeks beyond that which the town approved, surely the stop order is now the procedure to save whatever is left from further damage?

Hon. W. Newman: We will be taking the necessary action within two or three days. We are not going to wait until it gets settled in the courts. We want the dumping there now stopped until this matter has been resolved.

Mr. Breithaupt: That will be August, 1974.

Hon. W. Newman: No, it won’t.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Thank you. Since the minister’s answer is exactly the same as the answer given by the previous minister last December, will he undertake to change the legislation so that these people can’t make a mockery of the laws and go on dumping and dumping while they continue to appeal?

Hon. W. Newman: First and foremost, it isn’t the same statement because I’ve got --

Mr. Sargent: It is.

Hon. W. Newman: No, it is not. The member didn’t do his reading. We are very much --

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Not the way the minister read it.

Hon. W. Newman: We are very much concerned about the whole situation. We really want to get at the thing and clean it up.

Mr. Good: Has the minister been up to look at it?

Hon. W. Newman: I have been to see some of the sites. I haven’t seen them all.

Mr. Good: It is a disgrace.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, would the minister say what he will do if the decision is that that should not have been used? The site is a pollution threat to the area. Is he going to order Disposal Services to remove all that waste they’ve been dumping on the site illegally for the last year and a half?

Mr. Breithaupt: Give them double their garbage back.

Hon. W. Newman: There are appeals on right now. One appeal is directly to the minister and the other is to the courts. Certainly we are concerned about seeing whether this gets cleared up properly in the courts, but in the meantime we want to stop the dumping.

Mr. Lewis: Then issue a stop order.

Hon. W. Newman: It is not that simple.

Mr. Deacon: How is the minister going to have them remove the garbage they’ve already dumped if it is illegal; if it shouldn’t have been dumped?

Hon. W. Newman: I think that should be left up to the courts to decide.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: No, there have been five supplementaries now, that is sufficient. The hon. member for Kitchener. Does the hon. member for Kitchener have further questions?

GUARANTY TRUST CO. OF CANADA

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to the Guaranty Trust Co. of Canada: Further to the laying of certain charges against the company and several of its former officials, can the minister assure the Legislature as a result of his investigations that the company is in a sound financial position and that there is no danger or threat to the public interest as a result of this unfortunate circumstance?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Yes, Mr. Speaker, as the matter is before the courts I wish to pass no comment as to the nature of the particular charges facing that company. I can give the House the assurance that the company is in a very stable condition and, in fact, I am advised it anticipated these charges and has in fact for some time reserved particular funds in anticipation of these charges, which show on their statements.

Mr. Breithaupt: I have heard of reserves for various other things but I suppose reserves for prosecution are all right too.

OPERATION OF TRAVEL AGENCIES

Mr. Breithaupt: One further question of the minister with respect to Cardinal Travel Ltd.: Has the minister ordered an investigation into this travel agency operation, which has been well publicized, and into the activities and history of Mr. Stan Monday? Is the minister aware of any earlier matters of this sort in which Mr. Monday has been involved?

And finally, will the minister as a result of this event, ensure that travel agents and agencies are bonded so that this defrauding of the public by the few who are breaking the law and are a menace to that whole business circumstance can be avoided? Surely let this be the last one of these kinds of things.

Hon. Mr. Clement: First, Mr. Speaker, up to the present time we have received no complaints over the past number of years in connection with this particular agency. Second, I am not aware of any law, criminal or otherwise, having been breached by this agency. My ministry, when it first learned of it, has worked very closely and has been in consultation with Metro police, who advise that there has been no defalcation but that the travel arrangements fell through because of the inability of the agency to sell all the tickets on certain particular flights.

Insofar as bonding is concerned, this is a much more complex situation than just having the person who runs a travel agency go out and get a bond, because the first question is how much of a bond is required. Many of these agencies, when arranging charter flights, particularly on large aircraft, are incurring liabilities ranging anywhere from $200,000 to $500,000, depending on the number of charters that they are arranging.

I met with certain travel agents representing two organizations a year ago January, and they suggested themselves that they be bonded and regulated by this government, and I assured them we’d be willing to accommodate them. They attended with their solicitor and I asked them what they proposed to do about bonding, and they went away and they told me that they would come back as soon as they had a presentation in the form of a brief to discuss the matter with me.

We have been in touch with them, I believe on two occasions since that time, requesting that they re-attend, and they pointed out various difficulties that they have run into, namely: How much are you bonded for? Is it a varying bond? What happens to those agents who run good, respectable, responsible agencies, have had no difficulties and yet for one reason or another might not be able to be bonded?

Mr. Singer: Lawyers all pay into the indemnity fund.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, the lawyers all pay into the indemnity fund which is run by the Law Society of Upper Canada, and not through any agency of this government. Unless you had a compensation fund run by the industry itself, with no limits insofar as losses are concerned, then I suggest that there could be situations where a loss could occur and the public interest not be covered.

I am further advised with reference to Cardinal that the moneys paid by way of a deposit will, in fact, be returned. The Metro police have advised us of this, but that is the extent of my knowledge insofar as this agency is concerned.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member for Wentworth should have a supplementary now.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): A supplementary: Is the minister saying that he is not moving against these travel agencies until such time as they tell him what they would like to see done? I mean, when is the government going to take the initiative and establish some regulations which are enforceable?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’d be glad to do that if on my estimates this year the members gave me enough money to regulate travel agencies, television repairmen, housebuilders, and all the like across the province.

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t the minister ask us?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): When are we going to get some legislation in the province, then?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Is there no ability in the government to bring forth its own bonding regulations, and can the minister tell us if any of the principals of Cardinal have been involved in similar difficulties within the last half dozen years?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Any of the what? I am sorry.

An hon. member: Cardinal Travel!.

Mr. Singer: Principals of Cardinal Travel have been involved in similar difficulties, within say the last six years?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am not aware of any principals of Cardinal having been so involved.

Mr. Singer: Well, what about the first part of the question?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes; I suppose we could come up with a programme. Again, we would have to establish, I suggest, a compensation fund, presumably paid for and contributed to by the industry itself.

Not all members of the travel agency fraternity in this province are in fact members of the two associations with which I met, I believe a year ago January. We would have to bring in legislation involving all travel agents, not necessarily those in the two associations which are in existence.

Again, it’s a matter of degree. I think the industry has been, by and large, responsive. There have been those unfortunate situations where people on charters --

Mr. Singer: Well, like every two weeks there’s another.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh, not every two weeks at all.

Mr. Deans: Every spring, every spring.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Every spring?

I would think that one of the first things we would have to move on is the regulation of their industry. But again the amount of compensation to be paid to any one individual or individuals would vary depending on the number of charters undertaken by each individual agency.

Mr. Deans: Well, what is holding the minister up?

Mr. Singer: Those are the mechanics of it. The minister has enough talent in his department to figure that out.

Hon. Mr. Clement: You can’t write a blanket million-dollar coverage on any individual agency. It’s just impossible.

Mr. Singer: Do something.

Mr. Breithaupt: It would be a start.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister saying, finally then, that because of what seems to be fairly simple mechanics, which his people have not yet devised, he is washing his hands of a practice which is obviously illegitimate and corrupt for those who experience it? Does he feel no responsibility at all then?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Illegitimate and what?

Mr. Lewis: And corrupt for those who experience it; for those who are stranded, for those who don’t get their money back.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am not going to indict the travel industry and say they are corrupt.

Mr. Lewis: I didn’t indict the travel industry. We are talking about those companies that are specifically involved in reneging on formal undertakings.

Mr. Deans: And it happens every single year.

Mr. Singer: Those people pay their money and don’t get the services they pay for.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York-Forest Hill.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Having said all that he has, is the minister giving us any assurance that these 285 students who have been held up will either get their money returned to the tune of $370 apiece, or in the alternative that they will be able to take trips with alternate airlines? Is he doing anything about either of those questions?

Mr. Sargent: Use the government aircraft.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I am not arranging alternate trips for them, but I am advised through Metro police that their funds will be returned in their entirety.

Mr. Deans: When?

Hon. Mr. Clement: A certain amount of the funds, I understand, left Canada to book accommodation in Europe. Those funds will not be used and are to be returned. The other funds lie the hands of the travel agents, I am advised again by my officials after consulting with the Metro police, are in the process or have in fact been returned.

Mr. Breithaupt: The minister could perhaps invite them to visit the Legislature next week.

Mr. Lewis: Some consumer protection branch!

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that in certain cases Swissair has advised that the money is to be frozen in Europe and that only a portion will be returned? Is the minister aware of that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I am not aware that Swissair made any statement other than the one reported in the press, wherein they said they had worked in harmony and cooperated with this agency for some period of time and that the arrangement had been amicable both ways. I’m not aware of the statement to which the member refers.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peterborough.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): I wonder if the minister is aware that not only children from the Toronto area are involved, but in fact people from a very large area of Ontario are involved?

Mr. Breithaupt: Even including Niagara.

Mr. Deans: Including the Hansard staff.

Mr. Singer: Now he has got to do something.

Mr. Turner: The minister has stated that the Metro police have told him the money is to be returned to the Toronto people. How about the people living outside the Metro area?

Mr. Lewis: The minister should get his mind shifted to something outside Metro.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I heard the first part of the member’s question, to which the answer is yes. I didn’t hear any of the second part of his question, unless he was just having a discussion with me.

Mr. Turner: I’ll speak a little louder.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Thank you.

Mr. Turner: Is the minister aware that the problem is not limited to the Toronto area but in fact children from all over Ontario are affected? He has stated he has had assurance from the Metro police that the money for the Metro children apparently is going to be returned. Has he any such assurance for the children living outside of the Metro area?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I am sorry. I hope I didn’t indicate that the police indicated to our officials that only the Metro children were going to get their money back.

Mr. Turner: The minister mentioned 285.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I think the Metro police indicated to my officials that all the people involved in the Cardinal arrangement were going to get their money back, and they didn’t designate those who came from inside or outside of Metro.

Hon. A. Crossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Can they do that through the member?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: I have no further questions, Mr. Speaker.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING BOARD

Mr. Lewis: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Environment first.

He has had before him for some considerable time an application from Disposal Services Ltd. to go before the Environmental Hearing Board, on the approval of the ministry, for an additional 900-acre site in Vaughan township, not far from their present continuing violation. What has the minister done with that request?

Hon. W. Newman: A hearing has been set up for that particular area.

Mr. Lewis: All right. Section 35 of the Environmental Protection Act says: “Where a bylaw of a municipality affects the location or operation of a proposed waste disposal site [and the minister will know that the bylaw in this case forbids such a site] the minister, upon the application of the person applying for a certificate of approval for the waste disposal site, may, by a notice in writing, and on such terms and conditions as he may direct, require the hearing board to hold a public hearing to consider [the application].” Given the record of Disposal Services, whose garbage dumping the minister is going to have to stop by court order, why did he recommend that they have a hearing to use yet another 900 acres in Vaughan township? What has the minister got against Vaughan township? Or, more important, what is it between the minister and Disposal Services?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Garbage!

An hon. member: Nonsense!

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. Newman: It is quite obvious from the hon. member’s question that he knows them a lot better than I do. I don’t know them at all. Certainly they have made an application and there will be a hearing on a site that large, and the hon. member is quite aware of the fact that the 20-acre site we are dealing with now is just a preliminary to what is to come.

Mr. Lewis: But surely, by way of supplementary, since it is on ministerial authority that the hearing is granted at all, given their behaviour in Vaughan township, which the minister is resorting to court action to stop, he should say to them, “No, you may not have a hearing -- no more garbage from Disposal Services in Vaughan township,” Why this special privilege for them?

Hon. Mr. Newman: There is no special privilege. Anyone can ask for a hearing with the Environmental Hearing Board.

Mr. Lewis: But it is within the minister’s prerogative.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Why is he granting it?

Mr. Lewis: Why is he granting it?

Hon. W. Newman: We will grant a hearing to anyone who requests a hearing, so that the people can have a chance to have an input.

Mr. Lewis: But it contradicts the bylaw.

Mr. Deacon: Supplementary: Would it not be within reason for the minister to delay any consideration of a further hearing until the first hearing has been dispensed with completely? I do not understand why the minister says he will consider giving a hearing to anyone at all. Surely he will not grant a hearing to those who the minister himself considers are flagrantly breaking the law?

Hon. W. Newman: Well, as far as environmental hearings are concerned, applications are being made and we are hearing them in many areas of the province, and we will continue to hear them on the basis that people will have a chance to participate.

Mr. Lewis: One last supplementary: This isn’t just an application for a hearing in the way in which the minister replied. This is an application for a hearing to break an existing bylaw. That is why they have to come to the minister. Now why does he grant them the right to go to a hearing? That’s why the clause says “may” rather than “shall.” Why does the minister grant them the right to the hearing to break yet another law in Vaughan township?

Mr. Breithaupt: Why not say no in the first place?

Mr. Lewis: Say no.

Hon. W. Newman: Is the hon. member talking about the bylaw they passed on the present 20-acre site?

Mr. Lewis: No, I am talking about the use of the present 900-acre site.

Mr. Deacon: Why consider a hearing when they are using another site for an illegal purpose?

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t the minister say he doesn’t know?

Hon. W. Newman: I am not really sure of that. I will look into it and get back to the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York North.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): What is the position of Vaughan township council on this? Have they approved of the site?

Mr. Deans: How could they have? They have a bylaw.

Mr. Lewis: The minister can violate their bylaw, but they can’t.

Mr. W. Hodgson: Has the minister had any direction from Vaughan township council?

Mr. Lewis: They are opposed to it; they have been opposed to it throughout.

Mr. W. Hodgson: It is my understanding that they approved of the site a year ago.

Mr. Lewis: No, they didn’t.

Hon. W. Newman: There have been many approvals of many sites and, of course, there have been withdrawals and changes because of the reaction of people; that is one reason we have these hearings, so people have the right to express their views and to be heard.

Mr. Deacon: Supplementary: What steps has the minister taken to provide for other sites or means of disposal of the garbage that is now being handled by Disposal Services? Has any alternative been developed by the ministry so that we don’t have to rely upon that company for the disposal of industrial garbage from the Metro area?

Hon. W. Newman: Disposal of their garbage is their responsibility, not ours, as far as Disposal Services are concerned.

Mr. Deacon: The ministry has to take some leadership.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that in St. Louis they are handling 8,000 tons a day and they are making money on their garbage recycling?

Hon. W. Newman: I am aware there are many plants throughout the world. The technology in our ministry is aware of all these things throughout the world.

Mr. Deacon: The ministry has done nothing about it.

Hon. W. Newman: We have so. We have two or three --

Mr. Breithaupt: Meet me in St. Louis.

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

ALGONQUIN FOREST AUTHORITY

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources, if I could, Mr. Speaker. I take it that the minister will shortly be introducing legislation to enact the Algonquin Forest Authority that was referred to some months ago?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

COMMUNITY-SPONSORED HOUSING PROGRAMME

Mr. Lewis: Thank you. I have a question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Housing. How much money has he specifically set aside for the additional support to co-op and non-profit housing of which he spoke today; and how many units is that likely to provide of housing as yet unanticipated?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, we have set aside in our estimates an amount which we consider to be adequate, approximately $4 million worth of cash flow this year, based on the applications and the interest which has been shown in the programme. I can’t specifically tell the hon. member the number of units, since obviously it will depend on the number of projects which fall within our criteria. However, we do feel that the programme that we have established and which will be announced specifically in due course will be adequate to meet the needs.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister agree that $4 million will purchase about 250 units; and does he consider that 250 units in 1974 is an adequate alternative fostered by the government to the present private enterprise development going ahead in housing?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think the hon. member listened to our statement.

An hon. member: He never does.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The $4 million is our cash flow payment for this year. What we have said we would do is underwrite 10 per cent of the total cost of these projects. The $4 million is the amount, and that will be spread over 15 years. The $4 million that we are setting aside this year is sufficient to handle the project for 1974 and 1975. If additional funds are required, if the demands are greater, obviously we will have to take a look at that at that time.

Mr. Cassidy: A further supplementary: Perhaps the minister can be explicit and say how many units he intends to be begun in 1974 as co-op or non-profit housing, and does he consider that that total is an adequate number?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I just answered that question. I think it was quite clear in my statement that this programme would be developed following consultation with the interested parties, including the federal government, on March 25 on the basis of preliminary inquiries.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, when the minister says on the basis of preliminary inquiries he arrived at $4 million, what does his preliminary figure for number of units lead him to? He didn’t just pull -- maybe he did, in his ministry it’s possible -- it out of the air, or maybe that’s what he thought he could write off at the end of the budget next year rather than use money. Where did he get it from?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, there is no specific number of projects. I am satisfied that the $4 million will meet the need of those projects which meet the criteria that we have set down.

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

NOISE REGULATIONS

Mr. Lewis: One last question of the Minister of the Environment: Where are the legendary noise regulations about which we have heard from time to time for the last four years?

Hon. W. Newman: That’s a very good question. The present noise regulations are still under discussion with the new minister. We are looking at them.

Mr. Breithaupt: Is there a new minister?

An hon. member: Since 1955, isn’t it?

Hon. W. Newman: We are still looking at it. I can’t give the member a firm date on it.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have further questions?

Mr. Lewis: No.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Revenue has the answer to a question asked previously.

TAX CREDIT INFORMATION CENTRE

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to a question asked of me yesterday by the hon. member for York-Forest Hill on the administrative cost of the Ontario tax credit programme.

The estimated cost to my ministry, as I am advised, for this system is $148,000. This consists of $88,000 for equipment, telephones, postage and miscellaneous items, and approximately $60,000 for contract staff hired to handle public inquiries.

Regular civil service staff in my ministry are also involved, of course, in administering the tax credit centre in varying degrees, in addition to their normal responsibilities.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) requested the name of the advertising agency which we’ve retained for the purpose. That agency is F. H. Hayhurst and Co. Ltd.

Mr. Bullbrook: We can’t kick there, because it’s cheaper than the drainage committee.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Housing also has the answer to a question asked previously.

Interjection by an hon. member.

RESALE OF HOME PROGRAMME HOUSES

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The member wouldn’t want me to ignore these questions, would he? I have the answer to a question asked on Tuesday by the hon. member for Wentworth. The question was: Is the minister aware of the practice whereby HOME houses built not six months ago are reselling at twice the price?

Under the terms of the HOME plan, houses built on OHC’s leased lots may not be resold during the first five years of the lease without OHC’s approval of the sale price. This requirement is designed to curb speculation of these homes, the very speculation which the hon, member brought to my attention. When calculating the resale price of a HOME plan house, OHC allows the owner an increment in value of approximately $500 per year over the original house price, plus the value of any improvements he may have made, and his real estate fees if he is selling the house through a real estate broker.

We would approve a modest increase in the price of a house built six months ago but would not approve the sale at double the price.

Mr. Speaker, my ministry is aware and OHC is aware of a certain number of practices which are taking place to evade the provisions of the HOME programme, and we are now studying means to plug every loophole we can possibly ascertain. The hon. member has offered to give me more information later on. We would certainly like to look into individual cases to see how they meet the solutions we’re thinking about at the present time.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question, if I may: Is the minister and the ministry considering making it mandatory that the resale be back to HOME during the first two or three years of the home’s life, in order to ensure that this kind of speculative practice, which we both know is being undertaken, is curbed and stopped?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the possible alternatives we’re looking at.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s already in effect.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North with a supplementary.

Mr. Good: Would the minister consider legislation so that when municipalities enter into agreement with private builders this same practice could not continue, whereby builders, in good faith, sell the homes which are built on smaller substandard lots, and before the houses are even lived in, realtors and other speculators are selling them for $5,000, $6,000, $7,000 or $10,000 more than they paid for them just a few days or a week before? This is going on in municipalities and there’s nothing, evidently, the municipalities can do about it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I would think the municipalities have the power in their agreements --

Mr. Good: They don’t.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- to curb that type of speculation. Certainly my ministry is interested in curbing it. I’ll certainly take a look at it to see if we have the powers to enter into those kinds of arrangements.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, what powers has a municipality to control selling prices of houses unless it owns the lots and the houses?

Mr. Good: That’s the problem -- it hasn’t any powers.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Presumably, the municipalities have entered -- as I understand the hon. member’s supplementary -- into agreements with developers to do certain things within the municipalities. In those agreements, I would assume, they have the power to make certain conditions on the transfer of the agreement.

Mr. Singer: No such powers.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce is next.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My minister has just disappeared so I’ll defer for a moment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wellington South.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): No.

Interjections by hon. members.

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

EFFECT OF VETERANS’ SERVICE IX CALCULATING PENSION

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Premier. Does the Premier recall my question in the last session, in regard to --

Mr. Speaker: I apologize to the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville. I recognized the hon. member on his feet because I saw him first.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Yes, that’s all right.

Mr. Reid: I’m smaller, too!

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Don’t fight, fellows!

An hon. member: And louder, too!

Mr. Reid: Does the Premier recall my question to him in regard to allowing those people who served either in World War II or the Korean war to use their years of military service toward their pensions in the Province of Ontario? Is he prepared to bring in legislation in this session to deal with that matter?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I do recall the question and as a result of the question we are undertaking certain studies and there will be some information due fairly shortly.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

An hon. member: Yes, good idea.

EFFLUENT FROM BELLEVILLE GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): A question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: Since he was away yesterday I’ll give him a three part one for today. Have his officials informed him of the coliform reading done six weeks ago of the effluent from the Belleville General Hospital into the Bay of Quinte? Does the minister feel that a coliform count in access of 100,000 is dangerous? And if the minister does agree it is dangerous, what is the minister doing about the health hazard to the people living in that area of eastern Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the suspense of waiting whilst the member was trying to be recognized before the end of the question period really has upset me greatly and therefore I will find it difficult to answer his question.

An hon. member: Just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Miller: However, I would wonder whether the coliform --

An hon. member: He doesn’t stay very long, you know, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, he doesn’t. I was going to suggest that my presence as Minister of Health has done wonders for his attendance in the House.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): His leader isn’t happy though. His leader isn’t happy.

Mr. Cassidy: The Minister of Health must have worked on that for weeks.

Mr. MacDonald: Don’t waste the question period.

Mr. Deans: He doesn’t know the answer.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I suppose the question is whether it’s Ecoli or not, whether it’s an Ecoli coliform or what other type. I would think that any high coliform count deserves special attention and while I haven’t seen this particular report, I’m sure the member will get a complete answer from me, as he has on all previous questions.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: If this particular report has not been brought to the minister’s attention, has it been brought to his attention that this same hospital has had previous very high counts and that this is a continuing problem?

Hon. Mr. Miller: No.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville is next. There are five other members of the Liberal Party. I will call them in turn if there is time.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You don’t have to apologize to me at any time for not calling me. I would prefer to be called but, if you don’t, I accept your decision.

Mrs. Campbell: The Minister of Energy prefers to be chosen.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Many are called but few are chosen.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY PENSIONS

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In the recent negotiations between the UAW and the various automotive companies certain pension increases were granted to pensioners -- certain adjustments were made. Why is the ministry holding up the payment of these pension increases?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, under the Pension Benefits Act a deferred annuity paid to an employee terminating employment other than by way of retirement must be equal to that paid to a person who is retiring at the same time with the same amount of service. That is mandatory under two sections of the Act.

The proposed automotive industry pension scheme that we’re talking about does not in fact permit that, but would discriminate against those employees who are 45 years of age or over, have 10 years of service and are not retiring, but terminating their employment.

The legislation, therefore, says the two must be the same; the plan does not contemplate that. The pension commission has drawn that specifically to the attention of, I think it’s three major motor companies, as well as to the trade union involved and we’re presently waiting to hear back from those respective recipients of that information.

The pension commission says, in essence, that the legislation does not distinguish between the two types of people whereas the proposed plan does and, therefore, it’s not consistent with the legislation. They’re waiting to hear back from, I think it’s Ford, GM, Chrysler and the union.

Mr. B. Newman: Right. A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could not the ministry approve the pension payments to the senior citizens who have retired, rather than hold that portion up, and withhold payment to those who are in the 45-and-over bracket?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the member’s concern. The pension commission, under the legislation, either has to approve the plan or not approve it. We cannot approve portions of it and not others. There are the two interests to be served under the legislation and presumably that is why it was drafted that way, to protect the terminating employee as well as the retiring employee. We are hopeful that it can be worked out.

The discussions and communications between the pension commission and the automobile industries and the union involved have been, I am advised, quite close and harmonious and I am quite confident that it can be worked out. We are anxious to see it worked out in the light of our present legislation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier regarding the conservation of energy: In view of the fact that automobiles on average consume 30.5 per cent more fuel at 70 mph than at 50 mph --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am listening.

Mr. Burr: -- and in view of the fact that the cabinet does not wish to legislate compulsory speed reductions on our freeways, would the Premier consider recommending that what might be called information signs be placed at intervals along our major highways giving such a reminder, in order to encourage motorists to conserve energy by reducing fuel consumption voluntarily?

An hon. member: It will only happen if the Premier signs them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we had a very comprehensive programme just a few months ago developed by the Minister of Energy related to the conservation of energy, both in terms of reduced speed, turning out electric lights, and many other aspects.

Mr. Singer: Putting on our sweaters, remember that one?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think that was necessarily part of that particular programme, although it may have been.

Mr. Singer: Difficult to sort out.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But I can only assume from the hon. member that if we were to continue such a programme of public information, not just related to the use of automobiles and the consumption of gas, but energy generally, the members opposite would have no objection to any expenditure of funds for such an information programme. I am delighted to hear that and we will pursue it.

Mr. Breithaupt: As long as the Premier’s name is on the signs.

Mr. MacDonald: Are they going to put the Premier’s name on the bottom of every sign?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

JUDGEMENT AGAINST MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. Gaunt: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, if I could catch his attention over in the corner there.

An hon. member: A question of urgent public importance.

Mr. Gaunt: Because of the judgement plus costs awarded today against the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food in the Hartman raspberry case --

Mr. Singer: Against the minister personally too?

Mr. Gaunt: -- and because the Ontario taxpayers are going to have to pay for this mistake, could the minister tell me if there have been any changes in personnel at the Vineland research institute by way of resignations or firings, and what does the minister intend to do to see that this doesn’t reoccur?

Mr. Givens: And don’t give him the raspberry either!

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice. I am obviously getting the raspberry today and I would like to be able to learn about it.

Mr. MacDonald: That is a change.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury East.

PRICE DIFFERENCES IN SEARS CATALOGUE

Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Has his ministry finished the investigation into the pricing policies of Sears catalogues, which we presented to him, which indicated they were ripping off the people of northern Ontario in comparison to selling prices between Windsor and Sudbury?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think the question was raised by the member’s leader in the last session, referring to Sears having different pricing on the same type of article in different geographic areas.

Mr. MacDonald: It is one of the studies the ministry is doing.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No. The president of that particular company, when we communicated with him, advised that certain articles sold by that company did in fact bear a price differential, but not all articles sold by that company. I drew to his attention the two matters that had been drawn to my attention by the NDP leader -- I think it was some kind of a drill or something -- that bore a $10 or $9 difference, and he said that that was one of the articles that bore the difference. Then he pointed out that there were other articles that had no other difference. So it is marketing policies of each individual company.

Mr. Lewis: Pretty keen fellow.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am told that most major companies selling throughout the province have certain zones where prices remain the same within that zone, and beyond that there is a price differential on certain articles.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister think that is right?

Mr. Martel: What accounts for this price differential of articles, where some of those differentials are as high as $25 or $30? The usual argument is freight rates, but in fact it has nothing to do with freight rates or costs. What is this extra little tidbit we have the privilege of paying for in the north?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am advised that it does depend on transportation, additional handling, market demand and other factors.

Mr. Cassidy: Does the minister believe that? Try listening to the defenders of the north over there. What a fatuous claim that was.

Mr. Lewis: How can a man of the minister’s intelligence say something like that?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lanark.

BRUCELLOSIS COMPENSATION

Mr. D. J. Wiseman (Lanark): I understand the Minister of Agriculture and Food met with his counterpart recently in Ottawa and one of the topics discussed was the compensation paid to farmers for the loss of cattle due to the dreaded disease of brucellosis. I wonder if he can tell us, so that we can inform our farmers, if any additional compensation will be forthcoming, and also if they discussed at that time the possibility of putting back the compulsory vaccination of these cattle and maybe cutting out the disease again?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the discussions are going on concerning the improvement in the compensation for animals condemned. I don’t think any decision has been reached yet by the federal government on that matter, but I understand they feel that there should be an increase. It hasn’t been announced.

With regard to whether vaccination should be reinstated, there doesn’t seem to be any clear opinion on it yet, the reason being, among other things, that there are several countries which refuse to accept breeding stock from countries where that vaccination is used, simply because the vaccination could infect the animal, be taken over into another country, and because it is a live vaccine there could be problems in spreading the disease. This has interfered with the export market, which is a very important part of the agricultural industry of this province.

So they are trying to weigh the matter of whether it is better to do it one way or the other. My guess is that since the disease seems to be confined to relatively few farms and is under control on those premises, it is most likely that the process of blood testing and elimination of reactors will likely be pursued, rather than to do that and then embark on a wholesale campaign of vaccination of female calves.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: A question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Energy --

Mr. Wiseman: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If there is a supplementary I’ll permit it.

Mr. Wiseman: Yes, I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder, if the minister’s federal counterpart doesn’t come through with an increase in the compensation payment, if a farmer happens to lose a number of animals -- and I am thinking of the dairy people now, where a good milking replacement is probably in the neighbourhood of $1,000, and the compensation plus the cost recovered from the sale for meat only comes up to a little over half, or a little better than that, the cost of a replacement animal -- would we consider helping those farmers in view of the fact we are trying to build up our milk production in eastern Ontario and across Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting proposal, and I would like to suggest that we explore the possibilities of providing that assistance through the industrial milk production incentive programme, which is a 20 per cent forgivable programme over five years, giving the farmer the right to repay it over the five years with a government guarantee at the bank and 20 per cent forgivable at the end of the five-year period.

That would be one way that it could be done. I’m not sure whether the terms of reference of that programme would cover the point the hon. member for Lanark raises, but to me it would. I’d like to explore those possibilities.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

ONTARIO HYDRO EMPLOYMENT POLICY

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Energy: I would like to ask him about the hiring policy of Hydro, as I understand it now discriminates against anyone having a criminal record, such as impaired driving or possession of marijuana. Will the minister find out why an employee who was fired last week was rehired when I threatened to bring it up in the Legislature? He had a charge against him two or three years ago for possession of marijuana. He was rehired at the direction of head office within a few hours after I received the information about his firing. Will the minister find out how widespread this practice is? Of the thousands of employees, is the security check this strict for everyone; or how does it work?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has now expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Kerr presented the final report of the task force on policing in Ontario.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Where did the minister get that title from?

Hon. Mr. Auld tabled the report of the Ontario Heritage Foundation for the period ending March 31, 1973.

Mr. Lewis: This is shocking -- “The Public Are the Police.”

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Robert Peel said that.

Mr. Lewis: Robert Peel was a Tory.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine, in the absence of Hon. Mr. White, moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act respecting the Regional Municipalities Amendment Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, this bill will allow regional municipalities to obtain any outstanding approvals needed for bylaws initiated by the local municipalities that they have replaced.

TERRITORIAL DIVISION ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine, in the absence of Hon. Mr. White, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Territorial Division Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to amend the Territorial Division Act to provide for changes which have resulted from the establishment of new regional municipalities and from some recent annexations and amalgamations.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, under this particular order, a week Monday we are going to be dealing with a private member’s bill. It being the turn of a government backbencher to introduce one, I understand that a bill is to be introduced by the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea). However, we don’t have that bill as yet, and unless it is going to be introduced sooner, it may be difficult to debate that bill in the private members’ hour on Monday immediately that we are back.

Will the bill be introduced tomorrow, and if so, can a draft of the bill be made available to us in the opposition so that we can be prepared to debate that bill? It would be a great convenience if it could be done then rather than on the day itself.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Perhaps I could comment, Mr. Speaker. The bill is expected to be introduced tomorrow morning. It’ll be printed in the usual fashion and available to all members next week.

Mr. Breithaupt: Well, that’s fine. That’s great.

Mr. Kennedy: Yes. We’ll get it over to the member.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The second order, House in committee of the whole.

YORK COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION TEACHERS DISPUTE ACT

House in Committee on Bill 12, An Act respecting a certain Dispute between the York County Board of Education and certain of its Teachers.

Mr. Chairman: There are seven sections in Bill 12. Are there any comments, questions or amendments on section 1?

The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Chairman, before section 1, I think there should be some comments made on and some adjustments made to the preamble of the bill.

The preamble, Mr. Chairman, makes mention in lines six and seven, “whereas the secondary school students of York county have been severely disadvantaged.” I question the use of the word “severely.” They may have been disadvantaged but not necessarily all “severely disadvantaged.” I think that the minister is a little too strong in the wording in the bill, and that the word “severely” should be struck out.

Also, in line 10 of the bill where it starts with “of students, requires that all teachers return to the classroom.” All teachers are not necessarily in the classroom, Mr. Chairman, and as a result I think a better substitution in there would be that “all teachers return to their duties.”

Mr. B. Newman moves that in line seven the word “severely” be struck out and that in line 10 the words “the classroom” be struck out and the words “their duties” be substituted.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to accept the second part of that, “Their duties.” I would not be willing to remove the word “severely”, because it merely echoes the sentiments in hundreds of letters and communications we’ve had from many people over the last couple of weeks.

Mr. Chairman: Would that be agreeable to the mover?

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I really think that “severely” is too harsh. Not everyone necessarily was severely handicapped as a result of this. Some of the students --

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Everyone was handicapped.

Mr. B. Newman: -- attending the schools in York county may have been only taking two or three courses. If the minister insists that they have been severely handicapped as a result of the dispute, then I don’t think he is being fair with them -- handicapped, that’s right, but not necessarily severely handicapped.

Likewise, a student may take Mickey Mouse courses. I’m not saying that it does happen, but it can happen. And if a student in the taking of a Mickey Mouse course missed 30 days of school, I don’t think he was severely handicapped. He may have been handicapped, though.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): On the preamble, Mr. Chairman, are you going to put something further in connection with my colleague’s motion?

Mr. Chairman: Well, I am just waiting to get the feeling. It’s a double motion right now. If only one is going to be accepted --

Mr. Bullbrook: Do you want to put this motion or do you want to discuss the preamble in its entirety? I want to make a short comment in connection with the preamble.

Mr. Chairman: You might discuss it. Will your discussion include the points that were raised?

Mr. Bullbrook: No, I am not going to elaborate on my colleague’s points. I want to ask the minister a question in connection with the preamble.

Mr. Chairman: Well, let’s clarify the amendments before us, shall we?

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, all right.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments on that particular amendment?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): On the motion?

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to speak in favour of the first part of the motion -- that is, to strike the word “severely” from the preamble.

I think that one of the things that became apparent to any close observer of the York county situation in the last 10 days, particularly, was that the newspaper interviews with students and television interviews with parents and students were, in fact, extremely touching. I think they showed the confusion of the parents and of the students about the educational system of the province.

What became clear in those interviews, and probably in the letters that the minister quite rightly says that he has received, is that these people had a very unfortunate view of what education is in this province. Somehow in this province we have convinced people that education must take place in the classroom and in the classroom alone, and that unless they have the framework of the classroom and the framework of daily attention by their teachers students are somehow severely disadvantaged.

While I believe that the critic of the Liberal Party in education has a very valid point here, there may have been some disadvantagement take place. In fact, I am sure that with a number of borderline students this happened. But to say in this provocative way -- and it is provocative -- that the secondary school students of York county have been severely disadvantaged for approximately six weeks, is unnecessary.

I put it to the minister that in all reality the rest of the bill, given his conservative Tory framework of thinking, is basically a fairly well drafted bill. To make it provocative in terms of the teachers with this particular phrase, I think is unnecessary and I would ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister have any comment on that?

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister would agree to the changing of the word “severely.” Where it comes in, have it read “some severely,” after the word “disadvantaged.” Certainly there are some who have been severely disadvantaged, but where this clause refers to the secondary school students -- in the case of my grade 9 son, I don’t consider him as having been severely disadvantaged. There is no question he was disadvantaged during this period. I think the case is well made.

If the minister does want to talk about those who have been severely disadvantaged, certainly those who are in grade 13, and grade 12, and many others who have decided to drop out because of this experience have perhaps been severely disadvantaged; but I think that we shouldn’t flaunt the situation in such a way as to say that everybody has been put in that spot. It is not necessary. It’s only preamble.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Chairman, I want to go a little further with the minister, I don’t think we need a preamble at all.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh, yes we do.

Mr. Deans: I don’t know of any reason why there should be a preamble to this bill.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: I am entitled to speak against having the preamble in the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Well, we are dealing with certain words in the preamble.

Mr. Deans: That’s fine. If we strike those words we can go on and strike them all. There is nothing troublesome about that.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): He is moving to strike out the whole thing. That is all right.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sarnia asked to speak generally on the preamble as well.

Mr. Deans: Was the member for Sarnia going to speak against having it at all?

Mr. Bullbrook: I just want to ask a question; that’s all.

Mr. Deans: Okay. Well he didn’t want to speak on the preamble, he just wanted to ask a question.

I was looking at other bills. It is not the practice of the House to have a preamble in the bill. This is unusual. There are a number of other bills already before us, numbering up to 10 and there is not a preamble in any of them. What we have in a bill is an explanatory note. In every bill the explanatory note explains the reason for the bill and the content of the bill.

I just don’t happen to think that we need enshrined in the legislation of this province the government’s reasons for implementing this legislation. Those are already on the record of Hansard. Frankly, I don’t believe that there is a place in a bill for the government’s opinion as to why it needs a particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Givens: An apologia.

Mr. Deans: We don’t have to have a long story about the reasons why the minister failed to observe his responsibilities and to carry them out. We don’t need the minister’s opinion as to why he had to bring in the legislation. If he wants to put that in, he puts that on the record of Hansard. If he wants to explain in the explanatory note the background of the bill, he may do so.

Mr. Givens: He wants to apologize.

Mr. Deans: But the practice of a preamble is not a practice that is followed in this Legislature with any consistency. It is, in fact, a departure from the normal procedure and I would simply say to the chairman that this preamble should be struck in its entirety.

The bill, as it is drafted, from section 1 on dealing with the definition of the sections and on through to the final section of the bill, will stand on its own merits. It doesn’t need a government story to try and satisfy what will no doubt at some point in the future be the legitimate questions that are asked about the reasons why we found it necessary to pass such legislation. I think the government is on the record in Hansard. It is certainly on the record in public terms about its feelings in regard to this dispute. The opposition is likewise on the record about its feelings with regard to the lack of government integrity and action.

I think the whole preamble should be struck.

Mr. Chairman: Well, we will put the question in a few moments as to whether it should stand as part of the bill. Is the mover of the original motion willing to accept the adaptation or modification as proposed by his colleague, the member for York North, so that it would read then --

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would be willing to accept the words, say, “and whereas secondary students of York county” and change it “to return to their duties” instead of “to the classroom.”

Mr. Chairman: Shall this motion then carry as proposed and discussed?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to ask a question of the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, if I may: The word “all,” is that an appropriate word? You say, “requires that all teachers return to their duties” and yet your statute doesn’t compel all the teachers to return to their duties. I would like you to resolve that problem in my mind. Section 2 doesn’t compel all the teachers to return to their duties.

Mr. B. Newman: It is only those who withdrew their services.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Is the hon. member suggesting that there should be some further explanation in there that rather than have all teachers -- he is quite right, there is an exception in section 2.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am going to be quite frank in saying that I am not making any suggestions to you at all. I am purely asking the question because when I read that all teachers had to return to the classroom and I look at section 2, subsection (2), which says that they don’t all have to return to the classroom, there’s obviously a conflict. There’s a conflict between the preamble and the statute itself and then you go on to the final section which renders to a Supreme Court judge the duty to assess the propriety of return or not.

I think you are inviting problems in putting the word “all” in there. I suggest most respectfully that you consider taking the word “all” out.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All right. How about “the teachers who withdrew their services”?

Mr. Deans: Why don’t you --

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s not covered either, because subsection (2) says: “Nothing in this Act precludes a teacher from not resuming his employment with the board for reasons of health or by mutual consent in writing of the teacher and the board.” So that one who has withdrawn his services might be well entitled not to return under that subsection.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t have any objection to taking “all” out.

Mr. Chairman: Take which out?

Mr. Foulds: Take the whole preamble out?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, no, not the whole preamble. It would read “... the interests of students, require that teachers return to their duties. ...”

Mr. Chairman: Would the change be acceptable then?

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The word “all” is being removed, is that right?

Mr. B. Newman: Eliminated.

Mr. Chairman: Now, shall the preamble then stand as part of the bill?

Mr. Deans: No.

Mr. Bullbrook: Well, I want to say this to you, if I may, supporting somewhat what was said by the hon. member for Wentworth. Although I disagree on the point that this is unusual, I think in special Acts really, you will find many special Acts meeting special sets of circumstances that in the recital to the Act itself refer to the circumstances which led to the statute, but I say to you that you are inviting disaster, frankly, in the preamble itself.

You would be much better advised, I presume to tell you -- you say in the last sentence: “and that means be found for the settlement of all matters in dispute between the board and its teachers.” This statute isn’t going to do that. The statute can’t possibly settle all matters in dispute between the board and its teachers. It’s impossible for it so to do. It doesn’t contemplate that it would do such.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well, Mr. Chairman, it contemplates settling those matters that are in dispute in this particular contract dispute and that they will be settled finally by what it says here.

Mr. Bullbrook: That isn’t what the preamble says.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, would the minister then add the words “all matters in dispute that have caused the dispute between the board and its teachers”?

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): But it doesn’t do that.

Mr. Deans: Take your preamble out, Tom. It’s a mess!

Hon. Mr. Wells: Would it assist if we changed “all matters” to “the matters”?

Mr. Bullbrook: That would help.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would be willing to do that. It would then read: “... the settlement of the matters in dispute between the board and its teachers.” Is that agreeable?

Mr. Chairman: Is it agreeable to insert the word “the” instead of the word “all” in line 11?

Agreed.

Shall the preamble, as amended, stand as part of the bill?

Those in favour of the preamble, as amended, standing as part of the bill, will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Any comment, question or amendment on section 1 of the bill?

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

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

Mr. Foulds moves that the words “first normal school” be added in clause 2(1), in line three, after the words “shall on the” and before the word “day,” so that the clause would read: “The teachers who withdrew their services as a result of submitting resignations effective on Jan. 31, 1974, shall, on the first normal school day following the day this Act comes into force, resume their employment with the board -- “

Mr. Foulds: One of the things that occurs to me, Mr. Chairman, is that if the Act passes with the wording of that clause as it is, say on Friday, that would require the teachers to go back to school on Saturday. And if the --

Mr. B. Newman: That’s not a normal school day.

Mr. Foulds: Well, I know. That’s why I included the words “first normal school day,” because the bill says simply, “... on the day following ...” and doesn’t define “day” anywhere in the bill as a school day. I think that would cover any ambiguity that might arise, should the bill pass tomorrow, say, or after midnight tonight or whenever. It’s a technicality.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think the hon. member is quite right, but I think that if he reads the bill, he actually would be perhaps not doing a disservice to the teachers, because the bill says they shall “resume their employment ...”

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Yes. That’s right. Their day doesn’t start -- the day isn’t until a school day.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That means that if the bill receives royal assent tomorrow, say, they’ll resume their employment Saturday. But, of course, they won’t be teaching Saturday; indeed, unless that board arranges something special which I haven’t heard about, they will not be there for the mid-winter break, yet they will become employees of the board on Saturday --

Mr. Ruston: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and resume their employment. But, of course, they won’t teach until the normal teaching days begin.

Mr. Foulds: Could I then ask a question of clarification? If they become employees of the board on Saturday, say, are there other provisions in the Schools Administration Act or the Ministry of Education Act, or are there regulations set out, outlining the days in which school shall be taught, so that unless a special agreement between both parties and the ministry were signed, the board could not force them back on the weekend or during the March break?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s quite right. The board is operating under a modified school year plan, which they have filed with our regional office. That plan sets out what are the instructional days and so forth, and the York county board, at the present time, has filed a school year plan that includes next week as the mid-winter break.

Mr. Foulds: I see.

Hon. Mr. Wells: But it also includes that the schools will not be open on Saturdays and Sundays.

Mr. Foulds: If the minister can give the House that assurance I will withdraw the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, no problem.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment be withdrawn then?

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few comments concerning this. I hesitated a bit to support the member for Thunder Bay --

Mr. Foulds: Port Arthur.

Mr. B. Newman -- Port Arthur, I’m sorry -- because I thought that if the board and the teachers possibly agreed to use next week as an instructional week that decision should be left to them. I would hate to prevent the resumption of school next week if it is the wish of both parties to go back to the classrooms and try to catch up in this fashion. I would think it would be admirable on the part of both the teachers and the board if that was their wish.

Mr. Foulds: I withdraw the motion, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This would allow exactly what the hon. member has indicated. I hope, though, that it would not be just the board and the teachers but it would be the board, the teachers and the students and their parents because they are, to a degree, involved with the mid-winter break, too.

Mr. Chairman: Is there anything further on section 1? I’m sorry, section 2?

Shall section 2 stand as part of the bill?

Section 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Chairman: The minister has an amendment to subsection (13). Is there anything before subsection (13)?

Mr. Deans: I have a question on subsection (3).

Mr. Chairman: Is there anything before subsection (3)?

Mr. B. Newman: I have a question on subsection (3).

Mr. Deans: I want simply to ask whether the wording in subsection (3) might not be changed in the third last line in which it says, “but shall give full opportunity to the board and the negotiators for the teachers.” Shouldn’t it say, “give full opportunity to the negotiators for the board and the teachers to present ...?” In other words, surely you’re not saying that the board, in its entirely, can make representation but the teachers’ negotiators are the only ones who can speak for them? You’re talking about, in fact, the negotiating committees of each party being given the full opportunity for discussion and representation.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think there’s probably merit in what the hon. member said. My legal advisers tell me that the board is a corporation and that is what is inferred here by board with a capital B -- the corporation of the York County Board of Education -- and, of course, they will be represented by counsel or whoever they want. In this case, there is no official legal entity representing the teachers, I suppose, unless we put in the OSSTF as representing the teachers of district 11.

Mr. Deans: All right, but do you understand what I’m saying?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That would probably be other wording that could be put in there.

Mr. Deans: I’m sorry, I did want to deal with subsection (1).

Mr. Chairman: We can come back to that.

Mr. Deans: Okay.

Mr. Chairman: Did the member for Windsor-Walkerville have something on this section?

Mr. B. Newman: Yes, I wanted to ask for an explanation from the minister of subsection (3), the fifth and sixth lines. I’ll read the paragraph so he can explain what it means: “The board of arbitration constituted under this section upon receipt of a notice referred to in subsection (1) shall examine into and decide all matters that are in dispute between the board and the teachers as evidenced by the notices referred to in subsection 1 [This is what I would like an explanation of] and other matters that appear to the board of arbitration to be necessary to be decided in order to make an award.”

I wonder if, in that clause or portion of a clause, one of the items that is being considered is that a teacher has two times in a year at which he is to submit his resignation; that is at the end of November and at the end of May. If the board of arbitration takes the normal length of time to resolve the differences, this would be some time possibly in late June, maybe in July. In the meantime the teacher who wanted to submit his or her resignation legally on May 30 might be left hanging.

I wonder if the minister can clarify the meaning of those fifth and sixth lines?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, that’s a common phrase for anything put in in arbitration procedures. It’s merely to allow for anything that the board may decide on. They are not likely to be major things but some other thing that may not quite be within the list they have been given but they need to decide on it, or they have been asked to decide on it as they carried on their discussions and listened to presentations about the case. I don’t think it has anything to do with what the hon. member is talking about, about resignation dates or things like that. The teachers who would be back in the classroom now and back working for that board would be perfectly free to exercise their option to resign as of May 31, effective Aug. 31. There is nothing that would stop them from doing that, even if an arbitration board had not brought down a settlement, because they are back and their individual contracts are reinstated and the collective bargaining contract under which they had been working will be in effect until the new award is brought down.

Mr. B. Newman: Could the minister maybe give an example of some item that could be included under “other matters,” so as to clarify this a little more for me?

Mr. Deans: May I ask a question on the same line? Does the minister have in mind, where the board in order to make an award might have to vary other clauses in the contract which had not been brought up as contentious items, but have to vary them in order to make them comply with the terms of the item that is being changed? Is that what he is talking about?

Let me put it another way. If there was in the contract a provision dealing with a particular method of distributing statutory holidays, but that method was unworkable in conjunction with a method to be arrived at for distributing vacations, the board would have the power to vary the one in order to make the other work. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am not a lawyer and I am perhaps at some disadvantage in being able to give you a legal interpretation of this. But that sounds like a reasonable kind of explanation to me. I can’t give the hon. member any example of this. I just understand that in some of the arbitration agreements that have gone forward in the last few years it has been felt that there should be some clause such as this in order not to bind any arbitration board that found it wanted to do something like that, but immediately found that one side or the other was taken to court. There should be a clause so that they could in fact bring down something in their award to take care of some of these things.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, if I might speak to this --

Mr. Chairman: Have we finished subsection (3) then?

Mr. Foulds: I would like to speak to this particular point and then revert to subsection (1). Mr. Chairman, I too am not a lawyer, but I have had a bit of experience in teaching. It may be, for example, in the York county situation that headship and responsibility allowances are applied to the arbitration board and the number of total periods that a teacher might teach would be submitted to the arbitration board for an award, but specifically there might not be submitted on either side the number of periods that a department head has to teach, which should in most circumstances be somewhat lower. In considering the whole situation, the arbitration board might find that the allowances were covered or the period for normal or classroom teachers were covered, but if those department headships were not submitted specifically, they would feel free to make an award if that came up during the submissions by either side to the arbitration board. For that reason, I would think that I would very much hope that these words would remain in.

Mr. Chairman: Shall subsection (3) stand as part of the bill then?

Mr. Foulds: I would like to return to subsection (1), Mr. Chairman, before we get to that, if I may. We in this party will move, if we can rally enough troops -- and I will talk for as long as we can get the troops -- that subsection (1) be struck from the bill.

Mr. Chairman: You don’t have to make a motion. Just vote against it then, when I ask if it will stand.

Mr. Foulds: Could I request that subsection (1) be dealt with specifically, because it is the heart of the bill?

Mr. Chairman: That is what we are dealing with now.

Mr. Foulds: I would like, therefore, Mr. Chairman, to speak against the inclusion of subsection (1) of section 3 of the bill. This clause is the essence of the bill. This is the clause that forces compulsory arbitration in the dispute. Both opposition parties argued for six hours yesterday in the vein that we oppose compulsory arbitration to the settlement of this dispute. We have suggested alternatives that the minister could take. The Liberals have suggested one which we don’t endorse and we have suggested another route. But there were alternatives that could have been taken.

We simply find, Mr. Chairman, that compulsory arbitration is an abhorrent principle, as my colleague from Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) said in his brilliant if short speech last night, that we oppose it in every situation --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please; it seems that this subsection embodies the very principle of the bill which was passed last night.

Mr. Deacon: And we are prepared to vote against it.

Mr. Foulds: And we are going to vote against it on this reading, on the clause by clause.

Mr. Chairman: You opposed it last night.

Mr. Foulds: You are quite right; you are absolutely bang on, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is the whole principle of the bill.

Mr. Foulds: Subsection (1) embodies the whole principle of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: You can’t speak on the principle in general again.

Mr. Foulds: I’m speaking specifically on this clause and I’m speaking specifically on the words “submit to final and binding arbitration under this Act.” It is the word “submit” that we on this side, or in this small section on this side of the House, find abhorrent. Actually it is fairly large -- two thirds of this side.

Arbitration, and submission thereto by the affected parties, is by its very nature -- and I use the word cautiously but advisedly dictatorial. It is ironic, of course, that the most self-righteous paper in Ontario, the Toronto Globe and Mail, has emblazoned on its masthead words of Junius: “The subject who is truly loyal to the chief magistrate will neither advise nor consent to arbitrary measures.”

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Such as compulsory arbitration.

Mr. Foulds: And compulsory arbitration, by definition, is an arbitrary measure.

Mr. Laughren: It’s true; it’s a brilliant speech.

Mr. Foulds: If short.

We as legislators on this side of the House simply cannot advise the chief magistrate of the province, in this case it is the Lieutenant Governor, to proclaim arbitrary measures. We would not feel in conscience that we could continue as legislators in this House if we allowed this section of the bill to pass without a vote.

Mr. Deans: Mark you, that has nothing to do with either Junius or the Globe and Mail.

Mr. Foulds: I wish you hadn’t pointed that out to the chairman.

Mr. Deans: No, I meant from our point of view.

Mr. Foulds: If the clause had contained a possibility for binding arbitration that had voluntarily been agreed to by the parties, we would have had no difficulty with it.

Mr. Deacon: There would be no bill in those circumstances.

Mr. Foulds: But the fact that it is compulsory and the fact that it makes teachers and the board submit to arbitrary legislation, for those reasons we simply cannot support it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deans: Well said.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, we intend to oppose this bill. We made our comments concerning compulsory arbitration on second reading of the bill. In the clause by clause study we will definitely take a stand and carry out our responsibilities by voting against it.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment on subsection (1)? I will put the question.

Those in favour of subsection (1) of section 3 standing as part of the bill will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

May we stack it?

Some hon. members: No, no!

The committee divided on the question of having subsection (1) of section 3 stand as a part of the bill, which was approved on the following vote.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 61, the “nays” are 31.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the subsection stands as part of the bill.

Subsection (1) of section 3 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: We have discussed subsections (1) and (3); are there any further subsections before subsection 13?

Mr. Foulds: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Which one?

Mr. Foulds: Subsection (2).

Mr. Chairman: No. 2. All right.

Mr. Foulds: I have an amendment to subsection (2), Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Foulds moves that the following words be added to subsection (2) of section 3: “and that the award on the pupil-teacher ratio shall not be above the provincial average.”

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, one of the contentious issues in the dispute in York county has been, of course, the pupil-teacher ratio. It is admirable that, given the passage of subsection (1), the minister has spelled out clearly in the bill that the ratio is arbitrable.

What I am attempting to do here is to ensure that the award is such that the pupil-teacher ratio in York county will not go above the ratio of the provincial average.

It may be somewhat confusing, but because it is a pupil-teacher ratio -- i.e. 17.4 to 1, or 17 to 1 -- it looks in the wording as if it is favourable to the board. In fact it is favourable to the teachers. That would be the base award that they would receive. That is, the pupil-teacher ratio could fall below 17.4 or 16.9 to 1 -- whatever the provincial average is -- meaning there would be fewer pupils per teacher in that county.

Now, it is in line with the principle the minister has already established in the bill when he appended the salary schedule as an appendix to the bill. That is the floor below which the arbitrator cannot go. The same intention is applied here -- and I think importantly applied here. It’s a floor below which the arbitrator cannot award in favour of the teachers. I think that as the minister took the pains to establish such a floor in salary, which was not the most contentious issue in York county, it is important and significant that this Legislature include a clause that supplies a floor for the most contentious issue in the county. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: I was there wondering if there is such a thing as a provincial pupil-teacher ratio. To me it seems difficult to establish that, really, and I don’t think the ministry has one. I agree with the idea, the concepts, that the member has presented; but the ramifications of it, I think, are insurmountable.

If you get into a system in which a lot of academic subjects only are taught, the pupil-teacher ratio increases considerably. In other words, in an English class it’s nothing to have 30, 35 even, in some schools 40 in a class to one teacher. But if you get into a technical school, you may have only four students to a teacher. You are trying to equate the two and I think it’s difficult. I think it would be better if you said that the pupil-teacher ratio at the academic level would be a given ratio and in the technical level it would be another ratio. That would sound a little more reasonable to me.

Generally, the technical shops don’t have more than 20 students per teacher. There are only 20 desks available or 20 machines or 20 typewriters or 20 pieces of equipment so you could not have more than 20.

I am not saying that some school boards don’t have more than 20 students so that the students have to share a piece of equipment. It’s nothing unusual, when you get into the grade 11 or grade 12 programme, when the students are in their last specializing year in auto mechanics or in machine shop or even in sheet metal, to have as few as four in the class.

When you turn around and put down the number of students in that class for the teacher, you can see that makes a substantial difference. You take a machine shop teacher with only four and an English teacher with 35, add the two together and there are 39 students being taken care of by two teachers. You immediately say that each teacher has 20 pupils he has to take care of.

That may be true, but you are talking about apples and oranges. The one teacher still has too heavy a load by having 35 in the class, whereas the other teacher, I don’t say he has too light a load, but with only four or five students each student gets individual attention and each student is able to learn to the maximum of his potential.

I like the idea of the student-teacher ratio; but I think it would be better if it were broken up into an academic student-teacher ratio, and a second group would be, possibly, a commercial student-teacher ratio; and then a technical student-teacher ratio. To take all three -- commercial, academic and technical -- and find one ratio for all three I think is a little too complicated and really not fair to the academic teacher.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, in fact, the pupil-teacher ratio is computed on two bases, one for academic and one for non-academic students. It is not our job to make the award and the arbitrator would still be free --

Mr. Bullbrook: We are not trying to make the award. He is not trying to make the award at all.

Mr. Foulds: The arbitrator would still be free, Mr. Chairman, to make an award, as has been submitted and partly negotiated by both parties in the York county dispute already, about the pupil-teacher ratio vis-à-vis non-academic students and vis-à-vis the academic student.

The principle is the important thing here. We are not defining the award. What we are simply saying is that the award cannot fall below the provincial average. The arbitrator can and will interpret it as a provincial average for the academic classes and for the non-academic classes, because both sides are going to submit to him those categories. They have been talking about that in negotiations and no doubt they will be making those presentations to the arbitrator.

The pupil-teacher ratio is simply a base from which you work. The pupil-teacher ratio basically has nothing to do with class size. The class size can be another item or can be worked into the contract. The number of pupils a teacher must teach can also be worked into the award by the arbitrator, but it is the pupil-teacher ratio that is simply the base figure, the base camp from which you scale Everest so to speak.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, certainly the ministry or this government has never felt there should be a provincially, centrally-dictated pupil-teacher ratio. In conformity with our belief in the local autonomy of the board -- something which I know members opposite hold in jest many times, but which really is there to a much greater degree than they really think, and which is something which we really believe in -- and in keeping with that belief this is a matter that it is up to the local people to decide.

I have stated very categorically that I personally believe, and we believe, that it is an item for negotiation. We are asserting here in this particular case, the dispute between the York county teachers and their board, since it is an outstanding matter in the dispute, that it is a matter for arbitration in this arbitration. But I think it would be unwise and not in keeping with our general policy to put in any level, floor or any suggestion of any provincial direction in this regard.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would reject that amendment.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, if I may speak to what the minister has said; wow, is he dragging a red herring across the issue! The Ministry of Education in fact publishes the statistics in its annual report which indicate an average for the province of the pupil-teacher ratio. It is not a question of dictation across the province; it is not a question of local autonomy; it is a question of finding in York county that they do not get worse learning conditions for their kids in York county than they get for the average board across this province.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am very sure that this case will be argued very fully before the arbitrator. I don’t think that we need any levels put in there to guide him. The whole case will be argued before him by both the teachers and the board.

Certainly we publish the provincial averages, just as we publish statistics of all sort, averages and provincial figures for all the boards. It is part of the statistical service, but it doesn’t suggest that we say that that provincial average is perfect or that it is too high or too low. This is something that the school board, if you accept as I do that it is a negotiable item, in each local jurisdiction should work out for itself.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: I would think that the teachers in their wisdom in negotiating would certainly present very strong arguments on their own behalf. I don’t think we should tie the hands of the arbitrator and say he must come down to this level. I think that is one of the items they will agree among themselves about.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: There is a problem, Mr. Chairman. Obviously whatever the arbitrator in this dispute comes down with it is going to have an influence on the future of arbitrations and negotiations. I think the very fact that the Ministry of Education sees fit to include a statistic called pupil-teacher ratio in its annual report is sufficient evidence in itself to show that the ministry considers it to be an item of some importance.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We include salaries but we don’t suggest everyone has the average salary in the province.

Mr. Deans: Nor are we suggesting everyone have the average pupil-teacher ratio. You have in fact suggested in the bill what the base salary should be as far as the arbitration is concerned.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Based on the offer made by one of the parties.

Mr. Deans: That’s absolutely right. You have said in the bill they should not consider an award of a salary less than the schedule set out on page 5 of the bill. This particular arbitration is going to be a milestone in the negotiation process in education. It’s also going to be a reference point for future boards of arbitration. The minister intends that all teacher disputes be settled by arbitration. The minister intends to bring in a bill that will make binding arbitration the last resort in all teacher disputes.

Therefore, it’s necessary in this dispute to be sure that whatever conclusions are reached are satisfactory and can be referred to satisfactorily by future arbitrators. I don’t think the minister would expect -- nor would I for that matter -- that an arbitrator would come in with an award in this dispute which would exceed the provincial average or for that matter with an award which might even be higher than the existing pupil-teacher ratio.

It’s a possibility -- it’s not likely but it’s a possibility -- that the arbitrator could consider making an award in which the pupil-teacher ratio is higher than that which currently exists within the school jurisdiction. The arguments by the board might lend themselves to that kind of a conclusion at this particular time; and it’s possible, though not probable, that that then could result in a change in pupil-teacher ratios right across the province as they become negotiable and arbitrable in all future negotiations.

Frankly, I don’t see why the minister wouldn’t agree that the statistics that his own department have come up with have set out a pupil-teacher ratio which, if not satisfactory to everyone, is at least bordering on being satisfactory with regard to the ratio of pupils to teachers in the province for all of the boards. He should then say that the pupil-teacher ratio as it exists in the technical or commercial end, and as it exists in the academic end of the Province of Ontario, as reported in the statistics of the Ministry of Education, shall be the base above which no award shall be made.

I don’t understand why you wouldn’t do that to make sure that we do get off on the right foot in this arbitration and ensure that the arbitration will be satisfactory and acceptable to the teachers in the province.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: I certainly feel that the arbitrator should not be bound by this. I know the ratio at the time the teachers walked out in York was 17.1, which was well below the provincial average, but at the same time --

Mr. Foulds: The provincial average is 16.9.

Mr. Deacon: Well, I was given to understand by the teacher representatives at a meeting the other night that in fact the provincial average was 17.4. I may have been misled, but in any event I don’t think we should be telling the arbitrators here what to do and I think the fact that it is being arbitrated is the key issue.

Mr. Chairman: Ready for the question then?

Those in favour of Mr. Foulds’ motion will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

I declare the motion lost and subsection (2) carried.

We discussed subsection (3).

Anything on subsection (4)? If not, the member for Windsor-Walkerville on subsection (5).

Mr. B. Newman: No, Mr. Chairman, subsection (4), not subsection (5), is the one I really wanted to talk on; and it concerns the appointment of the arbitrator where both sides are unable to agree as to who should be the third arbitrator in the dispute.

Over the past series of months and so forth, we’ve come upon situations in which teachers have not had any confidence in the boards, the teachers have not had much confidence in the ministry, and as a result a lot of hard feelings have developed. You talk with them and they say: “We will appoint one of the arbitrators; the board will appoint the second. We can’t agree on the third so the ministry is going to appoint the other arbitrator. The ministry is taking sides right away. The ministry is going to come along and appoint one who is favourable to the board.” That is how some of the teachers have interpreted the appointment by the ministry.

To allay all their fears, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment, an addition to subsection 4, so that the ministry will appoint an individual, or may appoint an individual who, in the eyes of both the board and the teachers, is absolutely impartial. My suggestion is that added to the end of the paragraph in subsection (4) be the words “who shall be a Justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario.”

Hon. Mr. Wells: Could I ask if it is the intent of the hon. member’s amendment that the person the minister appoints should be a Justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario?

Mr. Bullbrook: If necessary.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, if --

Mr. Deacon: No, no.

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, if necessary. If the parties agree on it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: You mean if the parties don’t agree? Yes. If the parties don’t agree.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. B. Newman, Windsor-Walkerville, moves that section 3, subsection (4), be amended by adding thereto, --

Mr. Givens: I think that is the last thing you want.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Don’t you fellows ever get together and discuss these things?

Mr. Chairman: -- the words “who shall be a Justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario.”

Mr. Deans: With some considerable reluctance I have got to say I don’t agree.

Mr. Bullbrook: Why are you reluctant to say it?

Mr. Deans: Because I’d like to agree.

But I really don’t agree with appointing people from the judiciary to settle matters of arbitration in labour disputes. I think, first of all, it’s better to seek someone who has some knowledge of the field than it is to seek out a person who may well be a good judge --

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. Deans: -- but who quite frankly, may have absolutely no knowledge of the field.

Mr. Givens: Get your map of learning and start looking.

Mr. Deans: I’m not as worried about the appointment of the chairman --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: I’m not even as worried about the outcome of the awards, strangely enough. I would prefer to leave it as it is than to have someone appointed from the judiciary to sit as the chairman of the arbitration.

The only question I have is -- I’m not at all clear about the section, if I might just ask -- it does not specifically say there must be a third person. That’s what I’m not sure about in the section. It says: The two persons appointed under subsection 4 shall, within seven days after they have been appointed, appoint a person to act as chairman.”

I would have thought it should have said, “appoint a third person to act as chairman,” as opposed to “they may appoint,’’ just to be clear that there has to be another person on the board.

I always understood, by the way, that the board would have been defined as “a board of arbitration comprised of a representative of each party and a third person who shall act as chairman.” I thought that would have been a section in the Act by the way; it isn’t in the Act. It doesn’t really spell out what the board of arbitration shall be comprised of in the way of numbers of people.

Mr. Chairman: I’m reading this, I think the hon. member really meant this to be an addition to subsection (5), on the appointment of a chairman.

Mr. B. Newman: Really, I wanted the appointment of the chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Yes. That is subsection (5). We’re really talking about subsection (5), the appointment of the chairman. Does the minister have any comments?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think, Mr. Chairman, that I would prefer to leave subsection 4 the way it is. I listened with great interest to the comments of my friend from Forest Hill yesterday, who I think made some very good points about arbitrators, although he didn’t agree with the arbitration process.

I think he mentioned that we’d have a very difficult job finding people and some of the other members said they should be people with special expertise in the field. While certainly Justices of the Supreme Court of Ontario have great expertise in a lot of things, it may be that they may not be completely the proper persons for this kind of arbitration.

Also, it may be that they may not be able to serve. It is my understanding that there is a general feeling that they should not be taken away from their duties on the bench and given these other duties at this particular time.

Mr. Bullbrook: You don’t see them perform adjudicative services anymore. But they’re called upon to do extra work. I want to speak to this matter. I want to support the motion wholeheartedly.

You fail to understand a part of the problem when you talk about expertise residing in the chairman. It isn’t expertise we want. It’s a truly objective representation of the public interest on that board. That’s all we want. That’s all my colleague is attempting to show.

We don’t want anybody in this House or any group of teachers or any group of trustees or anyone to be able to say, as is happening in CSAO now, that the government has injected itself into the truly reciprocal equation of this board. This is the type of legislation none of us want. You don’t on that side, and we don’t surely on this side.

That’s why my colleague puts that forward because it’s known, recognized and appreciated by the public at large that members of the judiciary by the very oath of their office undertake their function in a truly objective fashion. Aside from that, is the fact that we know that they go in tabula rasa. They don’t know about it, and better so that they do.

They are the chairman of that board and they will have the assistance and aid of two colleagues on the board of arbitration, one representing the point of view perhaps of the teachers and one representing the point of view of the trustees. Subject to some comments I want to make about the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the chairman will have the ability to assess the evidence and come to a conclusion.

I think the amendment is an extremely worthwhile amendment. I don’t know why you turn away from it, because it really assists you in the future. It assists you now in being able to say to yourself that never in the future will you be accused as the minister of showing any partiality whatever, because you invite that type of comment if you rely solely on the expertise of the chairman rather than on the public recognition of the true objectivity of the chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York-Forest Hill.

Mr. Givens: Mr. Chairman, the minister may have heard me remark to my colleague here that probably the last thing you would want is to appoint a judge. Right here you really get at the nub of the point that I was trying to make last night, that after weeks and weeks of negotiating and the hassle that’s been going on and the mess that’s developed, where are you going to get three impartial people? Three impartial people who are so wise, so sagacious, so knowledgeable, so expert, so perceptive, so Solomonic that they’re going to cut this Gordian knot -- let alone the baby, the student, that they’re struggling with between them -- who haven’t had an input into this matter already.

You can’t find such people; I defy you to do so. You’re going to have to pick people, but you’re not going to be able to find people with that 100 per cent degree of objectivity that you’re striving for and which my colleague is striving to get.

We know in labour relations in the past labour had objected to people with a legalized training taking part. They don’t like lawyers. They don’t like judges, because the tendency for lawyers, and some of my best friends are lawyers, and I’m one of them --

Hon. Mr. Davis: You’re your own best friend.

Mr. Deans: His only best friend.

Mr. Givens: Don’t walk out on me now. This is the first time I’ve had you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: After that line, I’ll be right back.

Mr. Givens: The tendency for lawyers is to strictly construe language and to strictly construe laws. We were all through this discussion last night where we were agreed that you’re dealing in a field of human relations and that you cannot confine strictly what’s in the parameters of any given language, no matter how well hewn your language is, in any given piece of legislation. This is what makes it so tough. You’re up against the velvet right now with respect to this aspect of compulsory arbitration, which I defy you or anybody else to solve. This is why compulsory arbitration, in my opinion, is basically wrong; because you cannot find these Solomonic people.

Maybe you’ll bring one in from Alaska or British Columbia or from somewhere outside the jurisdiction. It isn’t possible today to think of anybody, and I don’t care whether he’s a judge or anybody else, who has that kind of impartiality and objectivity, who hasn’t formed some kind of an opinion, either consciously, or subconsciously or subliminally on this particular question who lives in the community known as the Province of Ontario. Everybody has got an opinion.

I suppose that you can argue that a Supreme Court judge, because of his training and background, is likely to be the most objective person that you can find. Maybe you can argue that, but I dismiss the idea that you can even get a Supreme Court judge today whose mind is completely and totally a blank like an empty blackboard on the subject. This is not possible at all. This is why you are having this trouble.

In retrospect, having made that remark at the beginning to my colleague, that he would be the last guy I’d pick, I suppose that this is the kind of person to pick, compared with picking a businessman, a bank manager, the Lieutenant Governor of the province, another cabinet minister, or whomever. I suppose a Supreme Court judge is more likely to be the most objective person. But I rule out objectivity and impartiality completely. This is why I consider the principle of compulsory arbitration wrong, particularly in this particular case.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Newman’s motion will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it. I declare the motion lost.

That was to subsection 5, was it?

Mr. B. Newman: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Then subsections (4) and (5) are carried.

Is there anything before subsection (13)? If so, which subsection.

Mr. Bullbrook: Subsection (9).

Mr. B. Newman: Subsection (8).

Mr. Chairman: Anything before subsection (8)?

Mr. B. Newman moves that section 3(8) be amended by adding thereto the words “who shall be a justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario.”

Mr. B. Newman: I won’t repeat the entire argument this time, but it is exactly the same argument as that under subsection (5); that is where the chairman is not agreed upon, that he shall be a justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion?

Those in favour of Mr. Newman’s motion will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it. I declare the motion lost.

Mr. Chairman: On subsection (9)?

Mr. Bullbrook: I just want to ask a question of the minister.

In providing in subsection (9) for the use of powers under those sections of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, are you content through your advisers that the provision in section 4 of the Act, to the effect that the dispute may be concluded without a hearing would obviate the necessity of a hearing? Or are you satisfied with the words contained in section 3(3), the negotiators for the teachers and the board will have an ability to present evidence and make submissions? I just want to make sure that we are not going to have an in camera session here.

Perhaps I might just say this: Under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act the tribunal, as you know, can conclude without a hearing.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, right.

Mr. Bullbrook: The Act also says, “... subject to the provisions of the particular statute,” which we are talking about in Bill 12. You provide for the presentation of evidence and the ability to submit argument. I take it that your intention is that notwithstanding the provisions of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act that say there can be a conclusion without a hearing, that there is going to be a hearing.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I intend that there be a hearing, and certainly it is the intent in this bill that there be a hearing. If my friend, who is a lawyer, feels that section 4 of this Statutory Powers Procedure Act causes any problem in this regard -- again, as a layman, reading it over quickly, I am not sure why section 4 has to apply in this particular case -- but if he is worried, I would be willing to delete that unless there is some particular reason. I see why the other sections of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act need to be here for certain protections and so forth, but I am not sure about section 4.

Mr. Bullbrook: I see the need for the application of section 4, because the parties might by consent come to a conclusion without the necessity of holding extensive hearings and thereby saving public funds and that would constitute an award. I’m content with that. I am now content that you have voiced publicly that it is your intention that there be a public hearing in connection with the submissions to be made to the board of arbitration. I think that satisfies me entirely right now.

Mr. Chairman: Does subsection (9) then stand as part of the bill? Agreed.

Any comments, questions or amendments on a later subsection, before subsection (13)? The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: I just wanted to ask a question for clarification on subsection (10). I assume that means that the award made by the arbitrator cannot therefore be appealed to a court. Is that the intention of subsection (10) -- that the award made by the arbitrator in this case will be final and binding and there can be no appeal to the court? That’s the reason? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Shall subsection (10) stand? Subsection (11); subsection (12).

Mr. Foulds: Subsection (12).

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister -- oh, is there something?

Mr. Foulds: Do you have an amendment to 12?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, 13.

Mr. Chairman: If you have comments on 12 you may make them now.

Mr. Foulds: I once again want a point of information on this. Could the minister inform the House if any items had been agreed to by the board and the teacher negotiators up to this point? Or did they withdraw all the tentative offers that they talked about when the teachers withdrew their services?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I really can’t answer that for the hon. member, because of course we don’t know until each put in their list, as is provided for in an earlier section of this bill. They will each put in what they feel are the items still in dispute and it may be that some of the items we perhaps assumed had been agreed to may still be in dispute, because some of them were conditional upon others being agreed to.

This section, of course, is also there so that if, as the arbitration is proceeding, the parties get together and agree on some of the items that are in the list that are in dispute, they can present to the arbitration board their written agreements, and that then means the arbitration board doesn’t have to make an award in that particular matter.

Mr. Deans: Just one question along the same line: Is it not necessary that the parties should submit a list of all matters which were entered into and upon which negotiation was originally based, a list of the matters which they believe to have been resolved and then a list of the matters which are still in dispute?

The reason I ask is that if a party, for example, were to submit a list of the matters that they consider still to be in dispute and leave out matters which they thought had been resolved, and the other party didn’t deal with those matters, it is entirely possible that the there may not be an agreement on some of the matters.

In other words, if there isn’t a list of what in fact is being asked for, and what was asked for originally, what was tentatively agreed upon and what is still in dispute, then it is possible that some matters might get lost.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I suppose anything is possible, Mr. Chairman, but I can assure the member that under this section that we have here, I think the parties will know very well what are the matters still in dispute and will be able to put them in.

Mr. Chairman: Subsection (12) -- I’m sorry.

Mr. Deans: Okay, all right.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister has an amendment to subsection (13).

Hon. Mr. Wells moves that subsection (13) of section 3 be amended by inserting after “or” in the third line, “with the approval of the minister.”

Mr. Chairman: Shall this motion carry?

Mrs. Campbell: Could we have the meaning of this?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The meaning of this is that at the present time a three-month time limit is set on the board of arbitration with the provision that they may extend this time themselves. This says they have to get the approval of the minister if they are going to go to any extension beyond the three months. Several of the parties in this arbitration have suggested they would like that provision in so that we can have the arbitration carried out as quickly as possible.

Mr. Foulds: Could I ask a question on the minister’s intention? I, too, have had the same kind of information that both parties, I think, are a little uneasy that the arbitration might drag on and on. Could the minister give an assurance to the House that he would not let the further period extend beyond the new school year, say?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would hate to give any assurance of time to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, but I can give him the assurance that I will do everything possible to see that the arbitration board completes its work as quickly as possible.

Three months seems to be a reasonable time, but of course we all know things can occur which might make it necessary for extensions. That’s why we put in a little bit of a clause in the legislation to allow this to happen and did not just say three months.

If we wanted to be very specific we could say it had to complete its work within three months and we’d probably be all right but if something happened we’d find we had a piece of legislation and we’d have to come back and get an amendment. I can assure the hon. member I will not in any way let the board continue for an unreasonable length of time.

Mr. Foulds: There is a technical problem here, of course, in terms of the dates of the teachers’ resignations. That is, that they can in law resign only as from May 21 or Nov. 30. Surely, those individual teachers who do not like the award should not be prolonged beyond Nov, 30, say, in the employ of the board. I say that for two reasons: First so that the individual teachers who are dissatisfied with the awards can seek employment elsewhere; and the other is that if it is only a one-year award -- if the arbitrators decide that the contract shall only be for the term of one year -- one would hope they get the negotiations or awards settled before they get into the next round of negotiations in the coming year.

I appreciate the flexibility that the minister wishes to give the arbitration board here, because often a three or four-day period after a three-month period might be the crucial one. But we would caution him that there are those constraints, those very real constraints -- the resignation times of the teachers and the negotiations looming into the coming year -- to be considered when ministerial approval is being considered on the section.

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to ask a question that causes me concern. It is a general question, if you will permit it, Mr. Chairman, arising out of comments made by the member for Port Arthur. Is there a possibility that you conceive that the board would have the power to award in excess of a one-year contract?

Hon. Mr. Wells: In excess of one year?

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think that’s possible. That’s one of the matters in dispute.

Mr. Bullbrook: That causes me concern because I find it somewhat reprehensible -- I am sure the minister finds this, too -- that we are undertaking the responsibility of a locally-elected board. I can see that in the matter of urgency perhaps the government is constrained to bring forward this legislation which we don’t support. But now, if that board of arbitration is to return an award in excess of a one-year contract, you are not only usurping the function of the board for this year, you are imposing upon a future board perhaps; or at least restraining the right of the present board to undertake collective bargaining procedures in the future. I’d like to hear from the member for Port Arthur and my own colleagues in this connection. I don’t think we want to do that really.

Mrs. Campbell: No.

Mr. Bullbrook: It binds the teachers also to a term. Bill 275 anticipates a two-year term.

Mrs. Campbell: That’s right.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s a different ball game. That’s general legislation that we will eventually debate here in the House. But giving the right to this board, for the sake of exaggeration, to award a three-year contract, robs both the teachers and the trustees of their rights.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to make a few comments on this. In line with what my colleague is saying, this could happen at a point in time when the arbitration award is not down but there is an election being held, a completely new board may have been elected -- a board with a completely different point of view and new thinking. As a result, if a two-year or a three-year contract were awarded by the arbitrator, you would be tying future boards to expenditures and benefits that I don’t think you should be tying them to at all.

The other item I would like to mention to the minister, as I did when we discussed section 3(3) and I asked the minister to explain two or three lines, is the problem of the resignation of teachers.

A teacher has only two times in the year which he can retire or hand in his resignation. May 31 and November 30. Now, if the award is not down in time, before the teacher is to hand in his resignation, the teacher may be dissatisfied with the award presented by the arbitrators, but he will not have the opportunity to resign and look for employment with another board. You’ve sort of chained him into his job for an additional year, and you would have to extend the resignation date for teachers beyond May 31 and possibly put it to 30 days after the award had been presented by the arbitrator.

Mr. Deans: I just want to make one comment. It seems to me, in an arbitration which is agreed upon voluntarily by both parties, that the term of the agreement should be subject to the decision of the arbitrator. But in a dispute where it is involuntary, where neither party wanted the arbitration and where the arbitration is being imposed by us, it should be for as short a period of time as is reasonable. It seems at this stage that a shortest period of time that is reasonable should be August 31, 1974, and the award should and will be retroactive to September 1, 1973.

I would like to suggest to the minister that he do include that. Everyone -- I assume so, anyway -- is going to be under general legislation in any event by August 1, 1974, and in fact negotiations will be starting afresh across the province under the new legislation governing teacher-board negotiations.

I think this board and these teachers have to move as swiftly as possible into that new structure and get back together again as quickly as they can in an attempt to try to attain what I spoke about last night, the kind of mutual respect that must be there if there is going to be any sensible and rational negotiation in any event.

I would seriously like to ask the minister whether he couldn’t find a way to say that the award shall be for a one-year duration, terminating on the anniversary date, August 31, 1974.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, on this point I feel that I should rise too, because I am concerned about the implications of this particular piece of legislation as it relates to Bill 275. I would like to have the assurance of the minister that in forcing two people into arbitration it should not be expected that any award could be made for any longer term than one year. Surely that would be subject to the position of Bill 275. Surely that is a part of negotiations in other circumstances. And since Bill 275 has not yet taken effect, surely it would be most improper that in these highly questionable circumstances they should be awarded any longer period of time?

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments? Those in favour of the minister’s motion --

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I must say that while the arguments that have been put forward are very interesting I have heard no comments from either of the parties concerned in this dispute that there was not a limitation in this bill, that is, making it apply to a one year contract.

Now we are, of course, reaching the end of the period for which this award will actually apply. By the time the award is brought down the end of the year for which it applies will practically have been reached, because this, of course, is for a contract beginning September, 1973.

I would say that, from my involvement with the negotiations that went on, the duration of the contract was one of the matters that was in dispute. Whether it was to be a 12-, 16- or 24-month contract was one of the matters in dispute. I am not sure that in limiting, at this particular time by this bill, the award for one year we would not be intruding upon or limiting some of the matters that were in dispute.

Mr. Deans: You are doing that anyway --

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, but we are going to --

Mr. Deans: They said they shall arbitrate pupil-teacher ratio, and that is in dispute, and they said that they shall have a base salary of X, and that is in dispute too.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think, on balance, that I would rather have the case for a 12, 16 or 24 month contract argued before the board of arbitration and let them make up their mind. It is a very difficult matter. I don’t think we had thought about it in the drafting, because in my thinking this had been one of the matters in dispute and I thought that it would go to the board. Mr. Chairman, I would feel that we should leave it the way it is.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, may I ask of the minister what provision he is making to enable a teacher to submit a resignation at a date later than May 31, in case he were dissatisfied with the award and would like to seek employment with another board?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this bill that provides for that. He, in his contract, can resign on May 31. Now if the award is not down he will have to wait until that award comes down and then, as the hon. member for Thunder Bay mentioned --

Mr. Foulds: Port Arthur.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Port Arthur; excuse me. Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: You see, you did get it wrong.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, yes, there you are.

Mr. Foulds: Private joke.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes. He has the Nov. 30 deadline to consider if he wishes to resign. I don’t think that is a matter that should be considered within this bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells has moved that subsection (13) of section 3 be amended by inserting after the word “or” in the third line the words “with the approval of the minister.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments, questions or amendments in any later section or subsection of the bill?

Mr. Deacon: Section 4.

Mr. Deans: Subsection (15).

Mr. Chairman: Subsection (14) is it?

Mr. Deans: No, (15). Can the minister tell me something about the reason why he decided that the bill has to be paid within 30 days? What is all this about? Why are you telling the parties, who have entered into a private arrangement with their nominee to the board, that they have to pay the nominee within 30 days? I don’t quite follow that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: As I understand it, the draftsmen for this bill have taken this from other labour legislation and the 30-day provision is there. We like everybody to be paid promptly -- just like the government pays its bills.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Just to comment on that further. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that if the account is not paid, does the minister expect that the person claiming for fees or disbursements under this situation would have any better result in getting paid under this section than under the general law of contract that prevails on a quantum merit basis that exists now?

I just don’t see the point of particularly requiring this kind of legislation when the fact that the person has done a job would allow him to maintain an action if the payments were not there just on the fact that he had done the job.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think that actually what we are talking about here is that the 30 days are put in because that’s the time in which the money that’s required is to be paid by the teachers who are a party to this negotiation. Now those teachers are not a legal entity and after that 30 days the bill then provides that the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation shall pay such moneys; and they, of course, are a legal body. It passes the responsibility for those debts from the teachers who had been a party before the negotiations to a legal body, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation. The board, of course, is a legal body in the beginning -- right way -- and of course it has to pay --

Mr. Breithaupt: It only makes the person involved a little more confident that if there is a problem, there is some more practical recourse of going after an association rather than some 550 teachers.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well, there’s no --

Mr. Deans: Just one question -- they are within a further 15 days -- now that is the last point I want to make with you. If the board doesn’t pay --

Hon. Mr. Wells: You can take that out. I don’t --

Mr. Deans: I think you should. If the board doesn’t pay, then the person they hire has to go after the board for the money.

Mr. Breithaupt: Quite so.

Mr. Deans: If the teachers don’t pay, then obviously the person they hire has to go after the federation for the money. How they settle is their business and how long it takes is their business -- and I am not interested in getting involved in how long it takes.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All right. I would be agreeable, Mr. Chairman, to removing “within a further 15 days.”

Mr. Chairman: Is that subsection (15)? Who is moving it then?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will move it.

Mr. Chairman: Is the motion understood then?

Mr. B. Newman: You might read it, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I am moving -- if you need it written out, I --

Mr. Chairman: No, it will be on record.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, it will be on record.

Hon. Mr. Wells moves that the words “within a further 15 days” be deleted from the last part of section 3, subsection (15), and it stands as “shall pay such moneys.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: All right, the minister wishes to add a couple of words in subsection (5) of section 3 to further clarify it. Do we have that permission?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, well I just recall that it was mentioned that there was no general definition of the board of arbitration being a three-person board.

Mr. Deans: Yes, I asked you for that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: And I thought that we should add the word a “third” person in the third line of subsection (5).

Mr. Chairman: So it shall read “appoint a third person.”

Hon. Mr. Wells: “Appoint a third person to act as chairman of the board of arbitration.”

Mr. Chairman: Understood?

Mr. Deans: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Is that agreed?

Mr. Foulds: Is that just before “a person” in the third line?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, appoint a third person.

Mr. Chairman: That amendment is carried then?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Now, anything further on section 3? Do subsections (16) and (17) carry?

Section 3 agreed to.

On section 4:

Mr. Deacon: Section 4. It has been brought to my attention that there is some concern over the category that would apply in section 4 where a teacher has been assigned to another job by the board.

Mr. Deacon moves that section 4 be amended by the addition of the following sentence: “The category applicable under this section shall be that for which a teacher qualifies and the specialty for which the teacher was hired unless the teacher has specifically requested a change to another specialty.”

Mr. Deacon: I would appreciate the minister’s comments on this because there is some concern that there could be confusion because of previous cases of shifting between categories that the board carried out with some of the teachers. I wanted to be sure this was covered and clarified. Would the minister agree to this amendment?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well, no. Mr. Chairman, I can’t agree to this amendment because this guarantee that’s put in the bill is a guarantee of this salary offer for those teachers who are in that category as of the time specified here. I don’t think in this bill we should get into a dispute, which again is an item in dispute, as to which category certain teachers in that board should be in. We don’t attempt to get into that in this particular bill. We merely attempt to say that where the teacher is placed in a category, this is the new salary schedule for him.

As the hon. member knows, the placement in categories is one of the issues in dispute in this particular instance.

Mr. Deacon: Oh, I thought that was an issue that had been agreed to prior to the actual withdrawal.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well, if that had been agreed to, and the board has made the adjustments in the categories, then the board will put them automatically in the categories.

Mr. Deacon: What I wanted to check was that since the actual contract hasn’t been signed, but as I understand the list of points that were agreed to as they worked through the negotiations, that was one where they had agreed to the way in which these categories will be handled. It is because of that agreement, which had been reached ahead of time, that I am making this suggestion. I recognize that that had been a point of dispute before, but I thought it had been agreed to and I thought it should be so reported in this bill.

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

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, my concern really is that a teacher may be transferred from, say, category 4 to category 3, and as a result suffer a decrease in salary on the transfer between categories and have the board just arbitrarily assign him a different series of subjects to teach. This would simply protect the rights of the teacher who had been in any one of the categories -- I’ll use category 4 -- so that he does not drop below the category 4 level if he had been in it prior to that, simply because the board wants to give him another discipline to teach. If the teacher wishes to be removed from category 4, well then, that’s quite agreeable between the teacher and the board.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think my friend realizes, though, that we’re not trying to set that policy in this bill. All we’re trying to do is set a salary schedule effective last September. How the teachers get in that schedule depends upon the policies of the board and so forth. As I said, it was a matter in dispute. It may have been settled. If it’s been settled I’m sure that the rearranging will be done by the board, but then this is the salary schedule that will apply.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Deacon’s motion will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the motion lost and the section carried.

Section 4 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anything on section 5 of the bill?

On section 5:

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest to the minister that section 5 is no longer applicable because a Supreme Court judge will not need to make a judgement in this matter, and that the preamble is not applicable where it says, “requires that all teachers return to the classroom, and that means be found for the settlement of all matters of dispute between the board and its teachers,” as the teachers have just voted to return to work on March 25. I would like to suggest to the minister that if that were the case, we should suspend discussion of this bill and see if both parties will execute a document outside this House tonight so that it is not necessary that the bill be proceeded with.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I think I received this resolution from the teachers about half an hour ago. I think what the resolution says is that “in anticipation of royal assent to Bill 12, we, the resigned teachers of York county, agree to return to our classes on Monday, March 25, under duress.”

I think that that hinges on the passing of this bill. I think we should proceed with the bill. It’s our intention, if the House would agree to proceed with the bill, to give it passage tonight but not royal assent until tomorrow. If an agreement can be arrived at before tomorrow it will not receive royal assent.

But I suggest that both parties have agreed -- the board has agreed to take all the teachers back pending the passing of this bill, and the teachers, under this resolution, have agreed to go back also under the passing of this bill -- so I would suggest that apparently they have decided this is the best way finally to end this dispute. I would commend them both, particularly the teachers, for taking the position that they’ve taken at this time.

Mr. Deans: I don’t know when we’ll pass the bill, but I assume that we probably won’t pass it before 6 o’clock. You never know about these things. But it’s entirely possible that the legislation will not be required in its present form. This legislation compels them to return to work. Yet you said they’re going anyway. I realize you said they anticipate the legislation passing; I understand that. Is it not possible that they are now recognizing the mood of the government and are prepared to go back to work and have the matter submitted to arbitration voluntarily?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I’m afraid, Mr. Chairman, that isn’t what the parties have said. I took the hon. member’s suggestion last night and made suggestions to both parties to sign a voluntary arbitration arrangement, but apparently, for their own reasons, they decided not to. So I think we must proceed.

Mr. Foulds: Excuse me, was that last night or today?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Last night.

Mr. Foulds: In view of their vote this afternoon, where they obviously put it to the teachers, if we can continue tomorrow morning or tomorrow afternoon and it could receive third reading and royal assent tomorrow afternoon, surely this evening would be a time to make the approach, so that we don’t get enshrined in legislation which has passed second reading, committee stage and third reading the principle of compulsory arbitration for teachers. If it fails this evening, then well and good, proceed tomorrow and the bill will apply as of March 25. We have been desperately looking for a possible way out. It may be, if at this stage we did not proceed with the bill, that the teachers would not feel that they have to go back to the classrooms under duress.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, perhaps if I could enter this matter just to make a suggestion to the minister, it would, I think, appear that certainly the bill will complete its stage in committee this afternoon. The remaining sections are just formality. I don’t think it would be in the best interests of any of us in the House to stress those sections untowardly. If the minister might consider it, when the bill is completed in committee, if this happens this afternoon, it would surely be prudent and in the best interests of all of us to stand over the third reading until tomorrow morning. I would think then not only would the teachers feel that this last step of unfortunate coercion could be drawn back from by their formal agreement, but also this may have a cooling effect on the whole situation.

I would commend to the minister that approach so that the House may proceed with other business after we complete this committee stage, if that is the wish of the House leader. I think it would be most worthwhile for us, in fact, formally to complete the committee stage on this bill, so that the intentions of the government which have been well advertised are proceeded with in an orderly fashion. But I would commend to the minister the idea that to proceed with third reading at this point is an unnecessary strengthening of the government position. I think that the position is sufficiently strong and well known that a third reading debate, if there is to be one tomorrow morning, would be a prudent way of handling the matter.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Nothing will change, I’ll tell you that.

Mr. Deans: I’m sorry, what did you say?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Nothing will change

Mr. Breithaupt: The Premier suggests, Mr. Chairman, that nothing will change before tomorrow morning. This could well be. However, it is simply my personal feeling, and I give it to the Minister of Education for what it’s worth, to do it a day apart might be a prudent thing.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 5 stand as part of the bill?

Mr. Foulds: As for the Premier’s comment that nothing will change tomorrow, something already has changed. The teachers have agreed to go back on March 25 albeit under duress.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In anticipation of the bill.

Mr. Deans: I understand that.

Mr. Foulds: Surely the Premier is not so cynical as to say that it’s not worth making this one last test, or does he, in fact, feel comfortable with compulsory legislation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, as none of us do.

Mr. Foulds: Fine.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But if royal assent can be given tomorrow, we can finish the bill today. The resolution is very clear. It’s in anticipation of the bill being passed. Have you read the resolution?

Mr. Foulds: Certainly, I have read the resolution.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is very clear.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 5 stand as part of the bill?

Section 5 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments, questions, amendments on the last two sections of the bill?

Sections 6 and 7 carried.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill as amended be reported?

Those in favour of the bill as amended being reported will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Bill 12, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House reports one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

Clerk of the House: Bill 12, An Act respecting a certain Dispute between the York County Board of Education and certain of its Teachers.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, we have already expressed our opposition to the principle of compulsory arbitration, one to which we continue to stick.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Just for teachers. Not for labour.

Mr. Deacon: We feel that every other recourse should have been attempted. It wasn’t in this case. The recourse of trusteeship would have solved the problem, in our view, much better.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deacon: We regret that this opportunity was not taken which would have cleared up the basic division that has arisen over the last period of time between the board and the teachers. It could have been resolved by that method.

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister without Portfolio): Absolutely impossible.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): It would haunt the member for the rest of his days.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: He hadn’t better dare ever talk about local autonomy again. Never.

Mr. Deacon: That would have really provided the basis for local autonomy to be expressed truly in the ballot box,

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Nonsense.

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

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that we should proceed with third reading. I believe, if it is necessary, we could proceed with third reading tomorrow in view of the teachers, and the trustees’ decisions that one last attempt should be made to execute the document outside the Legislature, so that we do not have enshrined in legislation compulsory arbitration for teachers, therefore contaminating whatever clearness of mind we may bring to bear on the general legislation for teacher-board negotiations which will be coming up sometime this session, I suppose.

Therefore, this party opposes at this time the third reading of this bill. We see no reason, if an agreement could not be reached overnight, that we could not have third reading and royal assent tomorrow, if that is necessary.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard the Premier make a comment with respect to royal assent. There will not be royal assent given on this bill until tomorrow? I just wanted to clarify that matter, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Right.

Mr. Martel: They are willing to hold off until tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If something happens tonight then we can rescind it tomorrow.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): If I may, since royal assent will not be given until tomorrow, I don’t see why the government won’t accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Kitchener on withholding third reading of the bill until the time we sit tomorrow. We will sit tomorrow; third reading can be given. Royal assent can be given at that time.

We in this party have voted against compulsory arbitration as far as teachers’ negotiations were concerned and we will continue that fight.

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. minister --

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I believe the bill should be given third reading at this time, and, as the Premier has stated, royal assent will not be given until tomorrow. I have drafted here in my hands a document to go to final and binding arbitration, which I have suggested many times to the parties that they sign. This is another redrafted document, similar to the bill. I stand ready to hear from either of them tonight, and if they’d like to sign this then this bill will not receive royal assent. It is as clear and simple as that.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): May I ask a question? It is good to stand ready, but it would be nice if the minister might simply initiate some direct communication between his office and the parties in the dispute rather than wait for them, and say this, that it is the mood of the House that we not have compulsory arbitration imposed by this Legislature -- that is the mood of the House -- and ask them whether there is not yet a way before we have to have it receive royal assent.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Some of the member’s party told them that last Sunday.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Before this hearing goes on, I’d like to tell the hon. member, even though I’m speaking the second time on this bill, that I’ve communicated many times with the various parties to ask them if they would be interested in this, and this time I felt that if perhaps they are interested might like to communicate with me.

Mr. Deans: Now look, don’t stand on formality. Try again.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for third reading of Bill 12. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Those in favour of Bill 12, please say “aye.”

Those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it. Call in the members.

The motion is for third reading of Bill 12.

The House divided on the motion for third reading of Bill 12, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Allan Apps Auld Bales Beckett Bennett Brunelle Carruthers Carton Davis Downer Dymond Eaton Gilbertson Grossman Hamilton Havrot Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton) Hodgson (York North) Irvine Jessiman Kennedy Kerr Lawrence Leluk MacBeth Maeck McIlveen McNeil McNie Meen Miller Morningstar Morrow Nixon (Dovercourt) Nuttall Parrott Reilly Rhodes Root Rowe Scrivener Smith (Simcoe East) Timbrell Turner Walker Wardle Welch Wells Winkler Wiseman Yakabuski Yaremko -- 53.

Braithwaite Breithaupt Bullbrook Burr Campbell Cassidy Davison Deacon Deans Dukszta Edighoffer Ferrier Foulds Gaunt Germa Givens Haggerty Lewis MacDonald Martel Newman (Windsor -- Walkerville) Nixon (Brant) Paterson Reid Riddell Ruston Singer Spence Stokes Worton -- 30.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 53, the “nays” 30.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to; third reading of the bill.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn, on behalf of the students and the parents of York county, I’d like to thank all those who supported this Bill 12.

Mr. Breithaupt: The member could have done that in caucus.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the intention of the House leader to sit this evening?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): No, Mr. Speaker, I’ll say that tomorrow morning we will deal with item No. 5, Bill 8, and then we will return to item No. 1.

I was going to call another order, as I had announced last night, but regrettably the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) has other official arrangements for tomorrow and we will call his bill first thing on Monday, March 25.

Hon Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6:05 o’clock, p.m.