30e législature, 3e session

L053 - Fri 7 May 1976 / Ven 7 mai 1976

The House met at 10 a.m.



Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege if I may. My point refers to the guidelines relating to constituency offices. I have in my hand a newsletter which was prepared in the usual course here and would be mailed out of here in the usual course. The letterhead, however, reads. “Dr. Bette Stephenson, PC, Progressive Conservative York Mills Riding Office, 4800 Leslie St., Suite 301,” and so forth.

I would like to know at this time, Mr. Speaker, if this is a constituency office in the sense of those offices which we have established, does this not breach the guidelines for that office because it designates it as a Progressive Conservative York Mills Riding Office, although perhaps it is not posted to that effect? I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to investigate this sort of use if I may.

Mr. Speaker: I’m not aware of where the hon. member to whom you refer, the hon. minister, has a riding office. I will check into the matter.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the members would agree to revert to statements, I have just a brief statement to --

Mr. Lewis: We haven’t come to that yet.

Mr. Speaker: We have not really passed that point yet.


Mr. Lewis: I would also like to rise on a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am doing it because I find the responses from the acting Minister of Health (B. Stephenson) on so many occasions in the Legislature to be somewhat amorphous that I would like to deal with apparent discrepancies when they arise.

Yesterday I asked the acting Minister of Health as follows, and it is in Hansard:

“And one last short question, if I may, for the acting Minister of Health.

“Did you suggest in a reply a week or two ago that the information I have sought about the asbestos levels at Hedman Mines Ltd., that what in fact had happened -- that you had gone out and done further tests and that you are now awaiting the results of that testing?

“Hon. B. Stephenson: No, Mr. Speaker, what I had stated was that we had not the complete report at that point because we did not have the engineer’s report. I may say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that the complete report has been sent to you.”

Mr. Speaker, the complete report, so-called, arrived in my office this morning. It is a report of tests done on April 9 at the Hedman Mine. My letter which prompted this series of exchanges was dated March 4, and it is quite clear that subsequent tests were done, in response to which I received this letter, and the reply given to me by the minister yesterday, with the greatest of respect, was entirely misleading.

I would also like to know, Mr. Speaker, what recourse I might have when I am told that a whole report has been sent to me and the information that I asked for covering three years has been confined to one report with one date?

I put it as a point of privilege because I don’t understand how it is possible to deal in a way quite so misleading and indirect as I have been dealt with on this subject matter.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, if I might speak to the same point. Again, last week, dealing with the same minister I asked about the appointment of a council and was advised that it fact it was appointed through the regional municipal council; that was not true.

Yesterday I asked the leader of the New Democratic Party to ask for the removal of the present man who is responsible for that inquiry. The House was advised that there were two members from the original hospital council; in fact, Mr. Claire Dupont, one of the two, resigned on April 26.

Again, we were given misinformation, and I simply don’t know how to cope with it either, Mr. Speaker. I would ask your guidance on these matters.

Mr. Lewis: You know, it is a bit much to handle Health and Labour together, but nonetheless.


Mr. Speaker: I think all the members of the House will recognize the difficulties of handling two portfolios, and I have no control over that. The hon. minister is not in the House to answer your comments; I am sure she will become aware of them, and you can pursue the matter in the question period. I am not sure if the estimates are ort shortly or not; I am not sure where we are in that. I am sure the hon. member will find the opportunity to correct those answers.

Statements by the ministry.


Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I just thought I would report briefly on the discussions yesterday.

There were three matters discussed at the first ministers’ meeting in Ottawa yesterday. The greatest amount of time was spent on the discussion of the pricing of crude oil and natural gas, but in addition we dealt with the proposal of the federal government for the amending of the revenue guarantee formula, and the proposal of the Prime Minister for patriating the Constitution.

I shall deal first with the discussions relating to the amending of the revenue guarantee formula and the patriation of the Constitution.

A month ago the federal Finance Minister proposed unilateral changes to the revenue guarantee formula. I am pleased to report that at the meeting yesterday the provincial Premiers were unanimous in their opposition to these proposed changes. The Premiers were in total agreement that it would not be proper for the federal government to retroactively reduce the entitlement of the provinces for the fiscal year 1974-1975, and 1975-1976. In Ontario’s case, for example, the proposed changes would result in a loss of revenue of approximately $200 million.

The Prime Minister agreed that no decision would be taken on this matter, at least until the next meeting of the first ministers, scheduled to take place on June 14 of this year. At that time, we will discuss the overall question of federal-provincial fiscal relationships, with particular reference to the future of the shared-cost programmes.

In company with most of my fellow Premiers, I yesterday took the position that it will be nothing short of ludicrous for a decision to be taken either at this time, or later in the month through the agency of the federal budget, with respect to the revenue guarantee. The revenue guarantee is central to the federal-provincial financial structure and it is surely obvious that the future of the revenue guarantee must be part of the federal-provincial financial package to be discussed in June. This view prevailed.

At the meeting, the Prime Minister elaborated his views on the early patriation of the British North America Act. This matter is to be discussed further on May 12 at an inter-provincial meeting of ministers, to be followed by a fuller discussion at the meeting of the provincial Premiers to be held in Alberta in August. It is likely that a federal-provincial meeting on the Constitution will be held in the fall.

I took the position that the Ontario government is in agreement with the basic objective of patriating the Constitution, preferably with an amending formula. In common with most of the provincial Premiers, I expressed firm opposition to the threat of the federal government that it might proceed unilaterally. I think most Canadians would wish to see our Constitution domiciled in Canada, but certainly it is not an ideal that should be pursued at a high risk of a divisive confrontation between Ottawa and one or more of the provinces.

In the matter of energy pricing, I was not and am not in sympathy with the arbitrary escalation of the price of crude oil and natural gas. At the meeting, I reiterated Ontario’s very serious concerns as to the national economic effects of price increases not related to production costs and not designed primarily as a means of increasing the incentive to expand energy production.

I stressed the importance of not undermining the anti-inflation programme, a programme to which all Canadian governments are committed. I pointed out there is an inherent inequity in restraining the income of individuals through the application of the anti-inflation guidelines and at the same time, greatly increasing household expenses through escalating the price of energy without regard to the spirit and intent of the anti-inflation guidelines.

I again outlined to my colleagues the potential damage that a large price increase could do to export-oriented industry in Canada; and the futility, from the perspective of the consumer, of increasing their costs if the additional revenue continued to flow primarily into the treasuries of the federal government and the producing provinces, rather than being devoted to the development of needed energy resources.

I pointed out that it was anomalous to widen the financial disparity between the provinces and regions of Canada prior to a federal-provincial financial meeting that was designed to accomplish the opposite purpose. I reiterated the Ontario proposal for a blended price and that this formula had been designed to meet these concerns.

Ontario’s sincere statement of concern had a favourable impact on the course of the discussions. Certainly many of the points that I raised in the discussion found support among the majority of the provincial Premiers and with the Prime Minister.

I believe the initiative of my government in this matter over the last few years has resulted in all governments and the Canadian public becoming much more aware of the implications to the economic and financial structure and the health of the nation inherent in our current method of pricing crude oil and natural gas.

I think there is a growing recognition that any future crude oil and natural gas price increases must increasingly be related to the development of new energy sources and not simply continue to be a tax on consumers.

Again, I think there is now an amount of agreement that did not exist a year ago, that one of the prime considerations in energy prices must be the maintenance of the competitive position of the Canadian economy and, in particular, the competitive strength of our energy-intensive, export-oriented industries.

There was not, of course, agreement as to price. The demands of the producing provinces were, in my view, excessive and this view gained the support of most of the Premiers; and indeed to a degree, I believe, that of the Prime Minister. It is probable that as a consequence of the Ontario initiative there will be a more thoughtful approach to the ultimate decision as to any increase in the price of crude oil and its relationship to the price of natural gas.

As hon. members are aware, in the absence of agreement by the first ministers, the federal government will determine the actual change in price. The record of the government of Canada in this regard is not encouraging although, as I noted, I believe the insistence of myself and other Premiers that the spirit and intent of the anti-inflation guidelines should not be breached had a favourable impact.


Irrespective of the actual price which the federal government announces, probably this month, I think that Ontario has sown seeds for a more constructive long-term approach to energy policy in Canada. We will continue to pursue a rational energy policy and will continue to take part in energy pricing discussions.

We will continue to insist that such meetings and discussions should be open and, unlike the meeting yesterday, should be held under the eyes of the public. And we shall continue to press for the development of a pricing mechanism that fairly, equitably and automatically determines the price in response to relevant changes in costs.

On the other hand, we will continue to press the point of view that meetings, such as that held yesterday, are confrontation-prone and therefore are not useful. It is surely apparent that crude oil and natural gas pricing is a matter upon which a consensus is not possible.

It must be a matter of concern to all Canadians that a compromise could not be achieved after so much discussion and so many meetings. It is in this context that I made reference to my concerns as to the implications of energy pricing to the fabric of Confederation. The ability to achieve a reasonable compromise on matters in which provincial and federal perspectives are different, and on which views diverge, is fundamental to inter-governmental and inter-regional relationships within Canada.

I believe that Ontario’s proposals for new pricing mechanisms were rational, reasonable and workable. Within those proposals there was room for compromise -- a fact we always made clear -- and there was scope for the merging of the aspirations of Canadians from all provinces and all regions. It is not necessary and it is not desirable that out of these meetings there should emerge winners and losers. An appropriate degree of compromise could result in benefit for all; and that is what Confederation is surely all about.

The procedure now is that the Prime Minister and the federal government will consider the various views that were expressed. The Prime Minister will be holding telephone conversations with all first ministers and will then arbitrarily dictate a price change. It is not, in my view, an appropriate mechanism for the setting of crude oil and natural gas prices. This year, however, it is the mechanism that again will be used.

Ontario will continue to advocate a new mechanism for the determination of oil and gas prices; we will continue our initiatives in the matter of energy policy; and we will continue our persistent discussions with other provinces and the federal government. We believe that some progress has been made, and we shall continue to seek to build on that progress.

Mr. Lewis: By the time you have a solution we’ll be at the world price.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Energy.


Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, about 15 months ago, at a meeting in Winnipeg, Manitoba, the government of Ontario joined with the governments of Canada and Alberta and the three remaining private corporations to salvage the Syncrude project. It was agreed at that time that new participation arrangements would be worked out and new agreements drawn up to provide for the introduction of the government parties into the project.

As members may know, last Friday the Syncrude project agreements were signed by all parties in Edmonton. I am tabling today copies of the agreements for the information of members. As noted at the time of the Winnipeg meeting, Ontario’s interest is held by the Ontario Energy Corp.

It will be no surprise to members that the negotiations and the drafting of legal documents have been extremely complex and have involved many difficult issues along the way. In such a large joint venture, with many different interests at stake, it was expected that the completion of all negotiations would be protracted. But I believe that the agreements tabled today provide a sound basis for the continuation of this important national project. I might add that these arrangements include the assurance that international prices will be available to the production from the project. This is an example of a policy of allowing higher prices for new sources of oil that I have been urging on other governments over the past weeks and months in coming to terms with crude oil prices in Canada.

I would like to comment briefly, if I may, on the role of Ontario in the project. I believe that future generations of Canadians will say that this action on the part of all six participants was one of the bold and farsighted co-operative actions of our time. Certainly, there have been difficulties and disagreements in getting this far, and there will be more before the plant is operating. But the document which I have tabled today reflect the final resolution of the principles agreed to in Winnipeg and subsequent issues which emerged during the negotiations.

I have no doubt that the Ontario government made the right decision to participate in the saving of the Syncrude project for the immediate and the long-term energy and industrial benefits of this country. All participants can justifiably believe that this unique joint venture is a good thing for Canada. This is the essential perspective of the Ontario government. It is the perspective which I am sure that the people of Canada have and should have.

Ontario was extremely well represented during the long 15 months of negotiations and legal documentation since Winnipeg. It was made clear to us that our contribution to the negotiations was well in excess of what might be expected from a five per cent interest in the project. But we believe that our contribution was to the benefit of all participants. Not only was Ontario’s original commitment essential to keeping the project alive; its role to date has contributed to a sound basis on which the enormous task of bringing this tar sands plant into production at the earliest possible date can proceed.

We believe that the Syncrude project is vital to the continued development of the enormous potential of the oil sands, and through the Ontario Energy Corp., this government is committed to its success.


Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, some five months ago this House unanimously approved of legislation which led to the mandatory use of seatbelts and lower speed limits on all Ontario highways. Since that time, my ministry has carefully analysed province-wide collision reports which confirm the effectiveness of this decision.

Before I report the figures to the House, I would like to express my appreciation to the members of the media, both print and electronic, who have steadfastly backed the seatbelt legislation. For that, I say thank you.

Today, I have good news. As of March 31, or at the end of the first quarter of 1976, there has been a dramatic decrease of 33.6 per cent in the number of drivers and passengers killed since Jan. 1 of this year, compared with the initial three months of 1975. Happily, I can also tell the House that the number of drivers and passengers injured has declined 18.7 per cent during that corresponding time, despite the fact that there has been a four per cent increase in accidents.

In all, during the first three months of this year, 14,510 were injured, while 17,847 were injured during January, February and March of 1975. These figures mean that there has been over 1,000 fewer injuries per month up to the end of March, 1976.

In actual figures, 170 drivers and passengers have been killed during the first three months of 1976, while 256 died in the same time span one year ago. In short, 86 lives have been saved. That’s almost one for each of the 90 days in those three months.

Mr. Peterson: You’ve got the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) to thank.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am aware that there have been some who have been concerned about the real value of seatbelts; they will argue that the reduction of speed limits has been primarily responsible for the encouraging results that we have enjoyed. I cannot accept that for the simple reason that my ministry personnel, monitoring the flow of traffic, have learned that while there has been an appreciable drop of some nine miles per hour on the freeways, the same motorists have to some degree ignored the speed limit reduction in other areas. Thus, I am convinced that seatbelts are working and that they are reducing injuries and fatalities.

It is too soon, I realize, to project the quarterly figures and suggest that the legislation will save X-100 lives for the entire year, because we are entering the summer months during which Ontario residents and visitors will be travelling on our highways in large numbers and large numbers of vehicles do increase the risk of accidents. But I can, and do suggest that buckling up for safety will more than offset the small inconvenience of remembering to use one’s seatbelt when one climbs into a motor vehicle.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

Mr. Lewis: I’m glad to say I have no petition to table on seatbelts.


Mr. Lewis: I have a question first, if I may, to the Premier. When the federal government arbitrarily sets the new price of crude at whatever increase, can we assume, or might we ask of the government of Ontario that a freeze be imposed on the existing price levels; not so much simply to recapture inventory, although that would be a part of it, but speaking to the position put by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) in the debate earlier this week, that there is absolutely no knowledge of the cost related to the increase and, therefore, that no such increase should be permitted to be passed on to the consumers of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think quite obviously there will be consideration as it relates to the question of inventory and I would assume that will be dealt with when the decision on price is made. I would not want to give to the House any undertaking at this moment until I see what the price is, just what allocation is being made and what position the federal government may be taking with respect to inventory. I think it would be premature to answer that at this moment.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, if the Premier will not, as we would wish, guarantee a freeze until all of the information is in, can he at least in advance guarantee some special perceptions for northern Ontario, where the price at the pumps in many communities will then rise significantly above $1 a gallon? Surely that is intolerable in the province.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I recognize the difficulties in northern Ontario and I am informed by the Minister of Energy that Mr. Isbister’s report in which he is dealing with this issue in specific terms, or which we hope will have specific recommendations, will be in by the end of this month.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Did the Premier notice that the Premier of Alberta suggested that one of the solutions that Ontario might have was to reduce our fuel tax, gasoline tax? Is there any consideration being given to that and did the Premier discuss it with his colleague from Alberta?

Mr. Bullbrook: That is the confrontation-prone aspect.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think I made it very clear to the Premier of Alberta that, while we appreciated his offers of assistance, it would be far more relevant if they were to have less by way of royalty rather than suggest we reduce our taxes for a transportation system where the gasoline tax does not now cover the cost of what we are investing.

Mr. Nixon: That is where the real confrontation is.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary to the second last answer of the Premier: Can he give us any preview of the Isbister report, in view of the possible recommendation that northern Ontario and southern Ontario have equal oil and gas prices? Is there any possibility of a recommendation of that nature?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have had no preview of the report myself. I can’t give the hon. member any information because I haven’t seen it. I gather it is not ready but will be by the end of the month.

Mr. Speaker: The member for London Centre with a final supplementary on this.

Mr. Peterson: May I ask the Premier did he put to the Prime Minister that the federal government should reduce the excise tax in proportion to the $5 difference between domestic crude prices and world crude prices? In other words, could some of that 10 cents come off to relieve pressure at the pump level? Did the Premier place that argument?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We pressed that argument very vigorously a year ago saying the whole 10 cents was unnecessary. If the Prime Minister were here, he would explain to the hon. member for London Centre that until such time, I think, as the price goes up about $2 a barrel or more, the differential to provide the income they need to compensate for the equalization of those areas east of a mythical line in the Ottawa Valley would not allow them to reduce the excise tax. I always dislike quoting people after meetings, but my impression was that the Prime Minister recognized that they did not intend to stay in the field. At such time as the price per barrel reached the level that they would no longer require that 10-cent excise tax, I think I am fair in saying that I am under the impression they will grit out of it. But it has to reach the point, from their standpoint, where they can balance the books with respect to equalization.

Mr. Peterson: That’s $2 a barrel?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It would be about three cents at that point.

Mr. Good: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I announced that as a final supplementary. We’ll likely come back to that on later questions.


Mr. Lewis: A question of the Attorney General, if I may: Do I take it that the Attorney General shared the disturbing commentary -- I think that would be an appropriate way of putting it -- given by Clay Powell, the assistant deputy, and Mr. Craig, about the apparent loophole in the Criminal Code which makes it impossible to prosecute those large companies whose relationships with employees of the Ontario Housing Corp. was allegedly wrong; that it was only possible to prosecute small companies? What does one do in a case like that?


Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I share Mr. Powell’s concern, although I have not had an opportunity of discussing it personally with him. I just know what I read in this morning’s paper. I intend to discuss it with Mr. Powell with a view to approaching the federal government in order to recommend any amendment which might plug the loophole to which Mr. Powell refers.

I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it is a most unfortunate loophole if it does, in fact, exist.

I also understand -- again from reading the news report this morning -- that there is a case pending in the Supreme Court of Canada which may clarify it. In any event, I certainly intend to review the matter with a view to approaching the federal government for the necessary amending legislation.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, if I may: Since in the case of the doctors and their relationships to the private labs we now have legislation before us in the House dealing within our jurisdiction with the question of kickbacks and offering penalties, would it not he similarly possible to introduce legislation to cover these transactions with Ontario Housing Corp. employees of a similar or parallel kind until the Criminal Code is revised, given the possibility that it may never be revised?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, that may not be possible. I know the Leader of the Opposition fully appreciates the matter of criminal law is solely within the jurisdiction of the federal government, and any provincial legislation that encroached on that field would undoubtedly be ruled unconstitutional. So there is a difficulty in that respect.

Mr. MacDonald: Give your guidelines some teeth.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: When the Attorney General reviews this matter does he intend also to consider the sentence that has been given, a suspended sentence, with respect to this offence; and also the matter of considering any appeal, so that he will be in a position to review this matter fully and that the court will have the opportunity, through an appeal, to consider whether, in fact, the result here in section 110(b) has been properly interpreted because of the lack of a specific business arrangement?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’m not sure that I know what suspended sentence the hon. member is referring to. It may well be that time for any appeal has long since expired, but I will again be reviewing the matter fully with Mr. Powell. If it is still possible to consider sentences, if we are still within the right time frame, and that will be part of our discussion.

Mr. Cassidy: Since it was not possible, in the Attorney General’s opinion, to act against these 50 or 60 companies a year or more ago, what restrictions, if any, were placed on OHC continuing to do business with those companies, or was it business as usual?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, as you know, this was a matter on which the decision was made in relation to prosecutions over a year ago. I must admit I know very little about the circumstances, and I think any questions directed to any relationships between OHC and any of the companies should be directed to the appropriate minister.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Did the Attorney General make any recommendations to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) that they should stop doing business with those companies that have apparently been offering bribes?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would certainly hope that any government department or agency would be reluctant to deal with any company which, as the member says, is in the business of offering bribes.

Mr. MacDonald: Do you want to bet as to whether they dropped them?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have no information because I don’t know the circumstances of the various gifts that have been referred to in the press.


Mr. Lewis: May I ask a question of the Premier? Would it be possible for the Premier to review all the existing disputes and controversies that continue in the various hospitals around the province, apart from the closings but on the cutbacks themselves -- given the apparent consternation of at least Mr. Justice Keith, and perhaps others sitting with him in hearing the case for the hospital closings now presented before them, and the clear indication on the part of the judge that what the cabinet did was unusual to say the least?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know how that would relate to the decision with respect to budgets for a number of other hospitals, because we’re talking budgets. There’s nothing unusual. This part of it has gone on, on other occasions, I guess going back two or three years. I haven’t read the report, nor have I nor will I be discussing it with Mr. Justice Keith.

As to his observation -- if that is what the Leader of the Opposition is reading -- that the procedures of cabinet were unusual, first I don’t know how he would know, and second, I don’t know that they’re unusual. They have not occurred on many occasions; that I make quite clear. The order in council to close four or five hospitals, I don’t think has happened too often; but I really don’t know how anybody would be in a position to comment that the procedure was unusual. It was routine within the context of the cabinet function.

I do suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that the procedure, or the internal operation of the ministry in dealing with the individual boards in terms of their budget is not new. This has been going on for two or three years, even in terms of the reduction of the number of active treatment beds. I really don’t know how he related one with the other.

Mr. Lewis: I’m groping -- and may I, by way of supplementary, tell the House why? Does the Premier not see that, for the first time, what is normally appropriated to a cabinet to do has been executed in such a fashion that even the judges, although they may not overrule the government, are asking questions of legal counsel such as: “Are you saying that the Doctors Hospital can just be disposed of without a hearing, because of the powers and secrecy of the executive council? What use is it to have a dialogue with someone who can’t make a decision? Do you say that a hospital is not entitled to be heard if there is a report that the Act has been violated?” They are raising questions for the first time about the propriety of cabinet decisions which are normally inviolate. Will the Premier not then reconsider his attitude toward the whole hospital community?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’d say with respect, the attitude of this government to the total hospital community -- and I go back some years -- has been extremely positive and extremely constructive. I would say with respect, not having been in the courts for many years now, that the judge apparently -- and I’m just going by the newspaper report -- was asking certain questions. He was making certain comments -- and I don’t say that critically -- and the case is still being heard. I think, with respect, that he probably was asking these questions to seek out information.

I don’t see in that, at this moment, any indication that the judge is being critical. I think in that he has never been in cabinet and probably has not heard a case comparable to this -- although I’m only guessing at that, because I don’t think there have been any others -- is perhaps endeavouring in the discharge of his very onerous responsibilities to find out just how these things happen. I think we should await any judgement by the court before we make any assumptions.


Mr. Lewis: One last question, being a Friday morning, for the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Can he explain why he has such insufferable cheekiness in dealing with those school boards who request from him certain extra support for school bus transportation?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Is the member asking me that?

Mr. Lewis: I’m asking the minister, yes.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t really know what the hon. member is concerned about. I have nothing to do with support for school bus transportation.

Mr. MacDonald: You’d better be careful, you’re walking into the Friday morning trap.

Mr. Lewis: I have before me a report in which, in response to a request for the reduction of the number of kids who occupy seats in a school bus, the minister said, and I quote: “The Ministry of Education pays grants on the basis of 13-in, rump space for students to and including grade 6, and 16-in. rump space for students over grade 6.” Would the minister possibly explain to the House what he and the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) have contrived together to reach this definition of “rumps” and “space”?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s cheeky!

Hon. Mr. Snow: In that correspondence, I think I was only outlining a policy of the Minister of Education in establishing the size of a rump. Now, we all realize rumps are of different sizes.

Mr. MacDonald: Is yours a 16 or 13?

Mr. Reid: He has a bigger one than that.


Mr. Speaker: May I just break into the question period for a moment to recognize the Minister of Agriculture and Food?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, we have in your gallery today very distinguished visitors from Italy, the Rt. Hon. Emilio Del Gobbo, who is the Minister of Agriculture for Italy, and his group. We welcome him and his group here, and we extend our sympathies to them, because they come from the area of Italy that was devastated by an earthquake yesterday, as you know. We would like to welcome them to Ontario; they are visiting our province but unfortunately they have to go back. I am sure all hon. members will join with me in welcoming them to the House this morning.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I thought that last question perhaps had something to do with the responsibilities of the ministers without portfolio; perhaps we will see what happens when those estimates come before the House.


Mr. Breithaupt: First of all, a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to the apparent awarding of the right to build an LCBO outlet in New Liskeard: Can the minister advise whether he is aware as to the background of the reported comment made by Mr. Jack Pulkinghorn, who was quoted as saying, when he was asked whether the contract for the building was because of his Conservative Party connections, “I don’t think so. It certainly didn’t do any harm. I was told who I should see and who I should approach.”

Will the minister investigate that situation to ensure there are no particular matters of patronage in the granting of these contracts?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, certainly I will investigate it. From what the hon. member has said it doesn’t appear that there was, but I will certainly look into it and find out whether there was.

Mr. Nixon: As long as you approach the government through the right person at the right time.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: He didn’t come to me.

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps I could ask a supplementary, since apparently an officer or an employee of the board was reported to have not made public the rent rates for an outlet such as this. “However,” he was reported as saying, “we will give the information if a question is asked in the House.” Perhaps the minister can now take that question as having been asked in order to advise us as to the amount of rent that is being paid and the terms of the contract for that location?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Without any question, we will obtain that information and provide it to the hon. member.


Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Minister of Natural Resources: Is the minister aware of the proposed development at Silver Islet at Thunder Cape with respect to the re-operation of a large silver mine to be attended to by QC Explorations Ltd.? Is he aware of the attitude of the Silver Islet Campers Association and its opposition to this project, and can he report to the House as to what is being done to resolve this apparent conflict between the two groups?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I am very much aware of that particular situation and I will be glad to get a full report for the hon. member.


Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities: Is he aware of the apparently critical shortage of skilled tradesmen in the precision metal machining industry? Since many of the tradesmen have been immigrants, and in view of the current lack of immigration in this area, will he ensure that the apprenticeship programmes are encouraged, and indeed perhaps even responsibility for some of their costs attended to, so that we will not have a shortage of the skilled tradesmen who are needed in this particular industry?


Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am aware of two aspects of that particular problem. One is the difficulty of relating job opportunities and the place of residence. In other words, there are many opportunities in one part of the province with tradespeople in another part of the province, and the problem is in correlating those two aspects.

On the second portion of the question, if the member is asking whether we are concerned about the whole area of apprenticeship training, I don’t think there could have been a better reply than the speech that I made in this House April 20 on the Industrial Training Council. I think I have said publicly many times that that is an arm of education we want to strengthen and are making every possible effort to do so. I think if the member would be kind enough to send to me specific information on a specific trade, I will not only refer it to the Industrial Training Council but also to our manpower training branch.


Mr. Breithaupt: I have just one final question of the Minister of the Environment with respect to the approval of a development plan for an area in Huntsville. Since apparently an appeal has been made appealing the ruling of the Environmental Appeal Board in the case of lots 5, 6, and 7 of plan M-23 in Huntsville owned by Mr. Leslie Adams, can the minister advise why and upon whose advice this appeal has been taken?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That particular appeal involves about 10 lots in the Huntsville area. The owner of those lots installed septic systems in three of them before obtaining a certificate of approval from the ministry. The ministry is not satisfied that the system that was installed there is proper and sufficient.

Mr. Adams was warned about that and told that a certificate of approval was necessary. However, I am advised he went ahead anyway and installed the systems which aren’t adequate. Because he didn’t receive a certificate, he appealed to the Environmental Appeal Board. The appeal upheld Mr. Adams. However, the ministry went ahead because of its concern about the future lots in that area and is questioning the decision of the appeal board, which the ministry has the right to do with ultimate appeal to myself.

However, I am hopeful the matter will be resolved and that certain requirements can be made regarding the remaining lots. But I think we will make some reasonable settlement regarding the three lots I have talked about where the systems are installed.

Mr. Breithaupt: Just as a supplementary: Since we are informed that apparently it took from Dec. 9, 1974, to May 21, 1975, to obtain a hearing before the appeal board, is this a normal waiting period of some five and a half months for the system to move to that next step? Is the Environmental Appeal Board so burdened with applications that there is this kind of a delay which is normally taking place?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I believe the appeal board was occupied regarding sanitary landfill sites just east of Toronto at that point and that’s really the reason for the delay. That’s an abnormal delay.


Mr. Deans: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Has the minister ordered that any further testing be undertaken on the fish in the waters in the area immediately around Hamilton harbour since the report of Mr. Holdrinet of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food which showed a PCB level 10 times higher in fish caught in the harbour than in any other area that had been tested in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We have some results of tests that were taken late last year for Lake Ontario, for Toronto harbour as well as Hamilton harbour. For certain species of fish, particularly eels, for example, and cohoe salmon in the lake the readings are high.

Mr. Deans: I am always delighted to get information. That wasn’t really what I was asking. I wonder if die minister could tell me whether the ministry has conducted tests in the area immediately outside the mouth of the harbour, in those areas where all the smelt fishing is done and where there is a great deal of sport fishing -- wherever it does take place, it takes place in the area immediately adjacent to the harbour -- to determine whether or not the fish that are there also carry within them PCB rating levels similar to, if not the same as, the levels of those within the harbour? Doesn’t the minister feel that if that is the case -- as it inevitably must be, because it’s an open waterway -- there ought to be some additional warning given to people in the area who may at this point in time be preparing to catch and eat those fish?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, fish move around; they swim. I’m not exactly sure of the exact spot in the lake or in the harbour where the testing is being done, or where the fish that are being tested are caught. I know some of the testing has been done by CCIW, which is located right on the canal, and I would assume there are fish from that vicinity that are being tested.

My information doesn’t indicate the exact location; it indicates either Hamilton harbour, the lake, the south end of the lake, Toronto harbour and this type of thing. But, for example in smelt the readings are high, and as the hon. member says, if they’re fishing in the canal, in that vicinity, they should take care in eating any quantity of smelt.

Mr. Deans: One final supplementary: Will the minister today make known to the people who are likely to be smelt fishing that the smelt in the area could quite conceivably have PCB ratings considerably higher than would be acceptable, given the tests that were conducted and the findings that were presented?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There has been substantial publicity about this and there’s no reason why we can’t issue a warning.

Mr. B. Newman: Would the minister consider posting weekly PCR ratings concerning fish throughout the Province of Ontario, rather than in just one municipality? I understand the fish in the Lake Huron area have an extremely high PCB content.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure just how long it takes to catch and analyse the fish and obtain an analysis or a reading, but certainly during this season, as often as possible, that information can be made known to the public.


Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications with regard to the selling of the cars that the ministry looks after, which includes, of course, the cabinet cars and so forth. What mileage limit is put on cars now before they are put up for auction? Is the minister not considering, with the restraints on, that he may increase that limit considerably, since the automobiles of today generally run many miles more than a number of years ago?

Mr. Peterson: And is the Premier’s car bullet-proof?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe my ministry is responsible for setting the mileage limits of the cars. The cars, trucks and other vehicles are used for different purposes. I think, for instance, the OPP may have one policy as to mileage and the Ministry of Natural Resources may have another.

Mr. Nixon: How about the Minister without Portfolio?

Mr. Breithaupt: It has heavy-duty springs.

Hon. Mr. Snow: My ministry does hold these auction sales -- regularly in Downsview, and periodically throughout the province -- for the sale of surplus vehicles and equipment. I understand we get very excellent prices for these vehicles when they are disposed of. The only mileage limit that I’m concerned about is, I believe it is the policy for ministers’ cars to run in the neighbourhood of 75,000 miles.

Mr. B. Newman: For one year?


Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) asked me a question on April 1 regarding monitoring of drinking water supplied in Lloyd’s Lake in the vicinity of Matachewan. Our April monitoring results indicated the water supply being provided to the employees of the company from Lloyd’s Lake had become contaminated by asbestos dust and the company was ordered to provide an alternative drinking water source.

The firm is presently providing water brought in from the town of Matachewan. We have asked the firm to expedite the installation of an improved water treatment facility utilizing another source of water supply. Until these matters are resolved, it would appear advisable to continue to have potable water brought in to the employees of the plant from the town.

Mr. Speaker: Before we go on with the question period I wonder, since the television cameras are no longer in operation, if whoever controls the lights might gradually reduce the intensity?

Mr. Haggerty: Throw them out altogether.


Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Does the minister agree with the conclusions of the final report of the advisory council on day care -- which I understand has been on his desk since January although it was only tabled in May -- that in times of restraint, and I quote, “The demand for daycare services increases as families try to ensure their own economic survival,” and further, “It is short-sighted to believe that the short-term savings that result from restrictions will outweigh the long-term cost”?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: No, I don’t subscribe to the generalities of that statement.

Mr. Samis: That’s a new record for you.

Ms. Bryden: The committee also states that it has not assessed the need for day care in the province as it planned to report on this and on the cost and financing of day care in a further report before it considered its mandate fulfilled. Is the minister prepared to recall the committee to complete that job so that its work to date will not be wasted and the ministry will not operate in the dark?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in reply, the ministry is not operating in the dark.

Mr. Nixon: The minister is.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: In particular, I don’t propose to re-establish that advisory council. As a matter of fact, the support staff of that council are members of my staff.

Mr. Nixon: They will advise you.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener-Wilmot.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the hon. member for St. George have a supplementary as well?

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Let me see. I guess the member for Kitchener-Wilmot was on his feet first because I thought there was a new question. That’s why I recognize him.

Mr. Sweeney: Is the minister aware that because of the decision to cut back on day-care support, another policy of the ministry -- that is, to have single-parent mothers out working, if possible -- has been curtailed in the Waterloo region? It is my understanding that a saving in the neighbourhood of $120,000 could be achieved if the welfare director had sufficient daycare facilities to look after the children of these single-parent mothers who want to go out to work. There seems to be a contradiction there.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That seemed to be quite far-fetched from the original question as I recall it. Does the hon. minister have a short answer for this?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, my ministry has not cut back day care. As a matter of fact the budget or the actual expenditure for my ministry’s share of the operating cost only for day care in the past year has doubled from $14 million to $28 million. I don’t consider that a cut-back in day care.

Mr. Speaker: All right, we will allow a supplementary here on this.

Mr. Nixon: That’s why you fellows are --

Mr. Martel: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, speaking to this matter of restraint. Doesn’t the minister think we are carrying it a little far when in the regional offices we have been reduced to scratch pads of this size in his ministry?

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure how supplementary that is.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, anything that would reduce the size of the reports I think would be welcome in my ministry.

Mr. Breithaupt: They only have a very small staff.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary then; the member for St. George.

Mr. Cassidy: You don’t like reports, is that right?

Mr. Breithaupt: You should see the small filing cabinets they fit in.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer given by the minister, could he advise this House as to where the resources material is upon which these various reports have been made? Could that material be placed in the library so we may all have the privilege and opportunity of seeing the whole resource material?


Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the resource material is with my ministry and anything that would assist the edification of the hon. member I am sure could be made available to her. As to whether or not the library is a proper repository I’d have to determine that.

Mr. Cassidy: Does that apply to all members?


Mr. G. I. Miller: A question of the Minister of Housing. In view of the fact that the new Townsend townsite project is located in the centre of the region of Haldimand-Norfolk; in view of the fact that at the present time the regional offices are working in split accommodation; and in view of the fact that a new townsite will need a hub, is the ministry willing to provide land for a new administration site?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The hon. member, I think, knows full well that I have already made that commitment to the regional government of that particular region. It was in the press and I commend him on his ability to read.

Mr. G. I. Miller: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. When will this site be available?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As I understand it, the site has already been pretty well established as to where it will be. As soon as the preliminary planning is completed that particular acreage will be made available.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Who is going to finance the new townsite? There is a real concern in the city of Nanticoke about who is going to be responsible for the financing.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that there is a continuing discussion going on between the various levels involved in developing that area, the whole region and in particular the townsite. We have said we are going to be discussing the financial obligations with that particular group of people. We haven’t made any particular decision at this time.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Nixon: Has the minister made a final commitment to the Townsend site and its development, in spite of the fact that a report commissioned by the government from Woods Gordon indicates that it should not be proceeded with and that there will be almost $35 million wasted if the government does proceed?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, that particular report has just recently been received and we are in the process of going through the details of it. We are not going to do it in isolation. We will be doing it in conjunction with the people in the area. We know about the report and we have it.

Mr. Bullbrook: I take it you don’t know it full well?

Mr. Nixon: What about this commitment for the new headquarters?


Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio, the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson).

I assume that the job description given by the Minister of Government Services (Mrs. Scrivener) in the estimates last night -- Mr. Henderson, in addition to his regular cabinet responsibility, undertakes special assignments under the instruction of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and conducts special assignments for members of cabinet -- means that be not only agrees with the Premier’s and the Treasurer’s restraint programme but that he has some special responsibility to enforce it? Therefore, does he think it appropriate that a letter from William Kelly, chairman, PC Ontario fund, should be sent out to public institutions, including high schools, libraries and daycare centres, soliciting funds in which the following quote takes place:

“Our government is committed to cost-conscious government through ceilings on growth of social services, a streamlined and efficient health care system, controlled welfare spending. It’s asking municipalities and school boards to set spending priorities. Why not become a contributing member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario?”

Mr. Samis: Minister of fund raising.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister think it is appropriate that that be asked of public institutions being funded by public moneys in this time of restraint?

Mr. MacDonald: So you are the bagman.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, first of all, may I say I am very happy to note that the member for Port Arthur would take time to read a letter from Mr. Bill Kelly, a man who we hold in very high respect in this House, a man who upholds a very important position in this province, within our party.

Mr. Nixon: He runs the toll gate.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The member for Port Arthur requests to know my feelings on his remarks. I support Mr. Bill Kelly fully, all the way.

Mr. Reid: And he supports you.

Mr. Foulds: No, this is very important --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: As a minister of the Crown, is the minister saying that political party fund raisers should solicit funds from institutions funded publicly by the taxpayers of this province, when the Treasurer and the Premier are talking about restraint?

Mr. Haggerty: Blackmail.


Hon. Mr. McKeough: Oh, get off it. You are so pious over there.

Mr. Nixon: You must have something good. You have got the Treasurer awake for the first time in two weeks.

Mr. Speaker: Now, we will hear the hon. Minister without Portfolio.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. member for Port Arthur has read something into a letter that is not there.


Mrs. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Is it a fact that the minister advised the status of women council that he had placed members of his staff in the Manpower offices and that he had a report available on the progress of that project?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether the hon. member for St. George was present at that meeting or not, but my statement referred to the staff from the general welfare administration services, not the family benefits services, so I would correct the member in that regard.

Furthermore, my indication was an informal report in terms of feedback that I had received in terms of success, and I gather it is working out. There isn’t as yet any formal report that I have received.


Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, a question to the MC -- and that’s not just the master of ceremonies -- the Minister of Culture and Recreation: Can he inform the Legislature whether or not he has had discussions with the federal government regarding the continuance of a lottery, upon the cessation of the Olympic lottery, and what position Ontario has taken in that regard?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have not had discussions with any official of the government of Canada on that subject.

Mr. Samis: May I ask what Ontario’s position would be in view of the fact that obviously the federal government and Quebec are at a very serious stage of negotiations for continuing the lottery? Would it be Ontario’s premise that all funds raised in Ontario would stay in Ontario, and none would go to finance Drapeau’s financial follies?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously making some reference to a speculative story that appeared in a Montreal paper, I think yesterday.

Mr. Samis: No, the Toronto Star.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Was it the Toronto Star? I saw it in the Montreal papers. Just checking all sources.


Hon. Mr. Welch: The question as to what’s to happen following the completion of the Olympic lottery is a matter which, of course, we have under consideration. Our position with respect to that subject matter would be made clear, perhaps some time next week.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister considering the communication directed to him from the city of Windsor suggesting that a lottery be conducted on alternate weeks to provide funds for hospitals and other health needs in the province?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think that is quite supplementary to the question I was asked; but certainly I have been giving some consideration as to what our attitude would be following the completion of the Olympic lottery. All points of view are being taken into account.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if, before proceeding into orders of the day, I might draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of a distinguished Ontarian. He is a gentleman who is well known to many of the members of this Legislature -- my distinguished predecessor as member for Don Mills, Mr. Stanley J. Randall.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: One of the great socialist bashers of all time.

Mr. Lewis: I wish Stanley Randall was still here.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: If he were still here we’d be the government by now.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s get back to business, thank you.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth presented the annual report of the Ministry of the Solicitor General for the year ended 1975.

Mr. Lawlor, from the standing administration of justice committee, reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Correctional Services be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977:


Ministry administration programme


Rehabilitation of adult offenders programme 85,610,000

Rehabilitation of juveniles programme 35,659,000

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.


Mr. Leluk moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Child Welfare Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide a liaison between the ministry and the various Children’s Aid Societies by having a person appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the board of directors of each Children’s Aid Society.


Hon. Mr. Kerr moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, this amendment extends the provisions of the Act to permit the government to introduce specific regulations dealing with the distribution and sale of certain types of beverage containers.

Mr. Speaker: Just before orders of the day, I want to announce to the House -- and I presume that you have noticed -- that it’s autograph collection time again, which indicates the tour of duty of our young pages who have been serving us for the last seven or eight weeks is coming to an end. We’ll have a new group in on Monday.

As is customary at this time, I’m going to read their names into the record and see that they get a copy of Hansard at a later date.

We’ve been served very well by the following young people:

Michael Bank, Etobicoke; Jamie Bird, Toronto; Ingrid Dykstra, Clarksburg; Sarah Hainsworth, Toronto; Annalise King, Scarborough; Chris Liboiron, Mississauga; Robbie McDougall, Beaverton; Shelley Martel, Capreol; Mark Mitchell, Toronto; Paul Molnar, Tillsonburg; Jill Morrison, Thunder Bay; Anne Pettem, Don Mills; Janice Schenk, Gravenhurst; Anita Shrier, Goderich; John Stackhouse, Toronto; Paul Stanborough, Sarnia; Dwayne Standing, Downsview; Warren Stoddart, Newmarket; Daina Vagners, Toronto; Kathleen Westcott, Scarborough.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 11, 12, 20, 30, 36, 39, 46, 49, 50, 51 and 53 standing on the notice paper.


Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The ninth order resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 75.


Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, to summarize briefly, we are proposing a reasoned amendment and we are proposing it because we think it will work.

The minister thought it would work a week or so ago -- or at least a procedure similar to it -- but what our reasoned amendment is doing is to give legislative authority to a procedure which he tried to effect last week. What it does is give both parties time, more time than the minister gave them, to reach a negotiated settlement. What it does is force both parties by legislation to recognize their responsibilities locally and bargain in good faith until a negotiated settlement is reached.

I know the minister and the other scoffers in this House will say it won’t work. We can’t say it won’t work until it’s been tried. I’m reminded of Shaw’s dismissal of those who dismissed Christianity -- we can’t dismiss Christianity because nobody has ever tried it yet. The government can’t dismiss our reasoned amendment because nobody has ever tried it yet.

We reject compulsory arbitration through this legislation. We rejected it when the government brought it in in January and we have rejected it five times since Bill 100 has been brought in.

Mr. Nixon: But you don’t reject compulsory arbitration through this legislation.

Mr. Foulds: We are in favour or reopening the schools. Finally, if I might be permitted, over the objections of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk --

Mr. Nixon: Or as Fred puts it, he is passing it because it wasn’t introduced earlier.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, does the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk wish to have a reprise, a second shot at the --

Mr. Nixon: I feel one coming on, with an arrangement by unanimous consent.

Mr. Foulds: Yes we have got to do that on the last clause of the bill.

One of the important things which has been overlooked in this debate is the very last two sentences of the ERC report.

“We will reassess the situation continuously with a view to determining whether the balance of consideration has shifted and whether back-to-work legislation has become inevitable. If that day should arrive, the form of the statute and of subsequent procedures may well embody legislative judgements concerning the appropriate balance of policy and the extent to which the parties have discharged their respective responsibilities.”

I submit that from a cautious body like the Education Relations Commission that is a plea to us in the Legislature not to bring in the kind of legislation we have done in the past when faced with these situations. Let the legislation be substantially different.

I suspect they are pleading that the form of the statute and the subsequent procedure be different from those we have done in the past. This bill fails to do that. This government legislation doesn’t respond to this plea by the Education Relations Commission.

I now submit that the reasoned amendment by the New Democratic Party does respond to that particular plea and does respond to the special situation which has emerged in Windsor.

I’d like to close, if I might, with a quotation from the Rubiayat of Omar Khayyam, because I think it’s appropriately descriptive of this legislation and of the previous individual bills we have had, abrogating the legislated rights of full and free collective bargaining for teachers. It is appropriate because it describes the minister’s drafting of this legislation.

“The Moving Finger writes; and having writ,

“Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit

“Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,

“Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”

All the minister’s tears of regret will not remove the damage that has been done to collective bargaining through bills such as this. All the piety he expresses about the good intentions of the government will not remove what they have actually done. It is the actions by which we judge the government. If I could just adopt the first two lines of that quotation, I would say: “The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on. Wells brings forth another law and Bill 100 is gone.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to get involved in second reading of Bill 75? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I really don’t think I have to respond at length. I think we have heard a replay of the kind of arguments that the official

Mr. Martel: What is the difference?

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- opposition has put up to a very sensible, reasonable bill by a reasonable government concerned at this particular time, first and foremost, about 12,500 students in the Windsor area.

I didn’t in some pious manner say I was sorry I had to bring in this bill. I just said that I am sorry I have to bring the bill in because, as my friends know, I would like to see these matters settled through negotiations and I think all of us would, but at times they just will not be settled. I guess where they and I differ is that I believe at some times a government must act and that people today, no matter what the opposition says, believe that education is so important that their kids cannot miss an unlimited number of days.

Mr. Burr: That is our point.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All right, that’s their point. But my point is that further in order for education to continue in an acceptable manner or, even better a quality manner, a feeling of change in morale, a feeling in the schools must be created. I would submit that compulsory bargaining does nothing to create that kind of situation, and that’s exactly and precisely why I am opposed to it. We have tried it. We haven’t tried it legislatively but we have offered the parties an opportunity to open the schools and to bargain and they haven’t accepted that opportunity. They got together and talked for a while and came to no conclusion.

Mr. Warner: One side.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Look what’s happening in the Province of Quebec where we have this same kind of situation going on.

Mr. Foulds: There are other reasons for that and the minister knows that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The teachers have had the right to strike taken away. They are told to go back to school and the government will keep the negotiations going on. It’s absolute chaos in the Province of Quebec because those people who have been told by the Legislature and told by the law to go back and negotiate and keep the schools open are not keeping the schools open.

Mr. Warner: Like Robert Bourassa.

Hon. Mr. Wells: There is chaos in the Province of Quebec because of their situation, and I submit they are doing exactly what the NDP reasoned amendment is.

Mr. Martel: They are not doing that. They have had four years to build up for that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: What does the member mean by they are not doing this? Certainly they are doing it. They are doing exactly what his party has suggested. They have said: Take away the right to strike from the teachers and the rights of the boards to lockouts, open the schools again and we will keep negotiations on.

Mr. Martel: They haven’t negotiated.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s exactly what the government of Quebec said. The official opposition is suggesting the same kind of legislation that Bourassa brought in. Its legislation is exactly the same as that Bourassa has brought in and all it has done is create further chaos in their school’s because, as bargaining goes on, even though it’s going on, the situation is so bad in those schools, that teachers are defying the law because they become frustrated at what’s happening at the bargaining table, their right having been taken away, that then they have to find the only way they can bring pressure is to break the law. That is a situation which I submit is not one that our teachers in this province should be put into, a situation where they get so frustrated with the board they have to suffer or the board has to be fined or they have to break the law.

Mr. Renwick: Surely the minister recognizes that it is province-wide bargaining in Quebec?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Certainly I recognize it, but that doesn’t matter.

Mr. Renwick: That has a lot to do with it.

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

Hon. Mr. Wells: The situation is still the same. There is a situation of rights denied and bargaining mandated and it’s not working. I submit it is not going to work here. When the time comes that this Legislature has to take responsible action, it not only has to take action to cause the schools to be opened again but has to present a means for a speedy settlement of the dispute.

I respect that some may have differing opinions, but as far as I am concerned the only way for quality education to begin again in Windsor is for us to get some finality to this situation.

Mr. Martel: Wentworth next week?


Mr. Renwick: There is some merit in the minister’s argument.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Let me just talk a little about what’s happened. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) talked about the board and said he regretted, I think, that the board had seen fit to not accept the proposal accepted by the teachers because Dean Ianni was one of the mediators. The member suggested that perhaps I should have made some accommodation there so that the procedure could have gone on. I would like to tell him that we attempted to make that accommodation. I guess that really has to be made public. It was suggested that perhaps they would accept someone else, and they said that they would; they would take two completely new mediators.


Hon. Mr. Wells: They would open the schools and things could go back to normal if we would appoint, or the Education Relations Commission would appoint, two completely new mediators -- not Dean Ianni and not Mr. Reginald Haney from Kitchener.

That proposal was unacceptable to the teachers. They were not agreeable to any proposal involving the use of mediators that didn’t involve Dean Ianni.

Mr. Nixon: So there was no way out.

Hon. Mr. Wells: So there was no way there, but the teachers then came back with another proposal. It was that the schools open and that the parties get together with no mediator; and that proposal was unacceptable to the board. So one sees a little bit of the frustration and the kind of back-and-forth arrangements that have been going on in this particular situation.

I think there is something else that has to be said --

Mr. Nixon: Will the minister permit a question just before that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes.

Mr. Nixon: Did I understand him correctly when he said in his opening remarks that in his personal judgement he knows of no reason that would support the attitude taken by the board vis-à-vis Dean Ianni? Is that what he said earlier?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes. The board suggested that he would not be acceptable to them because he was pro-teacher and he had said certain things at a meeting, at which I was present, that indicated the board should accept the teachers’ position. Dean Ianni didn’t say those kinds of things and I think they do him an injustice if they claim he was pro-teacher.

Mr. Nixon: Did you tell them your feeling about that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh yes, they know my feeling about it and I have said it publicly to the Windsor press since that time. However, I think there is one other thing that needs to be said about this particular dispute, it having been made very public; it is that the proposal I put to the parties to open the schools and go back to this forced negotiation for a week was accepted by the teachers and rejected by the board because of the reason we have just talked about. Also, in my meetings of two weeks ago or more, the idea of voluntary binding arbitration was broached. The board agreed at that time, in private meetings with me, to put all matters in dispute to voluntary binding arbitration, but this plan was not acceptable to the teachers. The teachers would not put the matters to voluntary binding arbitration.

Mr. Nixon: Why not?

Hon. Mr. Wells: They claimed that in that case the deck was stacked in favour of the boards; that the board certainly would be in favour of going to voluntary binding arbitration, because they had nothing to lose, and that they would put only the monetary matters to arbitration.

Mr. Nixon: They wanted an understanding.

Mr. Bounsall: They wanted negotiation.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Certainly they wanted negotiations, but I think it has to be said that while the board rejected the arrangements to open the schools and continue negotiations on their particular point, the teachers had steadfastly rejected the board’s suggestion that there be voluntary binding arbitration to settle the matters; both sides put forward proposals to try to bring an end to this.

The reason I outline all these and catalogue them is that I think they just show that somehow, somewhere, if a responsible body is going to take action, as we are taking action now -- we are taking the time of the Legislature of the Province of Ontario to pass this bill --

Mr. Foulds: This is not the Province of Quebec.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- we are taking the time because it is the duty of all of us in this House to provide for a means of settling this matter and not leaving it hanging in the air; and the reasoned amendment only leaves it hanging in the air in a situation --

Mr. Mattel: How many times are you going to come back with this type of bill?


Hon. Mr. Wells: -- where unrest will continue in the Windsor area. I really find there is no alternative but to reject the hon. member’s reasoned amendment and to suggest that he support this bill.

I think the members from the Windsor area particularly should be very happy to support this bill because it’s certainly the kind of thing I think the people in Windsor want. They want not only those schools opened --

Mr. Bounsall: Which we agree with.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I hope so, because I think --

Mr. Ruston: Vote for the bill then.

Mr. Shore: You can’t have them both, I’ll tell you that.


Mr. Speaker: Order, please.


Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) asked the member if he agreed with that principle. The thing is he says he agrees with it but he votes against the bill every time.

Mr. Shore: Masters and Johnson.

Mr. Bounsall: We vote for our amendment, we don’t vote against the bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: He votes against the bill every time, so that really --

Mr. Renwick: You understand.


Hon. Mr. Wells: I listen to the member for Windsor-Sandwich but the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) says it was abhorrent to him --

Mr. Renwick: It is parliamentary procedure.

Mr. Nixon: Right, Jim.

Mr. Renwick: Parliamentary procedure. It’s important.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- to vote for any back to work legislation.

Mr. Shore: He doesn’t know. He goes any way. The easiest guy in the House.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I have to assume that there are at least some in that caucus who really don’t want any back to work legislation and would rather see those schools left closed ad infinitum until a negotiated settlement is arrived at. That’s a position we can’t accept.

As I say, I would have to say that we could not accept the reasoned amendment. We believe that this bill is the proper one at this particular time to allow classes to resume for 12,500 students in Windsor on Monday.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 75, and Mr. Bounsall had moved a reasoned amendment.

The House divided on the motion for second reading of Bill 75, which was approved on the following vote:

























Johnson (Wellington-Dufferin-Peel)













Newman (Durham York)

Newman (Windsor-Walkerville)




Reed (Halton-Burlington)

Reid (Rainy River)







Smith (Hamilton Mountain)









Yakabuski -- 58.





Davidson (Cambridge)

Davison (Hamilton Centre)


di Santo

















Ziemba -- 35.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 58, the “nays” 25.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Some hon. members: Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House? So ordered.

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


House in committee on Bill 75, An Act respecting the Board of Education for the City of Windsor and Teachers Dispute.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments?

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the preamble be amended by striking out “on the first day of April, 1976, and,” in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof “and whereas the board of education,” so that the second and third “whereas” clauses in the preamble read as follows: “And whereas the board of education locked out the teachers employed by it, and whereas the board of education closed its secondary schools on April 5, 1976.”

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, we certainly appreciate this amendment placed by the minister at this point of the bill. It does remove some of the uncertainty and dispute which I mentioned last night surrounding the lockout occurring on April 1, 1976. Certainly, as it appeared at the time, the board had decided on the evening prior to that to lock-out on April 1.

According to section 69(2) of Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, it requires the board to present the matters remaining in dispute between the parties, as last received by the board, at a meeting of the board in public session. The last position of the teachers had not been placed on the evening prior to that so the announced lockout on April 1 was not a lockout. It was a couple of nights later when, at an open meeting of the board in public session, the last offers of the parties were presented and subsequent action with respect to the lockout took place.

This preamble was therefore wrong in that respect initially and your amendment certainly clears it up. We have no problem accepting that amendment and we are appreciative of it.

Mr. Ferris: Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment. It is simply a clarification.

Mr. Foulds: A significant clarification and we support it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The only thing I would like to say is that I think my friend who spoke about the amendment indicated there were certainly differences of opinion about it. I wouldn’t like to have completely accepted the position that we agreed that what we had in was wrong. What really has to be emphasized, I think, is that there is a difference of opinion as to what dates should be in there. That difference of opinion is going to have to be settled somewhere and I’m not presuming that we or this House should settle it by anything we put in this preamble. Therefore, we’ve taken all the dates out.

I gather it’s still a matter of some discussion and possible legal action as to when the lockout actually occurred. Therefore, we felt it was best that no date be in the preamble.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments to the amendment? Shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments on the bill?

On section 1:

Mr. Foulds: Section 1(a). Mr. Chairman, may I congratulate you on your elevation.

I want to speak very briefly. We’ve made the arguments, I think, six times since Bill 100 and at least three times before that. I do not believe that section 1(a) should be part of the bill. I do not believe that arbitration is a satisfactory way to try to settle these disputes.

The minister mentioned morale and attitudes in his summing up. I think arbitration, this kind of compulsory arbitration, is going to harden attitudes in Windsor. It’s going to make the friction and the exacerbation we’ve seen over the last three years even worse and although it will keep a lid on until the agreement the arbitrator brings in ends, at that point I suspect we’ll be facing another blow-up. Probably, if this government is still in power -- hopefully it won’t be -- we will be facing the same kind of legislation shortly after that blow-up. I would like to inform you that we in this party will be voting against section 1(a) of the bill.


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

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, section 2(1) of the bill is the operative section which says that on the first school day following the day the Act comes into force the school teachers shall return to work.

The minister, in his summing up of second reading of the bill, misrepresented my position when he said the member for Sudbury was not in favour of the schools opening on Monday, or any other day for that matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s all a degree of priorities -- where the minister puts his priorities and where I put my priorities. The minister is willing to remove the rights of one group of people in order to enforce the rights of another group of people.

I am a little suspicious of people who hide behind children in order to have their whims imposed upon certain people in society. So, nothing could be further from the truth. If the schools could be opened without abrogating someone’s rights -- well, so be it. I am not opposed to schools being opened. But I am unwilling to take away the right of the school teachers to strike and enforce their demands, in order to uphold the rights of another group of people. Whose rights have priority? That is specifically what we are deciding here.

The minister says the school children are the people whose rights must prevail. Well, I have my other priorities and I give priority to the principle that people have the right of free collective bargaining. In Bill 100 the minister stands behind that principle, and yet on five different occasions he has seen fit to abrogate his own principles.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am very pleased to have my friend’s comments on that. I think they are very relevant. He perhaps has had a bit of a turn around since we debated this the last time, but he said he is not in favour of any piece of legislation that takes away the rights people have. I would just point out to him, in fact, his reasoned amendment does exactly the same. We don’t differ on that particular point. It’s only on whether there should be arbitration or compulsory bargaining.

Your reasoned amendment takes away from the teachers the right to strike and it takes away from the board the right to lock out. Really, we are not differing on that particular point. Your reasoned amendment does that already. We are both on the same wavelength. I just sort of detected -- I thought from your speech that you didn’t even agree with your own party’s reasoned amendment; that you thought your colleagues had perhaps softened up a little froth what is the traditional socialist NDP approach to these problems --

Mr. Nixon: Maybe he wasn’t going to vote for it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- that there should never be any back-to-work legislation or any abrogation for the public good of some of these rights which we recognize groups should have. I certainly am the first to recognize and believe and defend the rights of a group, like teachers, to have the right to strike, and the schools boards to have the right to lockouts, and our right, also, to do something about it when the public good demands. So I am pleased to hear my friend talking on this particular point, but I think we really are not that far apart.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Foulds moves that in section 2, subsection 1, the words “all terms of be added in line 8 after the word “with” and before the word “such.”

Mr. Foulds: The reason for that is one of the most controversial things and one of the most aggravating points on which the teachers in Windsor -- at least one or two of the people, though not spokesmen -- have indicated they might even decide on legislation, because they feel the board has not been living up to the terms of the previous agreement.

What I think they want -- and I know most of the ministry officials won’t see it as a substantial thing, but it would give assurance to the teachers -- is that the contract that was in effect as it was in effect at the end of 1975, will be paid in the interim until a new agreement is signed. That is in agreement with a clause in their contract already, which evidently the board has seen fit to ignore. Although there is agreement under way about the matter, and an agreement was filed at the beginning of February, there has as yet been no chairman selected.

If we are going to deal with it in the legislation, which becomes effective today or Monday, just for that reassurance I would hope the minister would find it acceptable. I think in the spirit of the actual clause, the intention in the clause is that the agreement would be in effect until the new contract is signed, and that just cleans it up and makes it much clearer and much more definite.

Mr. Nixon: I think it should be well understood that all terms of the contract would apply as for the requirements of Bill 100. I hope it would not be necessary for the teachers to go to court to require the local board to make the payments, which I think in this connection has to do with the cost of living payments following the end of the contract period as of Dec. 31 of last year. Certainly we have no objection to the amendment. I would hope it wouldn’t be necessary but if it reinforces the feeling, particularly of this House, that the terms of Bill 100 should not be in any way disregarded, and if it would save a court case on behalf of the teachers, I feel we should support it.

Mr. Bounsall: Is the minister going to reply to that? I would like to hear his reply before I say any remarks.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, I understand exactly what the concerns are here. I know part of the problem is that Bill 100 states that until a new agreement has been reached the terms of the contract under which the parties are operating remain in effect, or at least until 60 days after the fact-finder reports, at which time the employer can vary or change the terms of the contract. With that provision or proviso the terms are to remain in effect. It is my understanding that this hasn’t been adhered to in the case of the Windsor teachers and there has been a variance of what they certainly deem to be their 1975 contract. This is a matter of real concern.

As far as I am concerned, it is very clear. The intent of this section is that the contract under which they were operating and which expired Jan. 1, 1976, remains in effect until a new contract is arrived at. Then when that new contract is arrived at, it becomes effective Jan. 2, 1976. The terms and conditions of the original contract, or the one that has expired, stay completely in effect until the new contract is signed and comes into effect.

I realize there is a problem there. If the addition of the words “all terms of” will help further to clarify in the minds particularly of the teachers in Windsor who are going, I am sure, to be scrutinizing this legislation very carefully, I would have no objection to adding those to the bill.

Mr. Bounsall: I have just a few words.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps I could put the question before we continue the debate on it.

Mr. Bounsall: I just wanted to say that I am glad the minister has taken that view. It would be helpful, I think, in the situation in terms of clarifying that conditions of 1975 contracts be carried over and be adhered to in this legislation -- making that very clear that it be adhered to from January on.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I might add, Mr. Chairman, that I feel they are redundant. Certainly our lawyers say it says that here already -- “in accordance with such contracts and written collective understanding.” Our lawyers say that means the whole contract -- not part of the contract, not a bit of the contract, not all of it but one bit; but the whole contract -- is in effect as under this legislation until a new contract is arrived at. For the sake of clarity I’d be happy to accept that amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Foulds moves that section 2, subsection 2, be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

During the period from and including the first school day after this Act comes into force until an agreement as defined under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, 1975, comes into effect, no teacher shall take part in a strike against the board of education and the board of education shall not lock out a teacher.

Mr. Foulds: I don’t think I’ll speak to it. It’s part of the reasoned amendment. We have spoken to it five times in the House. I’d be glad to put it in to clause by clause. In effect, of course, it does away with the arbitration section of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any discussion on Mr. Foulds’ amendment?

Mr. Ferris: I have a brief comment. I think the member for Port Arthur has said this is simply a piece of the reasoned amendment and I think we discussed the reasoned amendment previously in the other strikes and in this one. We will not support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Foulds amendment will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost and the subsection agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Foulds moves that subsection 3, section 3, be amended to read as follows:

The parties shall each give written notice to the Minister of Education within seven days after this Act comes into force, setting out all the matters the parties have agreed upon for inclusion in an agreement and the matters remaining in dispute between the parties and the notice shall be deemed to be notice to the commission; and thereafter, except as provided in section 57 of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, 1975, a party shall not withdraw from negotiations hereinafter provided for.

Mr. Foulds: I recognize that being defeated on the previous clause, this is somewhat redundant but I’ll give it another shot because my colleague wishes to speak to a following clause and it makes more sense in the context if we make this motion at this time, Mr. Chairman. It will destroy the legislation, I might point out, or fundamentally realign it. It would also require the deletion of subsection 1.



Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I would add that that would necessitate the deletion of subsection 1 of section 3, which I forgot to point out at the beginning of that.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on Mr. Foulds’ amendment?

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

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost and the subsection carried.

Any further discussion on any other portion of the bill?

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, subsection 4 of section 3. I will speak to it after it is placed.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bounsall moves that subsection 4 of section 3 be amended by adding after the word “decision” in the final line the words, “which, however, shall be no less favourable to the branch affiliate than the COLA provision in the 1975 contract.”

Mr. Bounsall: We would have preferred there be no compulsory arbitration in this situation, but seeing that the votes so far have gone in a way which would indicate we are going to get compulsory arbitration, we feel very strongly we should say to the arbitrator, on one point which is a matter of contention in this dispute, the way in which we would feel it should be handled, in this one respect, in that the COLA provision in the 1975 contract be continued.

I might say this is the one point in the dispute which the teachers themselves have felt very strongly about. They felt that in achieving the contract which ended at the end of 1975 there should be no problems with further disputes because that COLA would simply be continued. It was quite a shock to find that the board felt otherwise. Of course this is open to negotiation, but this is the one point that really surprised everyone in the Windsor area.

The calls I have been receiving as opposed to the other two occasions, when Windsor had a teacher-school board dispute, have been more, shall we say emotional than in the other two disputes, but this time they haven’t been all pro the board. There have been many people recognizing and saying to me that surely they do not feel they can roll back this fortunate provision from the 1975 contract and take away from the teachers something which they won through a previous strike. That seems to be a fair feeling on the part of a lot of the citizenry of Windsor.

We do have other parts of the citizenry of Windsor saying they think that COLA is too expensive. We have others saying they don’t like to see the board withdraw it from the teachers and cause them to take a step backwards by having something withdrawn from an agreement, which seldom ever happens; but they question the type of COLA, the one per cent for one per cent increase and would prefer that not to be on a percentage but on a flat-rate basis.

I think there is some justification to that argument, but that would be something which the board and the teachers could sort out, whether it be paid as a percentage of one’s individual salary or whether all or a portion of that will be paid out in a flat rate amount. I’m sure the fact that it’s in the legislation that the COLA provisions continue as we’ve suggested would not prevent the two parties, with their arbitrator, deciding that the mechanism of the payment would be slightly different.

Therefore I feel this is a very reasonable amendment. It’s one a lot of the community feels should not be withdrawn. It’s the one, I think, which most shocked the teachers. In this situation, it should be the one point which is continued in this particular contract under these particular compulsory negotiations.

Just while we’re on the COLA, may I ask the minister to respond quite specifically to the one point which we had covered in the minister accepting the amendment from the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds). In the 1975 agreement, which does contain the COLA provision, and on which it is now understood clearly all provisions are to apply, will the COLA provisions apply from this date forward? In other words, until the new contract is signed, it applies from January until today; and you understand that by section 2(1) of the bill as we discussed it previously; that it does apply from today onward until the new contract is reached?

Mr. Ferris: Just a brief comment. We will oppose the amendment, I think for two reasons. First of all, I think you have secured that, partially at least, in the amendment that was made, the effect of keeping the COLA in by keeping the old contract in force, which is one of the main contentions or problems in the strike. I would tend to believe that in going into arbitration the arbitrator should not be saddled with any conditions. This is very similar, of course, to the floors that were brought forward in your reasoned amendment in the other strikes. In fact I was quite surprised that we did not see one this time; but obviously here it is, at least in a partial form. I think to leave the freest movement to the arbitrator, we will oppose this.

Hon. Mr. Wells: First of all, in answer to my friend’s question, I would assume that the legal position -- and I’m giving this opinion without benefit of counsel.


Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, that’s only half of the legal opinion, so I’ll have to give my own legal opinion; I’m still trying to get an honorary QC someday.

Of course, Bill 100 comes into effect before this bill, and what Bill 100 say governs what would happen up until this bill is passed and receives royal assent. Now, Bill 100 says that the terms and conditions of a contract that have been in effect shall stay in effect until a new one is arrived at, by whatever means or however that new one is arrived at. Or as I said a few minutes ago, until 60 days after the fact-finder’s report has been made public; at which time the employer may, if he wishes, vary the terms and conditions of that contract.

I don’t know at this point whether the Windsor board of education has varied the terms and conditions of that contract. I know they are disputing, as some say, honouring fully the 1975 contract that was in effect for the months of January, February and March when the teachers were not on strike and were working. There’s no question that a teacher shall not be paid for the days he’s on strike or when a lockout is taking effect. But if the fact-finder’s report, as I understand it, was made public on Feb. 16, that would mean the board could legally alter the contract somewhere around the middle of April -- April 16, perhaps, to be correct. It would be my opinion that for January, February and March, under Bill 100, the terms and conditions of the 1975 contracts, all the terms and conditions, should apply. As of the passing of this legislation they will, of course, all apply also.

I don’t know whether that answers your question. In effect, I’m saying that I would think that because the teachers were on strike -- or the lockout was in effect -- during April that’s not a point of contention, probably, but that for the months of January, February and March the terms of the 1975 contract should have applied legally and they will apply from when this bill is passed until a new contract is arrived at.

Mr. Bounsall: At this point what happens, from May 10 on?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s my 50 cent legal opinion. I don’t know how my friend --

Mr. Nixon: You must have got it from the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Ruston: He is a QC.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Continuing on the amendment, I would have to say that I cannot accept this amendment, for the same reasons which have already been put forward.

We do not feel that an arbitrator should be bound. Bill 100 provides that all terms and conditions of employment should be negotiable and that everything either side wishes to put on the table should be able to be put on the table as you negotiate a contract. Certainly we don’t think there should be anything put in a bill such as this which would pick out one particular part of the contract and make that untouchable in arbitration, particularly when that particular part is obviously one of the few matters in dispute between the parties at this particular time. For those reasons we cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Bounsall’s amendment to subsection 4, section 3, will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

I declare the subsection carried.

Section 3 agreed to.

Sections 4 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 75, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with a certain amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.


The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 75, An Act respecting the Board of Education for the City of Windsor and Teachers Dispute.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might prevail upon the members of the Legislature to remain in their seats. I have to go down to get the Lieutenant Governor to come in and give royal assent, following which we’ll have the adjournment. I would hope that as a matter of courtesy to the Lieutenant Governor that some will remain so that we have some people here when she comes back.

Mr. Nixon: Perhaps we could go down?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Actually, it has to be reported back to the House anyway, so we have to stand by to have it reported back.



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

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

The Clerk Assistant: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour’s assent is prayed:

Bill 75, An Act respecting the Board of Education for the City of Windsor and Teachers Dispute.

Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the City of Cambridge.

Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the Welland-Port Colborne Airport.

Bill Pr11, An Act respecting Napco Poultry Ltd.

Bill Pr14, An Act respecting the Town of Fort Erie.

Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the Institute of Professional Librarians of Ontario.

Bill Pr15, An Act respecting the Town of Fort Erie.

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the City of Niagara Falls.

Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Bill Pr20, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Bill Pr26, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Welch: Before moving the adjournment of the House, may I indicate the order of business for Monday? On Monday afternoon we have arranged to go into legislation. We will do second reading of Bill 78. We will then go into committee of the whole House doing Bill 78, Bill 45, Bill 47 and Bill 9 in that approximate order and, if there is time, we might go into some others. There will be no session Monday night; Tuesday afternoon we do estimates and then private members’ hour; Tuesday evening we do budget debate; Wednesday, Committee day; Thursday, estimates; Friday, budget debate.

Any questions at all?

Mr. Nixon: No. It’s amazing.

Motion agreed to.

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

The House adjourned at 12:50 p.m.