role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

November 9, 1984

32nd Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

VISITOR

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

PENSION REFORM

GASOLINE PRICES

MORGENTALER TRIAL

DEMOLITION CONTROL

CONDOMINIUM TAXES

PCB DESTRUCTION FACILITIES

VISITORS

ONTARIO STATUS OF WOMEN COUNCIL

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY LABOUR DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT

COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY LABOUR DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT

ROYAL ASSENT

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with the business of the House, I would ask all honourable members to join with me in welcoming Mr. David Martin, a member of the House of Keys of the Isle of Man, who is visiting with us in the Speaker's gallery today.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw attention to the fact that this is the last day for the first group of pages of the fall session of the 32nd Parliament, 1984. They would like to extend a special thank-you to all the people with whom they have worked in their daily duties. They would especially like to thank Ms. Niezen, the page mistress, the attendants and Mr. Turner. Thank you all for your time and help.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my first question, in the absence of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes), the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and the Premier (Mr. Davis), will be to the former Minister of Energy, now Deputy Premier, who will remember the vigour with which the Davis government attacked earlier moves by Conservative governments in Ottawa to move this province and this country to the world price for oil. So passionate was the Davis government in resisting any move to the world oil price four or five years ago that the Conservative government in Ontario was quite prepared to torpedo HMS Joe Clark.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague the Minister of Energy, after he has had an opportunity to review all the implications of the statement to which the member made reference, will be commenting on this in due course.

Mr. Conway: I cannot believe what I have just heard. This government, as the entire province and country knows, has passionately resisted any policy of world price in this country.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: I ask the Deputy Premier, a former Minister of Energy, is the Davis government going to move today and tomorrow to fight passionately against the stated government-of-Canada policy that we must and shall move to the world price, at a cost to the Ontario consuming public of tens of millions of dollars and, as the government knows, of hundreds of thousands of jobs or so, as argued as recently as September?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Knowing how anxious the member is to have a full statement on this matter, now the Minister of Energy has taken his seat, perhaps we could refer that supplementary question to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for all members to realize that what the federal government has done is to increase the petroleum compensation charge to stem a deficit situation in that fund. I think the members understand what the petroleum compensation charge is all about.

I want to quote to the member the words of Mr. Wilson because they are important. He said, "The government believes that the time has come to let the price of oil be determined by the marketplace." He did not mention world prices in that statement. He said it is time for the price of oil to be determined by the marketplace.

Now we can see that the message of our efforts on behalf of the people of this province is getting through in discussions on questions of natural gas and on questions relating to the petrochemical industry, all of them centred on the question of market sensitivity.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that the moves made by his federal treasurer and Finance spokesman will suck at least $500 million out of the pockets of Ontario's consumers and cost 60,000 jobs, according to the former Treasurer of this province when he was fighting Joe Clark?

What steps will he, as Minister of Energy in this province, take with his colleagues to protect the consumers of Ontario and to protect jobs in this province from this move?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Might I remind the member for Port Arthur, Mr. Speaker, that he is Canada's Finance minister.

I have already explained the whole question of market sensitivity, and the value of that statement and philosophy to the people of this province. We have a case to make to Ottawa on the question of market sensitivity. We have a case to make with respect to natural gas and with respect to the petrochemical industry. In the spirit of discussion and co-operation with the federal government, we will continue to make that case.

Mr. Conway: The Minister of Energy knows only too well the negative impact this energy price hike will have on the people in the industries of Ontario. He argued that very case three or four months ago before the Senate standing committee on energy and natural resources. He need only read his brief of last June.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: I ask the Minister of Energy, who knows only too well the great pain his kissing cousins from Ottawa have now visited upon our residents of Ontario, is the Minister of Energy --

Mr. Van Horne: Going to kiss them to death.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Renfrew North has the floor.

10:10 a.m.

Mr. Conway: My final supplementary question to the Minister of Energy is this: As the Minister of Energy knows, by virtue of its ad valorem tax on gasoline, Ontario profits unavoidably from any increase in the price of oil.

Is the Minister of Energy prepared to stand in his place today, in the light of the remarkable anti-Ontario posture of Michael Wilson last night, to give an undertaking in this House that he and his government will reduce the Ontario ad valorem tax on gasoline by a corresponding amount, thereby alleviating the very unhappy burden placed on the people in the industries of Ontario by the federal Conservative Minister of Finance, Mr. Michael Wilson?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The member speaks of pain. I can only remind him it was a haemorrhage in the petroleum compensation charge fund that resulted in this tax measure the federal government has taken. It is a haemorrhage that is the result of inaction by a Liberal government in Ottawa some six to eight months ago.

I understand the Treasurer will be here shortly and he will deal with the specific question of the ad valorem tax.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, there is no help from this minister or this government for the people in the industries of Ontario who have been hammered by a policy against which they fought so hard.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: Oh, how we remember an energy policy for Ontario and how Joe Clark remembers.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

PENSION REFORM

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, among other items last evening, Mr. Michael Wilson indicated he would initiate a review of a policy that has been in place in Ottawa whereby retired cabinet ministers, members of Parliament and civil servants can and do draw their very generous pensions and full-time-equivalent public sector salaries to boot. It is the so-called principle of double-dipping.

According to his statement last night, Mr. Michael Wilson is going to investigate to see whether changes might be made. Of course, we think the changes should be made there in Ottawa and here in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Question now, please.

Mr. Conway: I am wondering whether the Deputy Premier, on behalf of his government, is prepared to give the overburdened taxpayers of Ontario a commitment that this government will initiate a review of the so-called double-dipping that allows people such as the Treasurer's father, Mr. Allan Grossman, to draw a $63,000 patronage job and a $37,000 retired cabinet minister's salary.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: Is the Deputy Premier going to undertake a review of that kind of double-dipping policy that is clearly not in the public interest in these very tough economic times?

Mr. Ruston: All in the family.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in response to the second question of the deputy leader of the opposition, I know of no plans for a similar review in this administration. I would think there are certain basic elements of fairness and justice that one should not lose sight of even in such a review. We are not known as a government that changes the rules on people retroactively.

People who make contributions to pension plans are entitled to the benefits of those plans. I would feel any federal review would take that into account with respect to the whole question of entitlement. I think the short answer is I do not know of any review going on here at the moment.

Mr. Martel: What about the contract last night? Boy, do they ever change. What baloney. The rules were changed right in the middle of the strike.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do not come back to me and complain about the time of question period being wasted.

Mr. Martel: He gets up and distorts the facts. He just said they do not change the rules in the middle of the game. What did the government do yesterday? It changed the rules in the middle of the game.

Mr. Speaker: It is your question period and 13 minutes have gone by.

An hon. member: It was well worth it though.

Mr. Speaker: Whatever you think.

Mr. Conway: In the light of the very serious economic situation in which governments find themselves -- and we heard a lot about that last night -- and in the light of the fact that this government has argued very vigorously for a fair restraint policy in the public sector, can the minister tell me why there would not be a review of this double-dipping practice?

Why is it that the hospital workers at Sensenbrenner Hospital have to live with less while people who have served well here, who draw a significant pension to which they are entitled, at the same time are entitled to a $63,000 to $65,000 public service salary? Why would there not be a review of that when it seems to thousands of taxpayers that it is an overgenerous compensation of some people at the very considerable cost to the consolidated revenue fund?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I remind my friend, for whom I have a very high regard, and I take into account his sincerity in asking such an important question, that the question had to do with review. My answer is that I know of no plans to have such a review here.

I would remind him, however, in expanding my response to his original question, that the public service in its widest definition includes members of the teaching profession who are also members of this House. We also have members who have served in police and fire departments and all sorts of public responsibilities, who have made their contributions according to the rules of pension plans and therefore have a certain entitlement.

To turn the question around, one wonders why the member would want to discriminate against them so that, as members of the teaching profession or other public services drawing a pension, they would not be entitled to have access to jobs of public service here. All I am pointing out to the member is that even a review in Ottawa would have to take into account the basic entitlement of people who in good faith made contributions to pension plans according to the rules at that time. Does the member want to reach back and change that?

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help noting, if there is any unfairness to the Sensenbrenner workers, and there certainly has been, that the Liberal Party, to a person, voted for that bill and they voted for that unfairness to the Sensenbrenner workers. Let the record show that once again.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) please turn around. Thank you. Now the member for York South (Mr. Rae) is going to ask a nonprovocative question.

Mr. Rae: I want to apologize for striking a nerve. I should not have done it and I apologize for that.

In all seriousness, without doing anything that would be retroactively unfair, does the Deputy Premier not think there is a public perception that if someone has served in the House of Commons or the Legislature of Ontario for a period of time and then is receiving a pension, it is at least open to question whether that full pension should be paid while at the same time that person is receiving a substantial salary from another public sector appointment, whether at the provincial or the federal level?

10:20 a.m.

Does the Deputy Premier not think there is at least a perception that this is an unfairness and something we could do something about without being unfair or discriminatory? Could we not at least look at that basic principle, so people at the federal level do not receive $80,000, $100,000 or $120,000 in some instances, when their salaries are only $65,000 or $70,000?

There is an element of proof in what Mr. Wilson has pointed to. Many of us have pointed to it for some time. Does the Deputy Premier think we should at least have a look at it at this level?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could approach it in two ways. In the first case, the leader of the third party is now coming forward with a more restrictive definition of "public service." If that is his case, I invite people to say how we could justify being restrictive. We are talking about people who are making contributions to a pension plan under legislation passed by this Legislature or plans that are in force to which people make contributions and have some entitlement. That applies to the point I was attempting to make in responding to the other two questions.

As I understand Mr. Wilson's statement last night, this will be a House committee. We will have the benefit of that study, and perhaps that would be the time to reflect upon the need for review, with the benefit of the recommendations or the outcome of the deliberations of that committee.

Mr. Conway: Surely the Deputy Premier can show more leadership on this very important question of public policy and a matter about which the public is increasingly concerned. Surely he would agree with me that it is obscene for any of us or --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: -- any of our predecessors, irrespective of party, to leave this place and, from the one and same consolidated revenue fund, take a member's or minister's pension and a full-time public service salary. Surely the minister would agree with me that he could show some leadership today.

Surely he will want to rise in his place and give us this undertaking that he, as a matter of leadership, will stand in his place today and undertake to initiate that review in the public interest, because he and the rest of the province must now agree with me that this double-dipping policy must come to an end if we are going to have any credibility in getting this economy moving again.

Hon. Mr. Welch: If there is one thing we can agree on, it would be that the general principle of fairness would be embraced by the people of Ontario. People who make their contributions to plans according to the rules and regulations are therefore entitled to receive the benefits of those contributions.

The next question is, are they not entitled to be paid for the services they render in some other types of activity, whether they are taking a pension from the teachers' superannuation fund, pension plans for municipal employees or those of Legislative Assembly members?

One must think in terms of the length and amount of contributions. The people of Ontario are basically fair. We will have the benefit of a public review on this matter of whether or not a certain group of people should be discriminated against. That is the question. It is basic fairness. We will have an opportunity to review it after we see the report.

Mr. Bradley: The rules apply to everybody.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer arising out of the economic statement made by Mr. Wilson last night. It seems "jobs, jobs, jobs" has now been replaced by "hikes, hikes, hikes" in gas prices. As it relates to Ontario, I am sure the minister is aware of one of the impacts of the price increases announced last night by Mr. Wilson. We calculate there will be a windfall of somewhere between $60 million and $70 million to the Treasury of Ontario because of the nature of the ad valorem tax.

Does he think it is fair that, in addition to being nailed by the federal government and the oil companies, the average motorist, car driver or truck driver, of this province should be paying $60 million or $70 million in ransom money to the government of Ontario for the increase that was imposed by Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, first, when one looks at the success this government has had in a variety of areas, particularly economic growth, I do not consider any of the moneys paid to the consolidated revenue fund of this province to be ransom money. It is unfair to the taxpayers and unfair to those who benefit from those moneys being available through the consolidated revenue fund.

Second, the survey which is done for the adjustments that are subsequently made quarterly will be undertaken at its normal time over the next 30 or 40 days. Somewhere in that time frame we will determine whether all or a portion of this increase will be or has been passed through to consumers. It is only then that we will be able to assess whether our ad valorem tax will have an impact and what kind of impact it will have. The time has not yet arrived for us to make a decision on that situation.

Mr. Rae: I cannot help but notice -- and I am sure everyone notices -- the stark contrast between what the Treasurer has said today about this move by the Tory government in Ottawa and what his predecessor said. The latter said it was going to cost 60,000 jobs and was going to be a major change.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: What explanation does the Treasurer have? Why has the lion suddenly become a lamb on this question of the effect on the Ontario economy of moving to world price? Why has the Treasurer now pulled all his punches and said absolutely nothing to protect the consumers and industry in this province from the impact this kind of price increase is going to have?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: For one thing, I think we should not pretend that an increase in oil prices will not have some sort of impact on our economy. It will. I am sure my colleague pointed out before I got here this morning that this change will bring benefits on the natural gas side. The change spoken of previously did refer to the possibility of deregulation on the natural gas side, but these benefits were previously not available under the earlier discussions, which dealt with oil price increases alone. As we move towards market on both fuel prices there are offsetting benefits for Ontario on the natural gas front.

It is also very important that we keep in mind the context in which these changes have been brought into place. I do not pretend there will not be negative impacts from the oil increase. There will be. But one must look at the whole new atmosphere that has been created, the money that is being saved and the new investment climate in this province. I believe that, taken as a whole, the entire package will do far more to create jobs, growth and employment in this country than anything we have seen out of Ottawa in many years.

That is a remarkable difference. The leader of the third party may disagree with that. However, if he is asking why this increase is different from others, it is because it is part of a well-co-ordinated, well-thought-out, well-planned strategy and it is, by and large, a healthy strategy.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, has the Treasurer had the opportunity to review the testimony of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes), who appeared before the standing Senate committee on energy and natural resources this past June? His colleague argued that oil and gas price increases would have an adverse effect on the province in terms of trade and overall economic performance. Later he noted that the result is a drop in provincial output and employment.

Does the Treasurer share the Minister of Energy's very worrisome concern about the negative impacts of increased energy prices to the province and the economy of Ontario? What specific undertaking is the Treasurer prepared to give the people of Ontario today that he will now go to Ottawa and fight like the dickens to resist this very wrongheaded policy that takes this province and this country towards the world price for oil? It was so strongly resisted five years ago it was worth the defeat of the Clark government.

10:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am joining the finance ministers in Ottawa this evening to review the statement Mr. Wilson brought out yesterday. I will tell members the circumstance we all face. It is that the new government is trying to rebuild a barn that the previous federal government burned down entirely.

If the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) wants to suggest we should go to Ottawa and say, in a piecemeal way, 'We will take one of those, one of those and one of those," then I want to assure him I will be drawing forcefully to the federal minister's attention those parts of this important new strategy that could adversely affect the people of Ontario.

I agree with the comments of my colleague. As I said a moment ago, he is right that an increase in oil prices will adversely affect the Ontario economy. But on balance, this country has been begging for many years for the kind of new investment direction, new thrust and governmental responsibility we are only now beginning to see.

If I have one important message to bring, it is that the public is very glad it is not going to see more of the kind of economic policy followed by that gentleman I saw the member introduce all over eastern Ontario in the last election and the election before, the Trudeau-Turner-Conway team from eastern Ontario. I suggest the public really wants the Mulroney-Wilson team and its policies in toto, in contrast to the Turner-Trudeau policies.

Mr. Rae: It is now clear that, in the name of its ideological commitment to the Mulroney Conservative Party, this government is now prepared to sacrifice the jobs and interests of the people of this province on the altar of its commitment to Tory ideology. That is exactly what we have seen. That is what we are seeing today.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Would the Treasurer explain to us what position he is going to be taking at this meeting of ministers of finance? Is he simply going to be saying, "We think what you are doing is wonderful -- the cuts in investment and jobs in this province and across the country and the hikes in energy price increases"? Or is he going to fight for the people of this province, for jobs in this province and for the concerns of the people of Ontario, to cut through some of the baloney that surrounds this so-called new atmosphere that is taking advantage of the people of this province and not giving them their due share?

Mr. Conway: Bill Davis, where are you now?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He is receiving thanks from thousands of Ontarians for helping to elect Brian Mulroney Prime Minister of this country.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Now just a minute. I do not know what happened to the Liberal side. They are very vociferous this morning.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: Oh no, no. Order --

Mr. Conway: I will tell you what happened on this side. We see hypocrisy across the way. Five years ago they were going to fight to the bitter end -- "No world oil price for Canada" -- and now, like kittens lying in a bay window, they roll over and wait for Michael Wilson to tickle. That is what we see.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That will be your last outburst. I caution you, it will not be tolerated any more.

The member for York South.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No. On a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. The minister has not answered the member's previous question.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Rae: I thought he had.

Mr. Speaker: No. Order.

Mr. Rae: I thought silence implied consent, Mr. Speaker. I assumed he agreed with the question.

Mr. Speaker: No, no. I made it quite clear I would come back to him.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Our friend from Renfrew North was expiating his most recent millstone. That is what caused the confusion.

When the leader of the New Democratic Party suggests we should go down and fight what happened in Ottawa, I want to make a couple of serious points. They had some important things in that budget statement that I have to endorse. They talked about selling government land, something this government started to do last May. They talked about reducing direct operating expenditures, something this government started to do last May. They talked about incentives for business growth, something this government has been doing for many years.

If we operate on the premise that government spending and government investment is the way to recover, I remind the honourable member that would be inconsistent with many of the things he himself has been saying about jobs having to be created by small business and in the private sector. I could read many of those things back to him.

That is why I endorse so many of those things and, as testimony to how successful they are going to be, I want to remind him that the new unemployment figures came out this morning. In all of Canada, 32,000 jobs were created last year and 29,000 of them were created in Ontario. I also want to remind him that, while the national unemployment rate remains over 11 per cent, Ontario's unemployment rate has dropped to 8.9 per cent. We will this year clearly create even more jobs than we predicted in our budget last May. That is the record of this government. That is why we endorse some of those steps.

Mr. Riddell: I am going to tell you that six members of one family --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Stand up and ask it. Have some courage. Ask it any time.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Riddell: I will ask it any time.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will wait here for the next question.

Mr. Riddell: That is one family. How many other families are in the same boat?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) will please --

Mr. Martel: What about the Treasurer?

Mr. McClellan: Why not tell them both to shut up?

Mr. Martel: You have the strangest sense, Mr. Speaker. I watch every day. Maybe you are deaf in your right ear.

Mr Speaker: Let me remind the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), in his rather selective vision and his rather selective hearing, that I did call the Treasurer to order before I addressed the member for Huron-Middlesex.

Mr. Martel: I did not hear you warn him. You have now warned two members on this side.

Mr. Speaker: I have indeed. The member for York South.

MORGENTALER TRIAL

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. It concerns the decision yesterday by the jury in the Morgentaler-Smoling-Scott case.

Mr. Pollock: Break the law.

Mr. Kolyn: Abortion on demand.

Mr. Rae: Perhaps I could ask it without the catcalls from the other side that we seem to be hearing.

Do the ministry and the government intend to respond to this decision, which I remind the minister is now the fourth decision by a jury with respect to the question of abortion and abortion clinics, and finally recognize that there is a problem of access, a problem that faces many women in this province, and it is a problem the government cannot go on ignoring? Is it the government's intention to respond to that trial by taking measures to ensure access to a service to which many women obviously feel they have a right to have access?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, obviously I do not have the benefit of any reasons for the decision rendered yesterday by the jury in that case. As is customary, the jury does not give reasons for its decision. I do not know what that verdict might have been based on. It is not my opinion, as Minister of Health, that it could possibly have been based on matters relating to access, given the location of that clinic in this city.

10:40 p.m.

Mr. Rae: If I may say so, I think that answer betrays a lack of understanding as to what has been going on in this country, and in Quebec and Ontario, for the last 15 years. I am really quite surprised by that answer. It is now the fourth time a jury has felt it was not prepared to convict, send to prison or find guilty doctors who were providing a service in a clinic that other doctors were providing and performing in a hospital.

Does the minister not feel this decision by the jury to acquit now puts the ball very clearly in the government's court in the sense of its having to respond in an overall way to what is clearly a practical and very real problem? There was significant evidence with respect to problems of access. If the minister did not see it or hear it, he was not paying attention to the evidence that was put before that jury.

Is the government going to keep on sticking its head in the sand and pretending there is nothing going on out there, or is it going to respond in a practical, realistic way to what is obviously a practical problem facing many women in this province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: First of all, it would be unwise, I should think, to talk about responding at this point to a decision in the court, when in the first instance I do not know yet what the intentions of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) or his staff might be with respect to that particular decision. I would, of course, have to be guided by the advice of the law officers of the crown before there would be any decision, I am sure, on my part or on the part of the government with respect to any response to that decision.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, given that one quarter of all the abortions in Canada are performed in the city of Toronto and that for three years running there were more abortions than live births in Toronto, are the minister and his government prepared to continue to obey the law of Canada? Is the minister prepared to ensure that abortions in Toronto and in Ontario are done for health reasons only and are done in an accredited hospital?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, obviously there would never be any intention on the part of this government to do other than to abide by the law of Canada. I am not in a position to make any judgement on the reasons that may or may not be given or relied upon by abortion committees in determining whether an abortion is justified in any given case. However, I would like to assure the honourable member that there is no matter before us in our society that I find more deeply troubling and disturbing morally than this issue.

Mr. Rae: The minister has no monopoly on being troubled by this issue. Everybody who thinks about it is troubled by the issue. The reality, though, is that four times in the last 13 or 14 years, three times in Quebec and now in Toronto a jury has acquitted doctors who were performing safe, medically sound abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy in a clinic rather than in a hospital. Surely that decision in itself poses a practical question. What, in realistic, practical terms, is the law today?

It is a question that had to be faced by governments in Quebec, a Liberal government and a Parti québécois government, regardless of political affiliation. The minister is faced with a practical problem.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: I go back to my question. Will the minister at least agree to review the evidence that was put before the court, not on the grounds on which the Attorney General was looking at it, but from the standpoint of his responsibilities as the Minister of Health, and determine whether or not there is a problem of access when more than half the hospitals in Ontario do not have therapeutic abortion committees? Will he at least review the evidence in order to respond in a realistic way to what is a real social problem in our society?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I stand by my earlier answer. Any decision concerning a response will be taken in consultation with my colleagues, particularly the Attorney General.

DEMOLITION CONTROL

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), with whom I have had a number of discussions about the Toronto demolition issue, I would like to ask my question to the House leader, assuming he is informed about the matter of demolition permits.

He will be aware that yesterday we discussed the issue with the Attorney General and we asked for immediate passage of an amendment to the City of Toronto Act that would save the buildings on Eglinton Avenue. May I ask him if he is informed about this issue?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I am not.

Mr. Peterson: Presumably, someone there is informed about this issue. It is an emergency, and I will take the House leader's advice on whom to direct this question to. I have just come from the Toronto council chambers where the following motion was passed:

"Advise the provincial government that city council supports the acquisition of these buildings by Co-operative Housing Federation of Toronto Inc., acting on behalf of the United Jewish Seniors, as do the Honourable Barbara McDougall and the Honourable Roy McMurtry."

The Attorney General said in the House yesterday he did not know what the city of Toronto wanted to do with those buildings. I say advisedly that he was misinformed or his memory was failing him or he was misleading this House. I have a letter under his own hand, dated December 8, 1983, addressed to the Honourable Romeo LeBlanc wherein he says:

"As you may be aware, the Co-operative Housing Federation of Toronto Inc. has put forward a proposal that would result in the preservation of the three existing buildings at 790, 800 and 840 Eglinton Avenue West." In other words, he knew. He said yesterday he did not know and was still waiting for direction from the city. Now that direction is provided again today.

I am asking the House leader, given the fact that the council this morning did not have a quorum with respect to the issue of the issuance of the demolition permit, and we now have another couple of days, will he agree to speedy passage today of the amendment that would save those buildings? I cannot speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party, but I suspect it would agree to immediate passage in this session today. The minister has the amendment. It has been drafted. Will he agree to that now to save those buildings?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, first I should remind my friend that before we would agree to speedy passage of anything, we have a situation that is even more of an emergency with a bill here which requires speedy passage before anything else is considered. He would agree that first and foremost there are a number of students -- in the hundreds of thousands -- in this province who are not going to community colleges and will not be until the passage of Bill 130 is completed.

That is the first priority of this Legislature today and that will be the first order of business that is called. All I can say to my friend is, I will be happy to pass along to the Attorney General and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) his question, the concerns he has raised and the matters and opinions of the city of Toronto. I know they have talked, discussed and studied this problem at great length and will present some answer.

Mr. Peterson: The city will be in court right at this moment on a contempt charge because there was not a quorum to issue that permit. That is the situation we face now. The fines could mount. The city council used this procedural device to gain some time.

Recognizing time is of the essence, we are at the 11th hour, we are at the very last moment. We should have done this yesterday. What I am suggesting is quite compatible with what we are already doing in this House. Both of those aims can be accomplished today. What can I do to impress the urgency of this situation on the minister? We are going to lose those buildings.

That permit could well be issued on Monday or Tuesday. The properties could fall under the wrecker's ball, and 120 days from now those buildings will be gone, throwing 200 seniors on to the street. It has to be addressed today. It was not addressed yesterday. The government has had lots of time. The Attorney General has been aware of this, even though he denies it or his memory is faulty or he is going senile.

I am asking the House leader, as a semi-reasonable man with Intergovernmental Affairs responsibility, to apply his mind to the question now, not 10 minutes from now, and bring forward that legislation. I guarantee our cooperation in order to pass that today. Would the minister do that?

10:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Perhaps at another time my friend can define the term "semi-reasonable."

The problem this matter concerns is in the riding of my colleague the Attorney General, who is a first-class, excellent member as far as representing his riding goes. I would not give any assurances of anything until I have had a chance to talk to the member for that riding and find out exactly what he would recommend that this government do in a particular situation. I am sure that is exactly what my friend, who I will say is not a semi-reasonable person but a reasonable person, would expect to be done.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I am increasingly pessimistic that the property rights of Mr. Axelrod are simply going to prevail over the right to security of tenure of the residents of those buildings and that these buildings are going to be torn down.

In order to prevent that from happening -- and he has only a relatively few hours left -- will the government House leader convene a meeting of some of his cabinet colleagues, including the Attorney General and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, to look at the options?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Gregory) please desist?

Mr. McClellan: I ask the government House leader, if he will pay attention, whether he will consider passing the amendment to the City of Toronto Act. If he is not willing to do that, the cabinet can go into session this afternoon and approve the two bylaws that have been requested by the city of Toronto, the depth bylaw and the minimum unit density bylaw, either of which would empower the city to refuse to issue the demolition permit. Why does he not take that action? Is it simply the reality that these buildings are going to be torn down in about 120 days?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, all I can do is reiterate what I said a few minutes ago. I will be happy to bring the member's concerns to the attention of the Attorney General and other members of the government. At the appropriate time they will indicate what the position of the government is on this matter.

CONDOMINIUM TAXES

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. The minister will recall that on January 6 he wrote a letter to me stating he did not disagree with the 12 pages of research I tabled on November 1, which showed condominiums have been overtaxed, but that he could not make any adjustments at that time because the matter was before the courts.

Now that we have a court ruling in Mississauga, his own riding area, that Mississauga will have to return some $5 million to condominium owners who have been overcharged, is the minister prepared to respect that court decision and amend the Assessment Act to authorize a systematic reassessment of condominiums across this province?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, there was a court decision on a point of law, and the situation now is that all the condominium cases in Mississauga that have been appealed will be heard before the Ontario Municipal Board.

Mr. Philip: On that very matter the minister should be aware that the number of outstanding condominium appeals is now 51,221. It will be a beautiful bureaucratic nightmare to deal with all those.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Philip: The minister will also be aware that the total assessed value under appeal is $1.44 billion and that if the assessments of these properties were updated to reflect present market value, condominiums in the city of Mississauga would pay approximately $4.4 million less in annual property taxes.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Philip: Is it not his role, as a minister who sat by and allowed this inequity to go on over the years, to cut through the bureaucracy, not to force these people to go through the 51,000 appeals in this city and to protect the condominium owners in his own riding, even if he does not want to protect those who have been overcharged across the province?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: The appeals are launched with the Ontario Municipal Board on behalf of the city of Mississauga. The point is that the tax base must be protected. We have a resolution as well from the city of Mississauga, and I am sure the member is aware of this, that it is undergoing an impact study for

section 63 programs at the request of council. I would say the council of the city of Mississauga does not share the member's opinion.

PCB DESTRUCTION FACILITIES

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of the Environment regarding polychlorinated biphenyl destruction facilities. Our research reveals that at the PCB destruction facility in Texas the local health authority counted 3,600 infractions in its first year of operation. In Illinois the Environmental Protection Agency closed down the destruction facility after widespread sickness and death occurred among farm animals. Three weeks ago the Bonnybridge plant in Scotland was closed because of severe problems there.

Would the minister be prepared to have his government take responsibility if the health of nearby residents is affected when the mobile units go into operation?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is talking about technology that is not nearly as advanced as the type of technology that is being proposed for Ontario in the mobile destruction units we are anticipating will come into operation with the new regulations.

I do not anticipate the types of problems the honourable member is talking about. I can only assure him that the type of monitoring, the type of control systems, the type of backup protection that is available and the systems that are being looked at in Ontario as part of our regulatory process are far more advanced than the type of thing he is talking about and would not lead to the same problems.

Mr. Ruprecht: Will the minister give us assurances that if he should decide on the recommendations made by the PCB hearings and if he permits burning of PCBs in urban centres such as Metropolitan Toronto, London, Windsor, Sudbury and other places, the recommendations he is going to make to this House will also include exactly who is responsible if our people's health should be adversely affected, not only in the immediate future but also after a number of years?

Will the minister tell us whether the ministry is going to be responsible if adverse health effects should take place? Is it going to be the operator or the company that holds the licence?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: As the member knows, we are going through an exhaustive process of hearings on PCBs with the express purpose of building into the system the necessary safeguards I am sure the member would want to see us put into that system.

We are establishing, as an example, the length of time a particular mobile unit can remain in a community. We are trying to establish as well the setback requirements. We have not determined whether a unit can go into a very densely populated area, as the member suggested in a most misleading letter he sent out to his constituents indicating, I might add, that we had --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am not through yet.

Mr. Ruprecht: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would ask the minister to withdraw the statement that I have been misleading the residents. I will tell you why. The minister knows full well that no area of burning is being exempt.

Mr. Speaker: I think you have made your point.

Mr. Ruprecht: No. I would like you to hear me out. If he wants to stand up --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member resume his seat. Thank you.

11 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I will withdraw that comment and indicate that the letter was factually inaccurate. The inaccuracy relates to the fact that the member suggested without any equivocation whatever that this government and this minister were going to move mobile polychlorinated biphenyl destruction facilities right into the Junction triangle. I had this discussion with the member through a radio show.

Mr. Ruprecht: The minister should show me the letter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member will please resume his seat.

VISITORS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this is either a point of order or a point of something or other. It is a point of great importance.

There are five distinguished people in the gallery whom I believe deserve recognition. I would like them to be recognized and greeted warmly by this House. We are going to see a lot more of them. They are: Jean Poirier, Lowell Green, Chris Ward, Bernard Grandmaître and Lily Munro.

They are the Liberal candidates in the by-elections and I am sure the House is going to get to know them as well as I know them. I am sure the House will enjoy their constant company as much I enjoy their constant company.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. New question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I hope the people whom the leader has just introduced enjoy their very brief stay and their brief visit here today. This may be the last time they will ever see this place.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I was fairly calm and did not hear the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) answer who was responsible for these burnings and who is responsible if accidents take place. He still has not answered that question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With all respect, I think the minister was answering the question. There were interjections from members, including the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) himself, and I decided to cut it off.

ONTARIO STATUS OF WOMEN COUNCIL

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for Women's Issues. On Tuesday, we were discussing the status of the Ontario Status of Women Council and the Touche Ross report the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) had commissioned to examine the role of the council.

Now that the minister appears to have decided to continue the council by filling the vacancies, will he tell us whether he has also accepted the conclusion of the Touche Ross report that the council has a very crucial and distinctive role to play in the women's program, namely to give independent and external advice, presenting the view of women and the public?

Will the minister accept the recommendations of the Touche Ross report to bring in supplementary estimates that would enable the council to become independent and maintain an independent position; to support increased public consultation on educational activities; to facilitate regional work, and to upgrade the level of expertise of the staff and the committee? Will the minister bring in supplementary estimates for those items?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if I could put the question of estimates aside for a moment, the answer to all the other questions is yes.

With respect to the estimates, the estimates before the committee of supply at present do accommodate some increase for the council. We will be discussing that in our estimates.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Energy be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

Ministry administration program, $7,273,400; conventional energy program, $3,323,200; alternative and renewable energy program, $15,998,500; energy conservation program, $17,945,900; regulatory affairs program, $2,565,300; energy investment program, $69,250,000.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues would be very disappointed if there were not an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act in each session of the Legislature.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved, seconded by Hon. Miss Stephenson, first reading of Bill 136,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills?

Orders of the day.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Do you want a brief explanation of this, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I waited for you and you did not stand up.

Hon. Mr. Snow: This is Friday morning, you know.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of housekeeping amendments to the bill but a few I believe are worth mentioning to my honourable colleagues.

Section 2 of the bill deals with the time of use of motor vehicle headlights. It adds to the present legislation one hour morning and night when headlights will be required.

It also deals with the matter of the carriage of television sets within vehicles. It deals with the use of new --

Mr. Nixon: What is the minister going to do if he is stopped in traffic on the Queen Elizabeth Way?

Hon. Mr. Snow: If the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) had one of these new types of television sets, he would be able to watch the car behind him. This is a new safety measure we are approving which allows a closed-circuit TV monitor to monitor the road behind a vehicle, mainly for safety purposes.

The amendment changes a reference in the legislation that deals with yellow lights. That is being changed to red and amber. Another proposed amendment would cause convictions for offences involving motorized snow vehicles to be reported to the registrar in the same manner as they are when motor vehicles are involved.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 130,

An Act respecting a Labour Dispute between the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology and the Boards of Governors of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was not sure whether the honourable member who was standing wanted to ask a question, but I will recognize the member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Swan: No, it is past question period time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think it was on Tuesday night when I first heard that legislating the college teachers back to work was imminent and, like the rest of my colleagues in this party, I felt quite uncomfortable and unhappy about that. We think the workers have the right to strike and we are opposed to back-to-work legislation in principle.

I have to admit, though, that a counterbalancing factor that all of us are considering at this time is the fact that some 600,000 students would be resuming their education. Although I did not like the back-to-work legislation, I live in the real world; I know how the government across the way works. Their decisions have little to do with principle. It is really how many votes will be won or lost.

11:10 a.m.

Some proof of this was given by the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr). When my colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) asked the rhetorical question, "What good is this legislation?" the member for Burlington South said, "It is good for five seats." Not long after that, when the member for Port Arthur said there was a lot of objection to the bill, the member for Wilson-Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) said, "Take a poll." I do not know whether they took a poll, but it was certainly the opinion of the government that there was overwhelming popular support for the back-to-work legislation.

I understand why the government is ordering them back. It has no great conviction about the rights of labour generally. Because of these factors I was not planning to speak, until I read the bill. Then I was so infuriated I determined I must register my opposition to it. It is not just back-to-work legislation. It is, perhaps even more so, legislated punishment against the teachers for striking. It is the worst back-to-work legislation I have seen in this House in the more than nine years I have been here. It is so vindictive and mean one thinks the Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) wrote it all herself.

I want to say to the Liberals on my right, all four of them who have stayed to hear the debate on this very important bill --

Mr. Kerrio: We are one up on the New Democratic Party. There are only three NDP members here.

Mr. Elston: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Are you sure it is a point of privilege and not a point of order?

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege or whatever: It is a point of offence that this gentleman stands up and criticizes members of this Legislature who have other obligations. I have an obligation to be in the standing committee on administration of justice. There are people with duties around here that this fellow obviously never thinks about. It is time there was a little consideration. He ought to recall there are other responsibilities for members on all sides of the House.

The Deputy Speaker: Fine. The point has been made. All members need to follow the normal courtesy they would ask for themselves in debate. Would the member for Welland-Thorold please continue.

Mr. Swart: I will be glad to continue. I just reported a fact, that there are four members of the Liberal Party in the House this morning.

Mr. Kerrio: We are one up on you.

Mr. Swart: Proportionally, that is a bit more.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: There are five Liberal members in the House, not four.

Mr. Swart: I can understand why the Liberals are very sensitive about this bill --

Mr. Kerrio: There is an important bill on the floor that the member should be talking to instead of this malarkey.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: I do not consider this issue before us --

Mr. Kerrio: To the bill. Stop this foolishness.

Mr. Swart: I do not consider this issue to be malarkey. It is a very important issue --

Mr. Riddell: The NDP members have treated it with levity.

Mr. Swart: I wonder if I could have the attention of the House to continue.

The Deputy Speaker: The only suggestion I can make to the member is that perhaps it might help to get their attention if he left alone personalities and any interparty play such as counting noses, and dealt with the second reading of the bill before us.

Mr. Kerrio: Exactly. The member should address himself to the bill.

Mr. Swart: I did not deal with personalities. I want to correct the record on that. I was dealing with the position of the Liberals on this bill. It seems that is very much a part of the debate on this issue. I want to say to them --

Mr. Kerrio: The member is not dealing with the bill and that is what we were talking about. To the bill.

Mr. Riddell: We want the students back at school. That is our position.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not need the interjections.

Mr. Riddell: He is very provocative.

Mr. Swart: I want to say to the Liberals on the right that they should think again about their position on this bill. It is one thing to support back-to-work legislation. It is something we on this side of the House find extremely distasteful. It is one thing to support that, but it is very much another thing to support a mandated employer's position. That is really what this legislation is that is before us at this time.

I would like to point out how it is mandating the employer's position and how it is vindictive and mean legislation to the college teachers of this province. Almost everyone who has spoken has pointed out that most legislation which forces workers back provides that the issues in dispute will go before an arbitrator. This, of course, does not. The major issue, almost the only issue, the work load and how it affects the quality of education, does not go before the arbitrator. It is mandated legislation for the employer in this instance.

In lieu of this mandated employer's position, they have thrown two sops to the teachers. The first is they have created an instructional assignment review committee which has no power to do anything, does not report until June 30, and then it is only to give a recommendation to the minister. If there is anything the minister does not need it is a recommendation. Surely she knows the situation in this province with regard to the work load. To set up a committee of this type is just buck-passing and a sop to the teachers.

Second, they have appointed the college instructional assignment committee for each college. It is a very interesting appointment and a very deliberate tactic on the part of the minister. It sets up two people from each side, two from management and two from the union. When they come to an agreement on something according to subsection 9c(8), which is the amendment submitted by the minister, it says, "A decision of a committee is final and binding upon the employee and the supervisor."

That is all very well. It sounds good until one realizes that subsection 9c(9) applies on those very controversial matters where there cannot be a decision. That subsection says, "When a committee, after a review, is unable to reach a decision, the employee is entitled to file a grievance in respect of the instructional assignment in the manner provided for in the agreement."

My leader, in this House yesterday, read out two decisions. Not only did they take three or four years in total to be arrived at but the Ontario Labour Relations Board also said there is no power in the agreement to deal with the work load. As far as the teacher who wants to appeal the work load is concerned, he or she just gets in a revolving door and comes right back out at the same place.

Another way in which this legislation is vindictive to a degree that I have never seen before is that the mandate, in effect, means extra work for the teachers when they go back -- and without remuneration.

If we look at clause 2(1)(b), it states, "Every employee shall report for work and shall perform the duties assigned by the employer including duties assigned in order to afford students the opportunity to complete courses of study affected by the strike." What does this mean? It means that the board of governors of a college can say to the teachers: "We are going to run classes on Saturday. We are going to run classes on Sunday. We are going to run classes in the evening to make up." There is no guarantee the teachers will get paid for that.

11:20 a.m.

The government will have saved its $20 million or $25 million and the teachers will be compelled to work for nothing to ensure that the students get the same education they would have had if the strike had not taken place. What kind of injustice is that?

Subsection 4(1) of the act is a further slap at the teachers. It says, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall, upon the advice of the minister," that is the Minister of Education, "appoint an arbitrator to examine into and decide upon the matters referred to in

section 5."

Surely the minister, who has already come out in support of the Council of Regents' position, has a real vested interest in appointing somebody who is going to uphold her side and that of the regents. It will not be possible to get an impartial arbitrator. Surely if they had wanted to have legislation that was fair, it would have been the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) or somebody else who would have appointed that arbitrator, and not the Minister of Education who has already taken sides.

On the matter of salary, the minister is putting a second set of shackles on the arbitrator. Subsection 5(5) says, "In making his decision, the arbitrator shall consider as a factor the ability of the employers to pay in light of the existing provincial fiscal policy." We already have general legislation that provides that. Why does the government have to put it in the bill in even tougher terms? The minister is doing that to take a slap at the teachers.

Looking at subsections 9(3) and 9(4), there is a double standard on offences.

Subsection 9(3) says, "Where the union is guilty of an offence under this act, every officer, official or agent thereof who assents to the commission of the offence is guilty of the offence and is liable to a fine of not more than $500 for each day upon which the contravention by the union occurs or continues."

Subsection 9(4) says, "Where an employer is convicted of an offence under this act" he is subject to the same kind of penalties "unless he satisfies the court that he took all reasonable care to prevent" it. Why could that not have been put in for the union? There is one standard for one and one standard for the other.

I suggest the size of the penalties is extremely punitive. It is $500 a day for any teacher who stays out and $10,000 for the union if it aids or abets any of this.

After this bill, I think we must conclude that the minister thinks teachers must be very dangerous people. They must be totally bad when they are singled out for this kind of treatment, and they really are singled out. She has collected the spit and the prejudice of the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot), mixed some of her own arrogance and vindictiveness with it, and she now proceeds to rub the teachers' noses in it. I would not be surprised if she had a voodoo doll at home or in her office into which she sticks pins.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I think I have one of you, Mel boy.

Mr. Swart: I want to tell her it has no effect on me.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That will be the only one I will ever have.

Mr. Swan: I want to ask my Liberal colleagues again whether they are going to aid and abet the Minister of Education in this. If they vote for this bill, they are not just voting for back-to-work legislation; they are voting for an unprecedented abasement and humiliation of our college teachers at the hands of the Minister of Education. I urge them to stand up and be counted with us against her unworthy and hostile legislation.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on Bill 130,

An Act respecting a Labour Dispute between the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology and the Boards of Governors of Colleges and Applied Arts and Technology.

I heard the member for Welland-Thorold express his views concerning compulsory arbitration. I think we all share some concern about compulsory arbitration. However, I must say to him that I do not think it is something new to this government or this chamber. I think of the concerns of some 300 or 400 students I visited in the library at Niagara College last Monday.

The minister has indicated that the Council of Regents and the union began negotiations last May and, following a fact-finder's report, the council tabled the first complete offer on August 31, 1984, about four or five days before the colleges opened their doors to the students. That was followed by a second offer on September 25 that the union refused to receive from either the council or the mediator.

I look at the process that has taken place, particularly in relation to what might be considered essential services in the public sector and the difficulties there are in the bargaining process.

I often feel this Legislature is used as a scapegoat when there is an impasse in bargaining between two parties, particularly in the public sector. They can take a hard-nosed line at the beginning and say, "We do not have anything to worry about it because, whatever we do, the Legislature will bail us out." I think that is the wrong approach to take. New labour legislation should be brought forward in the public service sector areas whether or not it relates to essential services.

I am sure I have the time to compare this bill to legislation introduced in British Columbia in the time of Dave Barrett, that great Premier of the New Democratic Party, that put back some 50,000 employees, and I am sure they were not all public servants. Anyway, the Minister of Labour at that time, Bill King, a good New Democrat, said it was a regrettable step to take but all other methods of solving the dispute had failed. At the same time, he announced a search for a better way of dealing with work stoppages in such essential services as firefighting, police and hospitals.

One can look at the special legislation forcing striking food industry, forest, railway and propane workers back on the job that was passed by the British Columbia Legislature in emergency session on October 7, 1975. The bill, called the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act, gave the more than 50,000 workers involved 48 hours to return to work.

If one looks at the bill, there are some good things in it. That was a case where the government perhaps had no choice but to bring in compulsory arbitration. Perhaps the minister is following the bill introduced by Dave Barrett, NDP leader in British Columbia, in 1975. There are no differences in the intent of this bill and the intent of the legislation in British Columbia.

I think we have forgotten the third party in this strike, the students themselves, who had signed a contract. Many of them worked hard to get sufficient funds so that they could enter college to upgrade their education or receive a better education for the prospect of good jobs in the future. We have ignored their

part in this and what it has cost them.

The students raised some questions with me and others at that meeting and asked, "What compensation is there for us?" I think the answer from the deans was: "There is really no compensation. What we can do to resolve your educational problems is to compress the instructional courses in the college. We can pick up the month they will lose in their college education."

11:30 a.m.

The answer from the students was, "At what expense and with what compensation? Some in the co-op program will lose their jobs because of the loss of their education for one month in the colleges." Another said: "I am paying room and board. I am from outside the province. Who is going to pay for that extra cost?"

There is the question of compressed studies. What effect will they have on the students? Will they be able to cope with it? One of the deans said, "You will probably be working in school up until the end of August, and then the next term comes." They will lose all their chances for employment in summer jobs. Again, there is no compensation by the government or any of the parties involved in the strike.

So as much as I detest compulsory arbitration, I have to support such legislation today. As the Premier of British Columbia said, it is regrettable that we have to take this stand. I want my colleagues to my left to understand our amendment. Perhaps I should read the intent of it:

"The Liberal amendments are introduced on the assumption that the teachers will return to work immediately. These amendments would have the effect of bringing the issue of the quality of education, primarily the matter of teachers' work load, back to the bargaining table for the two parties to negotiate for a period of up to 30 days. If no agreement were reached by that time, the matter would be referred to the arbitrator."

The amendment says we are not taking away the right to strike; we are giving them time to reassess their position in negotiations.

The private member's bill I introduced in this House when I was the Labour critic for the Liberal Party for a number of years contained a 60-day cooling-off period. What the minister is doing now is more than a cooling-off period. If she waits for another study to come back, it will be a year from now, almost. I think that is the wrong direction. If we are going to keep abreast of new technology, new contracts, new negotiation procedures, then this government should be looking for a cooling-off period. If that had been applied, as this Liberal amendment says, back in early September, those students would never have lost a day in school.

Our party supports this in principle, but the government is going to have to look at other alternatives so the Legislature is not called in to amend legislation or to remove an impasse. I think the government should be bringing in progressive labour legislation in this area.

In fact, if the minister had only called on the Minister of Labour, who has the expertise in this area of negotiations, I bet it could have been resolved. But she did not do that; she referred it to the old method of fact-finders. What have they done in the past in strikes, particularly in schools? Nothing. She should have called on the expert, the Minister of Labour, to get into the picture earlier than we are doing with the legislation today. It could have been resolved back in the latter part of August of this year.

I suppose we have to support the legislation in principle, but I hope the minister will find some other methods to bring forward so the parties do not have to depend on the Legislature to legislate them back.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to indicate to the minister and to the House that I gave this strike a great deal of thought when we knew that legislation was going to be introduced, but the decision on how I would come down on this kind of legislation was made very easy when the minister introduced this legislation, which is one-sided, is unfair and is exactly what the Council of Regents wanted.

In my seven years in this Legislature, this is the second-worst piece of legislation. The only one that was worse was Bill 179, the wage control bill. Of course, on both pieces of legislation the Liberals and Conservatives are on side with one another.

I find even the process here in the Legislature somewhat amazing. On a major piece of legislation, on an issue that affects virtually the entire province, there has been very little participation in this debate: none from the Conservatives, with the exception of the member for Wilson Heights, and only two or three members from the Liberal Party.

It seems to me that one of government's most important roles is to protect people's rights, and if we believe in the right to free collective bargaining, then surely the minister should not be bringing in legislation that is one-sided. She should have done everything in her power to facilitate free collective bargaining and a negotiated settlement to this matter. That was not done.

If the Premier (Mr. Davis) had become involved when my leader called for his involvement more than a week ago, I believe he could have mediated and assisted in achieving a negotiated settlement, rather than this half-arbitration and half-imposed settlement that the government has decided to introduce with the support of the Liberal Party.

It was 10 years ago next week, or the week after, that I was elected to the Windsor Board of Education. When I was elected to the board, we were in the midst of a strike of our teachers. In the two-year term I served we had a second strike. In the first strike we had a negotiated settlement. In the second one we had an arbitrated settlement which only resulted in a third strike after I was off the board of education. When the third strike occurred, the then Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) said the government had absolutely no intention of getting involved and the parties would have to negotiate their own settlement.

When they were forced to negotiate their own settlement they struck history. They signed the first three-year agreement since Bill 100 had been brought in. We have never had a strike in Windsor again with our secondary school teachers. The relations between the board and teachers have been somewhat harmonious in the last number of years.

I remember talking to the then Minister of Education after the third settlement had been struck at the bargaining table. He said it was the vindication of Bill 100, the vindication of the right of teachers to strike and to bargain freely with their employers.

I also remember him saying that a true Conservative Party should be the staunchest defender of free collective bargaining. Yet this fall alone we have had two pieces of legislation that denied this. One would not even allow workers to withhold their labour for a day -- the legislation was brought in before the strike even occurred -- and then there was this piece of legislation.

If one looks back at the history of the problems we are having in the college sector now, one has to trace some of the conflict back to Bills 179 and 111. When we were fighting the battle on Bill 179, we introduced motion after motion in committee in order to bring ministers and deputy ministers in front of the committee to discuss with us the long-term implications of the legislation. It took away the right of workers to bargain freely. We predicted at the time there would be strife in public sector negotiations over the years because of the bill's implications.

Other colleagues of mine in this party have discussed the flaws and the unfairness in this legislation, so there is no need for me to go into it. But I want to refer for a couple of minutes to my colleagues on the right.

When we took the vote on first reading on this bill yesterday, Mr. Speaker seemed somewhat confused. He asked for all those people in favour of first reading to stand. Then, when the Conservative Party was finished, he then asked for all those opposed. He assumed the Liberal Party was opposed to this legislation. Much to his surprise they were not; they were favouring the legislation. Why would he be confused?

If one looks at the questions that have been asked in the Legislature in the last couple of weeks, and the kinds of statements that have been made even on this legislation, one could get very confused at the position the Liberals have taken. They have been critical of the minister; they say she has been totally wrong in her handling of the situation and that she lacks their confidence. They said the Premier should be involved. They said there could have been a negotiated settlement.

Then the legislation comes in and they say, "The whole situation has been messed up by the Conservative government but because it is politically popular we will support Bill 130, which will order the teachers back to work."

It is too bad the five Liberal candidates who are running in these by-elections were not here to watch this debate to see what a hypocritical position their party is taking on this legislation. The party has done the same on virtually every other piece of labour legislation introduced by the Conservative government.

Mr. Nixon: The candidates who stand in the way of kids going back to school are going to be knocked off the map, and they are yours.

11:40 a.m.

Mr. Cooke: It is not a matter of standing in the way of kids going back to school. The government does not need the Liberal Party's votes. There are 71 Conservatives in this Legislature and they can pass the legislation on their own.

Mr. Riddell: The member needs to protect his own hide. Does he know what Fergie Jenkins is doing? Fergie is going round his riding telling the people the member's party is preventing students from going back to school.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: Fergie does not even know where my riding is.

Mr. Van Horne: Do not be too sure.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: Fergie Jenkins does not even know where Windsor-Riverside is. They wanted him to run in Chatham, but the Chatham Liberals had too much sense. They would not take him.

Mr. Kerrio: The member would be very wise to put his own position and put arguments to the bill and not to talk about anything else.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: Those people are ridiculous. They are playing to the groups who come to see them and they do not talk to the bill. Why do they not talk to the bill?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the member please restrain himself.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Is there a psychiatrist in the House? I think the member is having a mental breakdown.

The Deputy Speaker: Your comments are inappropriate. Would the member for Windsor-Riverside continue.

Mr. Cooke: The member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) says we are playing to the few people in the galleries. What the Liberal Party members do on every one of these controversial issues is stick their fingers up in the air and whatever way the political wind is blowing that is where they go. They are gutless, they are hypocritical and they have done that on every piece of labour legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. May I make a suggestion to the member in his debate. It serves for all of us. We all know our standing rules prohibit us from using inflammatory language. If the member insists on choosing those lines, he will have to be prepared for interjections and then the chair will have to do what it must. I would remind the debater and other debaters this morning to stay on the bill and leave personalities out of it. Let us also keep the choice of language up to a level that is worthy.

Mr. Kerrio: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I want to say this with the greatest sincerity to the people in the New Democratic Party. I came here to hear this bill debated and I am prepared to listen to the bill being debated. I am not prepared to listen to their foolishness in dragging this party into their rhetoric. I want to hear about this very important bill. That is what I came for, but any time the member makes reference to this party he will hear from me.

Mr. Cooke: I will not refer to that party any more, other than to say its actions speak louder than any words I could use to describe what kind of principles it has.

In finishing up, I simply want to say that this bill, along with Bill 179, Bill 111 and the Toronto transit workers' bill that was brought in earlier this year, is an indication of where we are going in this province with respect to labour relations. The Conservative Party in this province brings in regressive legislation that is identical in principle to the kind of legislation the Social Credit government in British Columbia brings in.

The government does it with a smile, does it nicely and does its best to deceive the people of this province. It tries to come across as being progressive, but when it comes down to reality, we know which side it is on. It is on the side of management, whether it is in the private sector or the public sector. The workers take a beating every time legislation is brought in, whether it workers' compensation, labour legislation or this particular dispute.

The history of this minister when she was Minister of Labour and now as Minister of Education is a disgrace. She is continuing the same kind of legacy that will be left by her for years. Unfortunately, in the meantime, the workers of this province suffer.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to be brief. I cannot let the opportunity pass without making a very brief reference to the member for Windsor-Riverside. Having been born in Huron county and having spent a fair bit of time in a rather rural setting, I am mindful of the fellows who used to come around periodically to clean out the septic tanks. I think they were called honey dumpers.

I have to tell the chamber that I am reminded of that occupation whenever I listen to the member for Windsor-Riverside; such nonsense, such sanctimony. Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how angry I am to listen to that nonsense. If that party were sincerely concerned about the students and the staff who want to get back to the job, they would not have dragged us through this exercise for the last 24 hours.

Our party is reluctantly supporting this piece of legislation; we all know that. I want to take the opportunity to remind the members that those of us who have colleges in our ridings have been in constant contact with a very large number of students and teachers.

In my particular constituency office we keep a log of every phone call that comes in. In the first week of the strike we had more than 350 calls at the office. The three members from London, with Fanshawe College in the riding of London North, also found that the students and faculty had been issued sheets with not only our constituency office numbers on them but also our residence numbers. At my residence in the first week of the strike I received just short of 100 telephone calls.

In the first week, between office and home, a significant number of people called me to express their concern. Not one of those people said, "Hurrah! We are on strike." They were all saying: "Help get this over. Help us get back to the classroom. Help us get back to the job."

Beyond that first week, although the numbers did decrease slightly, the calls did continue. In total, between the constituency office and the residence, I received close to 1,000 calls. I have to reiterate what I said just a moment ago. Precious few of the people who contacted me were happy about the strike or wanted it to continue.

On the other hand, if one looks at the work load of some of these people on the faculty, one can understand their strong feelings. I have a communication from a constituent of the member for London South (Mr. Walker) who felt obliged to send me his concern. This faculty member says in this correspondence, in part:

"In September of 1976 I grieved my work load. The college instructional assignments committee unanimously upheld my grievance. This took the better part of a year. My chairperson neglected or refused to obey the committee's order for relief. The case went to binding arbitration.

"Only a half year more elapsed, and an arbitrator upheld my grievances and ordered a reduction of work load as a remedy. The chairperson chose her own

interpretation of that order, and the case went back to the arbitrator. Nearly one year after his original award the arbitrator awarded monetary compensation.

"The college must have wasted in excess of $12,000 in legal costs, arbitrator's costs, etc. The union spent nearly $10,000. The award was about 15 per cent of those two sums.

This person goes on to talk about his present teaching assignment. He says: "I am assigned to teach eight different classes five different courses, of which two are entirely new to me. There are no textbooks available in one of the courses. I write my own material. I meet 891 students each week."

He then goes on to relate that to the ratio and to express the concern he and many others have. He does not feel badly treated monetarily, but he does feel his work load is almost unbearable. That, as I understand the issue, has been one of the major concerns.

We realize this legislation is not perfect, we realize the situation is not perfect; but we recognize beyond that the broader principle. I object to being accused of following a politically popular move, again according to the member for Windsor-Riverside. It is not politically popular, but the situation demands attention and it is getting it.

11:50 a.m.

Again, I do not want to delay the process. If this debate had been directed to a conclusion last evening we would have had the people back in the colleges today getting ready for next week. As it turns out, next week will be practically lost in the reorganization and getting back into a process.

I would submit to honourable members that the exercise the New Democrats are putting us through has effectively added a full week to this problem and there is no way they can duck that responsibility. They are guilty of delaying tactics that are harming every teacher and every student in the community colleges here in Ontario.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, while I recognize that everyone wants to see a quick end to this strike, we are opposing this bill for several very important reasons.

First, we are being asked for the second time in less than three months to put another nail in the coffin of free collective bargaining in the public sector. I regret the government appears to be becoming addicted to rule by the big stick instead of assisting the parties in reaching a negotiated settlement. It puts the Conservative government in the same right-wing camp of undemocratic governments as the British Columbia government, the Alberta government and the Reagan government that destroyed the air traffic controllers' union in the United States.

The legislation probably violates the freedom of association

section in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but by the time anyone can test it in the courts the law will have been implemented, if it passes.

Back-to-work bills destroy the collective bargaining process in the public sector. Genuine bargaining ceases when management knows that sooner or later the government will step in with the big stick.

I think it is rather ironic that a year ago when the government passed the second restraint bill, it brashly labelled that bill, in part,

an Act for an Orderly Transition to the Resumption of Full Collective Bargaining. It was talking about the public sector.

I regret that more than 600,000 students have lost three weeks of instruction and lab work. I can understand their worries about completing their year and about obtaining value for the fees they have paid that have cost them a great deal to raise.

I regret that teachers who had the guts to go out on strike for the principle of quality education have been stymied. I congratulate them on a pioneering attempt to bring important, new, nonmonetary items into the collective bargaining process. The Metro Toronto library workers are doing the same thing, the same sort of pioneering in the technological change field.

The second reason I am opposing this bill is I think the minister could have probably got the colleges open even today without the bill if she had done one simple thing. She could have announced on Wednesday after the cabinet meeting that the government was allocating an additional $40 million to the community colleges to hire additional teaching and support staff to overcome the work overload problem. This money could have been allocated on the basis of approved need by each college.

The Council of Regents could not solve the work load problem without this kind of assist from the minister. The minister and the government knew this, but they did not respond. Even if the grant the minister had given them this year was above the cost-of-living index, as she says, it was simply inadequate to meet the greatly increased enrolment and the overload problem that had been building up for several years.

I would venture to suggest that if the minister had made this announcement on Wednesday, the two parties would have been back at the bargaining table that day and a negotiated settlement could probably have been reached by the end of the week. The students might even have been back by today.

The minister was talking nonsense and showing her lack of understanding and respect for the legislative process when she said the colleges could have been open on Friday with the bill she was introducing on Thursday afternoon. There are 125 members in this House. The number of hours that would have been left to debate the bill on Thursday afternoon and evening after its introduction would have been about four. At 30 minutes a person, eight members could have participated in the debate.

The supreme legislative body of this province should have an opportunity to discuss a bill of this seriousness, which affects the whole province, with adequate time for all those members who wish to participate to join in. As for the last speaker from the Liberal Party saying the students could be back sooner if we had let the thing go through last night, if the minister had followed my suggestion and announced the new grants on Wednesday, they could certainly have been back much sooner than under this bill.

My third reason for opposing the bill is that it fails to satisfy the needs of any of the parties involved in the dispute. It fails to resolve the teachers' key concern in the strike, the question of work load, which is not to be part of the arbitrated settlement. It fails to provide any special assistance to students to help them make up for three weeks of lost instruction and lab time. It does not contain any guarantees that might allay their fears about the loss of their year.

It fails to provide any assurances to the Council of Regents that it will be able to fulfil its mandate to provide quality post-secondary education to the great influx of new students resulting from job shortages in the work place and of young people now realizing that more education is necessary.

The Council of Regents and the ministry share a responsibility to provide quality education to all those students who wish to attend community colleges and who can qualify. The minister has failed to assume her share of this responsibility. The bill simply sends all the groups back to the colleges with no assurances that the educational shortcomings which have surfaced during the strike will be overcome.

Let me share with members the educational shortcomings in one small segment of the community college system in Metropolitan Toronto. Centennial College campus at Ashtonbee has an automotive and transportation equipment course where the students learn repair and maintenance. The teacher, Mr. Bruce Barker, tells me he has not received any new shop equipment since he organized the course in 1973 except for what he has been able to obtain as donations from automotive companies. One can understand that this kind of equipment would change radically over 11 years.

He has 20 to 22 apprentices on the work floor at one time. He used to have two instructors with them. Now he has only one. He is worried about the safety factor for all those working in such crowded conditions and with such little supervision.

His own teaching load is 22 hours, which is above the 19 the Minister of Education has been telling us most of the community college teachers have. These 22 hours do not include all the administrative work he does as the course organizer and supervisor. It does not include ordering supplies or even setting up the lab before classes. He also has a night course called "Ladies, Know Your Cars," which has 25 women of all ages enrolled but only five of them can get their cars on to the lab floor. They have to learn on somebody else's car, which may be quite different from theirs.

12 noon

That is an example of the kind of service community colleges are being forced to give; which is completely inadequate when we think of their mandate.

The problem appears to be the minister herself. These are the reasons we think she is making a mistake in bringing in this bill instead of solving the problem by dealing with the work load question in the only way the government can deal with it, which is by providing more funds for more teachers and support staff. Money is being found for other government programs, and this one affecting our youth and the training of our future work force is too important to shortchange.

I would like to quote in closing a comment from a student whom Lois Sweet quotes in her

article of November 7 in the Toronto Star. The community college student said, "If they think education is costly now, wait until they find out what ignorance costs later."

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to join this debate on second reading, but given some of the comments that have emanated from my left this morning, I want to make a couple of comments.

My friend the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) finally explained to me and perhaps to the House why the party to my left is going to vote against the bill and why we are going to vote in favour of it. She said in her speech a couple of minutes ago that the bill fails to satisfy the needs of any party in the dispute.

My colleagues and I and all parties on all sides of the House for the past three weeks have had hundreds of calls; one of my colleagues reports having received 1,000 calls from one party in the dispute, the students. The only need the students want satisfied is the need to go back to school. Consequently, that is why on that very simple principle of the absolute, urgent and total need to get the students back into the classrooms, this party is voting for the principle of this bill, because that is what it says.

We are as disgusted and unhappy as anyone -- the teachers, many students and many other people; our friends on the left included -- with the provisions under which they are being sent back. We are as unhappy as anyone that the key issue in this dispute is not to be addressed in any real way, that we are hoisted by the continuation and expansion of the college instructional assignment committees. These apparently have not worked very well in the past and I presume will not work very well in the future. We are given as a crumb, and that is barely all it is, another study.

At the appropriate point we will try to amend the bill to do certain things: to give the parties one last chance to negotiate together and to reach an agreement together on the key issue of work load, which is quality of education. That is what this strike has been all about.

Failing that from the two parties, we are prepared to put that issue in the hands of an arbitrator so that finally we will get some progress on the issue. The minister has provided us with a prescription for no progress, a prescription for the status quo. That may be all right with the minister, it may be all right with some of her colleagues, but it is surely not all right with the overwhelming majority of the teachers and, I might suggest, with the majority of the students, certainly the ones who have contacted my office. One curious thing is that while they all want to go back, most of them support the teachers' demands and say there is something very bad going on here.

My friends on the left would have us continue this strike. That is what they would have us do.

Mr. Martel: That is a lot of bunk and the member knows it.

Mr. Wrye: If I could feel --

Mr. Martel: The member knows he is lying.

Mr. Wrye: If I could feel --

Mr. Martel: The member knows it. I said it deliberately because he knows he is.

The Deputy Speaker: Would the member for Sudbury East please withdraw that remark?

Mr. Martel: Yes, Mr. Speaker. At the same time I would ask you to look at standing order 19(d)9, which says that you cannot impute motives to another member. I suggest that you ask the member for Windsor-Sandwich to withdraw his comment.

The Deputy Speaker: May we get on with the debate? Let us have both members do exactly that.

Mr. Martel: No, I withdrew. You cannot impute motives to anyone else in this House.

The Deputy Speaker: That is absolutely true.

Mr. Wrye: There is nothing to withdraw, Mr. Speaker. I did not impute motives.

The Deputy Speaker: There was a change in the chair at that point, so I have to admit I did not catch those remarks. I did hear the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, you cannot say, "That party over there wants the kids to stay out on strike," or "He wants the strike to continue."

The Deputy Speaker: Order. With all due respect to the member, it is fair debate to accuse a party of motives. Our standing orders deal with an individual -- for example, saying that someone is a liar. You know it well.

Listen to the tirades we have heard about the government in this party and that party. It has been going on through the whole span of the debate. Under our standing orders we deal with individual honourable members.

Mr. Martel: It is the same thing he said on the radio yesterday in Windsor. He goes out of here, plays this little game and makes these sorts of accusations that we are not worried about the kids. Most of us have taught school. That is a hell of a lot more than he ever did.

The Deputy Speaker: The chair will monitor the debate with great care, and I would ask members in turn to take care in the choice of their language as they make their legitimate debate.

Mr. Wrye: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am stating what would be the case if Bill 130 did not pass: The strike would continue. Presumably they would continue to negotiate, but I want to suggest that my friends seem to think that if only we did not have this bill, somehow the immense problems, even with goodwill, could be overcome in an hour and a half.

I was in the House for part of the speech of the leader of the third party yesterday and he kept talking about the fact that there would have to be a compromise. I would have thought that my friends on the left, many of whom come from the trade union movement, would understand that on an issue as contentious as this, the movement to a compromise will not be easy and may be of long duration. Frankly, the students cannot wait any longer for that.

We agree the parties should bargain this crucial issue collectively, and that is why we have proposed that we allow them to continue to do so. But we know they cannot do so any longer with the students removed from the classroom, and that seems to me to be the fundamental principle we are speaking of today.

The other concern I have in making these few remarks is that my friends like to stand up and suggest that somehow this party is not willing to fight the good fight for a prolonged period of time and that they are. I always stack that up against the fact that on a previous occasion about two months ago we were in and out of this House in five hours as the great fight collapsed from the left.

Indeed, as the reality overcomes my friends, they are prepared, presumably, in some period of time to continue these discussions until such point as the matter is resolved today because, while they want to stand in their place and vote no, they too understand the reality that the students must be back in the classrooms Monday next.

12:10 p.m.

So I have some concern when I see the member for Sudbury East jumping up in his place with a suggestion that I have imputed motives. I wish he had been in his place during the speech of his colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside. I would think he would have wanted to jump to his feet and defend this party, because if there is any member in this Legislature who knows how to impute motives it is my friend from Windsor-Riverside, who does so with great regularity.

I will not prolong this speech. We will, as the House well knows, support the principle of the bill. We will also place before the House for its consideration, and I hope adoption -- and I hope support will come not only from my friends on the left but also from across the way -- of a different method of resolving the dispute. I say quite sincerely that, while we will put the students back in the classroom and in the short term we will satisfy one party in that regard, there is a prescription in the bill, as it is now written, for a continued mess and a continued poisoned relationship between the teachers and the colleges.

There are two principles at stake. Unfortunately. we are dealing in this bill with only one. It is the one that must be dealt with in the short term, but surely the time has come to deal with the long-term principle and end the festering bad relationships that have been around the community colleges for a very long time.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I rise, as did my colleagues in this party, to oppose this piece of legislation. I can understand the discomfiture of the Liberal members of this Legislature. There is a very fundamental Liberal principle at stake in this bill. That Liberal principle goes to the very root of one of our most sacred and cherished rights and freedoms, that is the right of association. We know how the courts have judged on that issue in recent months in relationship to collective bargaining and the right to strike.

The right of association has been threatened in the two years I have been in this Legislature in at least two major ways. One was with respect to Bill 179 and the other is with respect to this particular piece of legislation. This piece of legislation goes further to undermine the process of what one might call free and full arbitration in the manner of Bill 111. In those respects, this bill focuses on a central principle in the Liberal tradition and I am surprised that for some reason the members to my right --

Mr. Kerrio: We do not need a spokesman for the Liberal position. Why does the member not put his own position? That is all he has to do.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Hamilton West has the floor.

Interjections.

Mr. Allen: For some reason, the members to the right will not pay the Minister of Colleges and Universities the compliment of examining her legislation with some rigour. In contrast to the leader of that party, the leader of the New Democratic Party in this Legislature at least took time to burrow beneath the surface of this bill and to look at principles that were there which did not lie on the surface.

Mr. Nixon: Where is the NDP leader, by the way?

Mr. Allen: Where is the Liberal leader? They both happen to be busy men. I do not want to return to the Liberal caucus later in this dispute, except to say I will be supporting their amendment.

It seems to me there is another major principle that is offended in this piece of legislation and that is a Tory principle. I had always thought it was some part of the Tory tradition, indeed a central part of the Tory tradition in Ontario, that government should act with some overarching paternal concern with regard to the interests of all aspects and all parties in the community.

What I find in this piece of legislation is an unusually partial defence of one interest in a dispute in which the ministry itself has been implicated as a party. This legislation does not establish only the position of the Council of Regents; it establishes the joint position of the ministry and of the Council of Regents in their joint dispute with the teachers of the colleges in this province.

This bill is for students; it is about teachers. It is a reflection of the Council of Regents as a structure, it is a mirror of a minister and it is a piece of paper that is utterly invidious in its principles.

As the members of this party have stated in our contribution to this debate, we understand the problem the students in a struck college face. They cannot get on with their lives and they are right to be concerned about that. We know the details of their problems and the way they have been magnified as the days have passed.

But it is no part of the motivation of the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), a former teacher in a college, when he rises to dispute some of the fundamental aspects of this bill; or of the member for Sudbury East, a former principal whose students have gone on to post-secondary institutions; or of the brother of a student in the system today who expressed his concern yesterday; or of the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), with his close association with Humber College, rising to tell us something of the history of the problem of funding in the latter years of the 1970s as seen through the eyes of a president of one of the colleges.

This party is more than sensitive to the problems of students, but we do not labour under the illusion that voting for this bill as a party is necessarily the best exercise of our responsibility in this House. We do not believe, on the other hand, that our opposition to it is going to delay its passage significantly.

It is in the light of this that we take our position as critics of the central thrust that lies at the very heart of this bill. It is the principle that a public sector employer, having been aided and abetted, if not managed, through this dispute with his employees, can expect that the minister and ministry involved will not only go out of their way to assist him but will pass legislation that will put in place the very package of demands, requirements and proposals that he has been unable to secure in the process of collective bargaining in the normal pattern.

When he cannot do that, surely it must indicate there is some fundamental flaw in the position he has adopted. We know when this dispute began that the Council of Regents was prepared to remove the work load limits on teachers in the college system. That is something like the bargaining process of the post office, in which you lay out 73 rollback provisions on the assumption that somewhere down the line the process of bargaining and arbitration will result in getting 35 rollback provisions. The whole supposition is that the working person must be worse off at the end of the process than he was at the beginning.

12:20 p.m.

That is not a proposition we in this party are prepared to abet in the Legislature in any way. The principle in the heart of this bill, as I described it, is not one we are prepared to accede to.

We know where the tyranny of the Tory majority leads in this Legislature. It leads precisely in those directions in the collective bargaining process, but it also leads to the fact that when it proposes legislation, that legislation gets passed. That is a matter of reality and the terms on which our politics have to be constructed. In the meantime, we play our role as critics. We try to do that to the best of our abilities.

It has been said in this dispute that the college teachers did not move. The final communiqué from the council said, "We are really frustrated by the union's refusal to work to an acceptable solution." In fact, there was a problem in the work load. I do not think anyone can deny that. As to the process of bargaining, certainly the negotiators for the teachers moved to several different positions.

In the first instance, they wanted a formula which does work. It works in the Ryerson Institute of Applied Arts and Technology and it works in Quebec. They were denied it. Then they proposed that since the council said no one in the system worked more than an average of 42 hours a week, perhaps it would be satisfactory to put a cap of 45 hours per week on overall working time. That immediately gave a lie to the council's propositions; first that the 42 hours was the average work week; second that they were prepared themselves to move in any direction.

Third, when that failed, the teachers' negotiators proposed that perhaps the ministry could help the situation by indicating an injection of funds would be available to assist in the hiring of further teachers in the system. That was turned down. The only proposals that ever came from the council were ones that would have worsened the collective bargaining contract in force today. When we look at some of the amendments proposed by the minister, we can see that her proposals will make the present contract worse.

Why is there so much reluctance in the ministry? Why is there so much reluctance on the part of the minister? Why has there been so much reluctance on the part of the council to recognize and grapple with the work load problem? It can only be explained by the fact that the minister is not prepared to provide the funds to the system to deal with a real and pressing problem.

Certainly if one looks at the base study, the college growth study, it made it plain that coming out of the 1970s the system was in pretty dire straits. I do not need to read out the document to explain that, but it is certainly there in the abbreviated form in which it was available to anyone who was interested in that subject.

During the period immediately leading up to the college growth study in the late 1970s, one could see what was happening to enrolment. In the technology division, between 1976 and 1980 it went up 34 per cent. In the business division, over the same years it went up 59 per cent. In the applied arts division, over the same years it rose by 16 per cent. Then one can look at the enrolments that have occurred in the five years from 1978 to 1983. They have gone up 30 per cent.

Finally, in the last couple of years we have given a little more money to the system. We have given more money than inflation; that is true, I am not going to dispute that. In the last five years, there was a 47 per cent overall increase in funds for the system, which is larger than one would normally allow because it includes the Unemployment Insurance Commission money. In the statistics we use that is rolled in.

Those same years saw an inflation rate that cumulatively reached over 50 per cent. If members look at the enrolment and inflation combination, there is simply no way -- the fact-finder says it -- we can conclude the work load is not increased.

The productivity study, which is a five-year analysis of the system, made it quite plain what had happened over five years was that the unit cost of producing a student went down by 20 per cent. In the full five years, if the system had been working at the end of that period as it had been working in the beginning, there would have been 21 per cent more teachers, 21 per cent more support staff and 30 per cent more resources.

Can the minister draw the conclusion? The fact-finder draws the conclusion. He says: "On the surface, it would seem hard to imagine how... a decrease of approximately 20 per cent" in faculty "would not have a significant impact on the work load of the average faculty member. It is equally difficult to see how an increase or decrease in class size of 15 per cent would not have a significant impact on the average faculty member."

Surely, anyone who looks at the tables in the work load study -- I have a few copies here, but it is a much more massive document than this -- would have to conclude that if on the average a faculty member in the colleges is working, as they are in most of the critical categories, marginally above the 19- to 22-hour limits that are the maximum allowed by the contracts, there must be huge numbers of college teachers who exceed those maximum hours by a very large amount.

Mr. Nixon: As hard as university professors.

Mr. Allen: We will talk about them on another occasion.

The case seems so patently obvious that it is difficult not to suspect there is some other motive at work, some other concern at work in the ministry, in the minister's mind and in the Council of Regents' operations that lead somehow to ignoring the hard facts of the reports that lie on their tables and to which they have ready access.

Given that, it becomes even more astonishing to see in this bill that the minister is not prepared to use the instrument of binding arbitration with respect to all the issues at stake. The issues that can be settled readily, both on the council's side and on the union's side, are the ones that are going to binding arbitration.

However, the sticking point, the major one that cries out for arbitration is being governed by ministerial fiat, because that is what the minister's regulations are. She will send out a numbered regulation and tell them how to do it. The curious thing about the numbered regulation is, not only will its words follow the last offer of the Council of Regents, but it is almost a total duplication of what now exists in the colleges with respect to assessment, evaluation, appeal and arbitration of assignment work loads.

That tells us the Council of Regents, which did not want to move beyond or modify in any improved fashion the current contract, has got its way, both in the very words and in the lack of departure from the present contract.

12:30 p.m.

I could read off the sections that are so similar. They are right here in my hands, but I will not bother the members with them. If they had them in their hands they would be reading them and would realize that, clause by clause and almost word for word, here is the Council of Regents' last offer, here is the wording of the minister and the ministry, here is the contract with the description of the instructional assignment committee arrangements.

The whole thing is a charade. One dances from the contract to the council, from the council to the ministry and the minister, and back again. It is something like the dance going on in the college system in terms of the funding principles and the kind of education that is beginning to happen there as a result of years of underfunding, massive crowding and overworked faculties.

There is a game of seeing how many students can dance around a single test tube in a laboratory. It is not unfair to say that. I have cases and cases I can give the minister.

The class size increased from 40 to 70 last year. Lab classes which in the previous year were divided into groups for safety and tuition are no longer divided. This results in four students per machine, which is considered to be unsafe.

It is a crying shame; it is a scandal. This party assumed the minister would have laid before us a piece of legislation that held out some hope of significant resolution of the major issue at stake. In effect, all she has done is relegislated the past contract into existence, borrowed the language of the Council of Regents with respect to its solution of the problem and put it into her bill. That is the sum and substance of the matter.

This is not good enough; it is no solution. We do not want to see a first-year student in the college system, whose studies are disrupted by a strike this year, being disrupted next year and the year afterwards by a strike. However, that is precisely what this legislation lays the base for. This continuing unrest, division, turmoil, strike and contention in the whole college system is not only disruptive to the students, it also absolutely undermines the whole teaching process and what the colleges finally are all about.

This college system has had great potential and it still has. It is doing a lot of good things and a lot of necessary things. However, it is becoming prejudiced. Its capacity to produce results is slowly being marginalized and eroded. It is a very serious situation. That is precisely why unrest of this kind boils up in our midst and we face a significant strike over a major issue in the educational process.

Let me simply reiterate, therefore, that we find this piece of legislation problematic legally. We think it will be in difficulty before the courts as the restraint legislation was with regard to fundamental principles in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We believe it institutes an invidious principle whereby a minister, having been engaged with a public sector employer and supporting him hook, line and sinker, turns around and uses both the legislative process and a partial application of the arbitration process to establish the position of one party to the dispute as the resolution of that problem.

We further find that the bill, in its implications and its results, will do the college system no good. As we legislate teachers back to work and as we get students back into the classrooms, we have to be concerned that what they are going back to is something they, too, will be able to respect. I submit this bill provides no basis for that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, Bill 130 is fair; it is equitable. Indeed, it reflects the generosity of the minister under the circumstances because there was great pressure for her to be much harsher.

Bill 130 reflects the maturity of the minister, her patience and her leadership. Once again, it emphasizes the very wide acclaim by her colleagues that she is the finest minister of post-secondary education in Canada. The personal diatribes and the vicious personal attacks on the minister only underline the immaturity and the irresponsibility that come with a knee-jerk ideological response to an issue, however great or difficult or complex it might be.

I support the passage of this bill on behalf of the students of the community college system of this province.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in concluding this round of the debate on Bill 130. I have listened with great interest to the contributions of all honourable members. I was particularly struck by some of the observations of the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), whom I greatly respect on these matters of post-secondary education. I was also struck by the observations made by some of his colleagues last evening, more particularly the comments of the member for Nickel Belt.

I do not intend in my

summary remarks to replough the ground that has been much travelled upon in the past 24 hours. I think it is fair to say we are now faced with this legislation because over the past six months there has been a growing unhappiness between the management team and the union. These are the two parties charged with resolving matters concerning quality of education in our community colleges.

It is also fair to say the well has been poisoned in some ways between the management team and the union. I and my colleagues had hoped that would not be the case. We had expected, had prayed for, the resolution of this unhappiness at the negotiating table. Over the past three weeks and one day we have tried to encourage a climate of conciliation, both in the Legislature and in the negotiations. We did this in the hope and expectation we would get the preferred result, which in our view is the negotiated settlement.

My colleagues the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne), the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) and my leader have all referred to the very important role our community college system plays. But we are now faced with the adjudication of competing rights. My friends in the New Democratic Party are quite right in drawing our attention to the rights of free collective bargaining and we are very sensitive to that.

We have tried to the best of our ability to respect those rights. We understand them, perhaps not with the same degree of association as do our friends in the New Democratic Party. However, I believe we have tried sincerely to respect the very important rights of free collective bargaining as those rights affect the 7,600 community college teachers. In my view, they have very properly drawn to the public's attention their very legitimate concerns about instructio