Hansard Transcripts 1984-May-01 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I will be very brief. I invite all the members of the assembly to visit us at Niagara, starting Saturday with the Blossom Festival parade. In all of Canada that is where the first buds show, and it starts the whole wonderful summer season.

I am sure the Premier (Mr. Davis) would be interested to know that a fellow named Mulroney is going to be the parade marshal. I am not sure whether that is good or bad, but if it takes that kind of inducement to get the government members down to Niagara, I am sure they will appreciate the hospitality when they come.

Mr. Speaker: I really do not think that was a point of privilege, but it was rather interesting.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SUNCOR HOLDINGS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier regarding Ontario's energy policy, and indeed, one of the central jewels in the Ontario energy crown, Suncor.

The Premier will recall that yesterday his colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) made a very definitive statement in the House. He said: "I do not know where the member is getting any suggestion or hint that the government is increasing its investment. He knows what we bought in Suncor. We are not buying any more." Is he in fact giving official government policy that the government will not be increasing its stake in Suncor?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Treasurer made that fairly clear yesterday; but if the Leader of the Opposition does not recall what the Treasurer said yesterday, as I understand the agreement, there is an option available to the province, I think, up until October 1984, at which time my recollection is again that we can exercise an option for either 25 or 26 per cent -- I forget the exact figure; somewhere in that neighbourhood.

I can say to the Leader of the Opposition that we are not at this stage contemplating the exercise of that option. But I think we are talking about October.

Mr. Peterson: I am sure the Premier will be aware of what he said on October 13, 1981. He will be aware of what the then Treasurer, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), said on October 15, 1981. He will be aware, I am sure, what Malcolm Rowan, the chairman of the Ontario Energy Corp., said on October 15, 1981: "Under the terms of the agreement, Ontario will buy another 13 per cent if Suncor fails to become 51 per cent Canadian by the end of 1984."

How does he now reconcile those two different positions?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not sure exactly what Mr. Rowan may or may not have said and what the context was.

Mr. J. A. Reed: You know what you said.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I did not say we were going to buy 13 per cent more at all.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier very clearly has changed the government position on this matter. Very different things have been said by various different important players in his government on this subject.

Will the Premier now table all polls relating to Suncor that have brought the government to change its position on this matter?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say with due respect, and that is a very good term to use when the Leader of the Opposition talks about changes of position, because if there is anybody who has become a master of that, if nothing else, it is the Leader of the Opposition. I say this very kindly, very constructively and, I hope, educationally and to be of benefit.

I do not recall -- and I could be wrong -- saying we were going to exercise that option to the extent of 13 per cent. I do recall the discussion at the time and part of the discussion --

Mr. J. A. Reed: You said you would bring it to 51 per cent if there was not a Canadian buyer.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, I did not. I do not recall saying it; and if the honourable member can show where I said it in such a definitive context, then that is not what I intended.

I do recall saying, and I think this will show in the record, that the partial reason for the option was to provide an opportunity, as we sensed it at that time, for another Canadian participant to the extent of the 25 or 26 per cent -- whatever it was. But I do not recall indicating that the government was going to exercise an option on the balance of those shares, and I am just saying to the Leader of the Opposition that we are not contemplating so doing.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health, and it pertains to the health care service made available to rural municipalities.

Some time ago we were in the great riding of Haldimand-Norfolk and we were addressed at that time by members of the health services industry in that riding. Their suggestion was that certain community facilities should be made available from which health services could be distributed to those citizens who are unable to travel long distances.

Can the Minister of Health give us an undertaking here that he is willing to provide those sorts of facilities for the senior citizens of the rural areas of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, it is not clear to me from the question just specifically what type of service delivery the honourable member is referring to.

Obviously, certain forms of service delivery are available at the present time, both through such agencies as the local public health units and, in some communities where the local citizens wish to take such initiatives, through community health centres. Those are established programs, part of the policy of this government with respect to health care delivery at the present time.

I am not sure those are what he is referring to; if there is any further clarification in terms of his intent, I would like to hear it.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Elston: One of the problems with the provision of health services in rural municipalities in Ontario is the fact that there is a great distance to travel to certain sorts of facilities in which are located the doctors and nurses who do take care of our people.

The suggestion was made that it be a policy, particularly in areas where the government has eliminated the designation of municipalities -- in certain regional municipalities, for instance -- that the government go out of its way to set up these regional or area health care facilities so the people can be attended to by physicians who would come especially to those centres for health care. The patients would then not have to either drive or find a mode of transportation which generally is not available, that is bus or train, to go to the larger centres for provision of those services.

Can the minister provide us with an undertaking that he will look into the question of the added cost and distance travelled by the people in rural areas to receive that sort of health care service and that he will make an effort to have his friend the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) make available more dollars for the provision of those sorts of facilities?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would be glad to provide the member with information with respect to community health centres or health service organizations, which it seems to me he is hinting at. When he referred to facilities, I was not sure whether he was talking about mobile hospitals that would go to the people, as opposed to the people going to the hospitals. I was not sure what he was getting at, but if he is talking about physicians' services and perhaps the more convenient location of them in some communities, then that is something the citizens of that community can initiate through the establishment of a community health centre.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the minister will realize the guidelines set out for community health centres make it almost impossible to get approval for them. As I understand it, we do not have legislation in Ontario yet that fully establishes community health centres as part of the health care system. In many ways, they are still regarded as an experimental way of delivering health care.

When is the minister going to bring in legislation that establishes community health centres as a very important aspect of the delivery of health care in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how long the honourable member has been the critic for the Ministry of Health, but I think his role as critic predates my role as minister. He should remember that my predecessor, who is now the Treasurer, announced prior to my incumbency in the ministry that the health service organizations and the community health centres were now part of the policy of this government as part of the health care delivery system and that it was no longer on an experimental or pilot project basis. In fact, across Ontario I believe we now have at least 18 such organizations in operation.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we do have health councils in such places as Haldimand-Norfolk. Does the minister follow their recommendations closely in providing that support service to the communities?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the district health councils do provide an important input of advice to me as Minister of Health and, of course, I always take the advice seriously. That does not mean I would always follow it without modification. If that were the case, it would not be advice, would it?

EDUCATIONAL FUNDING

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier and has to do with the speech about education he gave last night. The Premier made a rather extraordinary statement -- extraordinary from our point of view but not from his, because it is so self-serving. He said, "Educational funding has been too dominant a topic in recent years."

Given the fact that Ontario has fallen behind other provinces in the percentage of the gross provincial product it allocates to vocational education, elementary education and post-secondary education, and given the fact that its funding of secondary education has now fallen behind the 50 per cent mark in its relations with the local authorities, how can the Premier possibly set aside the question of adequacy of funding for education in Ontario when it is the underfunding problem and the failure to invest in our young people that are so clearly causing the inequality he talked about last night with respect to the educational system in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the honourable member would repeat his question. I was not able to hear it.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker; I did hear it.

I know the member was very critical of my going to the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. He was rather sarcastic and facetious about it some weeks ago when he learned I had been invited to participate in the R. B. Jackson lecture. He had a few rather snide observations to make here in the House, as I recall. Does the member recall that? I do.

I do not quarrel with him. If he had been there last evening, like his colleague the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), he would have sensed the reason I was invited was that Dr. Jackson and the then Minister of Education shared a number of experiences together in the educational field. I was invited there in our bicentennial year to reflect to a certain extent on some of Dr. Jackson's activities and some of the directions of education as I sensed them as an individual.

The member was trying to plant the seed that I would be using this as a political vehicle. I know exactly what he said, and he was trying to create the impression that I had been invited there to defend, explain or try to persuade people with respect to government policy.

I say with the greatest of respect that if the member had any sense at all of the audience that was there last night, he would know they were neither upset nor offended that I did not deal in a partisan or governmental sense with the aspect of funding of education. If he reads my speech carefully, he will find I acknowledged that it was an important issue. I did say that in my view, and I happen to believe this, we have spent a great deal of time and discussion on the monetary aspects of education, but that I happen to be concerned about some others.

I know some of my other concerns would not impress the member much. He probably is not concerned about access, quality or equality. He probably has a lesser concern about a value system within the educational system. I know he would never have talked about that if he had been asked to deliver the lecture.

I can only say to the member that I was there as a guest, and I still reserve to myself the right to say the things I want to say. I was there. I was available for questions. There were people there from the Ontario Teachers' Federation, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, the trustees, the university community and the community colleges. They had every opportunity to engage the Premier of this province in a discussion on financing if they had wished to do so.

The member's colleague the member for Hamilton West will probably tell him the only question --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sorry. Perhaps the member will ask me a supplementary.

Mr. Rae: I am surprised at the Premier not having a sense of humour as to what I was saying a couple of weeks ago about the invitation to speak to OISE. All I said was that I thought OISE showed a great deal of courage and independence in inviting the Premier to give the kind of address he gave the other day with respect to education.

I would like to put to the Premier the statement he made. He says members do not share his concerns about equality, or that I do not. I think the Premier knows just how absurd that kind of comment is. What we do not share is the Premier's complacency with respect to funding and the record of his government on educational investment and educational creativity for our young people in this province. That is what we do not share with the Premier.

If the Premier is really concerned about equality for women, which he talked about in his speech, how does he respond to the brief of the Women Teachers' Association of Sault Ste. Marie on affirmative action? They said that as educators, women teachers are very conscious that they exert some influence on the attitudes about women which both girls and boys acquire. "Encouraging girls to become more assertive and more career-oriented is truly a waste of time if, in their formative years, they observe that women do not hold positions of leadership and authority."

How does the Premier feel about the fact that during his tenure as Premier of this province the number of women holding positions of authority in our educational system has gone down relative to the number of men?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is a bit of history to this. I would refer the member, when he is talking about this issue generally, to statements emanating from Manitoba on the whole question of women's issues. The head of the public service union in Manitoba, even with a New Democratic Party government there, acknowledges that we are doing more in Ontario, far more than the leader of the third party, who is referred to in the article, is prepared to acknowledge. I pass that on for the member's own reading. He should broaden his horizons.

I was trying to conclude my observations on the initial question about funding. I made it quite clear on page 9 in my copy -- it may be a different page in the member's copy -- that I am not in any way diminishing the importance of funding in education. I think I am right in my assessment of last evening that, with the exception of the last question, which related to the question of province-wide bargaining raised by a former trustee from Halton county, the question of funding per se was not raised.

There was an interest in the Bovey commission and there was an interest in some aspects of the college program. I wish the member had been there to sense what the evening was all about. I know it disappoints him that there was no great controversy. There was no confrontation, which I know is not his style, and that was disappointing. I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party he should go on another bicycle ride. He performs much better after he gets a bit of physical exertion.

Mr. Samis: We are on another bicycle ride now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know I still owe the member $20.19. I have not forgotten that.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I am sorry, it is $19.20.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the original question from the leader of the third party, is the Premier not concerned with the trend that has taken place since 1975, when his government on an average across the province provided more than 61 per cent of the cost of education, whereas at the present time it provides less than 49 per cent?

Is he not concerned that local boards of education are now required to do one of two things? They must either cut back on essential services or increase the local levy of municipal property tax, which does not take into account a person's ability to pay. What is he prepared to do to assist local municipalities to deliver quality education to students in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to become too philosophical on this occasion. It is very difficult in question period to have the opportunity to exchange reasonably held points of view. I have always been somewhat concerned, and I understand the need for funding in education. I know that as well as any person here in the House, even those members who used to be in the profession. I may even have signed their certificates, which was a great mistake on my part; it is quite obvious we did not raise the standards soon enough -- I am only teasing.

I am also a little concerned that we always tend to equate quality with increased expenditure. I am not going to get into a debate on the percentage share, but I do look at the total dollars invested by this province and by this government in education generally. Although the member might go through his per capita expenditures in terms of what some other provinces are doing, when he includes this post-secondary system, in fact we moved ahead of most of our sister provinces in capital provision some years in advance of them. That is not put into the calculation or into the mix.

With great respect, I also suggest he look at the allocation or the degree of per capita expenditure in just about every state of the union. I think he will find Ontario is higher than almost any state, including the state of California. They have a constitutional limitation there as it relates to their level of expenditures, as they do in Michigan. We do not have that here, and we are blessed because of it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, they are interrupting me. I am trying to be as helpful as I can.

Mr. Martel: That will be a first.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member should stick to hockey. He is doing quite well. I am somewhat sympathetic. I have decided he knows more about hockey than he does about teaching.

Mr. Martel: The Premier is stickhandling pretty well now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, there was a great deal in the Premier's speech about two problems. Throughout the speech there was a mention of pluralism, about the fact that Ontario was creating a culture of minorities. The second thing he mentioned in his speech was the need to provide for the educational needs of the future, in particular with respect to basic skills.

In this regard, can the Premier tell us whether the government is planning any changes in its approaches to minorities? In particular, I am sure he is aware there are many minority groups that do not have access to a heritage language program or to special programs because their boards have refused to introduce those programs. I think there are many boards throughout the province where this is the case. Is the government planning any changes in order to address that particular inequality and injustice?

Secondly, how does the Premier feel about the fact that in this very initial stage of the reponse to the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions program, the one major result we can see is an alarming decline in the number of students who plan to be taking technical courses.

How does the Premier plan to address those two particular problems at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can recall discussing the latter question in this House well before the member's time; in fact, it was probably during the period when he spent more time in the gallery than he did at lectures at the University of Toronto.

I can recall discussing this same issue with his predecessor three times removed. On the question of technical and vocational education, I think this is partly an attitudinal matter. I referred to this last evening. The member for Hamilton West will recall, as will the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), we got into this discussion in relation to the college program and how the former leader of the opposition, in his role as both leader and education critic, along with the Toronto Globe and Mail, was urging us to institute the transfer system which emanated in California, with immediate access after the end of the second year to the university community.

This government and the then minister held fast and went in the direction of a technically, vocationally and practically oriented community college program that I think has worked out extemely well.

I hope the member will please understand we have this commitment. We have seen it in the secondary schools. I cannot answer for him why we have not had a higher percentage of people involved in that aspect of education, but I ask him not to suggest we have not provided the opportunity or that we are not committed to it.

With respect to the heritage language program, I tried to point out in my learned dissertation last evening -- which was far from learned, but I happen to believe in the things I said -- how I sensed this province has changed and how the educational system must, of necessity, reflect it. I guess I did not in the prepared text, but I certainly hope I made it clear that this province has done very well in meeting that change. I did take the occasion to observe that I happen to believe and still believe, even some several hours after saying it, we have one of the finest educational systems anywhere in North America.

I did not find too many people there last night who disagreed with that point of view. Certainly, the member for Hamilton West did not immediately jump up and say: "Mr. Premier, I disagree with you. It is better in California, Iowa, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, the Maritimes or western Canada." I did not hear him say that.

Mr. Rae: It is obvious the 20 per cent increase in our popularity in the Gallup poll has got the Premier completely rattled. I cannot find any other explanation for the quality of his answer.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: I do not understand it. I cannot find any other explanation for this complete aberration in the Premier's behaviour.

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my second question to the Minister of the Environment, who spoke to the Air Pollution Control Association yesterday. He said Ontario Hydro may have to go to scrubbers. If he is going around making that kind of suggestion today, I would like to ask him where the government of Ontario was a year ago and two years ago when Ontario Hydro cancelled its plans and its intentions to install scrubbers.

Where was the government? What was it doing? It takes five years to install the scrubbers. Why has it taken so long for the government to change its mind on this vital question?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, when I made that comment yesterday, I would emphasize again today the operative word was "may". At no time have I indicated, nor has my colleague the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes) indicated, that scrubbers might not at some point in the future be necessary. I want the member to listen closely so he will be sure to understand. The reality of the situation at this particular --

Mr. Nixon: One reversal on an issue is enough.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am trying desperately to answer the question in a serious fashion.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: It is a very serious question, and I want to address it in that light. The reality is that there are a number of options available to Ontario Hydro with respect to the control of the sulphur dioxide problem. One of them could be -- I did not say would be -- a reduction in the export of power. It may be necessary for an increase in the importation of power. It may be necessary for them to shift to a lower-sulphur coal.

In the context of that statement, I said it "may be necessary." If there is more dependence on the part of Ontario Hydro on moving towards coal-fired plants, it may at some point in the future require the scrubber technology. I think that is abundantly clear.

Mr. Rae: I wonder if the minister could repeat that answer word for word.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: I do not know. The future can hold strange things. Stranger things have happened.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: I guess the answer is scrubbers if necessary, but not necessarily scrubbers.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: That is right.

Mr. Rae: That is it. Mackenzie King in drag is now the position of the Tory party with respect to scrubbers in the environment.

I would like to ask the minister if he can explain why the supposed 50 per cent reduction Hydro is being asked to carry out over the next while is in fact -- and we were told that today in the briefing we received from Hydro itself -- a 50 per cent reduction from a level that was never reached. It is not really 50 per cent. The 50 per cent figure in terms of the actual acid gas emissions is a bogus target.

How does the minister explain and justify that statistic? He has created an illusory situation, which I can assure him American congressmen and senators are well aware of in their discussions and their responses to the credibility of Ontario about acid rain. How does he feel about the fact that this year's emissions for Hydro will be at an all-time high? What does that do for our credibility when we ask the United States to reduce its emissions? Fifty per cent of the acid gas problem in Ontario is a home-grown problem. What is the minister going to do about that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member has left himself very vulnerable.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: He certainly has. First, let me point out that the 50 per cent figure is incorrect. The actual figure is a 43 per cent reduction required from the allowable maximums. I admit that is an allowable maximum, but we cannot simply turn a dial or push a button on and off to hit the exact amount of emissions allowable, as the leader of the third party might suggest in the preamble to his question.

The reality is that we develop a margin of operation in which Ontario Hydro is allowed to operate. In the reductions that are required, the first point of actual reduction is 1986. I have been assured by Ontario Hydro it will meet that emissions target then, and the 43 per cent will be operative by 1990. I have been further assured it will meet the sulphur dioxide maximum emissions target then. I see nothing inappropriate or difficult to understand about that position.

During a relatively recent trip to Washington when I spoke to congressmen, senators, the Environmental Protection Agency, the coal lobby and environmental groups, not once was the question the member has just raised with me brought up by our American friends. Even if the member does not understand, they understand a company has to have reasonable parameters for operation, rather than putting some artificial and perhaps impossible target figure there for it to attempt to achieve.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: If I might, Mr. Speaker, I will speak quickly. Our American friends understand the situation. I suggest --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a very full answer.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, am I understanding the minister properly as having now enunciated a new policy on scrubbers, i.e., scrubbers if necessary, but not necessarily scrubbers? Is that his new policy? Is he equivocating on the past renunciation of those scrubbers? Is he going back to the original position that was put forward by a variety of people, including the chairman of Hydro and in the throne speech which definitely promised scrubbers for at least two of the generating stations? Is he aware of that?

Is he not aware that his broken promise has been a matter of public discussion in the Congressional Record in the United States? His broken promise is held up as an excuse for inaction by the coal lobby in the United States. I am not surprised he got along with them very well. Would he not now make a strong and definitive statement that he is going to unbreak that broken promise and at least going to make a commitment to move forward?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition plays rather fast and loose with words.

Mr. Speaker: Now to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Perhaps I should rephrase that. He plays rather slow and loose with words.

The reality is that the Congressional Record he refers to does not indicate any broken promises on the part of this government or this ministry. Without any equivocation whatever, I can say when we make a promise over here we keep the promise.

Now I want to get to the question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I think you did. Thank you.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, this Yosemite Sam routine would be amusing -- and it is amusing -- were it not for the fact that Ontario Hydro is the second largest single source of acid gas emissions in Ontario. We share a responsibility in this province for our own acid gas and acid rain problems.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: We do have a credibility problem in the United States. If the minister is not aware of it, everybody else is. I have been to Washington and the leader of the Liberal Party has been to Washington. We are all aware of it.

Despite the fact that we have had an alleged control program for several years now, we have not seen any actual reductions in emissions. How does that fact possibly improve our own record, our own credibility, in fighting the problem of acid rain?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The leader of the third party apparently does not follow the sequencing of Ontario Hydro's operation as closely as he indicates from time to time. Long before this small increase he is talking about occurred, my predecessor in this ministry indicated there would be a short-time upturn in the emissions that would occur this year. However, he added that still would not remove the obligation from Ontario Hydro to meet the target by 1986 and the further total 43 per cent reduction by 1990.

The short-term increase in sulphur dioxide emissions was predicted, was talked about and was spoken about in a very open fashion as long as two years ago. This should not come as a surprise to him.

Mr. Speaker: The Solicitor General has a brief answer to a previously asked question.

PURCHASE OF OPP BOATS

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I did not know whether your reference to brief was an advisement or whether a full answer was wanted, so I will try to give the full answer.

Yesterday the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) asked about the purchase of two boats.

Mr. Stokes: What is their address?

Mr. Rae: Who owns Grew?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I know my colleagues in the Legislature found great amusement in this yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: Would the minister just give us the answer, please.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I shall, Mr. Speaker, as soon as the opposition will allow me to get around to it.

Yesterday the member for Lanark asked about the purchase of two boats by the Ontario Provincial Police and about the tendering of that purchase. I would like to apprise him and the other members of the Legislature of the following facts.

2:40p.m.

Of the four tenders submitted, the two lowest tenders were by Mason Boats Ltd. at $45,320 and the Grew Boat corporation in the amount of $45,639. The difference between the two bids is $319. I might add that as part of the normal tendering procedure, each potential supplier is required to complete a statement of Canadian content. This represents the value of everything added in Canada -- the labour, materials, transportation, duty, taxes and the Canadian suppliers' profits.

The tenders received by the purchasing branch of the ministry were sent to the transport branch of the OPP for evaluation. After examining the tenders, the OPP transport branch recommended the purchase of the Grew boats because the Grew tender better met the specifications. This included a two-year warranty by Grew as opposed to a one-year warranty offered by Mason for commercial boats, later confirmed in writing in a letter from Mason Boats.

When the purchasing branch and the OPP transport branch consider tenders, they look at such areas as specifications, time of delivery, quality of workmanship, technical evaluations, length of warranty and previous experience with the product. The Grew boats are designed and built in Canada, as are the Mason boats. I am informed that engines for both companies would be imported.

The saving in travelling cost to the OPP amounts to only about $800 and was an insignificant consideration in evaluating the tenders. Such information was developed in reply to the purchasing department's questions when the lowest tender was not recommended by the OPP.

In fact, the OPP does have three boats from the Mason company in its fleet. As the honourable member mentioned yesterday, the last one purchased by the OPP developed stress fractures in the hull and had to be replaced by the manufacturer.

I want to assure all honourable members that the OPP and other branches of the ministry will continue to do business with firms in all parts of the province and get the best possible value for the taxpayers' dollar.

Finally, I would like to tell the member for Lanark that the first I knew of the awarding of the tender was when the member drew it to my attention yesterday. The purchase order was made on April 17. Although the member asked if I would review it and change the situation, since the purchase order has already gone through I have no way of cancelling that order now.

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General mentioned that the company from Lanark, Mason Boats, only gives a one-year warranty on its boats. I have a copy of the submission by Mason showing that the warranty was a five-year limited guarantee. When the purchasing agent got in touch with Mr. Mason and asked him to verify that, it was his understanding one year was all that was necessary. That is why he did that.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Wiseman: Just to clarify: As a businessman I do not know how any company can do better than it did with its guarantee. When the boat in question developed some hairline cracks, Mason Boats gave them a completely new boat. They did not repair it, but gave them a new one. What I mentioned yesterday that disturbed me --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Wiseman: -- was the fact the OPP said it was too far to travel to eastern Ontario to inspect the boats and to pick them up, those sorts of things, plus that the purchasing agent told me that parts of the boat were from the United States. Does the minister not believe in the low tender being accepted? When I was in my previous ministry, I felt that all things being equal, that would be the case.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: With the member's knowledge of his previous ministry, I am sure he knows most of the tenders, if not all of them, do not say the lowest tender would always be the one that was accepted. One looks at many things. As I mentioned to the member, which he does not seems to want to accept as an answer, warranty is one of them.

I explained to the member that the tender submitted by Mason Boats included a brochure that said, "Note: five-year limited warranty." When the purchasing department went back to that manufacturer and asked, "What type of warranty do you have?" the reply was, "One year for commercial boats." This happens to be in use as a commercial boat and had a one-year warranty.

Having had previous experience with that company, the decision was made that we might have to have a longer warranty. We got that from the other boat company. It met all the other specifications. In fact, it exceeded the specifications.

The difference of $319 is a very small one. I explained to the member that the costs later on were also worked up as part of the specifications when deciding whether to accept a tender. When we put those all together, the OPP people, who looked at quality control, date of delivery, Canadian content, previous experience and specifications, decided from their past experience and what they had before them that one boat was a better product than the other for their specifications.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, every time we attempt to do this in the standing committee on public accounts we get thwarted by the majority. Would the minister be prepared to encourage his colleagues on the public accounts committee to support a motion to have this matter considered in depth by the committee to determine who is telling the truth?

Mr. Speaker: I think the honourable member knows he is on very thin ice. I am going to ask him to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Bradley: Let me rephrase that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Just withdraw the remark.

Mr. Bradley: Let me withdraw the remark and rephrase it to "what the truth really is."

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any quality we have to concern ourselves about as to the truth. The fact of the matter is a boat was purchased. The lowest tender was not accepted. There is a difference of $319.

If members want to discuss it before the public accounts committee, they can do so. The honourable member got his information freely by phoning the purchasing department. Indeed, one can phone either supplier of the boats. They are supplying information freely. There has been no attempt whatever to disguise or hide information. It has been freely accessible to all members who have asked about it.

A decision was made on the specifications to purchase one boat versus another. With a difference of $319 on a $45,000 item, I submit it is a simple decision. One is not really deciding on dollar value with that insignificant amount.

Interjections.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I hear the honourable members commenting about Canadian content. They used the usual purchasing methods. The assessment of Canadian content versus American content was done. Both boats have American content. That decision was weighed and assessed.

ESPANOLA CARE FACILITY

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt. I was enjoying this game of Tory target practice.

I have a question for the Minister of Health. It concerns a situation in northern Ontario that demonstrates a lack of commitment on the part of the ministry, if not the government. I say this in deference to the minister of wind -- I mean the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) -- who talked about keeping the promise a while ago.

I am referring, of course, to the events surrounding the infamous senior citizens' complex in Espanola. Since 1974, the need for a seniors' complex has been recognized by the government. In June 1980, the Ontario Legislature endorsed the establishment of such a complex.

2:50 p.m.

During the March 1981 election campaign, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) announced he expected ground to be broken for the complex that spring. Everyone assumed it would be forthcoming shortly after the election, but it was not. It has still not been started.

I want to know what action the ministry is prepared to take to remedy this situation. In brief, is he going to build it, and when?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the member has directed his question to the correct minister. If he is referring to a nursing home, then perhaps he ought to describe it as such. Otherwise, my ministry has nothing to do with senior citizens' complexes.

Mr. Van Horne: It has been bounced around from ministry to ministry. The minister's colleague is not here, but the minister is involved to the extent that I understand architectural plans have gone to his ministry and they have not been dealt with.

Beyond that, related to his ministry, is the need for chronic care beds for people in that area. It is our understanding that the complex would be twinned with a hospital that has only 12 chronic care beds. The need for beds in that particular area, we are told, is roughly 70 --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Van Horne: -- which means that some of the people from the Espanola area would have to travel to Sudbury hospitals for such care.

Is the minister going to properly assess the needs of the people in the Espanola area and meet their needs by providing the adequate number of chronic care beds?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Of course, the answer to the latter part of the question clearly is yes, although I am not yet sure whether the honourable member is referring to a chronic care wing attached to a hospital, a senior citizens' complex, which might include a home for the aged or nursing home facilities. If he is going to ask these questions, I wish he would be a little more precise so I could answer them precisely.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, if I can clarify this matter for the two honourable members, what has been referred to is a health and residential care facility attached to a hospital, for which the Ministry of Northern Affairs is the co-ordinating ministry and the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services are both involved.

If the minister is unable to answer this, would he redirect the question to the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) and have that minister explain why he has not yet made the announcement as to which communities, and whether when those communities do get the announcement it will include Espanola, will receive funding this year under the program to assist seniors to stay in their own communities without having to be in active care beds in acute care hospitals at twice the cost that would normally be involved if they had the proper facilities in their own communities?

We need them in Espanola, in Wawa and in many other communities in northern Ontario. When are we going to get the announcement?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member who first asked the question had identified what it was he was referring to, I would have been aware of what it was. I was not sure. When he made reference to a senior citizens' complex, it sounded like considerably more than my ministry would normally be responsible for.

The fact of the matter is the program, of which this is part, is still a program of this government. As the member is aware, we have just entered a new fiscal year and the matter of determining which projects are to proceed in this fiscal year is a matter yet to be determined between the Minister of Northern Affairs, myself and the other parties involved. We will be announcing those as soon as we have the opportunity to assess them.

ACCESS TO COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education.

The minister continues to tell us there is good access for secondary school students to the college system, but what does she say to general level students in Hamilton like Phil Brucculeri, age 18, of Hill Park Secondary School, who was assured when he entered grade 9 of the general level program that he would be able to get access to a college? He tried with 350 others to get into the radio broadcasting course at Mohawk College and was among those rejected.

What does she say to the 1,270 students at that same college who were refused access to the law and security administration program?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, within that college I believe there are some 180 different programs available to the students, and I would strongly suggest that if the honourable member has not already said to that student, "Please consider an alternative program in the college," he might do that now.

Mr. Allen: While the minister continues to be fairly optimistic about the situation, it is strange the students who do the applying and know they need to apply to more than one program do not feel the same way. Does she not listen to counsellors such as Don Reed, at the same school, who says general level students have a hard time coming out ahead when they are competing on the same basis as university drop-outs, adults and grade 13 students?

Has the minister seen the recent Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation study of who goes to college? It makes it quite plain that only 28 per cent of general level grade nine students get to college, and the probability of a grade nine general level student completing any college program is one in 25. When they get to college, they find themselves competing in the same classes as students from advanced level grade 12, grade 13 and university drop-outs, because these students have not been given any advanced access or any advanced standing.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Allen: Will the minister tell the House she will institute a major task force or group study to look into the special problems of general level students, so that when they go into the colleges they get a fair break?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The honourable member obviously looks at only one set of statistics. The statistical information regarding the admissions to colleges demonstrates very clearly that the students who are in the majority of places in the colleges right across this province are students who are not graduates of grade 13, nor graduates of universities. Indeed, that has always been the purpose of the college system and it remains such.

For four and a half years I have been saying to the members of this Legislature that the concern which precipitated the development or the establishment of the secondary education review project study was the concern about the student studying at the general level in the secondary schools of Ontario. That is what SERP; the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions curriculum guidelines and the Renewal of Secondary Education document are about.

We are working right now with the college system to devise the appropriate secondary school programs for those students, in order to ensure the kind of statistical information developed by the OSST, which I have not been able to verify at this point, could be modified, if it is factual.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, does the minister understand that if the necessary funds are not forthcoming for community colleges to provide openings for these students who, despite what has been said, are competing in many cases with grade 13 graduates and others coming back to university, then those students from the general level are simply not going to be able to compete in the job market? The money saved by not adequately funding community colleges in Ontario at the present time will be spent on unemployment insurance and other forms of social assistance in the future.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member obviously has not looked at the statistical information, which would demonstrate clearly that the funding to the college system has exceeded the rate of inflation almost every year for the last five years. We have been doing a very good job of providing funds to the college system.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, according to a report in the Sunday Sun of April 29, the landlord of a property located at 150 St. Clair Avenue West in the city of Toronto is seeking a rent increase of 99 per cent.

That landlord is reported to be a member of the New Democratic Party, a party which the minister well knows is given to bewailing the lot of tenants who fall into the hands of gouging landlords and often presents itself as the shining champion of tenants' rights. I find it difficult to believe he would consider an increase of 99 per cent. Would the minister restore my faith in the third party by standing in his place and telling this House that these reports are inaccurate?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I sense there was an absence of enthusiasm for that question from one corner of the Legislature. Where was that corner? I cannot get a sense of where the noise was not coming from.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the answer, please.

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I want to assure the honourable member that the Ontario rent review process, which places a cap of five per cent on the rental increase as a result of financing costs related to a sale and all of the other regulations, will apply to this entrepreneur who has applied for a rent increase, as it may apply to others. I must say I am surprised and shocked at the difference in opinion there is with respect to the question that was just asked in the House.

ASSISTIVE DEVICES PROGRAM

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. It has been more than two years since the previous Minister of Health announced the assistive devices program to assist children up to the age of 18 years. At that time he said: "Speaking for the Health ministry, the program will eventually be extended to the full population of the disabled." Can the minister tell this House when disabled adults of Ontario can expect to become eligible for the assistive devices program?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I believe the program will have been in place two years this July. I think that is correct. At the time of the inception of the program, the commitment was made that it would be reviewed in the course of the first two years of operation and the decision with respect to its future would be made at that time.

I have a number of proposals under consideration at present and will shortly be making some of them to my colleagues with respect to the future of the program which would be related to its expansion. I cannot be entirely certain of the timing of that, but I expect it will be before the end of this session of the House.

Ms. Copps: I hope I understood the minister to say he will be making recommendations regarding the extension of the program to cover adults.

The minister will be aware that while originally $13 million was set aside for the ADP for young people, only $2 million of that was used in the first year of operation. The current, 1984 budget has already been reduced from $10 million to $8 million because the demand that was anticipated has not materialized.

This should be considered in the light of a situation I know of in the city of Hamilton. Three young adults in Chedoke hospital are unable to leave, even though they are ready to be discharged, simply because they cannot afford to pay the $10,000 to $12,000 each will need for assistive devices to become independent.

Does the minister not believe it would be more effective to extend the ADP to adults across this province, thus permitting people such as those at Chedoke hospital to get out into the community and become contributing and earning citizens again?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I assumed the honourable member could conclude from my remarks that I would be making recommendations with respect to the expansion of the program to adults. The children are already eligible, so I would not normally make recommendations to make children ineligible or something of that nature.

I believe the program has been successful. The member is right: the experience of the first two years with respect to the projected costs has been very encouraging.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the minister may be able to report on a similar item. Over the last number of years, this government has consistently suggested it is going to bring in an interim program that would at least cover breast prostheses for women who have had cancer. Can the minister tell us whether breast prostheses will be covered before we adjourn in June?

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot. I would point out that there are much more costly devices required by some disabled adults.

ACCESS TO MEDICAL TREATMENT

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Health concerning access to medical treatment by injured workers. I would like to supply to the minister a statement by a constituent of mine --

Mr. Speaker: Just ask the question, please.

Mr. Philip: Having waited six months, Mr. Switzer arrived at a publicly funded hospital, namely, the Toronto General Hospital, for a consultation with Dr. Hamilton Hall. When the receptionist discovered Mr. Switzer was on workers' compensation she informed him that Dr. Hall's policy was not to treat or in any way see injured workers even though this injured worker offered $80 out of his own pocket for a consultation.

Does the minister feel this is the kind of public access that should be available to injured workers of this province? Is the minister willing to act, since the College of Physicians and Surgeons has not acted in similar cases that have been brought to its attention?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member's latter comment is inaccurate. I know of cases where action has been taken. No, I do not condone that sort of thing, but before I react hysterically, I would like to investigate it. If the member has information that he can communicate to me to assist in that, I will pursue it.

In that instance, one can hardly accuse the physician of being motivated by financial reasons since the Workers' Compensation Board pays at a higher rate than the Ontario health insurance plan.

PETITIONS

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members representing the constituencies of Middlesex, Scarborough North and Scarborough East, I wish to table petitions which read as follows:

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

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men; whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition; it is signed by one constituent.

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

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition which states as follows:

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

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

I am happy to say that I wholeheartedly concur with the petition.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which states:

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

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

I fully support this petition. It is signed by a number of residents in my riding of Beaches-Woodbine and by other residents of Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition as follows:

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

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

This petition is signed by Heather Clancy, who lives at 61 Muskoka Avenue in Oshawa.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Miss Bonnie Sutherland of the riding of Riverdale and a further one in identical terms from Miss Nora Spence, also of the riding of Riverdale:

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

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have the following petition:

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

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

This petition is signed by Lynda Reinholt, Elizabeth Sutton, Lise Clark and Betsy Neily, all of the riding of London North.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned electors and residents of the Grey-Bruce region would like to draw your attention to an injustice.

"The 1984 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in part: 'Parents have a right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their child.' Parents who claim this right by enrolling their children in alternative or independent schools in Ontario, schools which meet acceptable social and educational standards, bear a double burden. Their taxes support the public system which their children do not use.

"We simply propose that the per pupil educational grant follow the pupil to the school of the parents' choice."

I have 600 names here.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which reads as follows:

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

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to appeal to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We, the undersigned electors and residents of Kitchener-Wilmot, Waterloo North and Kitchener, appeal to the Legislature to provide form and substance in law for the basic human right of parents in Ontario to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

"The present education policy provides no guarantees for the existence of independent schools that are one of the concrete expressions of this basic parental right.

"The supporters of these schools also face a form of financial hardship. The parents of independent schools, while contributing millions of dollars in education taxes, have had to bear the full cost of their own schools. This is unfair.

"We seek a just public educational policy that supports all schools that provide future citizens a good education."

This petition is signed by 32 supporters of the Laurentian Hills Christian School.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with 77 signatures:

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

"We, the undersigned electors, appeal to the Legislature to provide form and substance in law for the basic human right of parents in Ontario to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

"The present education policy provides no guarantees for the existence of independent schools that are one of the concrete expressions of this basic parental right. Furthermore, in a democratic and multicultural society parents should have the right to send their children to schools of their choice without a financial penalty.

"We ask for your help in reducing the unfair burden of what in effect is double taxation. We seek a just public education policy that supports all schools deemed to be operating in the public interest."

I might add that I support this petition.

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present the following petition:

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the government and the Legislative Assembly to support the private members' bills of Don Boudria, MPP, to permit the sale of beer and Ontario wine in small, independent grocery stores.

"Pétition adressée au Lieutenant-gouverneur en Conseil et à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

"Nous, soussignés, par la présente pétition demandons à l'Assemblée législative et au gouvernement d'appuyer les projets de loi du député Don Boudria qui permettraient aux petites épiceries indépendantes de vendre de la bière et du vin ontarien."

This petition is signed by 664 people. This brings the total to somewhere around 3,000.

MOTION

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that commencing Thursday, May 3, the House may resolve itself into committee of supply.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved, seconded by Mr. Newman, first reading of Bill 51, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to broaden the criteria used by the Workers' Compensation Board in assessing the impairment of earning capacity resulting from an injury that causes permanent disability.

The act currently states that the impairment of earning capacity shall be estimated from the nature and degree of the injury. The board is authorized under the act to compile a rating schedule of percentages of impairment of earning capacity for specific injuries that may be used as a guide in determining the compensation payable in permanent disability cases.

The bill repeals the provision that authorizes the board to compile a rating schedule and directs the board to estimate the impairment of earning capacity in the light of all the circumstances of each individual case.

NON-UNIONIZED WORKERS PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved, seconded by Mr. Newman, first reading of Bill 52, An Act respecting the Rights of Non-Unionized Workers.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide a low-cost mechanism whereby a nonunionized worker may obtain a review by the Ontario Labour Relations Board where the worker is discharged or otherwise disciplined for cause and the contract of employment is silent on matters of discipline.

At the present time, a nonunionized worker who is dismissed or otherwise disciplined for cause may have no right of action against his employer, notwithstanding the fact that the discipline, having regard to all the circumstances, is unduly harsh.

The bill provides a two-stage process for reviewing complaints involving harsh discipline. Initially, a labour relations officer would be appointed to effect a settlement which would be reduced to writing and which would have to be complied with according to its terms.

If no settlement is reached, and where a settlement is not likely, the Ontario Labour Relations Board would inquire into the matter. The board, if satisfied that the complaint is justified, will have the power to make an order substituting such penalty as is just and reasonable in all circumstances.

This would parallel the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

3:20 p.m.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Spensieri moved, seconded by Mr. Ruprecht, first reading of Bill 53, An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1984.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Speaker, this bill would authorize municipal councils to refuse to issue permits for the demolition of buildings containing six or more dwelling units in appropriate circumstances.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 27, An Act to amend the Healing Arts Radiation Protection Act.

MORAMOS HOLDING CLUB OF ESSEX ACT

Mr. Stokes moved, on behalf of Mr. Cooke, second reading of Bill Pr1, An Act to revive Moramos Holding Club of Essex.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CENTRAL BAPTIST SEMINARY AND BIBLE COLLEGE ACT

Mr. Treleaven moved, on behalf of Mr. Williams, second reading of Bill Pr4, An Act to incorporate Central Baptist Seminary and Bible College.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

KITCHENER-WATERLOO FOUNDATION ACT

Mr. Sweeney moved, on behalf of Mr. Breithaupt, second reading of Bill Pr11, An Act to incorporate the Kitchener and Waterloo Community Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

ZETA PSI ELDERS ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO ACT

Mrs. Scrivener moved second reading of Bill Pr18, An Act to revive Zeta Psi Elders Association of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF PETERBOROUGH ACT

Mr. Treleaven moved, on behalf of Mr. Pollock, second reading of Bill Pr42, An Act respecting the City of Peterborough.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Miss Stephenson moved second reading of Bill 44, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware the minister was not going to make a statement, but I will take advantage of the opportunity to speak first.

As members will be aware, this actually arises out of Bill 127 and there was a good deal of controversy over Bill 127. Both the opposition parties were vehement in their opposition to that bill and the provisions, or at least most of the provisions, of that bill. The member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) will recall the rather lengthy debate that took place throughout 1982 and into 1983. We actually had a January and February session to discuss Bill 127.

There was also considerable visible opposition from the Workgroup of Metro Parents, which worked very hard to mobilize public opinion on this bill and to make people aware of the provisions of Bill 127, and certainly among the school boards in Metropolitan Toronto. The Toronto Board of Education, under the former chairman, Bob Spencer, was in the forefront of opposition to Bill 127.

3:30 p.m.

I am not aware of Mr. Spencer's position on these provisions, but I know the Toronto board has indicated its support of the changes that have been forthcoming or at least its acquiescence in the provisions of this piece of legislation.

I was trying to find people who were opposed to this bill. That is interesting. As members of the opposition it is our duty, in addition to our own views, to find out if there is opposition in the community to a bill of this kind. I thought Bill 44 might provoke the opposition at least of those who in the past expressed concerns about almost all aspects of Bill 127. However, I received information from the various boards of education, as no doubt did other members of the assembly, from the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and all the area boards that they were in support of the provisions of this bill.

I think that speaks of the talent of and the good job done by Bruce Bone. I commend the minister on her choice of Mr. Bone as the sole commissioner, with some staff, to work on this problem. I think he has managed to find a compromise. I do not know whether that is the appropriate word, but at least it is a compromise of the points of view of those who had different views on the surpluses and deficits and, particularly, on the discretionary levy.

I commend Mr. Bone on the fine job he did in striking that compromise. I have felt for some time that the Toronto board and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) have been at odds on a good many issues. When we find them one and the same, I suppose something important has been accomplished. When we find the Toronto board one and the same with the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, that is indeed a day for cheering.

I suspect there are those in the community among parents, teacher groups and members of boards of education who are not entirely pleased with the package, but the indication we have had is that acceptance of this legislation is acceptance of a package and that, because of the compromise that has been struck, the various boards are not interested in having it tampered with one way or another to undo the balancing act of Bruce Bone.

In view of the lack of opposition and in view of our sensitivity to this issue, we in the official opposition, the Ontario Liberal Party, are supporting this legislation, Bill 44. We do not see it raising a good deal of controversy in the months to come. However, there are a number of issues to be addressed that relate to education in Metropolitan Toronto. This bill does not always address them.

As the Deputy Speaker, the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones), would know from the viewpoint of Mississauga, local boards of education are not entirely pleased with the level of funding available from the Ministry of Education and the provincial government. I suspect that is the case in many provinces. Local municipalities -- and I am calling boards of education local municipalities -- are not entirely pleased with the amount of funding they get from senior levels of government which are attempting to reduce their contributions because they have deficits to meet.

Certainly, that is the case in Ontario. When I talk to trustees in Metropolitan Toronto and across the province, I find they are concerned by the trend mentioned in the House today -- it has been mentioned by my leader on many occasions -- of provincial participation on a percentage basis in addressing the cost of education. That is an underlying factor in this bill and in the controversy that arose over Bill 127.

People are dissatisfied with the level of funding. In 1975, on average in this province the provincial government provided a fairly generous amount of funding. As I mentioned today in my supplementary question, more than 61 per cent of the cost of education came from the provincial government in 1975. To be exact, it was 61.3 per cent.

However, in 1976 we saw the beginning of a downward trend to 55.4 per cent. I would say there was quite a drop between 1975 and 1976. There seemed to be a bit of a slowdown in this drop; nevertheless, there was a drop. In 1977 it dropped to 54.9 per cent; in 1978, to 53.3 per cent; in 1979, to 52.5 percent; in 1980, to 52 per cent; in 1981, to 51.9 per cent; in 1982, to 50.5 per cent; and in 1983, to 48.8 per cent. We are not talking about figures I have dreamed up; we are talking about figures that were provided by the Ministry of Education as a result of a question I directed to the minister during the consideration of the spending estimates of the Ministry of Education.

We can see there is bound to be some controversy among boards of education across Ontario, and most certainly in Metropolitan Toronto, over the division of dollars and the ability to gain further revenue to carry out the programs these boards feel are necessary.

The members will know the education system today is called upon to do far more than it has done in the past. This may be either an unrealistic expectation or perhaps, as the minister has suggested, in some cases an inappropriate expectation. Nevertheless, the reality is that many parents in Ontario look to the education system to contribute not only to the academic development of students but also to their social and general development, if I may use that terminology.

The province mandates many programs. This must be in the back of the minds of those who are considering this bill. We have coming on stream in 1985 the full provisions of Bill 82, a bill that was hailed and encouraged by members of the opposition. The member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), the former Liberal Party critic in the field of education, was instrumental in bringing about Bill 82 through his questioning in the House, through his encouragement to the minister to bring this forward and through his public statements. He participated in a very constructive way in the development of Bill 82.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Delusions of grandeur are part of the member's thinking.

Mr. Bradley: Certainly, neither the member for Kitchener-Wilmot nor the Deputy Speaker has quarrelled with that assessment.

I say that merely to illustrate that boards of education, including the London Board of Education, do require the necessary funding to meet the mandated programs of the provincial government, plus other programs they feel are essential to the students. This is why we have tugging and pulling for funds amongst certain boards of education in Metropolitan Toronto. I am certain all of them would agree there would be less tugging for these funds, less of a quarrel over the apportionment and the disposition of surpluses and deficits, and less controversy over the discretionary levy if the provincial government provided the degree of funding necessary to carry out those programs they consider to be desirable.

That is not necessarily the matter we are addressing today, but I know the members would want me to place that background material before the House. Instead, we are dealing with a specific provision or area which flows from Bill 127. I am pleased we were able to extract from the Minister of Education a promise to appoint a commissioner to look into this matter. As I have clearly indicated, I think her choice of the commissioner was first class.

It is not often those of us in the opposition, particularly the critics, heap praise upon the minister, but in that case I think it would be safe to say that we -- at least those in our party -- are pleased with the choice of the commissioner.

Mr. Grande: The member was disappointed that he supported Bill 127.

Mr. Bradley: I said only in this particular case, looking into this specific matter, the commissioner was a reasonable choice. I cannot necessarily agree with all the comments of the commissioner throughout Bill 127. The member for Oakwood will recall that the commissioner and I were not unanimous in our evaluation of the provisions of Bill 127.

3:40 p.m.

I do want to deal with the discretionary levy and the importance of the discretionary levy because I think we recognize, particularly in the city of Toronto, that there is a feeling among the majority of the members of boards of education that there is a need for additional staff. In fact, there is a feeling that additional funds should be made available to carry out important programs.

This feeling is not seen so much by those of us who live in the hinterlands, those areas outside of Metropolitan Toronto and its surburban communities. If I were to refer to areas such as the minister's as suburban communities in Metropolitan Toronto that would provoke a rather negative reaction. The Speaker does not necessarily agree.

Certainly beyond the bounds of Toronto there is not the recognition of these special needs the members who represent Toronto ridings observe. When I say Toronto, I think of the Minister of Education, the member for Oakwood and others who represent ridings within Metropolitan Toronto. Those who live outside do not recognize the multicultural, cosmopolitan nature of Metropolitan Toronto and the special needs that arise from this fact.

The Toronto Board of Education, to its credit, has attempted to meet those needs. For instance, there are needs which result from a large number of people who reside in the city of Toronto not having English as their first language. Second, special problems often arise in the core of a city that require additional funding from government to meet them.

I am not suggesting funding is the be-all and end-all. I think it was the Premier (Mr. Davis) or perhaps it was the Minister of Education, one of the two anyway, who said today that opposition members tend to equate the expenditure of public funds with quality in education. It is my view that while the quality of education is not completely dependent on the expenditure of funds, it is to a very large degree dependent on the amount of investment the provincial government is prepared to put into education.

This is why the Toronto Board of Education has considered it necessary to participate in additional fund-raising through a discretionary levy. This allows people within its own boundaries to provide additional funds, for instance, to hire additional teachers to meet the program obligations they have set forth as being necessary. During the consideration of Bill 127, I certainly agreed with that need.

I would prefer not to see the cap stipulated in this bill. I indicated that two mills would be more appropriate than 1.5 mills. The minister has indicated, and she has done so based on her support from the metropolitan board and the other boards, that people are prepared to at least buy this compromise. I do express concern because I do not like that kind of cap.

I understand Mr. Bone says the Toronto Board of Education, when it provides an additional levy, has available to it far more from assessment resources. The assessment is less penalizing on the individual home owner or the residential component than perhaps would be the case in other municipalities or other boards of education.

Nevertheless, it also has special problems. All of us who sat on the committee would remember the groups that came in from various parts of Toronto, including Parkdale. The member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) and the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) sat on the committee with me. The member for Oakwood, who is here, sat on that committee. One after the other these groups came in to indicate strong support for the expenditures which had been made for special programs within the jurisdiction of their boards of education. They expressed genuine concern that Bill 127 might have an extremely adverse effect on the education of their children.

Those concerns were met to a very small degree through the compromises the opposition were able to extract in that bill. There was still a concern among them and the teaching profession that there was unnecessary interference with the negotiation process in Metropolitan Toronto. This bill does not address that specifically but it addresses other problems I want to deal with.

I want to indicate to this House that I see the need for the discretionary levy. I see the need for the continuation of this discretionary levy mainly because the provincial government does not provide, in my view at least, the necessary amount of funding in the form of grants to the boards of education in this part of the province or in any other part of the province.

In relation to this bill, I read with interest the Bone report when it was first released. It received scant attention initially. Those who were directly involved with it knew of its provisions, but it did not receive the general fanfare one might expect. Although there was a potential for some opposition to it, that opposition, as I have indicated to members, is either muted, nonexistent or buried in the compromise.

First of all, when he addressed certain issues, the question was asked, "Should boards be allowed to continue using a discretionary levy?" I supported that strongly and, as Mr. Bone found out, there was a good deal of support for that across Metropolitan Toronto, less enthusiastic in certain parts of Metro than others. Nevertheless, there seemed to be general support for the continuation of it.

There was also the question of on just what items boards should be allowed to spend a discretionary levy. In the material the minister has provided to us, she indicates some might have talked of building additional facilities, hiring additional teachers and other operating costs, and that is a matter Mr. Bone did address. He found in this study that all boards are treated fairly in the allocation of teachers by the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. At least that is what his study revealed. There may be some within those boards who do not agree with that, but it is interesting that would come forward.

Virtually all groups felt some sort of discretionary levy should be continued. That, in itself, is interesting, because I detected among some boards of education within the parameters of Metro some opposition to that, but they said some form of discretionary levy should be continued.

The report said Metropolitan Toronto is one community for education purposes, but the two-tier system is the best method of providing public education services. I agree with that. It may be unfair at times, but I am tempted to equate this with my own area and municipal government, that is the regional municipality of Niagara. If I had to make a choice of eliminating one level or the other, I would prefer to retain the local municipality. I would not want to see in Metropolitan Toronto, certainly not in the foreseeable future, as I would not want to see in Niagara using that analogy, an abolition of the local governments or the local boards of education.

I was pleased to see Mr. Bone had found, while Metropolitan Toronto is one community for education, there is a need for a lot of co-operation and sharing within Metro, and the two-tier system is the best way of providing public education services. The lower tier, in my view, tends to reflect the views of the special communities in Metropolitan Toronto, and I am pleased to see that continue.

I notice the report also says any changes that are made must contribute to increased equalization of educational opportunities for all pupils in Metropolitan Toronto. Most would agree we have to have equal opportunities. Some think equality is effected by pulling everyone down to one level; others think equality is brought about by bringing all up to one level. I hope we will follow the latter course of bringing all up to the highest quality of education available.

There was also a notation that there was a great deal of inequity among the area boards and the amount of money each board can raise by the local levy. There was almost universal agreement that the inequity should be corrected. We know there is not complete fairness in Metropolitan Toronto in terms of what is available. If one looks at the assessment base, that is easy to see. If one looks at East York, for instance, and compares it with Toronto, one knows very clearly there are not the same resources available. That is something that has to be addressed. That is where the Metropolitan Toronto board comes in with respect to providing that kind of equality, by assisting those who do not have special resources available to them.

3:50 p.m.

There was an indication in Mr. Bone's findings that a more equitable mill rate for residential taxpayers could be achieved across all Metropolitan Toronto if residential ratepayers were assessed at 85 per cent of the rate paid by commercial and industrial ratepayers.

In other words, it would be more equitable and would contribute to a more equitable mill rate if all the home owners across Metro paid a 15 per cent lower tax rate on education than industrial and commercial taxpayers. It is my understanding that met with general approval as part of the package.

There was one aspect of the commission's report that was not accepted. We will not have to deal with it in this bill simply because it was obviously not acceptable to those who were prepared to buy the compromise.

He talked about changes in methods dealing with surpluses and deficits that would result in a fairer and more equitable interpretation of the current provisions of Bill 127. There was considerable controversy during the debate on Bill 127 on the treatment of surpluses and deficits.

There is one school of thought that says we should be encouraging local boards of education to effect as many economies as possible, even if that means a reduction in the quality of education available at a particular board. In the original provisions or suggestions of Bill 127, it seemed they pointed to favour those that were prepared to reduce the potential for spending on education.

There were those of us in the opposition who felt that all would be fine if the province would pay its fair share, but since the province was not paying its fair share, in our view it would be necessary to treat surpluses and deficits in such a manner as not to penalize those boards that were prepared to spend additional dollars to provide quality education.

We also know when we are dealing with these that sometimes a provincial Treasurer has an effect on the requirements of a local board of education. It was so when the former provincial Treasurer said, "We need more money for the provincial government and therefore, we are going to put taxes on school materials associated with education." All of a sudden, a local board of education is whacked with additional financial commitments.

The present Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) may say, "We are going to increase Ontario health insurance plan premiums and boards of education must pay a certain portion of those premiums." That is an unexpected cost that comes forward. We can see why some deficits are forthcoming.

We also know there is potential for a board to rack up a surplus so it can look good the next year, which might be an election year, by returning money to the taxpayer in the form of a lower mill rate, or a lower mill rate increase than might have been expected. I guess that is an old trick. Spend a certain amount of money and accumulate a surplus; if people are unhappy with the mill rate one year, you will be able to reduce the mill rate the next year by using up the surplus funds. That was a problem that had to be addressed.

The compromise has apparently been accepted. I am a little surprised this compromise has been accepted, but in the context of a total package I suppose one should expect that to be the case.

The commission then recommended that the boards continue to be allowed to raise a discretionary levy up to a defined limit. That is part of the bill. I am not happy with that defined limit, but that is part of this bill. I would prefer a higher limit if there must be a defined limit.

The local levy must be allowed to be used for hiring additional teachers only if access to local levy funds is more equitable with all those area boards. Through this legislation, that has been brought about.

The level of the discretionary levy remains at 1.5 mills for elementary and one mill for secondary, but the method of calculating the funds available to each board has to be altered so that access to local levy funds would be equally available to all boards. I am somewhat surprised the Toronto Board of Education was prepared to accept that but by letter and public pronouncement it has said it is prepared to accept it, so far be it for me to quarrel with the Toronto Board of Education when it is most directly affected by that provision.

The commission has also recommended that because the Toronto Board of Education is the only board in Metropolitan Toronto using the discretionary levy to hire additional teachers, it should be allowed a phase-in period until 1988 to adjust to the reduction in the number of additional teachers it would be able to hire under the Bone recommendation.

In any legislation that is going to have a marked effect on any group, I think a phase-in period is always necessary. I was with the task force on market value assessment in Niagara Falls.

Mr. Conway: The member heard some remarkable things, as I recall.

Mr. Bradley: We certainly did hear remarkable things from those who are supporters of the opposition, from those who are supporters of the government, and perhaps even from those who support no one in particular but make a choice at election time.

When there was not a phase-in in Niagara Falls, the impact on the local people was very great. The provincial government has not been particularly helpful in allowing for that kind of phase-in. It is going to be easier for this provision to be implemented because in the legislation the government has allowed for this phase-in.

The minister was also to consider amendments that would have residential ratepayers assessed at 85 per cent of the rate assessed to commercial and industrial ratepayers for school purposes. That has apparently been looked upon generally with favour. Concerning the changes to be made to the surplus, some provisions in Bill 127 are contained in this bill.

As I have indicated, we are supportive of this, with a little reluctance but supportive of it nevertheless. I often wonder whether it is the place of the members of Legislature to overrule those who are elected at the local level, those who are closest to the people in terms of access and who are democratically elected as members of boards of education.

There are occasions when the ministry must step in. There are occasions when we, as legislators, must find ourselves in disagreement with those people.

Mr. Conway: This is not a shrinking violet of a Minister of Education in that connection.

Mr. Bradley: I will allow Hansard to pick that up. We have found in this case that through the deftness of the commissioner chosen by the Minister of Education --

Mr. Conway: A Liberal who ran for us.

Mr. Bradley: -- this was accomplished. A fine fellow he is.

Mr. Bone proposed that if an area board incurred a deficit, then the deficit should be deducted from the total amount of money the area board is eligible to raise by discretionary levy the following year. Apparently, in the total package, this has been made acceptable.

In addition, he recommended the local taxpayers whose school boards operate economically should be rewarded more generously than the current interpretation of the Bill 127 legislation allows. In other words, if an area board has a surplus at the end of the year, Mr. Bone's recommendations would allow the area board to return more money to its local taxpayers.

I have mentioned my concern about this provision. It is that boards may tend to eliminate essential services to be visibly showing that kind of economy. One would hope there is good judgement at the local level, More often than not, I think there is that kind of good judgement which allows a board of education to provide quality education while at the same time not squandering funds on those areas that are not necessary.

I say it is possible for the local boards to continue to do this, but I express a little concern that once again we see some pointing in the direction of favour for those boards that are prepared to limit their expenditures in the field of education.

4 p.m.

If I am to look at the bill in total, I place myself in the category of being prepared to announce the support of this party for the bill and to say that unfortunately it does not deal with the underlying problem facing education today. My leader has enunciated this problem on many occasions, I have stated it in the House and I think many people at the local level have stated it; that is, underfunding of the system by the provincial government.

What we see emerging beneath the bill, and perhaps surrounding it, is that the local taxpayer is forced to assume a greater portion of the cost of education as the years go on. As all members know, increased unemployment in our province provides a double whammy for those communities that are hit particularly hard by unemployment in the economic recession.

Some 22 per cent of the people in the St. Catharines-Niagara area were unemployed at the worst period, and a large percentage of people still are. If an individual was unemployed for seven or eight months, he or she would not pay as much income tax, because obviously the income was not being generated. Also, that person likely cut back on expenditure, so he or she would also be paying less sales tax.

The one tax that continues to come in, regardless of the person's ability to pay and the economic circumstances, is the property tax. The city of St. Catharines sent out a tax bill that took into consideration the levy of the Lincoln County Roman Catholic Separate School Board, the Lincoln County Board of Education, the regional municipality of Niagara and the city itself. Its tax bill to the people in St. Catharines said taxpayers must pay $1,400 in municipal taxes; it did not add, "if you are not unemployed" or "if you happened to have a good year economically."

Looked at from that point of view, there is a great advantage to having the province, with its greater number of taxes and the more progressive form of taxation available to it, participating to a greater extent and alleviating the burden on the local taxpayer. The latter must pay the most regresssive form of tax -- that is the property tax -- in assuming his portion of the cost of education.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Dr. Jackson does not think it is regressive.

Mr. Bradley: Dr. Jackson may not have been correct in that regard. I think it is regressive when it does not take into --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You may not be correct in that regard, either.

Mr. Bradley: It is quite logical. If the Minister of Education were listening to what I said and to the example I gave, how could she say that is anything other than a regressive form of taxation? She runs from that argument because she knows I am correct. I am sure the Speaker agrees with me, though I will not ask him to nod in aquiescence.

Mr. Conway: Surely the minister does not run from the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley).

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Never. After him, perhaps, but not from him.

Mr. Conway: She seems to run indiscriminately at a lot of people --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for St. Catharines has the floor.

Mr. Bradley: I am being interrupted by both the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) and the Minister of Education.

I know the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) would agree with me. He spent more money than the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), according to the last constituency newsletter of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. He would agree with me that the property tax is not the best way of financing education.

No one has suggested the property tax is going to be abolished, although there may be some compelling arguments in favour of abolishing it for education purposes. Reality dictates that is not going to happen. We in the opposition, members of boards of education and many people in the education community are all saying the province should increase its participation. Rather than continuing to decrease it, the province should increase on a progressive basis its percentage of the cost of education that it assumes each year.

If this had been done, legislation of this kind might not even be necessary. The controversy over Bill 127 might not even have arisen. This bill is a fix for a particular problem in Metropolitan Toronto. It is a compromise arrived at after some discussion and some give and take on both sides, but it does not answer the fundamental problem affecting education today, and that is the underfunding of the system on the part of this government, which likes to brag that it has the best education system in the world. I know the minister in her heart of hearts would very likely agree with that contention.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise and speak with respect to Bill 44, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, an act that distils the wisdom of the Bone commission, which inquired into the discretionary levy for education in Metropolitan Toronto.

The bill in most respects not only has won the support of the combined boards of Metropolitan Toronto but has also apparently won the support of the teachers' organizations in this province, and there appears to be very little by way of outcry or criticism from other quarters.

The bill, I should say, represents good news. The good news, however, is not the good news that was referred to in the Toronto Star report of March 2, which noted there was good news in store for Metro residents by virtue of the fact that the minister might be returning surpluses to local school boards.

The good news in this bill is that the minister has agreed to move on a major issue that was left over from the controversy over Bill 127. That bill, as members may remember, was one in which this party attempted to organize, and very effectively organized, a major coalition of groups in this city to bring the combined opposition of the parents and teachers, some of the boards and others to that bill and to its implications for the issue of local autonomy in the educational establishment of Metropolitan Toronto.

The good news is that while this issue was left over, it was put into capable hands, which have rendered a decision that is quite contrary to the initial provision of Bill 127, which had intended to put discretionary levies to one side and to make it impossible for local boards to indulge in them.

The minister was prevailed upon by that coalition to look again at the discretionary levy. She did so through the instrumentation of the Bone commission. What the Bone commission has done is to provide us with a ringing endorsation of a major principle of local autonomy as it functions within the structure of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and its relationships with the local boards in this metropolitan region.

I say this is good news because it tells us the minister is not, after all, impervious to good sense; it tells us the minister is prepared to move on important issues when she is confronted by those who oppose her; it tells us that wisdom, after all, can prevail and that, after all, issues such as local autonomy are not lost in an increasing consolidation of bureaucratic establishments which so mark our modern world.

We in this party still have significant reservations with regard to the metropolitan board's structure; we still have reservations with regard to any other aspect of Bill 127, to which I think we brought something on the order of 50 or more amendments and secured, I think, only one major amendment and one reference out from the bill, namely, the issue of the discretionary levy.

4:10 p.m.

The issue of local autonomy is not one that attaches purely and simply to the discretionary levy issue. It attaches also to the two other major questions that the Bone commission addressed, namely, the question of equalizing assessments in Metropolitan Toronto and the question of surpluses and deficits. It is not only the matter of discretion in a local board that reflects its capacity to exercise its autonomy but also the financial resources available to it.

We all know that boards in Toronto have been in an unequal status with respect to their access to resources, and therefore it was the essence of wisdom for the commissioner, Mr. Bone, to move on to the question of equalizing assessments, just as it was important for him to look at the question of surpluses and deficits, which again relate to the capacity of boards to fulfil their mandates with resources at hand.

If I may turn to the major issue, which prompted the establishment of the commission and which lies at the heart of this piece of legislation, the discretionary levy was, I reiterate, an important victory for local autonomy. What it does is provide local boards with the capacity to raise additional moneys they wish to address for specific purposes. Wisely, the Bone commission chose not to limit the subject upon which that money might be spent.

There was considerable discussion on whether it should be restricted to nonpersonnel matters and should not be allowed to be spent on the hiring of additional teachers. The commission ruled in its wisdom that there should be no limit, other than a financial upper limit, upon the exercise of the discretionary levy. In that respect, I think the maximum amount of autonomy was relayed back to local school boards in the decision in question.

There are those who are concerned that the discretionary levy might have an upward influence upon property taxation. I hasten to say that nothing in this bill institutes the principle of property taxation. On the contrary, the fact that limits are placed upon the ability of boards to exercise the discretionary levy, to the tune of 1.5 mills with respect to elementary education or one mill with respect to secondary education, seems to me to put those fears to one side. This party opposes the wholesale use of property taxation as now the larger part of the base of educational spending in this province. We have argued for some time that there must be a more progressive foundation laid for educational financing in Ontario.

I hasten to say that the discretionary levy does not in itself affect that issue substantially one way or the other. It is true that it does affect one board more adversely than others. That, of course, is the city of Toronto board, which was the one board that opted to use discretionary levies to maintain and even expand on the hiring of teachers in its system, to maintain and enhance pupil-teacher ratios and to maintain programs that were important to it. This legislation recognizes that board does have a particular problem and allows a bridge mechanism whereby over several years that board can phase its own way into the discretionary levy as it affects the hiring of teachers.

The second major issue the Bone commission addressed, namely, the equalization of assessments, arose out of the consideration that the discretionary levy itself was not equally accessible to all boards in the metropolitan region. In addressing the discretionary levy, the commission looked at the capacity of boards to utilize that device. In doing so, it framed proposals that would make it possible for boards in the metropolitan region to have roughly equal access to the discretionary levy. That raised larger questions of equalizing assessments.

It is to the credit of the commission and the report it produced that it concluded this was the time to move to a greater degree of equalization of assessment across the face of Metropolitan Toronto. This party supports that and recognizes it wholeheartedly. The proposal relates to the issue of the pooling of property taxation, but I want to say to those who have reservations about pooling itself that again this particular proposal does not itself initiate the question of pooling. What it addresses is the issue of the equitability of a pooling arrangement. What it does essentially is to alter what was an unfair pooling arrangement among the Metro boards based on market value assessment by weighting the assessment in a different fashion so that each municipality is in a much healthier situation vis-à-vis the resources that are available to it.

What this does for Toronto is a major accomplishment. It brings Torontonians together. It ends the circumstance in which one municipality can look across a boundary at another and envy the level of its taxation rate. What it will do as well, of course, by bringing Torontonians together in a greater degree of solidarity, if I can use that word, around the funding question within Metro itself, is to make it less easy for the ministry in the future to divide and conquer in the Metro region and to exploit those divisions.

Third, with respect to the matter of surpluses, which this legislation addresses -- and, of course, this must be coupled with the issue of deficits -- it will be common knowledge that this party opposed the access of local boards to surplus moneys that derived from outside that local board's boundaries. We did not want to see local boards given excessive temptation in the matter of building up surpluses, a temptation that could be exercised to the detriment of the delivery of quality education within that board's boundaries. Therefore, we proposed that only the portion of the surplus which arose within the boundaries of that board should be available to the board; again that amendment was accepted in the course of debate and became part of the ultimate legislation in Bill 127.

The commission has looked once more at that question and has concluded that, just as boards have responsibility for deficits, they should likewise have access to such surpluses as they generate. What the commission has proposed is, I suppose, something of a halfway house between the original amendment and the total availability of surpluses.

It has therefore devised a mechanism that will enhance the access to those surpluses on the part of local boards, but without making them wholly and fully accessible on an across-the-board basis. It does this by relating it by a formula to the proportion that the expenditures of a local board represent in relation to the expenditures of the Metro boards in total.

We still have some reservations on that subject. We do not wish to see local boards under too heavy a temptation to generate surpluses. But we also know local boards have major objectives in delivering quality education. We know they have to have moneys to do that, and therefore we are not unhappy to see them have available some additional moneys out of the surpluses to accomplish it.

We know that one of the major boards in question, namely, the Toronto board, which will be one of the three boards benefiting most from this arrangement by securing a 100 per cent return of its surplus, is the only board that is in a negative grant situation in Toronto; in fact, it is the only one, I think, that receives no money at all overall from the ministry. It is also the board that is perhaps most concerned about quality education issues, and therefore we expect and hope that it, the North York board and the Etobicoke board, which will get 100 per cent returns, will use those moneys for those purposes. It is unfortunate the formula does not work quite so much to the advantage of the three other boards; none the less, it does improve their access to those surpluses.

4:20 p.m.

While we still have some concern about the principle of the overavailability of surpluses, we do not feel the present amendment is so great a change from the original amendment as to render our original objection out of court. Having access to surpluses, as well as being responsible for deficits, is one of the major issues with respect to the matter of local autonomy.

In that respect, one issue that does continue to concern us in local autonomy for local boards is the matter of a lack of definition that still remains, hanging over from the Bill 127 debate and from Bill 127 itself. This legislation makes no major attack on it. It is the definition as to what is local and what is central in the concerns of the local boards and the Metro board in Toronto.

Clearly, this can be a most disputatious matter that will trouble future negotiations between educational parties in Toronto unless it is cleared up. We hope the minister will move on that question. Just as she has recently established a committee to look at the issue of finance, we hope she will also set up a working group to clarify the question of what is local and what is central in educational relationships in Toronto. That comes right to the heart of the question of local autonomy. Unless one finally does know what one's autonomy is all about in quite concrete terms, it really is a debatable asset.

For the future, while on this narrow spectrum of legislation we find the advances significant overall and the compromises notable, and the advance for Metropolitan Toronto one that is beneficial to all parties, we recognize that the Metropolitan board and the local boards are still vulnerable to the levels of provincial funding.

The trend in that respect is not one that gives us great encouragement. The previous speaker has referred to the changing balance of educational financial responsibilities in this province to a point where in the last year provincial responsibility has slipped to a 48.5 per cent level. That is a far cry from where it stood a decade ago.

I also want to draw the attention of this House that in a recent issue of the Canadian Tax Journal there were some unusual and alarming statistics on the subject of Ontario's spending on education in relation to national spending levels as a percentage of gross provincial product by sector.

In each of those sectors, whether elementary and secondary spending, post-secondary spending or vocational and occupational spending, the decline across the country was notable, but it was most notable in this province. In each of those sectors, with the exception of post-secondary education, in 1971 this province began at a level below the national average, stayed below the national average, stands below the national average and is still so to this day.

For example, if one looks back to the years in which debate over Bill 127 began, 1982 and 1983, one notes that over the period 1975 to 1982 the province cut its share of support for education in Metropolitan Toronto from 33 per cent to 15 per cent. When one looks at the change in expenditure between 1980 and 1982, the province paid $590 per pupil in the latter year and spent $608 in 1980, a decline of $18 per pupil in two years.

When one looks at recent reports about the problem of where educational taxation will have to go in the Metro region in the course of this coming year, the news we receive is that the Queen's Park contribution to the Metro schools' budget will decline by 18 per cent.

When the Premier said last night in his speech at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education he wanted to reserve to one side the matter of resource allocation, it is pretty obvious why he wanted to put that question to one side. The story is lamentable and it is not getting any better, not just for Metropolitan Toronto but for this province.

One of the grounds on which we are urged to support this legislation has been that it would give some relief to Metro taxpayers. We were urged to support it because, otherwise, spending in Toronto that would be levied upon the property taxpayers of the metropolitan region would go up inordinately. We were to be shamed into not opposing this bill, lest we be attacked for being party to the increase in mill rates in the metropolitan region.

That is one word that came to us as political advice, and that is very strong political advice to give to any party. But I want to say that while we are supporting this legislation and we are happy to be of assistance to the citizens of Toronto in maintaining reasonable increases and preventing unreasonable increases in property taxation rates, my colleagues and I in this party want to serve notice, as we have in the past, that we are not prepared to stand by and see the advance in equity and autonomy this bill represents undermined by pernicious annual retreats by this government from fair funding for Metro and for all the boards of this province.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I rise without the detailed and specific knowledge the Minister of Education, my colleague the member for Hamilton West and my colleague the member for St. Catharines have about the details of the bill.

I do want to say, very briefly, on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus from the city of Toronto proper, the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella), the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) and myself, we do appreciate the rather statesmanlike position the Toronto Board of Education took in the discussions and negotiations following upon the rather acerbic debate related to Bill 127 which culminated in the initiative taken under pressure by the Minister of Education to appoint the Bruce Bone commission and the subsequent discussions of the report of that commission, which brought about some sense of equity on the two vexed questions of a uniform mill rate for educational purposes in Metropolitan Toronto and of the discretionary levy.

One must not underestimate or misunderstand. In agreeing to move towards a uniform mill rate across the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the city of Toronto board, at the same time, on the matter of the discretionary levy, has lost a considerable amount of money, as far as I can tell from the information I have. It was quite clear the city of Toronto, with a higher proportion of commercial assessment to total assessment than residential assessment, was going to benefit in the historical development of the mill rate for educational purposes in permitting the city to have a lower residential mill rate for educational purposes than was available to the other boroughs, which are now the other cities, and the remaining borough in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

4:30 p.m.

It is always with a considerable amount of regret that one takes the kind of statesmanlike position the Toronto Board of Education has taken. We realize it will, incrementally, mean an increase in the residential tax rate as it is at present levied in the city of Toronto for educational purposes. I do not know the extent and degree of that incremental raise, but the movement towards a uniform mill rate across the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto will restore what the board of education of the city and those of us who represent city constituencies proper believe to have always been the intention with respect to the educational levy in Metro Toronto as a whole.

On the question of the discretionary levy, there was always a kind of anomaly about the discussion of the discretionary level on the grounds that the other area municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto did not have a discretionary levy, but at the same time they indicated they were upset about the city of Toronto having one. If they had in their turn a discretionary levy, they would not be able to obtain as much money.

It is my understanding the city of Toronto has been in the past, and is now, the only area municipality with a discretionary levy for educational purposes. Be that as it may, the net effect of what the minister proposes with respect to that discretionary levy is that while the city of Toronto can levy up to the stated one per cent, that amount of money will then be reduced to the amount that would have been produced if a levy had been spread across the whole of Metropolitan Toronto.

If the information I have is correct, and on the basis of the assumptions that always have to be made in connection with projections, in 1986 the elementary system of the city of Toronto will have only $4.3 million available to it under the discretionary level instead of $4.7 million. The secondary school system will have only $2.8 million available instead of $3.4 million. In 1986, with those assumptions on the discretionary level, there will be a net loss, through changes being made to the amount that levy would otherwise be, in the neighbourhood of $1 million.

Somebody can say that is not very much when one considers that the whole of the budget of the city of Toronto is in the neighbourhood of $350 million. But we in the assembly understand that substantially all of the costs of the province's budget are fixed costs. The value of $1 million of discretionary funds has a much more important flexibility than a simple reference on a percentage basis of $1 million to $350 million.

On behalf of our colleagues, I did want to say to the House that the spirit in which the Toronto Board of Education has approached the recommendations of the Bone commission, the discussions which have taken place, the degree of magnanimity it has shown and the amicable result that is mirrored in this bill, is something I trust the minister will not forget, taking into account the acerbic atmosphere in which the whole of this matter was originally projected into this assembly when we discussed Bill 127.

I do not know whether in the bear pit of any politics, let alone the bear pit of Metropolitan Toronto politics, one gets any marks for statesmanship or for taking the high ground. But if there are any marks in the political world, then I think the Toronto Board of Education deserves those marks. I simply wanted to indicate to the assembly the appreciation I have for the difficult decision the board had to make in accepting this particular compromise, but also to indicate quite clearly, so far as I can tell, the cost to the residential taxpayers in the city of Toronto proper and the cost to the Toronto Board of Education with respect to the discretionary levy that the acceptance of this bill indicates.

While I am not particularly happy about the result, for the reasons given by the Toronto Board of Education and for the basic motivations that were behind the acceptance of the recommendation of the Bone commission, I am quite prepared to accept the bill.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I will also be very brief on this. I want to classify Bill 44 as the bill in which the Minister of Education basically says "mea culpa, mea maxima culpa." That means, basically, a public apology for being so intractable, for being so stubborn, for being politically unbending during the debates on Bill 127.

The minister rarely listens to what anybody says. I do not blame her for continuing on with that frame of mind.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Because the member never says anything new. He is so predictable that we don't have to.

Mr. Grande: The Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) says I am predictable. Every day during question period we know how predictable he is and where he comes down hard and fast.

The members will remember that the initial Bill 127 was brought into this Legislature some time ago, a year or a year and a half ago, and we spent six months debating it. That bill originally had completely abolished the local levy until parents in Metropolitan Toronto, the Workgroup of Metro Parents, trustees from the city of Toronto and other people across Metropolitan Toronto started to protest that move, started to say to the minister and to the government: "Do you realize what you are doing? Do you realize by getting rid of this local levy you are preventing classes for children who need to learn how to speak English? Do you understand what you are doing is preventing classes from being established for children who require special education in Toronto? Do you know that by getting rid of the local levy you are asking school boards to close small schools? Do you realize getting rid of the local levy means Toronto will have to fire teachers and thereby cut programs?"

Those people brought the protest to the minister in no uncertain terms, and the minister grudgingly bent. I remember she went down to the Holiday Inn in Toronto and said, "Of course, I will keep the local levy in there up to one mill, elementary." That was the first sign that the minister, after months of battling, had decided to become politically flexible.

4:40 p.m.

This bill says the local levy for those particular school boards that choose to have the local levy will be maintained at one and a half mills, elementary, and one mill, secondary.

Basically, what I would like to say to you, Mr. Speaker, because the minister is again not listening, is this bill is a victory of sorts. It is a victory for those people in Metropolitan Toronto who think education and the delivery of educational services to children are important and are a must.

Of course, the other aspect of the mea culpa bill is in terms of the surplus and deficit provisions. Everybody remembers what the member for St. Catharines mentioned, which is that during the committee hearings on Bill 127, we in the combined opposition, along with teachers and parents, were able to get the Minister of Education, with the majority the government has in committee, to accept one and only one of the 50 amendments I had put forward to that committee on behalf of this party.

The minister accepted the recommendation, but by the time we got to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 127, the minister had already heard the advice of the John Toltons of this world. Basically, the minister said, "I want to change my mind on that to which I agreed."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What was it the York Board of Education said to you?

Mr. Grande: I remember exactly what the chairman at that time --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What was it that board said to you after the meeting was past and what did its representatives say to your leader?

Mr. Grande: Again, the minister does not want to listen.

I remember exactly what the chairman of the York Board of Education said to the minister as she stomped out of the committee, angry and frustrated with the minister. I remember that.

It is obvious that the kinds of arguments put forward in the committee were accepted by the minister. The logic and the fairness of those arguments were acceptable to the minister. This is how we got the amendment through.

As a result of that amendment and the Bill 127 struggle -- and I like to call it a struggle because it was a struggle to protect educational services for children in Metropolitan Toronto -- we had a commission, with the minister appointing Mr. Bruce Bone as commissioner.

Basically, Mr. Bone heard the point of view of the Toronto Board of Education and the other Metropolitan Toronto boards. In his wisdom, he decided the best way to go about it would not be the way the minister originally intended, but instead by bringing about peace in the educational milieu of Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Bone said to the minister: "Here, accept this; it is peace we are after." Basically, I agree wholeheartedly with what my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) just said. The Toronto Board of Education stands to lose. There is no doubt about it. It stands to lose, but not as much as it would have lost if the minister had her way in getting rid of the local levy altogether. It still stands to lose, however.

The Toronto Board of Education has always said, even before Bill 127, that it was willing to share the money it would gather from the taxes. The Toronto Board of Education has been saying that, not only for years, but back to the time the Metropolitan Toronto School Board decided to dissolve itself. The Toronto Board of Education was saying, "Yes, we are willing to share approximately $10 million with other area boards in Metropolitan Toronto."

It was willing to do this so the Metropolitan Toronto School Board would no longer have to be in existence. However, the minister and her government decided the Metropolitan Toronto School Board should be there and that it should be strengthened. I suppose the parents and people in Metropolitan Toronto who were concerned will have to look to the Metropolitan Toronto School Board for their protests and to protest to that board that they are dissatisfied with the educational service and the delivery of those services to their children.

Let me end by saying to the Minister that we accept her public apology.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, to sum up the second reading debate on Bill 44, I am delighted to have had positive responses to all of the subject matter put forward in Bill 44.

Members will recall it was as a result of the ongoing dispute between five area boards, one metropolitan board and the Toronto board regarding the retention of discretionary levy, that modifications and the suggestion regarding the commission were raised during the debate in the usual conciliatory manner of the minister. They were not as a result of any pressure exerted by the member for Oakwood who has an absolutely dreadful memory. I believe we should give him lessons in memory retention and chronology.

Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Did I hear the minister say, "in the usual conciliatory fashion of this minister"?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Of course. What else would the member expect me to say?

The Bone commission was appointed to investigate the rationale, the validity, of the retention of the discretionary levy. It is my understanding that during the deliberations which took place in the drafting of the final report, the commissioner explained the two alternatives to each and every board within the system.

One of the two alternatives was included within the report; a calculation which provides for greater equalization of the capacity of the levying of the discretionary levy in all of the boards throughout Metropolitan Toronto. The alternative was the absolute abolition of the discretionary levy.

While a significant number of the boards recommended strongly that there be absolute abolition, there was a good deal of discussion about it. A compromise was reached amongst all of the boards that the proposal, as developed within the commission's report and translated into legislation, would be a more appropriate situation, considering the kinds of circumstances the Toronto board would find itself in if there were immediate, absolute abolition.

It is not only a measure of the capacity of the Toronto board for some degree of magnaminity, but a very significant measure of the capacity of all of the other area boards for the same kind of capacity for compromise which we have within the Bone commission report and which is appropriately translated into legislation.

There is no doubt each of the boards, given its own circumstances and its own attitudes, would probably come up with a slightly different set of circumstances and sections under the legislation to deal with all of these matters, but they have agreed they each will accept the total package as presented by Bone, without amendment, without any change. The only other stipulation I heard from any of them was that if there were a change of any kind, none of them could accept the legislation.

4:50 p.m.

Therefore, I am delighted to know the members of the Legislature have recognized the wisdom of the compromise reached by the boards themselves. In this Legislature, we are serving those boards, and thereby the students in their jurisdiction. We have agreed to accept this legislation, which looks relatively complicated for a relatively straightforward kind of activity, but is a matter which has been agreed to by all of the boards.

I am delighted all the members in their presentations have supported the position taken by the commissioner and by the legislation itself.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, if members of the House are agreeable, we could call the order for third reading now.

Hon. Miss Stephenson moved third reading of Bill 44, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: As I understand the rules of this House it is certainly uncommon, and I believe unprecedented, to have second and third readings on the same day.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I asked for unanimous consent and I thought I had it. If my friend wants to say no, that is fine and we will hold the third reading.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, while the member is considering that, we in the Liberal Party have no difficulty at all in acceding to the request for unanimous consent for third reading.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, it is not a precedent, and it is generally agreed. We rarely have third readings on the same day, but I understood there was some urgency for this bill. His Honour is giving royal assent to the bills that have received third reading at five o'clock today, so it would be possible for this bill to have royal assent today if we pass it now. If there is not unanimous consent, that is fine.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The House leader has responded. Perhaps there is a problem with members of the third party.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, the question I have of the minister and of the government House leader is whether it is important to do it today. I understood, when we had the consultation with the minister on this bill, that the concerned parties were interested in having the legislation passed as soon as possible. I understood as soon as possible was May 1, plus three, four or five days, that there was that latitude. If that is the case, I urge upon the government House leader and the minister the fact that orders of this House are important, and if they can be honoured I believe they should be honoured.

The Acting Speaker: The member has explained his point of order. If he does not want it to proceed, I do not hear him saying that. It is up for third reading at this point. Is there any further discussion or debate on this bill?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Shall I respond to his point of order?

The Acting Speaking: The member has made his point of order. We have listened to it and I do not see him fully objecting. If he wants to object, then we will poll it and proceed.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, when I raised a point of order I also phrased a question to the minister and the government House leader. Under the circumstances, I think it would be helpful for us to have an answer. They have pleaded that kind of urgency is there. I was told in consultations that it was not there, in precisely those terms.

The Acting Speaker: Rather than have the government House leader respond, is the member objecting because we are discussing the third reading of Bill 44?

Mr. Allen: I am objecting and wish to know the circumstances.

The Acting Speaker: Is the member saying, "Therefore, we vote to withdraw the bill"?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, may I rise in response to the question that has been raised. As I understand it, it is absolutely essential this bill be passed as rapidly as possible because Metropolitan Toronto has to pass the money bill, and we are already a day late in that activity. Every day that is delayed poses a greater problem for all the boards and for Metropolitan Toronto. Therefore, we were requested to have the bill in place, if possible, by April 30. When we discovered it was not possible, we were told there might be some possibility for a little flexibility, but the sooner it could be passed the better it would be for all the governments within Metropolitan Toronto related to this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have consent to proceed with third reading?

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

House in committee of the whole.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 141, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Chairman, in taking the bill through the committee stage for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), I might make a couple of introductory comments regarding the amendments the ministry will be putting before the House for consideration when considering this bill.

The government will be moving certain amendments to Bill 141, and in introducing these amendments I would like to point out that they result from some of the representations that were made before the standing committee on resources development on January 9, 10 and 11. The Minister of Labour attended and took part on each day of the hearings and I also attended some of the hearings both as a substitute member of the committee and as parliamentary assistant.

As members are aware, Bill 141 is a comprehensive set of amendments to the Employment Standards Act. The sections of the act affecting women -- that is, the equal pay provisions in part IX and the pregnancy leave provisions in part XI -- have been significantly improved by the amendments being proposed under Bill 141.

All of the major proposals of the bill are being preserved. The composite test for equal pay remains intact, and in our view this represents a significant improvement in ensuring that women receive equal pay for equal work. The reduction in the length of service required to qualify for the 17-week pregnancy leave under section 36 is unchanged. The protection of the six-week postnatal period for those not meeting the 12-month service requirement under the proposed section 37a also remains unaltered.

The amendments we are proposing to this bill clarify the intent and enhance the protections afforded under sections 33, 35 and 38 of the Employment Standards Act. Briefly, the substance of the proposed amendments we will be putting forward is as follows.

Subsection 33(3) of the act has been slightly restructured to ensure that equal pay is required except where pay differentials are related to a company-wide system based on seniority or service, a measure of productivity or merit, or if exception is made on a bona fide ground other than sex.

Section 35 has been extensively revised in response to the submissions before the committee from such groups as the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario, the Ontario Nurses' Association and other groups concerned with the right to sick leave benefits during the period before beginning a pregnancy leave. Those benefits are now clearly protected by the addition of an explicit subsection prohibiting denial of sick benefits during leaves taken or required to be taken under section 35.

We have also drafted a complementary revision to regulation 282(8)(c), which will be sent to the regulations committee of cabinet as soon as the bill is passed and receives royal assent. The revision is being circulated with the proposed amendments to Bill 141 so members can consider it in the context of section 35 and so we will all have complete information before us.

5 p.m.

The amendments to section 35 also clearly state that any medical leaves taken by the employee or that the employer requires to be taken before the intended commencement of the 17-week pregnancy leave or the six-week postnatal leave will not affect or shorten these statutory leaves.

In other words, we have taken steps to clarify for all those who voiced this concern before the committee that we do not see the pregnancy leave provision having any impact, nor is it intended to have any impact, on the regular sick leave benefits arrangement that may exist between the employer and the employee.

Both employer and employee groups asked for the clarification of the intent of subsection 38(1), regarding reinstatement at current wage rates, and of subsection 38(3), regarding accrual of service credits during pregnancy or adoption leave.

The amendments to both subsections make the intent very clear. Reinstatement will be at the current wage that applies or would apply to the job held prior to taking pregnancy or adoption leave. We have clarified this. The wage the employee will be reinstated at is the wage at the time the employee returns, not the wage at the time the employee's leave commenced. Service credits will accrue only for purposes of eligibility for benefit programs or statutory benefits.

The final amendment is a new subsection, subsection 38(6), which I hope all members have seen. Under this subsection, anyone already on pregnancy or adoption leave at the time the amendments come into force will be included.

I am sure the details of these amendments will become clear during the clause-by-clause analysis. At this point, it just remains for me, on behalf of the minister and the government, to thank all those groups and individuals who appeared before the committee in January for their very valuable contribution in helping us to clarify both the intent and the ramifications of Bill 141.

Having said that, I look forward very much to the contribution to the debate and suggestions by all members as we proceed through the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to participate on behalf of the Ontario Liberal caucus in the clause-by-clause deliberations on Bill 141. Unfortunately, I was only able to attend the hearings for one week.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I would like to move an amendment to the bill at this time.

The Deputy Chairman: We will have an introductory statement from each of the three parties, and then we will proceed with the amendments. It seems to be a little bit important that people have opening statements.

Mr. Mancini: I want to inform the House that I have only a few comments to make, then I will advise the House of the amendments we have.

I sympathize with my friend the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), but his party has the least number of seats in the Legislature and under our rules and traditions, unfortunately, has the last opportunity to make statements and amendments. He and others will have to wait, as is our tradition.

Hon. Mr. Norton: You really know how to put them in their place.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: The member has the floor, and he is speaking to Bill 141.

Mr. Mancini: As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, I attended the hearings for a week and heard some excellent briefs from people on both sides of this issue. Prior to the week I attended, the committee that was deliberating Bill 141 had many weeks of hearings.

At this time, I want to thank my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), who spent many weeks on the committee hearing briefs on Bill 141, for helping me with the amendments. As usual, he has been of considerable help in these matters. As you know, Mr. Chairman, he has the responsibility for watching the Minister responsible for Women's Issues (Mr. Welch).

I want to say to the parliamentary assistant that we understand he has been kidded on occasion about the extra $8,000 a year he earns as a parliamentary assistant and about the fact that he has the use of government's pool of automobiles.

Mr. Breaugh: Would you say he is lining his pockets?

Mr. Mancini: I was just going to get to that. I have to agree with the member for Oshawa; I believe the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) is lining his pockets, and he is not even working overtime.

Mr. Gillies: Do I have to respond to that?

The Deputy Chairman: I do not know what that has to do with the bill. Because the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) said it with such a smile on his face, I do not see it as having any impact on what we are really talking about.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: We have much to do. If the member has any further remarks on Bill 141, we will be pleased to hear them.

Mr. Mancini: I was only trying to bring out relevant debates that have occurred over the past few weeks here.

The Deputy Chairman: You are bringing out more than relevant debates.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you I will not get into a debate about eagles and turkeys or anything of that nature.

The amendments that have been put forward by the government are mainly of a housekeeping nature, except the amendments shown in section 6 of the bill, subsection 38(3) of the act. We feel the government has changed its original position somewhat in that clause. I do not believe we will find ourselves in favour of what the government has done there. We also have difficulty with section 6 of the bill, subsection 38(5) of the act. We feel the government has watered down its position, and I do not think it can count on us for support.

I have also received a copy of the amendment that is being proposed by the New Democratic Party. Basically, that amendment fills a page and a half --

Mr. Breaugh: Did you count that?

Mr. Mancini: Yes. Basically, that amendment fills a page and a half, and it speaks right to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. That is exactly what this party is concerned with. While the NDP has gone to great length to explain its position, it could have been explained in five words or less. The NDP has put in place what could be done by regulation or what we would expect to be done by regulation. I do not think it is absolutely necessary in any bill to explain how a principle is going to work. I think it is the responsibility of the government to ensure --

Mr. Breaugh: You will tell them later, will you?

Mr. Mancini: If the principle of equal pay for work of equal value is accepted by the whole House and is passed somehow in Bill 141, then we do not need to explain to the government that it has to hire employment standards officers or how to assess this --

Interjections.

Mr. Mancini: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I bring to your attention that it took a page and a half to explain what could be explained in five words.

Mr. Swart: It is like the bill you introduced to cut down on the verbiage.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: I am sorry the member did not see fit to support that.

At this time, I would like to make an amendment. As I understand it, the parliamentary assistant has a copy of the amendments. I understand the table has a copy of the amendments. A copy of the amendments has been sent to the New Democratic Party, and I am sure they have them at hand.

I would move --

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Not five minutes ago the chair ruled that we were on opening remarks and that we were not yet accepting amendments. This party has not yet made its opening remarks. I ask the chair to please rule that the opening remarks now pass to this caucus.

The Deputy Chairman: No. Although the honourable member tried to make an amendment, I said we were going the rounds. I said we would allow an opening remark by the member for Brantford, an opening remark from each of the opposition parties, and then we would consider the amendments as they come.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Surely, Mr. Chairman, my colleague can indicate which amendments he is going to put on the bill.

The Deputy Chairman: I think he could give the intent of where he is going. He is not trying to move them right now, is he?

Mr. Haggerty: He is just going to tell you what they are.

Mr. Breaugh: He was going to move them 30 seconds ago.

The Deputy Chairman: I think it would be very helpful if the member indicated the general direction he is going to take. Then we would all know. I would just ask the member, on the basis of the general consensus I have found, to indicate where he is going. I will allow the member for Hamilton East --

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Chairman, in fairness to the honourable member --

The Deputy Chairman: What is the member standing up for? Is this a point of order?

Mr. Gillies: In my opening remarks I outlined the amendments the ministry would be proposing; so I cannot imagine why the member for Essex South would not be able to do the same.

The Deputy Chairman: That is what I am trying to let him do.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, when we are doing clause-by-clause I can make a short statement before I move my first amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: If you are ready to start your amendments, I will defer for a moment to the member for Hamilton East; then we will come back and start the amendments to the bill. Did the member for Hamilton East want to make an opening remark?

Mr. Mancini: I guess this is a new procedure.

The Deputy Chairman: No, it is not. It is just that I got caught with this one.

The member for Hamilton East might want to --

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, just so I understand you correctly, have you now taken the position that this short period is going to be used for opening statements and not for amendments?

The Deputy Chairman: Because the first statement seemed to be of an opening nature, indicating amendments that would be coming, I felt there would probably be a consensus favouring this. I was considering the amount of work that has gone into this bill before. I thought we could get into the detailed statements later. I did not ask for a consensus, but I felt it was there. Maybe I misread members in the House.

Mr. Mancini: Fine. That is not --

The Deputy Chairman: I recognize the member for Hamilton East if he --

Mr. Mancini: I am not quite finished, Mr. Chairman, if that is the case.

The Deputy Chairman: Fine.

Mr. Breaugh: One of these years you will learn how to play this sport.

Mr. Mancini: No. That is not how clause-by-clause is done. As a former chairman of the standing committee on procedural affairs, the member should know that.

Mr. Breaugh: Oh, should I? Thanks for the lecture.

Mr. Mancini: Especially since we sent the member to England twice to study procedure.

Mr. Breaugh: "We" sent? "We"?

Mr. Bradley: We, the taxpayers.

The Deputy Chairman: Will the member for Essex South please continue his remarks.

Mr. Mancini: I want to put the House on notice, if that is the case, that I will be moving, when Mr. Chairman deems it appropriate, an amendment to subsection 33(1). The amendment will ask that the words in subsection 33(1), paragraph 1, "substantially the same kind," be struck out from the bill.

I will move later, under section 6, that subsection 38(3) be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"While an employee is on leave under this part, the employee's service-related credits and benefits, including employer contributions or payments to a pension fund or plan or a fund or plan that provides for service-related benefits for an employee, and including the determination of all entitlements under this act based on length of service, shall continue to accrue during the leave for all purposes."

Then I am going to move further under section 6 that the government amendment be amended by striking out subsection 38(5) of the act, as set out in the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I put you and the House on notice of those three amendments, which will be moved.

The Deputy Chairman: I would just make a comment to the member. I was not trying to set any precedent at all. I just hoped this was the way people wanted to begin; then we can proceed with the amendments being moved.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I see no point in an opening statement. We should get to the meat of it, and I would like to move an amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: Do you have the amendment --

Mr. Mackenzie: The amendment is before us. I would like to read it if I can.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I thought in the back of my mind that this game-playing was going to lead to this type of posture.

I represent the official opposition in the Ontario Legislature. Under the traditions and the rules of this House when amendments are to be placed, the chair looks to the official opposition first. If we are now prepared to undertake and listen to amendments, I put the chair on notice that I have an amendment to put forward.

The Deputy Chairman: So that we can expedite the business of the House, I now have before me the proposed amendments being made by the member from the Liberal Party and the proposed amendment from the third party. If I am to believe what is going to happen, the amendment that is coming from the member for Hamilton East will be a rather all-inclusive amendment to --

Mr. Wrye: Well, that is nice.

Interjection.

The Deputy Chairman: No, just let me point this out, because to me there is a way of handling business. His first amendment, if I assume correctly, is going to affect subsection 33(1) all-inclusively. When that is dealt with, it would make sense to deal item by item within that --

Mr. Wrye: No, it would not make sense.

The Deputy Chairman: Within committee.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: I have three points of order. I will recognize the member for Essex South and then the member for Wilson Heights.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, are you going to deny that when we do clause-by-clause work in the Legislature, the official opposition is looked to before the third party when amendments are placed?

The Deputy Chairman: No, that is not what I was saying.

Mr. Mancini: Then if that is not the case, then I again put you on notice that the official opposition has amendments to put forward.

The Deputy Chairman: I hear that, and I have a feeling of where they are going to be. What the House normally does is to begin and take it section by section, the first section first and the first points within that section. When there is an all-inclusive motion that affects that first section, it can be dealt with unamended, and then we can deal with yours seriatim.

I have a few points of order.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: With respect, I gather you called the bill and you had some opening remarks; you have not yet called clause by clause. I suggest that when you come to clause-by-clause discussion, you call section 1; then, as I believe the member for Essex South indicated, it is normal to go first to the government member and then proceed in rotation.

When you call the first section in the bill, it is up to whoever rises first to be recognized first and to place that amendment to section 1 of the bill. But until you call clause by clause, with respect, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that you can take no amendments.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I just want to say very briefly that I think you are dead on. I heard you say you would entertain opening remarks, which traditionally means here that if we want to say a few things before we proceed with the clause-by-clause debate, we can do that; we were quite in agreement with that. It just happens that the member for Hamilton East decided not to do that. It seems to me the next order of business then is to proceed with clause by clause.

I think you are quite right. We are all aware of who is moving which amendments and where. The normal course of procedure here would be to take them as they come in the bill. I think he has a right to put his amendment now and you will then call the section. I think you have been notified by the Liberals and by the parliamentary assistant that there will be other amendments put and that we will simply proceed on that basis. We start at section 1 and we go through the bill. It is pretty straightforward.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I want to put you on notice --

The Deputy Chairman: You do not put the Chairman on notice. The chair is trying to do a job to expedite this. What you are trying to do is give the chair advice or something, but you do not put me on notice.

Mr. Mancini: I cannot put you on notice?

The Deputy Chairman: No, you cannot.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I am somewhat aware of the amendments that are going to be moved to section 1 of the bill. It seems to me there are three amendments. There is one from the government. That amendment should be put first. There is one from the official opposition. If the official opposition catches your eye, that amendment should be put second. Then there is one from the third party. That should be put third.

Mr. Breaugh: No, that is not --

Mr. Wrye: My friend the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) may wish to disagree and, if so, he can have his point of order in a minute. It seems to me the intent of the amendment we wish to put and the intent of the amendment from the third party are exactly the same, as I understand it.

Mr. Mackenzie: Like blazes they are.

Mr. Wrye: My friend the member for Hamilton East does not think they are. Our legislative counsel may differ with him, but I guess the member has become an expert on that as well.

It seems to me we have some kind of rotation in the procedure around this place and maybe we ought to follow it. I do not know what game-playing is going on to my left, but we are not going to stand by while we, the official opposition, are ignored on this important amendment. We expect to put our amendment first.

The Deputy Chairman: We will take it seriatim.

On section 1:

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to move to subsection 33(1).

The Deputy Chairman: I am starting with section 1 of the bill; then we will move to section 33.

Does the member have an amendment to subsection 33(1) of the act?

Mr. Gillies: Yes.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I think I have an amendment that comes before that.

The Deputy Chairman: I am having a complete breakdown in having the co-operation of the House. I have an amendment to subsection 33(1) of the act under section 1 of the bill. As it would seem the majority of the House wants to proceed with amendments to subsection 33(1), then we will go through them.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Chairman, as the member for Essex South indicated, I think all three parties have amendments to section 1. Why do we not go ahead? I do not care what order we go in.

Mr. Mancini: Can I offer the chair some advice? The chair did not want me to use the words "put you on notice." You wanted me to use the word "advice". I would like to offer the chair some advice. It is evident the government, the official opposition and the third party all have amendments to the same section.

Mr. Di Santo: Go in order.

Mr. Mancini: That is exactly what we want to do. We want to go in order.

The government, as has been the tradition, should put its amendment first. We will be glad to stand in line and go second, as has always been the case during clause-by-clause debate. The third party, unfortunately, has to wait. I do not know what kind of games they are trying to play.

The Deputy Chairman: The member from Essex South has to realize there is no intention of playing games. The only desire I have is to expedite the business of the House and serve all members as we process the business of this House in committee.

I am now in the position of having heard all points of order with both ears and with great compassion and understanding. We will proceed through the bill starting at subsection 33(1) of the act, with the first and earliest amendment that can affect that bill I have been given. It comes to me from the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Gillies moves that subsection 33(1) of the act as set out in section 1 of the bill be amended by striking out "his" in the second line.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this is obviously a very minor amendment. It was prima facie evidence of sexist language in the bill, which was pointed out to us during the debate. We are very happy to remove the word. Obviously, there is no intent on the ministry's part to indicate more employers are male than female, or vice versa. Removing that word certainly does not weaken the clause at all; in fact, it strengthens it.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Essex South.

Mr. Mancini: Yes, I move --

The Deputy Chairman: No, there is a motion on the floor. I have not asked for a vote. Things do not carry unless the chair says they carry.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: I have to take a vote. Do you want to speak to it?

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, we support the government' s amendment.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I would be very happy to see any sexist language eliminated from the bill. I think it was probably an oversight in the drafting; at least I hope it was. We support the elimination of the word.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Chairman, we will support this amendment in view of the fact that our party first pointed out the discriminatory language. I hope the government takes this as an example of what should be done with all our legislation. Our standing orders, among other parliamentary procedures, should also be brought into line. They continue to contain sexist and antediluvian language.

Interjections.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further amendments to section 1?

Mr. Mancini: The present subsection 33(1) reads: "No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall differentiate between his male and female employees by paying a female employee wages that are less than the wages paid to a male employee, or vice versa, for substantially the same kind of work performed in the same establishment where the work requires...."

Mr. Chairman, you already have a copy of our amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Mancini moves that subsection 33(1) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by striking out the words "substantially the same kind of".

Any comments?

Mr. Mackenzie: I have one. I would like to move on.

Mr. Chairman: Does the mover of the motion wish to speak to it?

Mr. Breaugh: On a small point of order, Mr. Chairman: We are into this argument again, but I think the proper way to proceed, if you will hear me out, is to let us put our amendments on the floor of the House. Then the chair will have to make a ruling on the sequence in which we will deal with these amendments.

The previous chairman did make a ruling on that, and I think we are going to have to ask you to do the same thing again. It is my impression that the proper way to proceed now is to get both amendments on the floor. You will make a ruling on how we will deal with them and in what order we will deal with them.

Mr. Chairman: I appreciate the member's comments, and I did hear part of the previous comments. We did start the process by having the parliamentary assistant put the government's amendment, which was carried. We have now gone to the amendment by the critic of the official opposition and we are going to hear the debate on his motion. When we deal with that, we will be coming to other members for their amendments.

5:30p.m.

Mr. Mancini: The removal of the words "substantially the same kind of" in line 5 of subsection 33(1) changes the nature of the bill substantially. This change makes the bill a bill for equal pay for work of equal value, something we have talked about a lot in this House.

Some time ago the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) brought forward a resolution espousing the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. That principle was endorsed unanimously in the House. We have before us a government bill to change the Employment Standards Act. We thought the government might have come forward with legislation that would put into practice its support of my colleague's bill. However, it did not do that. Therefore, the words "substantially the same kind of" need to be struck from the bill to make this legislation comply with the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.

It is quite evident why we need this bill. Day after day in the Legislature since we started the session, we have heard many members from all three political parties introduce petitions addressed to the Lieutenant Government in Council which state that women earn only 63 per cent of the average wage of men in our society and that women are forced into what some people term as job ghettos. Unless legislative action is taken, things in the work force will not improve for the female population.

Because of the things I stated earlier -- the 63 per cent wage for women as compared to men, the job ghettos -- and for a host of other reasons, we need to take legislative action. The elimination of the words I mentioned earlier will give us the opportunity to do that.

I could have taken a page and a half to put this point in a different way, but at the time I did not believe it was necessary. I still believe that. I ask all members for their support.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I fail to see that the Liberal amendment enshrines in the Employment Standards Act the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, which 25 Liberals voted for when a motion to that effect was before the House. There is no mention of equal pay for work of equal value either in the amendment before us from the government or in the amendment as amended by the Liberal speaker; so we have not implemented the commitment made by all 43 Conservatives and 25 Liberals who voted for it on October 20, 1983.

I consider the amendment completely useless in improving the present legislation. It fails to make clear that equal value is the objective of applying the criteria. It simply enacts the composite criteria and does not make clear that dissimilar jobs can be compared. How are we going to get a comparison between the parking lot attendant and the switchboard operator at Queen's Park if we cannot compare dissimilar jobs? When we simply apply the composite test to the work performed, we are not necessarily going to apply it in the context of looking for equal value.

That is where the amendment is very defective. I think we should reject it out of hand and consider the amendment the member for Hamilton East has indicated he wishes to move. It would be a complete substitution for the government's new part IX, Equal Pay, by his new part IX called, Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to speak in support of this amendment. I am not quite sure whether the members of the New Democratic Party have had a chance to peruse our amendment in depth. It seems to me that if they have, they will understand it. It is a little difficult and unfortunate that the NDP chooses to divide upon party lines on this particular issue. This has been an issue where both opposition parties have attempted to put the argument to the government that we have to allow comparisons between jobs that are not substantially the same within the same establishments.

It is clearly the intent of our amendment to delete "substantially the same kind of," which would leave simply "no person or employer acting on behalf of an employer shall differentiate between male and female employees by paying a female employee wages that are less than the wages paid to a male employee, or vice versa, for work performed in the same establishment where the work requires substantially the same skill, effort and responsibility...under similar working conditions."

This is clearly a message to the government that dissimilar jobs within the same establishment can be compared where they are sharing equal value in terms of skill, effort, working conditions and responsibility. The inclusion of "substantially the same kind of" is a clear indication the government is not prepared to move in the direction of equal value. I would be very surprised if the NDP supported the government to defeat this amendment because this amendment quite clearly removes the notion that the comparisons must occur between work that is substantially the same kind of work within the establishment.

Clearly, the reason for the discussions we had last January, the reason for my resolution and for any changes that must be wrought upon the Employment Standards Act to introduce equal value as a reality and not simply as a rhetoric in the Legislature, must include a deletion of the notion of substantially the same kind of work.

I would encourage the NDP to set aside the kind of partisan rhetoric we have heard on this issue for the last number of months and to join us in supporting this amendment, which I think speaks to the very issue raised by women's groups across this province. In its current status without this amendment, if Bill 141 were being propagated by a private enterprise, it could rightfully be convicted of misleading advertising.

Notwithstanding any of the statements made by the Premier (Mr. Davis) in this House last week, notwithstanding any of the presentations made to the Ontario Federation of Labour on this issue last week, and notwithstanding the support given by the members on the government side of the House to my resolution of last October 20, Bill 141 in its current form does absolutely nothing to include the concept of equal value unless it is accompanied by this amendment.

This amendment is critical to the essence of the question. I would urge members on all sides of the House who supported the original resolution to come forth today and to put the money of the women of Ontario where the mouth of the politicians has been for the last six months.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I must at the outset express disappointment, consternation and some degree of shock that my friends to the left have decided they are not going to support this amendment.

5:40 p.m.

I suppose we could have written it in stone to satisfy them, but I cannot for the life of me understand why my friends on the left, who have consistently indicated they support equal value legislation, would not support an amendment which would do just that.

I would simply urge them to reconsider, but suggest that if they do not wish to that will be fine. They can explain to the women of Ontario why playing politics in this place is somehow more important than putting the money that is so desperately needed into the pockets of those women.

Last October, I was in my place when the private member's resolution of the member for Hamilton Centre was brought forward in this House. As the members know, my parliamentary colleagues asked for a recorded vote on that issue. Members from this party and members from the party to my left all voted in favour of a motion to enshrine, not to talk about, but to enshrine the concept of equal pay for work of equal value in the Employment Standards Act.

Every one of us understood what we were doing last October. We were not talking about talking some more; we were talking about enshrining. About two weeks later, lo and behold, Bill 141 appeared. Every member of the government who voted for that resolution should be voting for this amendment, because that is what this amendment does. It enshrines equal pay for work of equal value in the Employment Standards Act.

The government members cannot have it one way with the galleries full in October, then when the galleries are empty today very quietly stab the women of Ontario in the back once again, because that is what they are doing.

I want to remind the members of an issue and example that my colleague raised last October and the leader of the third party came back to last week. It is the story of Canadian Fabricated Products of Stratford and the women who work there. Women make up 82 per cent of the work force there. They do the sewing for seat covers, using heavy industrial machines. That work demands a very special kind of skill and is also demanding in terms of the insistence on the responsibility to put out a good product. Obviously, because of the heavy machines, it demands a great deal of effort. As anyone who has ever worked in an industrial shop would know, the working conditions are probably not exactly as generous as those in this place.

I think it is fair to argue that the sweepers in that same plant, those who clean up after those women, have the same kind of working conditions. They must put out a great effort but, I think it is fair to suggest, have to exhibit somewhat less skill and bear somewhat lesser responsibility. They earn 24 cents an hour more than those women.

Where in this amended bill, this composite test, is there anything that will bring those women up to the kind of pay the men enjoy? It is not there, but it is present if we delete just five words. With those five words, we can take an important step, not the only step, but an important step towards reducing in a very important way the wage gap the women of Ontario now face, a wage gap that is 37 cents on the dollar, with all the attendant spinoff effects that wage gap holds.

When we talk about the spinoff effect, we should all remember our pensions and how they go up as our wages go up. If a woman is earning 63 cents to the dollar earned by a man, then her pension is not nearly as generous. That is what we have been talking about for the last while -- how desperate the plight of many women is as they reach their retirement years.

Where have we dealt with that issue in this bill? Nowhere. We have done nothing. We have apparently concluded, after careful deliberation, that it is all right to fight the economic recession we have all gone through on the backs of the working women of Ontario.

I and my colleagues in this party find that absolutely unacceptable. The parliamentary assistant and the Minister of Labour should stand in their places and tell us why this amendment is not workable. They should say why it would cause chaos in the marketplace, why it would be destructive and why it is not preferable to the so-called composite test. We creep forward under that, but only at a snail's pace.

I hope members on all sides of this House will remember what they did in October and on this first day of May will do the same thing and vote for equal pay for work of equal value.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak briefly on the amendment.

In October we passed a resolution that addressed the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. I think that principle is important because it changed the thinking of this House. We wanted to remedy a situation that has been developing for many years, one for which both the government and the private sector are responsible. In this legislation, we are trying to redress a situation that is rooted in the economic life of this province and for which both the private and the public sector have equal responsibility.

In order to redress that situation, we need legislation that does not allow the government and the private sector to do in future what they have been doing in the past in interpreting the Employment Standards Act. For that reason, we think the Liberal amendment is inadequate because it does not tie down --

Mr. Mancini: That is fine. Vote against it.

Mr. Di Santo: The member for Essex South wants to contribute to the discussion, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: With all due respect, the member for Downsview has the floor. The member for Essex South is going to butt out.

Mr. Wrye: Give him some help, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Di Santo: We are trying to help the Liberal caucus by proposing an amendment that will tie down the act and will leave very little room for interpretation by the government. The Liberal caucus thinks motherhood will solve the problem. That is why we think their amendment is inadequate.

Ms. Copps: No, this is a non-sexist caucus. You mean fatherhood.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Di Santo: Fatherhood or whatever.

The Liberals like to say fatherhood or motherhood, but they do not solve the problems of women workers. They will leave the job of interpretation with the government and two years from now we will be in exactly the same situation as we are now. However, if they pay attention to our amendment, they will probably come to the conclusion that it is necessary to have very tough legislation. This is what is required if we are to remedy a situation everybody deprecates but which they, in fact, are perpetuating with their amendment.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of brotherhood and conciliation here, I want to make it very clear that I have no difficulty at all with the Liberal amendment as moved.

What I do have difficulty with is the fact they would move it, thinking or trying to convince this House that it would resolve the problems we have. I was intrigued at the comment of the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) that the government had brought in an amendment that did absolutely nothing to deal with the problem and then say that removing those five words substantially -- and it does take out "substantially" in the one section -- would resolve the problem. It is about as effective as another amendment the government moved to take out the word "his" -- a little bit of sexism and probably an oversight when it was done.

The amendment moved by the party on my right does not deal with the very principle we voted for in this House. It does absolutely nothing to provide a mechanism for how it can be handled and how it can be done, how we are finally going to bring about equal pay for work of equal value.

I guess that is the difficulty. I do not know how much consulting the Liberal Party did. We could not find a single member of the coalition who thought that was anywhere near an adequate answer. Indeed, some of them were a lot tougher than that in their comments. I think it also points out why we tried -- I guess there is a game of politics at all times in this House -- to put ours initially because it dealt with the heart and principle of the matter and with the entire section. That is where the battle should be. That is what we will do once we have this one out of the way, whichever way it goes.

Certainly I have no difficulty at all with that particular amendment. It is just that it is a nothing amendment.

Mr. Wrye: Oh, that is nonsense and the member knows it.

Ms. Copps: I hope the member votes against it because the women of Ontario should know where he stands.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The parliamentary assistant has the floor.

Mr. Gillies: I would not want, nor is it appropriate at this time during the clause-by-clause debate, to restate all of the arguments that have been made in what has been a very protracted debate in this House on the question of equal pay for work of equal value.

I do think it important to restate at this time that the government accepts and supports the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. This has been stated by the Premier, by my minister and by the Minister responsible for Women's Issues, but I think it very important that members note the dilemma with which the government is faced. There is not even a consensus among the opposition members of this House as to how to practically bring this about. One can hardly expect the government to move into a proposition over which there is no consensus among the opposition members in the House.

In Bill 141, we have brought in some measures which we feel will improve the position of working women in this province. I would suggest there is no more concern on either side of the House than the other about the plight of working women, but we saw and heard the evidence during the committee considerations. Expert evidence would suggest the bulk of the wage gap could not be cured by an equal-value law. The bulk of the wage gap is caused by the fact women are not competing in equivalent types of work with men, women have lower levels of education and training, they are more likely to be working part-time as opposed to full-time and all of these things.

With the greatest of regret, I cannot accept the argument of the member for Windsor-Sandwich that to remove five words from our bill would close a wage gap of 37 per cent. I do not believe it and I have seen no evidence that would be the case.

We feel what we are doing moves in the right direction, recognizing that an equal value law would not close the wage gap. We feel we are moving in the right direction and in a direction we hope will not cause undue disruption in the labour market.

We also have to look at the experience in Canadian jurisdictions that have brought in such a bill. Again --

Mr. Mackenzie: Like all those workers lining their pockets with overtime.

Mr. Gillies: The member for Hamilton East can dredge up all the interjections he wants. If he wants to bring up that one, I could bring up a few comments his leader has made that I am sure would embarrass every member of the third party present, but I will not.

The point is we have very little valuable experience to draw upon in this area in Canada. In the province of Quebec, which brought in an equal value law, the complaints that have arisen thus far could have been adjudicated just as well by an equal pay law. No new ground to speak of has been broken in Quebec.

In the federal jurisdiction, we know of the general service workers' case in which an adjustment was made that affected a large number of workers, but it was settled by agreement. It was not settled by adjudication under the federal law that covers its own employees.

Beyond that, there is concern about moving to an equal value law without due consideration of the effects it can have on our jurisdiction. There is concern it could raise levels of unemployment. It could worsen the situation for working women in our province.

I feel quite confident in restating our support for the principle. Based on the arguments we have heard from the members opposite, I do not think there is any way our support for the proposition put forward by the member for Hamilton Centre can be equated with a call for support for this amendment. I do not think they are equivalent, I do not think they are the same thing, and I reluctantly have to indicate that the ministry is not prepared to support the Liberal amendment.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago it appeared as if the New Democratic Party was not going to support the Liberal amendment, but then after having taken five or 10 minutes, and after having the input of the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) and maybe one or two other members, it realized that the amendment placed by me earlier, the amendment that was placed by this party earlier, does exactly what we said it would do; it provides for equal pay for work of equal value for the women of Ontario.

I noted in the reply we received from the parliamentary assistant to the minister that he believes equal pay for work of equal value would cause disruption in the economy and the work place. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant would take a few moments later on during this debate to discuss how this disruption would occur, how it would affect the economy, and how it would affect the work place.

I believe paying people the same wages for work of equal value is exactly what we expect. I know, as I look across the floor, that the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) is paid the same salary as the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt). If we were to accept the logic put forward by the parliamentary assistant, the Minister of Education would have to reduce her salary so it was approximately 63 per cent of the salary of the Minister of the Environment.

It being six o'clock, shall I move the adjournment?

Mr. Chairman: Not quite yet.

Mr. Mancini: It is not quite six o'clock. Fine; I was getting signals from the government whip.

Mr. Chairman: He was probably wondering whether there is an agreement to defer the votes until later and that type of thing.

Mr. Mancini: I want to say that when we return at eight o'clock. I will have more comments. Would it be appropriate now to move the adjournment?

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

May 1, 1984