Hansard Transcripts 1984-Jun-13 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today the establishment of a Task Force on the Organization and Operation of Financial Institutions in Ontario. The primary purpose of this task force will be to examine the organization and operation of financial institutions in Ontario and determine what pressures on that financial system may require attention from government.

Historically, Ontario has benefited from a so-called four-pillar financial system in which banks, trust companies, insurance companies and investment dealers have each offered certain distinct yet complementary services. This segregation of financial services is the result of both historical evolution and legislation flowing from the separation of legislative powers in the British North America Act.

Recently, however, significant technological, organizational and economic changes occurring in Canada, the United States and elsewhere are leading to varying degrees of integration of these once-distinct financial services. As a result, there is a growing need in Ontario to review the potential impact of such changes on our financial system and the government's regulatory policies.

The Ontario government is committed to remaining responsive to the needs of our financial system, its users and the public interest. We must ensure that any new policies developed will have the benefit of consultation with the financial community and with consumers.

The task force is therefore asked to prepare a preliminary report setting out, first, recommendations concerning any issues the task force believes the government might want to consider immediately; second, the task force's proposed course of action for the review of the key issues it proposes to address in its final report; and, third, the manner in which the task force proposes to engage in open consultation with the financial community, its client groups and the public in the course of its future work.

I am very pleased to introduce to the House the members of the task force, who are in the Speaker's gallery. They are Dr. J. Stefan Dupré, a highly respected professor of political science, who recently served as chairman of the Royal Commission on Matters of Health and Safety arising from the Use of Asbestos in Ontario, who will chair the task force; Mr. Alexander John Macintosh, QC, a partner in the Toronto law firm of Blake, Cassels and Graydon, a deputy governor of the Hudson's Bay Co., chairman of the board of Canadian Corporate Management Co. Ltd. and director of nine major Canadian Corporations, including the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce; and Mr. A. Rendall Dick, QC, under-treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada, who has served the Ontario government as Deputy Treasurer and Deputy Attorney General. Mr. Dick brings with him more than 25 years of senior government service.

We are fortunate to be able to obtain the services of these three outstanding individuals, who bring with them the needed balance of academic, business and government experience to make the task force an effective one. If I may, I would ask them to rise and be recognized.

I have carefully considered the potential for any perceived conflict of interest on the part of any of the task force members and I am completely satisfied that such potential is outweighed by the wide-ranging expertise and personal integrity of each member of the task force.

I have asked the task force to provide me with an interim report by the end of the year.

ATTENDANT CARE SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, as you know, my ministry is committed to helping disabled and handicapped people achieve dignity, independence and, to as great a degree as possible and appropriate, the autonomy and freedom they need to choose lifestyles of their own. It gives me pleasure to describe to you ways in which we will endeavour to do this.

Not long ago the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) announced, as part of his budget statement, attendant care initiatives that will cost in the order of $30 million over the next five years. We are already providing these services to 424 severely handicapped people who might otherwise require institutionalized care in communities all over Ontario. We will now increase that number by meeting the needs of an additional 630 people.

The attendants, whose services are paid for through the support service living unit program, remain on duty in shifts 24 hours a day. They work in shared accommodations that typically house 10 severely handicapped people or in large apartment complexes which include a number of units occupied by physically handicapped residents.

Many of these physically handicapped residents hold jobs while others go to school. In every case they require assistance with daily living functions such as preparing meals, eating, grooming, bathing and dressing. These are tasks that would pose tremendous barriers for severely handicapped people living on their own. The duties of the attendants are restricted exclusively to the provision of personal assistance. They do not, for example, provide medical or professional services.

Our attendant care program has grown steadily since it was introduced in the late 1970s. At this time, some 424 severely handicapped clients living in designated housing are being served. The program in 1983-84 cost $5.4 million.

I should mention that accommodation costs are not a part of this program, but instead are subsidized on a rent-geared-to-income basis by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The funding of my ministry's program will be utilized exclusively to finance the salaries of the attendants. This will enable us to expand the program to reach an additional 390 severely handicapped persons over the next five years.

Over and above the program to expand attendant care services, we intend to establish an outreach service. This outreach program will provide the same kind of assistance with daily chores where possible and appropriate to people living on their own, in pairs, in groups or, in some cases, with relatives. The function of this program is to complement existing homemaker and nursing visitation services, but not in any way to supplant them. Over the next five years the ministry will develop 30 such outreach programs serving the special needs of approximately 240 severely handicapped people.

2:10 p.m.

Both of these programs will help people who by their nature are self-sufficient but who, because of their severe handicaps, are in need of assistance. In many cases a helping hand extended once, twice or a few times a day will make it possible for people to remain in or return to their own homes, where they can maintain control over their own lives. For such people, this funding will secure a large measure of freedom.

VISITORS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I am pleased to draw the attention of members to a distinguished group of parliamentarians from British Columbia and Nova Scotia in the Speaker's gallery. Here as guests of the Ontario branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association are the Honourable George Henley, Minister of Lands and Forests for Nova Scotia; Mr. Christopher D'Arcy, MLA for the riding of Rossland-Trail, British Columbia, and Mr. Alan Lawrence Passarell, MLA for the riding of Atlin, British Columbia.

I am certain all members join with me in extending a warm welcome to our parliamentary colleagues. We are glad to have you here.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INDIAN BAND AGREEMENT

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. This involves a continuing agonizing issue that has been unresolved for 14 years in this province, namely, the settlements by the companies that have assumed responsibility for the mercury pollution surrounding the issue of the Grassy Narrows Indian band.

I realize the minister has made some statements on this issue, but can he tell us if it is now his position that the native peoples should sue Great Lakes Forest Products to achieve some sort of settlement? How else are they going to get one, considering that the government has been so blatantly and obviously inactive on this issue?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, the issue I have been asked about is one to which I have responded before. Basically, the issue is a suit between the Whitedog and Grassy Narrows bands and Great Lakes Forest Products. The only involvement of the provincial government in this issue was in the negotiation of the sale of the plant at Dryden from Reed Inc. to Great Lakes. In order to consummate that deal and clean up the situation in relation to the cause of some of the pollution in the Wabigoon River, we said to Great Lakes that if it bought this plant and fixed the problems causing the pollution, we would indemnify it over and above $15 million in total settlement, as approved by our Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry).

We have never advised the Indian bands, any individual Indians or any tourist operators to bring or not to bring suit against Great Lakes. My advice to any citizen who is involved in a civil dispute, as this is, between the bands and Great Lakes is to pursue every avenue to bring the issue to a head. Therefore, I met last November with the Honourable John Munro, the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the two bands and the Indian commissioner of Ontario. At that meeting we urged Great Lakes to put another offer on the table.

The honourable member may have read press accounts, and I was asked in the House by the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) the other day about this matter. I am doing everything I can on behalf of our government to bring Great Lakes back to the table to place a legitimate offer in front of the bands in order to resolve this matter, even before the consummation of any lawsuit.

Mr. J. A. Reed: It is particularly frustrating to people who are observing what is not going on and what is not progressing. The company did assume responsibility and it received grants from the public purse of Ontario and the guarantee of a $15-million upper limit from this province. Yet the province continues to do nothing and even now holds the option open that the Grassy Narrows band may have to sue Great Lakes in order to get the issue resolved.

If the minister negates his responsibility totally and the only option left to the band is to sue in the courts, will he then undertake to rescind the "cocooning" letter that was reissued on January 28, 1982, guaranteeing a cap of $15 million on Great Lakes? What in blazes is he going to do about this?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I do not know how the member views the function of government when there is a civil lawsuit between two citizens within our province. As I view it, the responsibility of our government is to try to mediate as well as possible between these two groups. I cannot guarantee what Great Lakes Forest Products or the two native bands will agree to. That is for them to decide between them.

The Honourable John Munro made some threats following our meeting in November. I did not make those threats because I realized it was a civil matter between two groups. I am attempting in every way to reach a conclusion to the matter. I am trying to remain reasonable between the two, although I share the member's frustration and the frustration of both sides that this matter has not been resolved before now.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that the government has given a considerable number of dollars in grants to the paper company in question. We understand it is in the neighbourhood of $32 million. There is also the cap of $15 million as the settlement limit.

Can the minister not give this House, or for that matter the people directly involved at Grassy Narrows, any understanding that he will use the power he has to bring both parties to the table and have this issue resolved? They are tired of being pushed from pillar to post and having nothing but words. They want action. What kind of action is this government going to come up with to resolve the situation?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated before that any grants that were given to this paper company were applied for and given to it in the same way as any other paper company would be entitled to them. The member may or may not agree that people should be dealt with in equity and in spite of any civil actions that are going on between various groups or citizens within our province. I would prefer it if no government took a stance in trying to resolve a private matter by using unfair leverage against one group.

We have not changed our position on the cap of $15 million. I have indicated to Great Lakes that if it comes forward with a decent proposal, if it puts an offer on the table, our government is willing to consider any offer it puts forward. It has not done that to date. I am hopeful that will happen in the not too distant future.

2:20 p.m.

ELECTRICAL WORKERS' DISPUTE

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) for his announcement today. It was very important.

I have a question for the Minister of Energy with regard to the current strikebreaking program by Ontario Hydro; the scandalous waste of billions of dollars by Hydro, such as $1 billion on Lennoxville; the cancellation of Wesleyville halfway through construction, at a cost of $460 million; the design program calling for retubing, costing about $1.3 billion; the $900 million in cancelled oil contracts with Petrosar; the expenditure of $396 million at Bruce C and the cancellation of the program because it is not needed, and the $7.5-billion uranium program with Denison Mines.

How can the minister sit idly by as 1,500 electrical workers go into the sixth week of their strike, and stop bargaining in good faith while at the same time shutting down the whole construction program? If the minister gives the electricians what they want this year, it will cost only $600,000. Can the minister tell me why he is not going to do something about it?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the honourable member's question, although I cannot say I associate the whole litany of alleged Hydro waste with this current labour dispute. It would be totally unfair, as it is unfair to suggest that Hydro, as the employer, is bargaining in bad faith.

I understand the member has offered his services as a mediator in this dispute. I only remind him that since day one, the Ministry of Labour has been part of the mediation of this dispute.

There are issues before both parties. On June 4, when the last bargaining session was held between Hydro and the union, Hydro proposed a revised offer, but the union did not make a move at that time. The Ministry of Labour continues to play a very important role in the mediation of this strike and stands ready to reconvene the bargaining process when and if both parties are prepared to make some moves.

Mr. Sargent: The member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston) and I made a conference call yesterday to the chairman of Hydro and the union. The bottom line was that the chairman of Hydro wanted to get the show on the road, break the impasse and begin new talks, yet the government's current negotiator, Mr. O'Neill, says he will not budge from his position; Hydro refused to change its position.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Supplementary?

Mr. Sargent: I am going to try to get it across.

We met for three hours this morning with the ministry people and the people from Hydro. These people have no pension, no strike pay and no hazard pay. They are operating at $1 per hour less than their fellow electricians in Ontario. I think a very stupid stand is being collectively taken at Hydro in not getting this cleaned up and back to business.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Once again I think the member wishes to oversimplify a rather complicated bargaining process. The utility has made a diligent attempt to settle the strike. Mr. Mancini, the mediator from the Ministry of Labour, is very highly respected. I do not think he is a relation of the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini).

Mr. Elston: A highly respected member.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: A highly respected member.

I understand Mr. Mancini is available and willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute, but we await some response from the union on the June 4 offer, about which at this point the union is not prepared to move from its position.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that in the discussions that were held by the two members and Ontario Hydro, Mr. O'Neill said he was not being given room to move any further. Why will the minister not instruct Hydro that it should give him a bit of room to move to bring them back to equity with the other electrical workers on those sites, instead of wasting millions on something that could be settled for peanuts?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I was not privy to the discussions that were held between Mr. O'Neill and the members of the Liberal caucus. I can only caution the honourable member that to suggest I should be intervening in a dispute between a union and an employer in a complicated labour dispute is ridiculous.

Mr. Sargent: The minister is correct about Terry Mancini. We have talked to him and he is willing to go to bat, but he sees no grounds on which to talk because the minister will not get off his ass and do anything. He wants to do a job, but the minister will not help him. He could at least do something as minister to show that he earns his paycheque every once in a while.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I do not see a question in that statement by the member. I could suggest some easier terminology for his question. I have already reiterated that Ontario Hydro has made moves to settle this dispute and that it is waiting for the union to respond to those moves. That has not taken place. The last position put forward by the union was that it had turned down the company's most recent offer.

INDIAN BAND AGREEMENT

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. While he is returning to his seat, I might point out that the Liberal members of this House might do better to talk to John Turner --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The minister is in his seat.

Mr. Wildman: -- who has just been re-elected to the board of directors of Canadian Pacific, a major shareholder in Great Lakes Forest Products. Having said that, I would like to return to this minister's role.

My question arises specifically from the statements the minister has been making. Is he not aware that by making statements that he is "not closing the door" on Great Lakes' demands for reduction of its liability for compensation for the destruction of the lifestyle and livelihood of the reserves, and that Great Lakes' liability has not been proved and the bands might have a weak case in court, he is encouraging Great Lakes to remain inflexible and to renege on the commitments it made in 1979?

Does he not realize his statements encourage Great Lakes to continue to stall these negotiations, which have been going on for almost six years? Why is he not pressuring Great Lakes to live up to its commitments and to make a realistic settlement offer rather than saying, as he has to date, that he is just an outside mediator of some sort and is not directly involved? This is a public matter and not a private matter.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the honourable member. I know that quite the opposite is true. I know that when this issue about the $15-million upper limit was raised in November, both bands stood by silently while I defended the position of the government that it should stick fast to it.

As the member indicates, the matter has been going on for some time. I was asked why it had gone on for some time, and I said I could not understand, as a former practising lawyer, why it had not progressed further in the courts. Somebody was asking me to speculate on why, and I speculated why it might or might not be so.

The present state of the situation is such that all the allegations the member makes are incorrect and, as I said in answer to the previous question, I am hopeful that a solution is not very far down the road.

Mr. Wildman: Can the minister explain why, as he has stated in the press, he seems to accept the reasoning of Great Lakes for their intransigence to the effect that they "have to sell a better deal to their shareholders"?

If he does accept that Great Lakes is having some financial problems and is having difficulty persuading the shareholders as a result of them, why is it that, even though Great Lakes' profits have been falling in the last year, it has maintained such healthy dividend payments to its shareholders, such as Canadian Pacific Enterprises? If it can continue to make such good dividend payments, why can it not make a decent settlement offer, and why is the minister not encouraging it to do so?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I made the very same plea at the November 14 meeting. Why should the taxpayers of Ontario accept a lesser cap than $15 million? I made that in front of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I made it in front of the two bands and I made it clear to Great Lakes that I would not accept anything less than that at that time as long as an offer by that company was not placed on the table.

It has not come forward with an offer to this time. I do not accept that the company or the shareholders have to be sold on one thing or the other. I made the point at that meeting that $15 million had been acceptable to Reed Inc. and to Great Lakes when the deal was struck back in 1978, and that is the way it should be. However, when you get down to the final crunch as to whether another deal has been offered, no deal has been offered.

The situation is that the Indian bands have not brought their case to court, so we are no further ahead this month than we were back in November. My conclusion was that I should sit down with Great Lakes, which has been communicating with me, along with Reed Inc., and I have been communicating with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to try finally to bring this matter to a resolution.

I do not know what else I can do. As I said before, I disagree with the member's perception of the role of government in the whole issue, because it is basically a civil suit between two citizens.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is not sure what else he can do, perhaps he can accept some suggestions.

The Acting Speaker: I thought you were going to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. J. A. Reed: I just hope you time my preamble in the same manner as you time the preambles of other members' questions and ministers' answers.

The Acting Speaker: I am concerned about the length of the last answer.

Mr. J. A. Reed: The ministry does accept a moral responsibility. The government has some areas of control, one of them being the "cocoon" letter, which set the ceiling at $15 million. If the government is totally impotent in this and cannot bring about a solution, would the minister undertake to rescind that letter "cocooning" Great Lakes? That is one thing the government can do.

Another is the fact that Great Lakes Forest Products has first refusal on 19,000 square miles of cutting rights. Does that not offer some fairly powerful leverage to this government, or does the government feel totally impotent in this? What is the minister going to do?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: First of all, Mr. Speaker, our government is not predisposed to renege on an agreement it made with anybody, whomever it is. The agreement, and the honourable member should read the letter, related to our responsibility in taking over this particular company and our overall limitation on it. As I indicated before, I do not think at this stage of the game that threats are going to resolve the matter.

As the member may know, after that November 14 meeting, there was some suggestion by Mr. Munro that he was going to finance the lawsuits that the bands were going to bring on. To my knowledge, that matter still remains unresolved. He was going to take that role in it; if that is what he decides he wants to do, that is fine and dandy. I think I have some prospect of a positive solution to it.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, threats may not settle the matter, but some backbone might. Why is the government aiding and abetting Great Lakes in its attempt to weasel out of its agreement, not only with the Indian bands but also with this government?

I wonder whether the minister is aware that the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal's editorial on Saturday last said the following:

"Great Lakes Forest Products is finally flying its true colours, and they are all shades of yellow. This corporate giant...has shown itself to be a moral dwarf.

"Great Lakes and Reed Inc., its partner in ethical crime, have all but turned their backs on the Indians of the English-Wabigoon river system, who are dying a slow, agonizing social, cultural, economic and, perhaps, physical death from mercury poisoning.

"The bands are poor. They do not have the money to take Great Lakes, an arm of the richest corporation in the land, to prove that damage done."

The Acting Speaker: The member is asking a supplementary question.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister aware of this editorial, which his officials should have brought to his attention?

The Acting Speaker: Maybe the member has done enough so he has an answer.

Mr. Foulds: Great Lakes knows it, and it continues its reprehensible stalling. Is the minister going to allow Great Lakes to continue its reprehensible stalling? Is he going to show some guts, some backbone? Is he going to get himself, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) and the Premier (Mr. Davis) to the table with Great Lakes and get a settlement of this matter, which has gone on for far too long?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, that is such a silly accusation that I refuse to answer it.

ILLEGAL RENT INCREASES

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to illegal rents at 140 Carlton Street.

I have obtained from the files of the Residential Tenancy Commission a set of 1976 rent orders for 261 out of the 394 apartment units at 140 Carlton Street, plus a complete computer printout of the 1982 rents being charged for each apartment.

Would it come as any surprise to the minister to learn that of the 261 units for which information is available, illegal rents are being charged for 130 of them? Can he specifically explain why, since this information has been in the files of the Residential Tenancy Commission since 1983, no action was taken to enforce the law? Why was the law of this province violated with absolute, utter impunity?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think if the honourable member reviews the records of the Residential Tenancy Commission, he will find it is not an issue that is allowed to take place with impunity.

The member knows full well, for example, that during the last fiscal year something close to $1 million was recovered through the mediation process of the rent review commission. He knows full well that tenants have complete access to obtain those rent rebates with respect to illegal rents, and have done so. He also knows full well that once the amount exceeds a certain level, it is a matter that must go to county court.

Those avenues for redress are there, and they are taken up by many people who feel their rents are excessive.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: Would the minister be surprised to learn that out of 394 units, the 130 that were charging illegal rents were charging a minimum of $120 a year, the average illegal rent over the 130 apartments charging illegal rents was $535 a year and the total ripoff is $69,660 a year? Out of idle curiosity, if I sent the documentation to the minister as a formal complaint, can he tell me what action he would take to protect the tenants at 140 Carlton Street, to enforce the law and to recover the $69,660 a year that has been stolen from these people?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If the member would be good enough to send the material to me, it will certainly be reviewed and I will be glad to advise him what, if any, action would flow from that.

Let us not try to leave the impression in this House that there are no avenues through which such issues can be dealt with. They are being dealt with every day. They are being dealt with through a mediation process the rent review commission has in place. They are being dealt with through applications for rent refunds by the commission. They are being dealt with through court applications to the county court when the levels exceed certain amounts. There are processes in place for those who choose to use them, and they are being used. I will certainly review the material he sends.

Mr. McClellan: The only impression I am trying to leave with the House is that there are probably hundreds of thousands of apartments exactly the same as those at 140 Carlton Street in which the rent review laws of this province are being violated and landlords are thumbing their nose at the RTC and this government.

When does the minister intend to bring in a mandatory rent registry? When does he intend to empower the Residential Tenancy Commission actively to monitor rents and enforce the laws of this province? When is he going to bring in a measure that will include retroactive enforcement so landlords such as the one at 140 Carlton Street will not have windfall, illegal, ripoff profits? When is the minister going to stop hiding behind his lackadaisical Thom commission and bring in measures he said were urgent in November 1982 and tenants have been clamouring for since 1978?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Speaking to the issue of a lackadaisical commission, and I say this with respect, it is very easy for people to criticize in this Legislature with impunity the way some members do. I have to repeat that this minister and this government, and I am certain many members of the opposition parties, have the greatest respect for that commissioner and his integrity.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Garbage. The minister knows the commissioner strung him along. He has even said so privately. He has been attacking him privately.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member should not say silly things about it. He should show some class around here for a change. It will be troublesome for the member, but he should try it. He might like it. He knows very well the commissioner is reviewing some of these very issues. When that report is received, the government will review it and reach a determination on what response there should be.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) who was in his seat only five seconds ago. Is the minister within hearing distance?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I suggest you stand down until he comes.

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, who has been waiting with bated breath for some time for a question.

My question relates to the quality as well as the quantity of the Great Lakes waters which are being considered by an august group of citizens of this nation, and of the United States as well, at this time in this fair city. The new problem facing us now is not that of continuing acid rain or of the leachate around the Niagara River, but what has been designated as toxic rain by the Toronto drinking water study.

Will the minister agree with me that the problem of toxic rain causes a grave concern for the safety and drinkability of the waters of the Great Lakes system? Can he advise us what he plans to do about studying the elimination of this problem that faces us?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member is aware, the filtration systems that we have in place in the province at the moment, to the best of the scientific evidence I have at hand, would indicate our water is being more than adequately treated.

We are, as he well knows, continuing with further studies with respect to carbon filtration, such as the Niagara project, in which we are investing the sum of $1 million over a three-year period to try to determine whether or not some of the trace contaminants, such as the ones identified by the member, can be removed through that process.

I really believe, and I say this sincerely, that although there are arguments pro and con, I recognize at this time we do have more than an adequate, safe quality of drinking water in this province and we intend to keep it that way. I drink it every day, as the member can see.

Mr. Elston: This minister has become known as a real tiger in some fields, but definitely not in the environmental field. I would like to ask this minister if he has read the report that indicates, if I may reduce the information that came out of the Toronto drinking water report to pounds per year, there are 5,069 pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls, 2,089,393 pounds of zinc, 835 pounds of lead, 3,900 pounds of benzo(a)pyrene and 310 pounds of DDT per year falling into our water systems.

Since we are at a critical stage with respect to the fallout of these toxic chemicals from the atmosphere, some having been raised by windblown dust off farm lands and other places, can he tell us how he can allow his air resources program to be cut by $443,000, some six per cent, from $7.5 million-plus to $7,225,000? Can he tell us what he plans to do to ensure a full and fair treatment of the air resources branch of his ministry with respect to dealing with this critical problem?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Very shortly we are going to have an opportunity to deal with these questions in some detail during the course of our estimates, as the member is aware. But I want to assure him that while there have been some adjustments in the administrative end of the Ministry of the Environment budget, there have not been any cutbacks in its budget.

There have been reallocations and there have been some changes within the ministry. Part of the reason there have been the kinds of shifts the member has talked about in the air resources branch is the fact that we have introduced some rather sophisticated new state-of-the-art monitoring equipment, which is going to save us some money in certain respects and in certain instances.

I am sure the member would support the fact that we have invested money to save money. On this side of the House we attempt to bring about some economies on occasion in the interests of the people in the province. The member has never quite understood that, but if we can save $1, we are going to do it. Then we can reduce taxes or bring in the type of very admirable budget the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) brought in just a little while ago.

STRIKEBREAKING LEGISLATION

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Can the minister give this House an update on the situation at Radio Shack in Barrie? Is the minister aware of the rather vicious and deliberate strikebreaking tactics going on again and the number of scabs being bused across the line in vans in that strike? Are we not seeing a replay of an unfortunate situation of two or three years ago?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am getting daily reports on the Radio Shack situation. I am not happy with the circumstances. Ray Illing, who is the director of Ontario conciliation and mediation services, along with mediator Fraser Kean, last met with the principals in this strike a number of days ago and further mediation was not deemed appropriate at that time.

2:50 p.m.

The two sides are a considerable distance apart. They have polarized in their positions. It is very unfortunate. We are prepared to do everything we can to get the parties together again, but thus far we have not been able to do so.

Mr. Mackenzie: Are the workers in a plant such as this forced once again into the tremendous cost and effort of attempting to set up a province-wide or country-wide boycott to achieve their aims? Will the minister not realize that what is at stake here is the almost total ineffectiveness of strikebreaking legislation in Ontario?

We thought we had got over that in some of the cases, but that is exactly what is at stake here. This company has no intention of bargaining with the employees in that plant; it is the second attempt to bust the union at that plant. The minister must know it. Is he not now prepared to take a look at effective anti-strikebreaking legislation in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Fortunately, this is an isolated circumstance. It is not the usual case. We do not hear about the very heavy percentage of agreements reached without incident or without rancour. Radio Shack is unfortunate; it is a unique situation in Ontario. We have excellent labour relations in Ontario and the short answer to the member's question is no, I am not prepared to introduce strikebreaking legislation at this time.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, strikebreaking legislation would not interfere with the collective agreements being signed on a regular basis without confrontation.

I want to refer to the minister a question that is supplementary and one that I asked him about a week ago. I reminded him that during the Labour estimates I had asked him to compare the legislation we have in Ontario with the legislation in Quebec to see how well that legislation has worked. At that time the minister said he had some reservation about the legislation in Quebec. The minister did not get back to me on that point.

Why does he not compare the legislation we have here to the legislation in Quebec --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): This is --

Mr. Mancini: It is directly supplementary.

The Acting Speaker: It is not so close. The member may proceed with it.

Mr. Mancini: Why does the minister not compare our legislation with the legislation in Quebec to see whether the Quebec legislation has had a harmful or a helpful influence?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have compared that legislation. I have also compared the circumstances in Ontario with those in British Columbia. We are very fortunate in Ontario to have an excellent environment for labour relations. It has not been an accident. It has been the work of some very responsible people in the labour movement, in management and in government. I do not see a need to move further than the present legislation.

INSPECTION OF NURSING HOMES

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, on Monday June 11, the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) directed a question to me about the Trillium Villa Nursing Home in Sarnia and suggested there had been a problem with a leaking roof. While directing that question, he also alleged a lack of enforcement by the enforcement staff of my ministry with respect to that home.

I would like to respond today, because at that point I did not have detailed information available. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief and to the point.

It is true that last fall there was a problem with a leaking roof at this nursing home, and as a result of inspections by our staff there was an undertaking to temporarily patch the roof, pending a replacement of it this spring. In May this year the replacement of the roof was undertaken. On May 25, the date on which there happened to be a heavy rainstorm, parts of the roof had been removed for replacement purposes.

It is true a portion of the ceiling in the staff room did fall, but no one was in danger. The suggestion by the member that there was some risk to residents because of leaking in the corridors is incorrect. There was no leaking either in the residents' rooms or in any areas of the building used by them.

The member may wish to correct the record and retract his allegation that the staff of my ministry was ineffective. What was undertaken was a result of the effective work of the staff of my ministry.

SPRAY PROGRAM

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources concerning some friends of his, choristonera fumiferana, otherwise known as the spruce budworm.

Can the minister explain why his spraying program in northwestern Ontario was stopped or did not go forward this spring in an area where there are about 100,000 cunits of susceptible species that could well be affected by spruce budworm and that could have been treated with bacillus thuringiensis. which is not toxic to human beings?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, as I recall the circumstances, it was a combination of Bt, a bacterial agent, and a chemical compound, both of which were proposed to be sprayed. I felt there was no indication of the value of timber that was at imminent risk. A spray program had not been conducted in the area since 1968. There was no detailed information on what other values were to be protected, and there had not been proper consultation with the other resource users in the area, particularly, as I understand it, on the south shore of Lake Shebandowan.

Lacking that kind of detailed specific information both from the industry, which I presume it has admitted to the member it did not have, and from ministry staff, I asked the industry to come back with more detailed information and a long-term program that would get into the spraying of necessary bacterial or chemical agents on an ongoing organized basis to retard the spread of the spruce budworm. I also asked the industry to review its timetable for discussions with the public to make sure the public had more of a chance to be informed and involved in the necessary discussions that precede a spray program.

I am not averse to aerial spraying or ground application of chemical and bacterial compounds to contain spruce budworm or any other infestation or disease. In northeastern Ontario, Timiskaming and Cochrane districts, my own area of the province, such a spray program has been going on in an organized fashion over the last five to six years that I am aware of. I have no predisposition against the spray program, but this was not an organized, long-term spray program I felt comfortable with. I told the industry to go back and develop one and it is aware of that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The minister's answer says more to the lack of competence of his ministry staff than anything else. In this House we have heard about the lack of inventory in the forests of Ontario. If the minister knew what he had, he would know what was going to be affected by the spruce budworm. It will affect not only the balsam fir but eventually the spruce as well.

Is the minister aware that the highest spread of infestation is in northwestern Ontario, that it covers about two million hectares, that it is increasing and that some of the pulp and paper companies were trying to co-operate with his ministry to go ahead with the spraying program? Is it not a fact this has more to do with the possibility of an election and the minister not wanting to cause any concern to anybody than with looking after the forests that are his responsibility?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Now it is the member for Rainy River who does not know what he is talking about. There was no information from the forest products companies at all. That was precisely the reason they could not tell me the value of the wood that was under some sort of threat from infestation by the spruce budworm. It was their limits and they could not tell us.

There was no estimate from the ministry staff that there was an imminent threat from the spruce budworm in those stands of timber. There was no information available. It was a generalized point of view that perhaps it was time we should spray for spruce budworm. I do not operate on that basis. Maybe the member does, but I do not.

VIDEO CENSORSHIP

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General in regard to the recent unprecedented raid and seizure of video film and projection equipment at A Space gallery.

The recent judgement of the Divisional Court on clause 3(2)(a) of the Theatres Act declared that the censorship powers under the act were an affront to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that censorship of films under that act "may be said to be of no force or effect." Subsequently, the Court of Appeal went even further in its judgement.

When there is no legal foundation for it, why is the theatres branch still requiring arts institutions to fill out examination-by-documentation forms to secure permission for video art exhibitions at such places as A Space? What possible legal ground is there for that requirement?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, part of that question might be asked of the minister responsible for the legislation. I think the member has given the decision of the Court of Appeal a little different interpretation from the interpretation I would choose to make.

The Court of Appeal indicated that there may well be a place for film censorship. It appeared to accept the concept of film censorship as something that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Its principal concern was in relation to the lack of statutory criteria as opposed to criteria that had been set out as far as the administrative guides that govern the activities of the Ontario Board of Censors are concerned.

I think it is important to note -- the honourable member has perhaps forgotten -- that the Supreme Court of Canada in effect suspended the decision as far as the activities of the board were concerned until it reached a decision with respect to this important constitutional matter.

In other words, they gave a stay of judgement as far as the Court of Appeal judgement is concerned. I think it is quite inaccurate for the member to suggest that the people who are responsible for administration of the board are in any way flouting the law of this country.

Mr. Allen: The Supreme Court may have provided a stay of judgement with respect to the theatres branch and the board. At the same time, does it not in the same breath in effect suggest to the minister that there should be a stay of judgement with respect to the sensitive areas of application of the theatres branch's activities in the censor board, which makes it all the more puzzling why that action was taken with respect to A Space?

Given the critical importance, which I know the Attorney General shares, of the freedom of the arts in our society for all our freedoms of expression. and given that recent judgement on the Theatres Act, will the Attorney General undertake to secure clear exemptions for the showing of video and film art by public education institutions, public libraries, public art galleries and organizations receiving operational funding from the Ontario Arts Council whose purposes are clearly nonprofit, educational and cultural in nature?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That is a question that should be directed to the minister responsible for the administration of the legislation. I have read some of the minister's comments made in public and personally and I know he is very much concerned with the issue as it may affect art galleries as opposed to theatres in general. I think this is an issue about which the minister himself is likely to have more to say in the relatively near future.

GASOLINE PRICES

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I undertook to provide information in response to a question by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) on gasoline prices. In the light of your desire for expediency and precision, to that end I will table this answer with the Clerk of the House.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour about his tabling of the amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act yesterday. I want to ask the minister to justify the shameful double standard in the treatment of surviving spouses and dependent children of workers killed on the job under the existing system and under the amendments to the act he tabled yesterday.

The minister will be aware that a 40-year-old spouse with two dependent children who is widowed one day before proclamation of the new act, with a pre-accident income of $26,000, will receive the princely sum of $923 a month and any Canada pension plan benefits, if they apply and they may not.

On the other hand, the same spouse of the same age and income, widowed one day after the proclamation of the new amendments, would receive a lump sum of $40,000 plus 90 per cent of the net earnings of the accident victim or approximately, as I reckon it, $1,600 a month.

How can the minister justify this kind of treatment of existing spouses? Surely his own changes under the new act are an indictment of the parsimonious policies of the past. Why has the minister not acted on them to give some dignity to surviving spouses and their dependent children?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I suggest this bill will be debated next week in the Legislature on second reading. It will go into committee this summer. I expect the committee sessions to be extremely productive. I would recommend to the honourable member that if he feels this way about that particular section, he should bring forward appropriate amendments.

Mr. Wrye: I feel that way and I can bring forward the appropriate amendment, but we are here in question period asking the minister to justify his policies, not in some exchange that does not really exist on second reading.

As I just pointed out, one widow with two dependent children will get less than $1,000 a month one day before proclamation. Because the minister has realized that policy is so inadequate, he will change the policy to give that widow $1,600 a month one day after proclamation and a $40,000 lump sum to get things going

When the minister brought in his ad hoc changes under Bill 99, realizing just how inadequate his policies have been for so long, rather than giving a five per cent increment for widows, widowers and dependent children, why did the minister not give them more? Why did he not finally own up to the fact that he has literally cheated dependent children and surviving spouses and come up with some decent financial payment?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am delighted the honourable member has acknowledged that the amendments we are introducing are positive and productive. He obviously agrees.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister has not understood the urgency of the issue. I would like to ask the minister to go back through the debates on the annual or regular increases of the workers' compensation benefit rates and look at the remarks that have been expressed year after year in this assembly with respect to this precise issue.

The minister should look very seriously at the inadequacy of the base for benefits for widows and dependents and the failure of the government ever to adjust that base when it gives an annual percentage increase. It is a matter of very deep and bitter concern on the part of opposition members that widows and dependents have never been justly dealt with by the Workers' Compensation Board.

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I agree that they have not been adequately dealt with and now we are trying to do so. We are trying to improve those things.

WESWAY INC.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I thank him for his letter of June 1 about Wesway Inc. in Thunder Bay.

Can the minister explain why the ministry was not able to approve and fund the full proposal of Wesway Inc. for adult respite care which would have cost somewhere around $140,000 to $150,000, but instead has proposed funding only a co-ordinator who, as I understand it, is going to cost about $60,000?

Can he assure us that if his ministry and Wesway agree on the co-ordinator proposal, that co-ordinator will have the ability to make recommendations to the ministry if places cannot be found in the community and the original proposal is necessary? In other words, will the co-ordinator have research and recommendation ability for further development of the program?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that will be a formal arrangement, but the honourable member has my commitment that if it appears there is not a duplication or that the accommodation and the services are not available, we will have to look at the original proposal. The fact is the original proposal was rejected because we felt it would be a duplication. If the co-ordinator finds that those services are not there, the member has my commitment that we will do what we can to make sure there are services available.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Kells from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with a certain amendment:

Bill 28, An Act to provide for the Implementation of the Young Offenders Act (Canada).

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on general government be authorized to sit on the afternoon of Monday, June 18, 1984.

Motion agreed to.

POLISH HUNGER STRIKERS

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: You may recall that on June 5 a motion was presented to the House by the member for York South (Mr. Rae), dealing with concerns expressed about the state of health and safety of Dr. Andrei Sakharov and his family.

I understand it would be difficult to repeat the same procedure. I would have loved to have presented a similar motion in the same spirit, seconded by the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman), that would have indicated and asked for a similar unanimous consent, which I am sure I would have obtained from all members of the House, that the government of Ontario express at this time to the authorities of Poland, on behalf of the people of this province, its profound concern that three Ontario residents, Graznya Trzesicka, Wladyslaw Sliwa and Zygmunt Augustyniak, have had to resort to the desperate action of a hunger strike which has lasted almost three and a half weeks now, jeopardizing their lives, so that they may be reunited with their families from Poland.

The motion would have called upon the government of Poland to grant exit visas to their families as set out under its obligations under the specific provisions of the Helsinki Accord dealing with family reunification, to which Poland and Canada are signatories.

I understand it would be improper for me to present such a motion seeking unanimous consent. I hope all members in the future will perhaps find a way, such as there is in the House of Commons on matters of urgent and pressing need, to be able to present such motions. I do not want to quote the precedent of the member for York South. I should not say he got away with it, but apparently somehow no reservations were expressed, and there may have been some.

I want to remind the honourable members of this serious concern and I hope they will share these concerns with me and support the intention of these remarks.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the same point of order, I want to indicate very clearly on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we indicated to the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) that we were prepared to give unanimous consent to have this motion come forward. My understanding is that my colleagues in the Liberal Party also indicated they had given unanimous consent to have this motion come forward.

If there is a lack of unanimous consent to have this motion come forward, it rests with the Conservative Party benches somewhere. There is nothing in the standing orders that prevents the member for High Park-Swansea from asking for and obtaining unanimous consent to move this very important motion. I would ask that the government reconsider its action and permit the member for High Park-Swansea to move this very important motion. We will adopt it forthwith.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that this is a very serious matter. There are three lives at stake here and there could be more. I think it would be incumbent upon whosoever has the responsibility to see that we get unanimous consent for this at this time and that the government of Poland know the feelings of the Ontario Legislature and of the citizens of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this, and certainly nothing has to do with the substance of the motion, which all members of this House agree to.

We do have a set of standing orders in this House, which is adhered to by the members of this House. I sit over here as government House leader and listen to lectures from people on the other side about following the standing orders and various procedures. We spend a lot of --

Mr. McClellan: We give unanimous consent all the time.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All right. Just a minute.

We spend a lot of time in the House leaders' meeting discussing procedures for these various things. I was away last week when the member for York South brought his motion forward, but I certainly would say that while we all support the motion, it should have been discussed by the House leaders and a decision should have been made to grant unanimous consent and on a procedure to do it under the standing orders.

Basically, substantive motions should appear in Orders and Notices and be printed, which they were not. My friend the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), who is a stickler for these matters in most cases, knows there are certain procedures. A number of motions very similar to the motion we have today are waiting to be debated in private members' time. The question is what motions should be considered without debate by this House in private members' time and what motions should be debated.

All these things must be considered. I think the House should not drift into a procedure such as Ottawa has whereby motions are moved and automatically one cabinet minister says no to the granting of unanimous consent. It has become a standard procedure, encouraged and allowed under their standing orders, which we do not have under our standing orders here and which has never been suggested or brought forward by the standing committee on procedural affairs.

All I am saying is I think we are drifting into a procedure that has nothing to do with the substance of these very worthwhile motions and I want to underline that concern at this time. Of course, I will grant unanimous consent so my friend may make this motion at this particular time.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad it has now been arranged that it is possible.

The House leader and the Speaker will know the procedural affairs committee has made a recommendation that there be statements from private members before ministerial statements during which these matters can be brought forward as a matter of course and be perfectly in order without the special arrangements that are requested by the honourable member who spoke first in this little exchange.

3:20 p.m.

We might very well move towards the adoption of some of those procedures that have been proposed by the standing committee on procedural affairs. I see the chairman of the committee in the back row smiling and pointing his finger in some sort of accusatory way, but we certainly hope we can have an agreement on all sides and move forward with some of these procedures. Right now I look forward to hearing from the honourable member.

The Acting Speaker: There is a motion on the floor. Does the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) want it to come or shall we proceed?

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege to make.

The Acting Speaker: A point of privilege? I have not had that for a while.

Mr. Mancini: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to bring to the attention of the House that for some years I have been a member of the procedural affairs committee. I want the record to show that basically all members of the committee work in a very --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. That is not a point of personal privilege. You are bringing out matters of the committee.

We have a motion before the House.

Mr. Mancini: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but you gave me very little time to make my point of privilege.

The Acting Speaker: I do not see it relating to personal privilege.

Mr. Mancini: If you would only allow a member to finish his comments, you might be able to decide whether it is privilege.

The Acting Speaker: I will let the member go a bit further; then I will respond.

Mr. Mancini: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that while the members of the committee have worked in a very nonpartisan way, it is very frustrating to have the information produced by the procedural affairs committee go back to the government caucus and come to a stalemate on a more than regular basis.

We have seen today another example whereby if the government --

The Acting Speaker: As far as I am concerned, the member has not had his personal privilege abrogated.

Mr. Shymko moves, seconded by Mr. Newman, that the government of Ontario express to the authorities of Poland, on behalf of the people of this province, its profound concern that three Ontario residents, Graznya Trzesicka, Wladyslaw Sliwa and Zygmunt Augustyniak have had to resort to the desperate action of a hunger strike, jeopardizing their lives, so that they may be reunited with their families from Poland, and call upon the government of Poland to grant exit visas to their families as set out under its obligations under the specific provisions of the Helsinki Accord dealing with family reunification to which Poland and Canada are signatories.

The Acting Speaker: There is unanimous approval by the House that this motion be presented. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do not wish to reinforce what the government House leader said, but I think the first question is whether there is unanimous consent to proceed. Before we vote on that, I am sure both members would care to make one small correction in the motion; they mean to say "the Legislature of Ontario."

The Acting Speaker: I will accept the guidance of the member for Oshawa. Do we have the unanimous consent of the House for this motion?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: While we are in the cool light of day here, I am sure we have just seen an example that the government House leader, however hasty he might have been originally in denying unanimous consent, does have a legitimate point that it would have been useful in this instance to have had this motion printed in Orders and Notices so all members could at least have seen the motion they were voting on.

Although we all understood the intent, I think the chair may want to refer that little point of order to the procedural affairs committee and have it report back.

The Acting Speaker: I think that has already been covered.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF NEPEAN ACT

Mr. Mitchell moved, seconded by Mr. MacQuarrie, first reading of Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Nepean.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF LONDON ACT

Mr. Van Horne moved, seconded by Mr. Sweeney, first reading of Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to.

HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cooke moved, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie. first reading of Bill 103, An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the bill I have introduced today would make prevention of adolescent pregnancy a major responsibility of public health units throughout Ontario.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to ask the permission of the House to revert to introduction of bills.

The Acting Speaker: Unanimous consent is required. Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed.

FARM PRODUCTS PAYMENTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Sterling, first reading of Bill 104, An Act to amend the Farm Products Payments Act.

Motion agreed to.

FARM PRODUCTS GRADES AND SALES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Sterling, first reading of Bill 105, An Act to amend the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have asked that copies of the two bills I have just introduced be delivered to the House leaders of the opposition parties in order that they can provide them as soon as possible to their agricultural critics. This legislation may then be considered in the House next week for passage before the conclusion of this session.

Once passed, the two bills will enable us to work to establish a financial protection plan for grain corn producers.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I wonder whether at any point we could determine if the Conservatives would like us to be home before August.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order, but it is an interesting point.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 28, An Act to provide for the Implementation of the Young Offenders Act (Canada).

SCANDINAVIAN-CANADIAN CENTRE ACT

Mr. Williams moved second reading of Bill Pr13, An Act respecting The Scandinavian-Canadian Centre.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Gillies moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Ramsay, second reading of Bill 62, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, there must be some small confusion here, which probably was brought to my attention originally. Were we not going to go into committee on this?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that we were going to do the other two bills standing in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) first and then go to Bill 141 after.

Mr. Nixon: Very good. Thank you.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Gullies: Mr. Speaker, as honourable members know, Bill 62 proposes two amendments to the Employment Standards Act. The first amendment relates to the relationship between the payment of severance pay and the retention of recall rights.

As members are aware, the Employment Standards Act provides for the payment of severance pay where 50 or more employees have had their employment terminated in a period of six months or less because of the permanent discontinuance of all or part of the employer's business. This is section 40a of the act. However, this provision does not apply if the employee refuses to waive the right to be recalled for employment as indicated in clause 40a(3)(c). This latter provision has been criticized as operating harshly in certain situations.

The Employment Standards Act does not specify a period of time in which an employee must decide whether to retain the right of recall or to receive severance pay. The minister has received complaints that some employers are not allowing their employees sufficient time to make a considered decision.

Moreover, it is particularly unfair to require employees to give up their entitlement to severance pay to retain their recall rights when those recall rights might turn out to be worthless, for example, in a case where a recall does not take place.

To remedy these problems, the bill proposes to amend the act to enable an employee either to elect to be paid severance pay immediately upon the termination of employment and forfeit any right of recall or to retain the right of recall and be paid severance pay if the employee is not recalled within a year of the permanent discontinuance of the business.

Where the employee elects to retain the right of recall, the severance pay will be held in trust by the director of the employment standards branch pending the employee's election, recall or expiry of one year, whichever applies in the circumstances of the specific case.

The other amendment relates to the awarding of interest by referees appointed to determine whether a contravention of the act has occurred. Members may be aware that a referee ruled in one recent case that he had no authority to award interest to be paid on amounts found to be owing to employees under the act. In the case in question, almost a year had elapsed between the date on which the amounts owing had become due and the date of the referee's order. A considerable amount of money was at issue.

It is clearly unfair for an employer to be able to keep the money he or she owes to the employee for a year without paying interest on it. As well, the fact that no interest is currently paid on moneys held in trust by the director of the employment standards branch pending the outcome of a review of an employment standards officer's order to pay wages can be an unfair loss to the person who is ultimately entitled to receive these moneys, that is, the employer or the employee, as the case may be.

To rectify these problems, it is proposed in the case of an application for review of an order of an employment standards officer by an employer under section 50 that the wages currently paid to the director in trust be paid into an interest-bearing account for distribution with the accumulated interest to the party who is found by the referee to be entitled to them.

Where the director appoints a referee to hear a case following an officer's report that the employer may have failed to comply with or is attempting to circumvent the act under section 51, the amendment authorizes the referee to award interest on amounts found to be owing to employees.

Such interest is to be calculated in the same manner as prejudgement interest in the Supreme Court. Thus, under the provisions of the present Judicature Act, a person is entitled to interest on a claim for money owing from the date of the first default on wage payments or, in the case of termination pay, from seven days after the termination of employment.

The rate of interest is the prime rate for the month preceding the month the action arose as established by the Bank of Canada, and the adjudicator has the discretion to disallow the payment of interest, vary the rate of interest or vary the period for which it is calculated.

Under the proposed Courts of Justice Act, which has received third reading and which will come into effect in January 1985, the scheme for awarding interest is generally simpler than at present. A person is entitled to interest on a claim for money owing from the date the cause of action arose.

The rate of interest is the bank rate in effect at the beginning of the last month of the quarter preceding the quarter in which the claim was filed. For example, if a claim is filed in May, in the second quarter of the year, the relevant interest rate is the one applicable on March 1. The scheme can be overridden by the adjudicator as the justice of the circumstances requires.

These amendments address two issues that have been a concern to members in the House in recent months, and I trust they may be enacted to the benefit of working people in the province without undue delay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): The member for Essex South.

Mr. Mancini: I was just discussing a labour matter with my colleague the Labour critic for the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for the five-second delay.

I see our previous Speaker has left the chair. I guess after having done a day's work, he feels free to leave.

Mr. Treleaven: Oh, come on, Remo.

Mr. Mancini: Well, the previous Speaker should attend a few meetings of the standing committee on procedural affairs and he might realize what he is doing.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I ask the member to address the bill at hand.

Mr. Mancini: Bill 62 addresses a very important issue and affects a great number of people in view of the fact that we have suffered a tremendous economic downturn in Ontario over these past three years, during which there were a great number of plant closures and the significant production of certain plants was no longer needed and therefore large numbers of workers were put out of work.

As the workers were going through this tremendous dislocation, they found themselves at a disadvantage in many areas; not only had they lost their jobs, but also their severance pay and recall rights were not quite placed in law the way they should be. The parliamentary assistant tells us the workers will have six months to decide whether to accept the severance pay or the recall rights. Then, it is my understanding, this is valid for one year. If I am in error, possibly the parliamentary assistant will correct me, but I do not believe I am. Whether the employee returns to work is a different matter altogether.

The matter of recall is all fine and well for many of the unionized plants, because they have a system of recall. Where there is a union that has been able to negotiate a contract, workers are recalled to their jobs, usually on a seniority basis, if they are lucky enough to have the plant reopened or if the production increases and the workers are called back.

I do not think we are doing enough for the unorganized workers. I am quite concerned that we did not give them a little more latitude as far as recall rights are concerned. Life is very busy; when a person loses his or her job, the first thing that comes to mind is not so much whether he or she is going to be recalled. When they see the plant gate shut and the sign "Closed" on the gate, I would assume most workers would feel it was time to look for another job.

3:40 p.m.

While they are going through this traumatic transition, especially employees who have given a good number of years of service to a particular employer, employees who have not been able to improve their skills because they have been doing one particular job for a good number of years, employees who have been out of the educational system for a long time, employees who are unable to move to different parts of the province for economic and/or social reasons -- I just do not think we gave enough thought to those employees and workers.

While the section in the bill that would allow the accrued interest to be paid to employees when they have decided to take their severance pay -- as we know, eight, nine or 10 per cent interest on several thousand dollars starts to add up after a while, and there is no good reason why the employee should have to lose this interest -- is one we support without any reservation, I am surprised, and I think this should be on the record, that we need to include it in the bill.

I am surprised that the Ontario Labour Relations Board or the arbitrators who hear these cases -- I should say some of them; I am not sure if they all have this opinion -- claim they do not have the authority to have the interest transferred to the worker.

I find that somewhat strange, because if one has $100, $500 or $1,000 and gives it to an institution, an employer or a corporation to hold in trust, one would automatically think any advantages accruing to the money being held or used by the employer or corporation would come back to the laid-off employee once it was decided that severance pay would be taken in lieu of recall rights. So I am somewhat surprised that we have to be so specific in our law, especially to people working within the labour movement on such a regular basis. The explanation of why we had to include this in Bill 62 did catch me off guard and I was somewhat surprised.

I am very disappointed there is nothing in this bill, no statements coming from the parliamentary assistant or from the minister, about pensions. Laid-off employees who in many cases have paid into a pension plan for many years are certainly hurt when their jobs are gone, when their pensions are uncollectable and in some cases lost and when their pensions are actuarially reduced to a level that makes it almost seem as if we are trying to punish the unfortunate employee who loses his or her job.

I was very disappointed to see nothing in that regard is going to be done at this time. We realize this is not something we are making up; the statistics are there -- they have been there for the last three or four years -- showing that the industrial heartland of Ontario, the manufacturing areas of Ontario and in some cases the mining areas, have suffered a tremendous downturn and automation has come in and has eliminated jobs. Our first priority should be the pensions of those people who have lost their jobs after giving a good number of years of service.

I cannot understand why we are not dealing with this vital and important question. It bothers me no end, and I am sure you will want to hear this, Mr. Speaker, because I know you are concerned about industrial layoffs, that we have the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) making all kinds of suggestions and public statements about what the government of Canada should do, about what should be done in Ottawa to improve and protect pensions, yet this government has a tremendous opportunity to improve and to protect the rights of individuals who have lost their jobs and it does absolutely nothing about it.

That seems like cynical politics to me. It is the same style of politics I have witnessed from this government since the first day I was elected on September 18, 1975. If there is a headline to be won, attention to be sought, or criticism or suggestions to be directed to Ottawa, these people are the first in line. They jump out in front of the parade and they are first in line under those circumstances, but when they are able to use their own authority under law to make changes that are necessary, without the interference or acquiescence of another government, we see a very slow pace indeed, slower than a snail's pace.

I understand the parliamentary assistant wants to make a name for himself. Of late, he has been carrying a great number of bills for the Minister of Labour. I am not sure whether that tells us anything or not. Are they preparing the member for the cabinet? Are they giving him experience for that, or do they just have faith in him? What is going on here?

The Acting Speaker: Please address your comments to the bill.

Mr. Edighoffer: Maybe the Minister of Labour does not want to take time.

Mr. Mancini: Exactly. I was just coming to that. Is it that the Minister of Labour does not want to take the time to be here to speak with his counterparts, the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), the critic for the New Democratic Party, and myself?

We are charged with responsibility to criticize the Minister of Labour. We do not mind at all if the parliamentary assistant receives experience or if the minister is busy on occasion, but it is starting to become a habit with the minister. We want to question the man in the front line, the man who, along with his cabinet colleagues, decides what the law is going to be, not the poor parliamentary assistant who is given a speech to read. It is very unfair in this parliamentary system to put all that pressure on the poor parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Nixon: We can see it telling on him, too.

Mr. Mancini: Yes. He looks much older than he did three years ago.

We will have more comments when we go to committee of the whole House. At this point, I just wanted to touch briefly on some of the sections and on some concerns I have. I am looking forward to further debate on this bill.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise with mixed feelings about Bill 62. I think I raised in correspondence with the minister the question of workers having to sign waiver forms to collect their severance pay. Unfortunately, it is now becoming a pretty standard pattern in plant closures.

I have some real reservations about the adequacy of our severance pay legislation generally. I believe the 1983 statistics for Ontario show about 210,000 workers laid off for more than 14 weeks and something like 2,046 receiving severance pay. That is about one per cent. I also note that of 1,464 employees terminated in complete closures of insolvent companies, none received severance pay. I really wonder what protection we have there for workers in any event.

3:50 p.m.

I guess I have a fundamental disagreement with the first section of this bill. That is the idea that a worker should have to sign a waiver form to collect severance pay when it appears to be a permanent total or partial closure. That waiver can negate something the worker has negotiated in his collective agreement. Usually a collective agreement has the right to go beyond whatever the minimum requirements are in law. That is something I think we have stuck to fairly closely. I am not impressed by arguments that it should be the right of a company or there should not be a comeback if there is a complete closure.

If a decision is made that they have to cut back X number of employees on a permanent or partial basis and the requirement is there for the severance pay, that is a decision the company has made.

Mr. Mancini: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I do not believe I see a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Essex South suggests the lack of a quorum.

Mr. Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is present.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, it is with some reluctance and after a rather serious searching of reasons that I find myself contemplating supporting this bill at all, even though I may have had something to do with prompting the minister to bring it in. In my opinion, the fundamental objection is that at no time should workers have to waive their right to recall. Usually in legislation, the law is the minimum and what one can negotiate over and above that in a contract is what carries some weight.

The employment standards have always recognized the rights of workers to enjoy greater benefits provided by their collective agreement. An employment standard, as I say, is a minimum. Yet, here we are taking away one of the rather fundamental rights of a worker and that is the right to recall if he signs the waiver to collect his severance pay. I think it denies a fundamental right to recall rights in collective agreements and it could be crucial to workers who may eventually want to get hired or recalled by a successor employer.

This could very much interfere with successor rights in the Labour Relations Act. If the first employer sells the business and the successor employer starts it up again, the former employees may not be able to get their jobs back if they have elected to receive severance pay, thereby abandoning their rights to recall. Also, it could be used as a device to circumvent the collective agreement. It would allow successor employers to hire the young and discard the old without the obligation to the older workers that would otherwise have been there.

It seems to me we would not lose a heck of a lot and we might for once have given an advantage to workers if we had allowed them to collect the severance pay where the company felt it was a permanent or partial closure of X number of weeks that was going to allow them to qualify, and still have given them recall rights if by some lucky chance the company was able to turn its affairs around. Otherwise, if we did have a successor company, those employees, who could have an awful lot of years of service, would have no right to recall if by chance things did improve.

It seems to me it would be a very small weighting in favour of workers who have given a lot of service to a company. I find nothing this government does goes much beyond the minimum requirements and certainly does not load any of the legislation in the labour field in favour of workers. Employees suffer dislocation, reduced income, uncertainty; and even if the employees are recalled, especially since they are entitled only to severance pay if there is the intention that there be a permanent discontinuance of all or part of the business, they will thereby not be expecting to be recalled and will be looking for other jobs. Why should the employer not absorb the cost?

I think the minister and the parliamentary assistant might take a look at the SKF studies for costs which are absorbed by employees after they have been terminated. It applies in more than just the SKF case. The workers are paying constantly in the case of a plant closure where their jobs are gone. There is no problem of potential double payment, even if the employee is recalled, due to subsection 40a(6) of the act, which says, "A year of employment for which an employee has been paid severance pay shall be excluded in any subsequent calculation of severance pay for that employee."

That is certainly not a problem.

In the old act, what was happening, of course, was that companies were realizing that if an employer did not require the employee to waive recall rights, the employee could both keep the recall rights and receive the severance pay if the thought was that the closure was for the proper period of time. Now the onus has changed. If an employee accepts severance pay, he will probably be deemed to have abandoned the right to be recalled.

We also wonder about no requirement for the election. Does the employer have to inform the employee he abandons recall rights if he accepts severance pay? We would think that would be the case, but we are not sure in reading the legislation.

4 p.m.

One effect of the regulation may be to disentitle from collecting later an employee who does not elect to receive severance pay. If the worker is laid off for more than 13 weeks, section 15 of the regulations may kick in to break into his period of employment. Outboard Marine is an example there. Nothing I have read since, including some of the defences or explanations of this legislation, gives us an answer to what happened in the case of Outboard Marine.

We also have reservations about the interest provisions. We think it is probably not retroactive to cover cases at present before referees but not yet decided. In nonreferee cases, there is no right to interest; this has not changed. That means an employment standards officer who under section 47 arranges to have an employer pay wages or who issues an order against the employer to pay wages still cannot add interest. If the employer simply refuses to pay and the branch takes him to court, it is unlikely under section 59 that the judge of the provincial court has the jurisdiction to add interest to the unpaid wages.

Unlike the Labour Relations Act, there is no provision in the Employment Standards Act in referee cases to allow for the filing of the referee's decision with the Supreme Court for enforcement as a judgement of the Supreme Court. Under the Employment Standards Act, an employer can apply for a review by a referee or refuse to pay and force the branch to prosecute. Until now it has been cheaper to choose the referee route because the referee would not award interest but a court prosecution could result in a 10 per cent penalty payable to the director.

With a fine and an order for unpaid wages, the court order is enforceable. Bill 62 provides for prejudgement interest if a referee awards interest. If he does not provide for postjudgement interest from the date of the award to the date of payment, although this is what a regular court case would require, it is not automatic as it would be with a regular court proceeding. It is not retroactive to affect complaints already filed but not decided.

When one takes a look at it, the only reason for supporting the legislation is that some of the coverage and protection we have now is so bad that this may be a tiny improvement, because where an employee does not elect to take severance pay, the money is deposited. Even though we have some very grave reservations about the extent of coverage under the interest provisions, the employee has the right to have it placed in trust and collect some interest on it.

Considering the number of plant closures we have had, that could conceivably mean the worker may have his money protected, where, if he did not have this right and the company a few weeks down the road were to go belly up, he would find the money was not there for his severance pay, which he thought he was going to collect at some time.

It is a very small, almost niggardly, advance we have in the bill before us. On the basis of that very small advance, we will probably support this legislation. I am not very happy with it. My strongest objection is that with this bill the government is in effect negating collective agreements or sections negotiated in collective agreements with respect to workers' rights to recall.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, if it is okay with everybody else, I just wanted to get one thing clear --

The Acting Speaker: I am sorry, the honourable member has spoken on this and cannot speak again.

Mr. Mancini: That is why I asked if it was okay with everybody else.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the honourable members, I should first thank both of them and their parties for supporting the bill. Despite the reservations that have been expressed, I do believe what we are doing in Bill 62 will be of some considerable advantage to working people in Ontario.

On some of the specific questions that were raised by the critics, first in reply to my friend the member for Essex South, I assume when he refers to the six-month period plus 12 months -- I thought this was what he was going to clarify -- the six-month period is the period during which the employment standards branch considers all layoffs.

Mr. Mancini: Well, the Speaker had me so upset.

Mr. Gillies: That is quite understandable. This is the period during which the ministry monitors to ensure that the employer does not intend to circumvent the intentions of our severance pay law by scattering layoffs of under 50 people throughout a given period of time.

I just want to clarify that in our bill we are creating a new 12-month period, quite apart from any other considerations in the existing bill, and the new 12-month period is the period of time the employee has to consider whether or not to accept the recall rights and the severance pay provisions.

The member for Essex South expressed some reservations about the coverage of the bill and about the failure of this bill to make any mention of pensions. I would just make a couple of points in that regard.

First of all, the Employment Standards Act really makes only one reference that I am aware of to the question of pensions, and that is the prohibition in the act against differentiation in employer-employee pension plans on the basis of sex, age, marital status and so on. That is really the only reference in this particular legislation to pensions. Otherwise, the primary pension legislation in the province is the Pension Benefits Act under the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, which speaks to the question of the windup of pension plans when an employer goes out of business and soon. While I have no quarrel with my friend's comments on this, I might point out that there is a limited amount we can do with this legislation in that area.

Some very good points were made by both members about various aspects of the Employment Standards Act. All I would say is that this is very specific legislation to deal with two very specific problems. I do not think any piece of legislation by the government is revised and amended more frequently than the Employment Standards Act. In fact, in just about a six-month period this is the third amendment to this act I have brought before the House on behalf of the minister. Members can rest assured that many of their concerns are constantly being reviewed by the ministry. In the normal course of events, it will probably not be that long before some of them may be addressed again in this forum as the act is continually revised.

The member for Hamilton East in support of the bill, spoke somewhat reluctantly, I guess, but we still do appreciate that. The gist of what I was getting from the honourable member's remarks was his feeling that the employee really should not have to waive his recall rights in order to qualify for severance pay. In other words, the employee should have the right to both of those benefits as opposed to having to elect either.

I suppose an argument could be made in this direction, but we feel, at least with this legislation, the employee has a reasonable amount of time to decide what he wants to do. I might add, apropos of the collective agreement, that at least there is also a reasonable amount of time now during which the employee can consult with his or her union representatives and have the benefit of their advice on how to proceed in the case of a layoff.

The statistics on severance pay that the member cited apply to a one-year period. I can inform the House that in the first three years during which the severance pay legislation we have in place has been in effect -- I am talking about the period from January 1, 1981, to December 31, 1983 -- a total of 172 cases of complete and partial closures occurred where severance pay was required to be paid to the affected employees.

To date, I understand information has been received by the ministry on 147 of these cases. We find that 8,009 employees have received some form of severance pay totalling in excess of $42 million from about 100 employers.

4:10 p.m.

I would have to agree with one point the member for Hamilton East made, that none of that, I believe -- now let me just check; maybe a very small amount, but almost none of that -- has been collected from companies where there has been a complete shutdown and insolvency on the part of the company. Obviously, the bulk of the money that has been collected is in the case of a partial shutdown or extended layoff.

The honourable member raised the case of the Outboard Marine Corp. We are very much aware of the situation in that particular closure. I understand a hearing was set up in the case of Outboard Marine and the preliminary discussions were held before the referee, but to this point the union has not proceeded with the hearing. With the information I have before me now, the story may not be over. It may not be complete in the case of Outboard Marine.

With respect to the other point the member raised, the question of retroactivity, I guess the application of this act to disputes that have already been adjudicated or are being adjudicated is a very difficult one when we contemplate legislation. I really think the minister wrestles with this question of retroactivity. Again in that context, I would remind members that we have not been successful in the past in collecting in the case of a complete shutdown where there is an insolvency. Many of the cases that have been adjudicated in the past probably would not be helped by this legislation.

The only other point I would like to make is in reply to the member for Essex South, if I can just go back for a moment. I do not want to sound at all defensive or protective of our ministry, but I do think I want to say on the record that very few ministers or very few members of the House, generally, work as hard and as diligently as does the Minister of Labour. It has been quite an experience for me to work with him. I guess I might say the minister is a bit of a workaholic.

There are many mornings when he starts the meeting in his office at about seven and there are many nights when he is not gone until well into the evening. I certainly do not think the fact I am carrying most of the legislation for our ministry now indicates any lack of concern or commitment on the part of the minister to his duties. It is quite the reverse. Frankly, I think he is so busy on his day-to-day work trying to keep the province working that he has entrusted me with a lot of this legislative duty, which I am just too pleased to do for him.

In conclusion, I thank the honourable members for their support for the bill and I look forward to any discussion they might want to have in the committee stage.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his chambers.

Clerk of the House: The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour has assented:

Bill 28, An Act to provide for the Implementation of the Young Offenders Act (Canada);

Bill 41, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act;

Bill 45, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act;

Bill 54, An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act;

Bill 59, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act;

Bill 65, an Act respecting a Convention between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland providing for the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters;

Bill 67, An Act to amend the Milk Act;

Bill 68, An Act respecting the Marketing of Grain Corn;

Bill 69, An Act to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act;

Bill 71, An Act to amend the Assessment Act;

Bill 72, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act;

Bill 73, An Act to amend the Small Business Development Corporation Act;

Bill Pr13, An Act respecting The Scandinavian-Canadian Centre.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Gillies moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Ramsay, second reading of Bill 75, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 17, the Minister of Labour introduced a series of amendments to the Labour Relations Act. At that time, he indicated he would elaborate upon these amendments during the debate on second reading. The bill relates to the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act and, in particular, to the provincial bargaining sections of that act.

Members will recall that the province-wide bargaining system in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry was established by amendment to the Labour Relations Act in 1977. In essence, the relevant sections of the act provide a system of central bargaining by trade between designated employer and employee bargaining agencies. Provincial agreements operate for a statutory term of two years, the most recent expiry date occurring on April 30 this year.

Generally speaking, we believe the interests of contractors, building trade unions, tradesmen and the clients of the construction industry have been well served by the provincial bargaining system. Centralization has contributed to greater stability in construction industry bargaining. No longer is one region of the province set off against another in the wage determination process.

We are particularly encouraged by the developments in this year's provincial bargaining. Settlements were reached in a number of trades last December, some five months in advance of the termination of the respective provincial agreements. These trades included the carpenters, labourers, ironworkers, cement masons, bricklayers and operating engineers. More recently, agreements were concluded in the plumbing and electrical trades. These settlements have demonstrated sensitivity to the difficult economic conditions in the industry and in every case were reached without resort to a work stoppage.

One cannot but contrast this enviable record with the prevalent unrest in the construction industry in some other jurisdictions. We are hopeful the trend will continue in the minority of trades that have yet to renew their provincial agreements.

While most industry representatives would agree that the system is basically sound, minor refinements have been made from time to time in response to problems that have been revealed by the actual practice of provincial bargaining. I am referring to amendments that were made in 1979 and 1980 related to recognition, certification and ratification procedures in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector.

Several building trade unions and associations representing contractors have written to the minister in the past year urging further improvements to the provincial bargaining system. We have discussed the various proposals with the interested organizations, and have had the benefit of advice from the Construction Industry Advisory Board. The package of amendments addresses the recurring themes that have emerged in the representations the minister has received.

I will speak to the main features of the bill in the order in which they appear. The proposed amendment to subsection 44(11) of the act will enable any party, employer, trade union or employee affected by the decision of an arbitrator to seek the immediate enforcement of the award as an order of the Supreme Court. At present, 14 days must elapse before an arbitration decision can be filed with the registrar of the court.

In recognition of the transient nature of employment relationships in the construction industry, the act now provides for the expedited arbitration of construction industry grievances before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Several building trade unions have submitted that success before the board may be meaningless if the contractor has departed the site before the award can be effectively enforced. The amendment will afford immediate access to the court in respect of all arbitration decisions, whether originating from the construction industry or from another sector.

The second amendment relates to the authority of the Ontario Labour Relations Board to declare a strike unlawful and to issue appropriate remedial directions. The changes are intended to clarify rather than to expand the board's powers to relieve against unlawful work stoppages. In particular, the amendment is intended to clarify the board's authority to deal with the practice of selective picketing in ICI provincial work stoppages.

Mr. McClellan: Is he reading unnecessarily from a document?

Mr. Gillies: It is the budget.

Selective picketing is a tactic whereby a building trade union involved in a provincial strike may target one particular project, establish a picket line and cause other tradesmen not involved in the dispute to stop work. Such an incident occurred in the Sarnia area during the 1982 strike by the plumbers and pipefitters. In a proceeding brought by the Sarnia Construction Association, the Ontario Labour Relations Board found that picketing activity of this nature violated the Labour Relations Act.

The board ordered that one entrance to the project be designated for employees of the contractor involved in the dispute and that the striking trade confine itself to picketing at that entrance. The restriction was subject to the condition that work within the jurisdiction of the striking trade union was not being performed by any other contractor or trade.

4:20 p.m.

It is my understanding that the board's order is consistent with the policy of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario in respect to picketing during a provincial strike. The amendment will simply clarify the board's authority to make orders of the kind made during the Sarnia Construction Association case.

Provincial bargaining in the ICI sector contemplates that one provincial agreement will be negotiated for each trade. Employer organizations have complained that some contractors represented by central bargaining agencies have negotiated their own private and unlawful arrangements beyond the scope of the provincial agreement.

The problem became particularly acute during the lengthy 1982 plumbers' strike when several individual contractors concluded agreements with local trade unions and continued to work during the provincial strike. The proposed amendments will enable the board to deal expeditiously with complaints related to such unlawful arrangements and will permit the immediate enforcement of board orders in the Supreme Court of Ontario.

The final, and I think most innovative, feature of the bill relates to entitlement of tradesmen and contractors to participate in ICI votes. The proposed section 149a will regulate voting in the following manner. The right to participate in ICI strike and ratification votes will be restricted to employees actually working in the ICI sector and not those otherwise employed. A corresponding restriction will be imposed on construction industry employers by limiting entitlement to contractors employing persons in ICI construction work.

Central employer and employee bargaining agencies will be required to certify their compliance with the voting regulations. The minister will be given discretionary authority to refer to the Ontario Labour Relations Board any complaint of a contravention that has materially affected the outcome of a vote. The OLRB will be empowered to grant the appropriate prospective relief where it finds that a contravention has occurred and the result of the vote has been materially affected.

This package of amendments is a further illustration of our commitment to provide a bargaining structure that accommodates the unique characteristics of labour-management relations in the construction industry. Each of the proposed changes responds to concerns expressed either by the building trade unions or by construction industry employers. The refinements or improvements will, in our opinion, strengthen the province-wide bargaining system.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, Bill 75 was put forward to clarify certain matters for the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and in some instances we have no disagreement with the clarification the ministry wants made. I want to move directly to subsection 149a(5) and say to the parliamentary assistant that I am not very happy with that subsection. I see a considerable difficulty, and frankly I am not sure why it is needed.

When one examines the construction industry, one concludes that it is an extremely mobile industry. Workers may work in the ICI sector for a short time and then go on and work in the power sector. This may happen within a period of six months, four months, one month and in some cases even less, depending on the amount of work that is available. Thus, we have carpenters, electricians or other tradesmen who may be working in the power sector knowing full well the job will be expiring soon and who hope to obtain work in the ICI sector or who may already have work lined up in the ICI sector.

This legislation would prevent them from voting on a contract that is going to affect them materially in the very near future. If we have provincial bargaining, let us have provincial bargaining. I cannot say I am in support of that section.

I have not heard anything put forward by the parliamentary assistant that would convince me we need to impose this restriction on employees as to whether they wish to accept proposed collective agreements. I will certainly listen to any positive suggestion the parliamentary assistant has to make, but up to this point it seems we are unnecessarily intervening in the collective bargaining process and in some cases almost immediately affecting what a worker would make or do as a result of an agreement. I cannot say it any more clearly than that.

It appeared that this year would be a nonstrike year in the construction industry. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. We have a strike in the power sector by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers against Ontario Hydro. I am quite concerned. That strike has gone on for several weeks, and on no single occasion has the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes) or either of their parliamentary assistants stood up of their own free will and informed the House about the progress of the strike. They have answered some questions put to them, but they have on no occasion tried to clarify the situation for the members of the House, although this is a very important issue.

Part of Bill 75 will have a direct impact on this strike. We all know that. I am very disappointed, not only that the strike has taken place but also that we have not been able to obtain from the senior, well-paid officials of the government an explanation or at least --

Mr. Nixon: Senior, overpaid officials.

Mr. Mancini: Senior, overpaid officials. We have not been able to obtain at least an update as to what is going on.

The parliamentary assistant talks about clarifying the position of the board so that unlawful picket lines will not be put up. He was kind enough to place on the record that it is also the position of the trade unions. They do not want to put up picket lines that will prevent other skilled tradesmen from going to work. They have adhered to that.

After a certain period of time, whether or not the picket lines are there, the work will stop because sooner or later someone -- by "someone," I am specifically referring to supervisors -- will be unable to do the work of the striking tradesmen and work will halt throughout the project. I can see that happening in the power sector.

4:30 p.m.

It is very unfortunate, especially when one considers that Ontario Hydro has already given its engineers a five per cent increase in wages; exactly the same rate of increase the electricians are asking for. It surprises me that a crown corporation would be willing to give a particular sector of its work force a five per cent increase but would be unwilling to grant a similar increase to another group of workers. I thought that should be put on the record, because we hear so little from the government on this very important matter.

In this bill we have not taken any bold steps in helping make labour relations more amicable in the construction industry. Again I say that section 149a is an interference in the collective bargaining process and will probably cause more problems than it solves.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary assistant did not need his detailed introduction. The crux of this legislation is that there is no opposition from either side that I know of -- I am talking about contractors or workers -- on section 1. Indeed, for some time it has been part of the briefs submitted by the building trades.

As far as I know, there is also support from all parties for section 2, subsection 3(1), subsection 3(2) and section 4. The disagreement is on section 5. I do not know why the ministry has it there. I am not impressed with anything I have heard in the way of argument.

What the minister should understand, although it does not seem to mean an awful lot, is that most of the construction unions have their voting procedures set out in their constitutions and would just as soon leave it that way. There are problems occasionally, but if the government is going to interfere with who can vote and how, then the question I am asked by those in the construction field is, "Are they going to let us vote on any and all agreements that affect us?"

Is that the intent of the legislation of this ministry? Will they be able to vote on the general presidents' maintenance agreement, for example, or the national maintenance agreement or the electric power sector agreements, which are often signed only by the international? Is the government going to allow them to vote on any and all contracts that affect them? I think that is a legitimate question.

If the minister is not going to do that, why is he interfering in the procedures they have set out and the requirements they have in their own constitutions in terms of voting on contract provisions? I cannot understand that at all. While I have no difficulty with the first four sections, I do have difficulty with section 5.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I thank both critics for their support of the bill. I appreciate the concern about section 149a and I will attempt to provide some clarification of our intent in that regard.

I am sure members are aware that a contract dispute can become distorted when some members working on various types of projects or with various types of employers are insulated from the economic effects of the dispute.

To hark back, when I talk about the Hydro dispute, I am not talking about the current one but rather about the 1982 plumbers' strike. There was a very strong feeling among some of the contractors, and indeed among some of the employees, that the strike was prolonged because of the negative votes of the tradesmen who continued to work for Ontario Hydro while their brother workers on more transient, short-term projects were not working. That is the type of problem we are trying to get at.

In reply to the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), I want to assure him that this legislation pertains only to ICI votes and not to other votes in unrelated parts of the construction industry. I hope that takes care of his concern in that area, at least partially. We are not in any way trying to abrogate the rights of workers to vote on disputes that are of direct concern to them and indirectly to their families.

We appreciate the unqualified support on the first four sections of the bill. I hope I have addressed some of the concerns about section 5. If there are detailed clause-by-clause concerns, I guess we will go into committee, but that is my reply at this point.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 75, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

4:40 p.m.

On section 5:

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I want to flush out the parliamentary assistant a little more on this section, if I can. We are intervening in the collective bargaining process. I am not aware of any past circumstances that would require the passing of this section. I am not aware of ever having been told by or written to by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), I cannot recall reading anything in the print media, and I cannot recall seeing anything on television news reports as to disruptions, dislocations or problems caused by workers participating in these votes, as they have been doing. I am really perplexed as to why we need section 149a.

I would like to have a short summary by the parliamentary assistant of some of the representations made to the ministry by both the employers and the employees so that I can get a better grasp of this and, if it is at all possible, perhaps he can bring to the attention of the House one or two particular circumstances that have caused enough problems to warrant the introduction of section 149a.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Chairman, I think the clearest example we can put forward that created considerable concern is the plumbers' strike in 1982 in the Sarnia area. There was a feeling among many people involved in that strike that collective bargaining in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector becomes distorted when some of the employees not directly affected are insulated economically from the effects of the dispute itself.

There tends to be a more durable relationship because, as we all know, Lord knows we hear enough about it in this House, Ontario Hydro projects, as an example, are extremely large and they are long-term projects where a contractor is on the site for a much longer period. It is a more secure situation than that of a contractor out in the field who is erecting small commercial, industrial or residential types of construction.

The feeling is that in these votes by those who are somewhat protected from the winds prevalent at the place where the actual dispute is fulminating, these people are distorting the result of the vote. We feel it is in the best interest of all concerned that this type of legislation be brought in.

I remind the members the implications of this section of the bill are for only the ICI sector. They do not affect other parts of the construction industry. It is not our intent to abrogate the bargaining rights of people who are unrelated to this problem. I can probably come up with more specific examples, but that is the situation that was brought to the attention of the minister by a number of parties, which led to the inclusion of this section in the bill.

Mr. Mancini: I thank the parliamentary assistant for his answer. I have to say in all honesty it does not really appear to me to be enough of a reason to have this section. Surely, when he is going to interfere in this manner, he should have available at his fingertips all kinds of reasons, and probably a short list of problems that have been created.

He referred to one problem that took place in Sarnia back in 1982. He did not talk about any period before 1982 or after 1982. He is putting us in a bad position by asking us to support a section when he cannot convince us in any way that it is necessary or that it is important and vital to the construction industry.

I am sorry we cannot go along with the ministry on this section. Furthermore, he did not recap for me the representations made to him by the employer and employee groups.

Mr. Mackenzie: Inasmuch as the parliamentary assistant seems to want this right to tell the trades how they are going to vote, is he prepared to accept the other suggestion I made; that is, to guarantee that the workers on a site will have the right to vote on every contract that may affect them? That is a fair request or exchange that we get from the construction trades.

Mr. Gillies: I am sure this will not come as a great surprise to the honourable member, but I am afraid that is not the intent of the legislation. Much as we all, and I include myself, might have our personal preferences as to how some of these things are resolved, that is not the intent of the bill.

The intent of the bill is to regulate the bargaining and, if you will, the strikes for those who are directly affected. Frankly, we do not contemplate changing the legislation through this bill so that a dispute in one trade on one part of a project can shut down the whole project. This is very central not only to section 149a but to the whole bill, so I am afraid I have to say to my critic from the third party that no, that is not our intention.

The Acting Chairman: All those in favour of section 5 will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 5 agreed to.

Sections 6 and 7, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned consideration of Bill 141, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Mr. Nixon: This will not take long.

Mr. Mackenzie: Three or four weeks.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Robinson): I will wait and see what the member for Scarborough West is doing before I recognize him this time. Having adjusted his tie, the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, we would not want to give the people of Ontario, who all read Hansard, the wrong impression about what I might be up to here in my seat. I was adjusting my tie.

I rise to speak on the amendment proposed by my colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) to Bill 141. I would like to do so in the context of announcements made yesterday here in the House about the evolution of this province and its maturity and some concepts of the development of women's rights in a historical sense; and, having reviewed Hansard, because I have not been able to be here for all the debate, I would like to respond to the interaction between the parliamentary assistant and some honourable members about the meaning and importance of the provision of equal pay for work of equal value, in comparison with equal pay for equal work, in the progress of women's rights in this province.

I would like to start off with a bit of facetiousness or mischievousness, if I might. In the eulogy or whatever it was that we heard yesterday from the Premier (Mr. Davis) -- whether it was a retirement notice or perhaps some pre-election gesture, or just one of those blinding flashes on the road to Damascus that take place now and then in the lives of people and even politicians -- he said some things about our acceptance of religious differences whose context I would like to put into play around the whole notion of women's rights and this notion of equal pay for work of equal value.

4:50 p.m.

The Premier indicated yesterday that much had changed in this province, especially since 1971, with respect to religious differences and with respect to who had a right to what kind of education in Ontario. He said that essentially in the last 13 years or so the province has matured. Therefore, I presume the majority of its representatives have matured in their capacity to accommodate, without rancour and division, the notion that perhaps Catholics in our society should have the right to public schooling with their religious values in place in a way that is equal to the rest of us who are not Catholics in our public school system.

There were wonderful words involved in describing how this has evolved and how we have now made it to this wonderful point of cultural maturity and are able to stand it. Looking across and around me at people who were not much in favour of this kind of notion some years ago, or some days ago in some instances, I must say I thought people showed that maturity was there.

There was great applause and little gritting of teeth, if I can put it that way, in certain quarters. I thought people were mature and did handle it well. It struck me that perhaps this is a great principle. There were no attacks at all from the opposition in terms of putting a historical context on this or asking for any kind of political accountability on this. We just accepted the notion of this wonderful evolution.

Today, for instance, after the Prime Minister of Canada had written to the Premier, we thought he might have been here to tell us that, my goodness, we are now mature enough to accept linguistic differences as well and that linguistic rights could now be entrenched. I thought for a second we really had come totally of age.

Mr. Nixon: I thought he was going to announce the extension of Spadina.

The Acting Chairman: Rolling right along.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would definitely be concerned that Spadina might be a symbol of maturity, but I think it does bear saying that there are other evolutions of conflict, of disagreement, of discrepancies of rights in our society we should also be looking at. In context, for instance, there is the question whether our province has the capacity, whether certain factions in our society have the capacity, to tolerate and to accept that it is time we moved to equal rights.

I would say now is the time when this province is quite capable of that. I am sure all the information we are getting from people we deal with on a day-to-day basis in our ridings and in our constituencies shows they are ready for major steps in affirmative action to bring about equality for women in our society at last. That feeling is out there and there has been an evolution of thought. Men who have held the reins of power these many centuries have begun to understand that control has jeopardized the full blossoming and development of our culture, because of the suppression of the rights of the other sex to participate, especially in employment.

When legislation is brought into this House amending and improving -- no one would deny that -- aspects of the rights of women in Ontario, whether it be through the section extending the notion of equal pay for equal work that we have before us, or whether it has to do with the pregnancy leave section or the recognition of adoption leave rights of families, this is a good time to look at the context of where we are as a society and whether the kinds of things we are countenancing here are adequate for our times and are meeting our challenges.

I was here in the House the other day when the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) was speaking. He was trying to put this into a larger context. He has been kind enough to lend me a copy of the March 1984 Gazette of the Law Society of Upper Canada, which I know the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) reads before he goes to bed most evenings, as probably do other lawyers in the House. Up to this point I have not been privy to this kind of information, but I will be reading some of it in my remarks.

The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) knows it is the case that I have been preoccupied, some would even say obsessed, by questions of poverty and of the maldistribution of wealth in our society over the last number of years, and very specifically over the last five or six months, during which I have been doing a lot of touring of this province, getting to understand at first hand a lot of the discrepancies.

One theme of the parliamentary assistant has come through to me throughout that. There have been many, but there is one I would like to focus on now. In many ways poverty, and the impoverishment and lack of power involved in poverty, is very much in a majority term a women's issue.

It is structural poverty. It is established partly by attitudes that have been entrenched for generations, partly by legal structures that are in place which talk about relative kinds of rights, and partly because of structures in place in the private enterprise field, in business with regard to economic opportunity and how the reality of that is placed with respect to the development of our economy and women's role in the economy. It is very much because of structures established by this government and by our federal government, which over the years have ensured that women will have second-class status.

I do not need to tell the members of this House that if we look at the categories of people who are poor and go through the numbers, the majority are women, whether they are the single elderly or the working poor.

If we look at the minimum wage jobs and especially at unorganized workers in this province, we will see the majority of them are women. If we look at part-time workers in this province, besides those who are students who are being used for cheap labour at part-time work, the majority are women. They are being placed in positions that leave them with less power, less ability to change their lot and guaranteed continual poverty.

What we have before us is a series of amendments to the Employment Standards Act which it is hoped will redress some of those structural problems for some of those women.

I have noted that in the parliamentary assistant's approach to this he has essentially been taking a line from Mr. Gunderson and others, and the information he has accumulated, which says an extension or elaboration of the notion of equal pay for equal work is a sufficient step to take at this time, and that the difference between what would be accomplished from an extension of that notion to what we are proposing in this amendment -- that of equal pay for work of equal value -- is not significant enough to concern us at this time with respect to its effect on women in society.

I suggest and argue that is just not so. It is not the case because of the status of women at the moment and the demand of women in our society to have more real affirmative action. It is not appropriate because of the symbolic downplaying of the rights of women that is involved in merely extending the notion of equal pay for equal work. In practical terms for what it could mean in terms of empowerment, it is a mistake for us not to try to go that extra mile at the moment.

In the article by Judge Rosalie Abella that was handed to me by the member for Riverdale, there are some wonderful comments about attitudes. I want to talk about this because there are times when symbolic acts and movements, large steps taken, such as the courageous step yesterday for instance, are vital in opening all sorts of extra doors that were not anticipated to be opened in society. What we are up against is an incredibly entrenched power structure, incredibly entrenched attitudes of men and to some degree of women in our society.

5 p.m.

The first quote I would like to give to indicate just how far we have already come and what lies back there behind our attitudes is a quotation from one with whom I believe all Conservatives at least, would have certain connections and who would pluck their heartstrings a little bit and make them raise their chins and not necessarily wipe aside a tear. I am speaking of Queen Victoria, who I know is a favourite of the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies).

Queen Victoria wrote to a friend -- again, this is from an article by --

Mr. Wildman: Benjamin Disraeli.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No, it is a more recent Tory politician, in fact, with whom I have no doubt members are also familiar. He had a place of prominence, as I understand it, in the Conservative government before Mrs. Thatcher lowered the boom on him, St. John-Stevas. Perhaps members have heard of him.

This is from an article, a quote that I think capsulizes the problems of our attitudes towards women. She wrote: "The Queen" -- she always wrote that way, by the way, at least in her letters to me -- "is most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights' with all its attendant horrors on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feeling and propriety...It is a subject which makes the Queen so furious that she cannot contain herself."

Mr. McClellan: You mean she was not amused?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I believe the following quotation was that she was not amused.

This attitude, I would suggest, has shown itself through our history in many instances. One in which I know the member for Oxford would be most interested is a case in 1914 denying women the right to be lawyers. I will read it for his edification, although I am sure he has pored over this article at great length waiting for day care calls in his riding.

Lord Justice Phillimore wrote the following as his reason for denying women access to the bar: "every woman can be married at some time in her life --

Mr. Wildman: Really?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Yes.

-- "and it would be a serious inconvenience if, in the middle of her articles, or in the middle of conducting a piece of litigation, a woman was suddenly to be disqualified by reason of marriage." Hence women should not be lawyers.

It has also been the case here in Canada. That was an English ruling, but members will be happy to know that there was a Canadian ruling as well by Mr. Justice Saint-Pierre in 1915 in which he said that it "would be nothing short of a direct infringement upon public order and a manifest violation of the law of good morals and public decency" to appoint women to be lawyers.

I would suggest that many of these attitudes have moved along in the last little while, but vestiges are still apparent.

There is a direct commentary by Judge Abella on the importance -- or at least I will interpret it, if I may, to be on the importance -- of moving to equal pay for work of equal value from equal pay only. She is talking about the ghettoization of women's jobs:

"There are still job ghettos, with the majority of women in clerical, teaching, service or nursing occupations. At the beginning of the century 61 per cent of all women workers were in three occupations -- domestics, seamstresses or teachers. Today 71 per cent of all women workers are in four occupations -- clerical service, sales and nursing. Moreover, studies show that despite the exponential increase in the number of women in the paid labour force, a rise that between 1967 and 1977 was 70.6 per cent, and despite the existence in Canada of equal pay legislation, there continues to be a 40 per cent difference in wages between men and women."

I would suggest that she is talking about equal pay for work of equal value legislation there, perhaps in part; and I await that kind of response from the minister. But mostly she is talking about the existing equal pay for equal work legislation that provinces like Ontario have had now for a number of years.

We are not going to change the attitudes of our male-dominated economy by providing a measure that only goes another inch or two. Using the example the parliamentary assistant used the other day, it is not going to change the structure of the deprivation of rights of women in the work place to any meaningful extent by having the capacity now -- which I presume we could have done by regulation if we had been clever about this -- to determine whether a man who was working on the production of one size of pipe, was more skilled or needed more compensation than a woman who was working on a smaller size of pipe at another place in the same factory. That is equal pay for equal work with a mild exception because of the size of the pipe. That does not change structure.

It is like the other example of the sewing being done at two ends of a plant, in which one is sewing with a heavy stitch and another is doing fine finishing work at the other end of a clothing production line. That is only equal pay for equal work; it is just a matter of not letting people get away with fudging what is equal work. That is not dealing with the fundamental issue of how we ensure that the functions women play in many of our organized work places are recognized to have merit equal to those that men are performing, although they may be doing quite different functions.

The example of the parking lot attendant and the receptionist has been hauled out any number of times. That is the example that is always used to make the point about equal pay for work of equal value. The same kind of thing can operate in many other circumstances. There are any number of women now working on computer terminals, many more than men in terms of data processing, keypunching operations and that sort of thing, yet in the same factory there will be people doing manual work, without the same kinds of skill requirements, who are earning more money.

Under this proposal of a change in legislation, the ministry would not be able to do anything about making judgements on those differentials, because under the ministry's definitions, people will be able to say it is not similar work. The ministry cannot make that kind of a judgement and therefore it will touch not the whole attitude of what value we place on a lot of these job ghettos that women have found themselves in.

I came up with an interesting fact while doing some research the other day. In the 1930s, clerical positions on average received higher salaries than skilled workers did. Today, of course, that is reversed. That is in part a result of another process, unionization, which helped the skilled workers. But it is also a matter of male-female differentiation, in my view, and a matter of definition of what is skill.

There is no doubt that a lathe operator has certain skills, but there should be no doubt that many clerical functions require enormous skills as well. That is not recognized in our society and it has become a ghetto for women. What the ministry is suggesting will not approach those discrepancies.

What I and my caucus are saying, and the reason we keep trying to get at the government and get some kind of movement on this, is that it is a very important time for symbolic action. This is the time to say about Ontario that yes, it has changed a great deal. It has changed about religion. One hopes it has changed about language. I believe it is changing in terms of all sorts of questions about race because of the development of a history of various kinds of immigration. Surely this is the time, in 1984, when we can do better than this.

5:10 p.m.

If the Premier is leaving, why not add a boost in this direction to his arsenal to show, when the history books are read, what wonderful work he did in his decade or so in power as Premier here. It is much more than a decade or so, is it not? What a terrifying thought. It is his epoch in power in Ontario. Why not add a major gesture in that direction? We would love to see this supplemented by much stronger affirmative action in other areas. He knows that. We have raised our concerns about the inadequacies of the other work he is doing. We have before us now a particular motion about equal pay.

We have had debates on this in this House on several occasions since I was elected in 1979, and the principle of equal pay for work of equal value has been accepted each time. When we move to implementation, all we move to is a slightly more sophisticated notion of equal work for equal pay. Because that evolution of discussion has been going on, to move back from it, as the minister is doing in his legislation, not accepting the challenge, is a slap in the face to women.

Yes, there will difficulties with these measures and no one will deny that, but to step back from that, as we are doing, is a slap in the face to all those women who have worked very hard lobbying all these years. It is also a step backward into the past for this Legislature concerning the consensus that was developing and where we were moving as -- dare I say it -- a body of thought in this province. I have confused one of the members by using that word --

Mr. McClellan: Body?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No, "thought" was confusing.

The parliamentary assistant is sitting with great patience as we speak. I presume he hopes we will gradually go away and desist, but we do not intend to. As I said when I was allowed a few words on this about a month ago, before I was called off to other duties, we believe this is vital. We believe the government can move farther than it has. We put one proposal and so far we have seen no sign that the minister is willing to address the kinds of things we are talking about. We will continue to try to raise these with him, to make him cognizant of the fact it is vital to us, that what we represent in this battle is important to a large number of activists in our society, and this direction is accepted by the majority in our society.

When we are in that condition is the time when a Conservative government should feel capable of moving. If it would realize that and come forward with what we are proposing -- and it does not have problems with some of our suggestions -- or some kind of variation or offer something back to us that will move toward what we are talking about, then it would find a quickening of the parliamentary interaction for which one would hope. If we do not get that, with the introduction of new "must" bills today, and one of them is the corn bill which is only appropriate, it might be hearing this until the corn harvest is in. I would hate to see that for all of us.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment put forward by my colleagues and to put my contribution to this debate into the context of the statement made by the Premier yesterday. I do not understand why this government seems to have a piecemeal approach to equality. It is almost as if this government believes that equality is in some way divisible, that we can deal with one group, whether a minority or a majority, that is in some way deprived and does not experience the same equality of rights and conditions as do other groups in the society, and treat them in some particular way, respond to their needs, but at the same time ignore a very significant group in society that also has to have redress.

In that context, I find it completely incomprehensible that the government and the Premier could experience a road-to-Damascus conversion with regard to the rights of the Catholic minority in our society -- the right to religious education and equality of funding is provided by this government on the one hand -- yet on the other it is unwilling to move with regard to a group included in that group, but which needs redress of its language rights with regard to education and other services in Ontario.

It is even less easy to understand the government's position when one considers the rights of women. As we know, women are a majority, not a minority in our society. At the same time, we know that women in our society and economy make approximately 60 per cent of the income of men. How do the parliamentary assistant and other members of this government explain this piecemeal approach to equality in our society? How do they explain that after many years the government can move in a very important area with regard to education rights for a significant minority in our society, but at the same time ignore the economic needs and rights of a majority?

My colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) indicated that -- I just received a message from the parliamentary assistant and I do not intend to can my opinion.

As I was saying, I suppose part of it is related to the attitudes talked about by the previous speaker, the attitudes that we have had in our society towards equality for women. At one time in the not too distant past, those attitudes led the courts in this country to decide that a woman was not a person, but something like chattel property of her husband or, in some way if she were married, an extension of her husband. If she were single, I suppose she would be an extension of her father.

5:20 p.m.

Now we have moved from that position. We have moved to the point where we will admit that women are people with legal and even economic rights. We have moved to the point where we can talk about equal pay for equal work. I suppose this Conservative government will think it has moved a long distance in talking about equal pay for equal work, but as has been said so many times in this debate, that is not a great advance when one looks at the reality of the economic system in our society.

When we talk about equal pay for equal work, what we are really talking about is comparing women in a job ghetto to women in the same job ghetto and trying to determine whether they are being paid equally. It does very little to redress the difference between the income received by women as a group and by men as a group in a particular work place in our economy.

An argument has been raised about moving to accept the amendment proposed for equal pay for work of equal value, which would enable us to compare women in a particular work place with men in that work place who are doing different kinds of jobs and to compare the value of those jobs to the overall production.

The argument is that it would lead to great economic disruption, that in some way it would cost companies too much, that it would put them in a less competitive position compared to other countries and jurisdictions and that it would make it less easy for us to compete.

It is argued that we would be exacerbating our economic problems to the point where all of us, both men and women, would suffer as a result of this attempt to redress the inequality between the incomes of men and women in our society.

I submit that is the same argument that has been raised over and over again historically whenever any kind of reform to improve the lot of working people in our society has been proposed. One has to think about the historic background.

It would be very difficult for any of us, whether we be Conservatives, Liberals or socialists, to accept the conditions that existed in the Industrial Revolution. I do not think any of us would support the working hours that workers were subjected to in the factories and mines when England was industrializing. We certainly would not accept the child labour laws that led to the hardship, disfigurement and even death of young children from working conditions we would not allow full-grown people to work in today. We have moved.

When the reformers spoke in those years and raised issues on the streets, in the work places and in the Parliament at Westminster, about the need for change to improve the lot of the working people, the same arguments were used. It would lead to such economic disruption that society would suffer; the economy would grind to a halt; capitalists just could not afford it; if they were forced to move, not only would they suffer but the workers who were supposed to be helped by the reforms would also suffer. We all know that is not the case. That did not happen.

I do not want to go over a lot of examples, but I am reminded of the arguments that were raised by the abolitionists with regard to slavery in the mid-1800s, prior to the Civil War in the United States. In what was mainly a southern US agricultural society, the planters argued, as has always been argued, that if they were not allowed to have indentured servants and slaves to do the work, especially to work in the cotton fields to supply the cotton gins, their economy, their society and the whole southern structure would collapse. They were even driven by the attempts at reform to fight a war to try to preserve what they considered to be an institution that was central to their society and economy, to fight against a reform they believed would somehow disrupt that economy and that society.

We do not have in this province a government that is ready to take up arms against women, not at this point anyway. Rather we have a government that simply sits there and does nothing, or when it does move, moves at such a snail's pace that no one notices. As a result, it does not have the kinds of objections raised to what it is proposing that we have seen in the past or that have been raised in this assembly about the amendment we are proposing.

The argument that we will cause economic collapse or disruption because we are going to talk about a significant change in the incomes women receive in our economy does not wash and never has washed. We have seen that the result of reform in the past, whether we are talking about the distant past or the more recent past, is that corporations, the people who have power in our society, adapt. They adjust to the new reality and they are able to continue. We have seen that very close to home.

At the federal level, we have seen legislation for equal pay for work of equal value. We have heard in testimony before this House that the crown corporations which come under that jurisdiction have indicated there has been only a limited impact in relation to their economic situation and their competitive situation. At the same time, there have been substantial gains for the women employed by those companies. So we can bring about real change for the women who are disadvantaged at this time by bringing in an amendment, such as we have suggested, without a major adverse impact on the economy.

We have been told repeatedly by the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), in this Legislature and throughout the province, as well as by the Premier, that we are in an economic upswing; we are in a recovery period, things are getting better, profits are up, layoffs are down, we are headed for a more prosperous future and Ontario is leading the way in this country.

If that is the case, surely it is a time when we can move, when the old arguments that have been raised so many times about economic disruption do not apply. Even if we accept those arguments, according to the government we are in an economic situation that will enable us to take whatever adjustments are necessary and still be able to move ahead and provide an economic climate that will produce jobs and greater opportunities for our population.

As has been said so many times in this debate, the members of this House have voted to support in principle the suggestions that have been made for the institution of systems to provide for equal pay for work of equal value and for measuring the value of various contributions in different job areas. We voted in 1979 on the bill of my former colleague Ted Bounsall, when all members in a voice vote unanimously supported the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. When I hear the kinds of arguments that are used now by members of the government about this amendment, all I can conclude is that the words and the votes in that debate were empty; they did not mean anything.

5:30 p.m.

What we have is a government, a group of members who have the majority in this assembly, that supported a principle and then never acted on it and is unwilling to act on it now. What good is a vote in favour of a principle if one is not prepared to take the actions necessary to implement that principle? It is time this government put our money, and the money of the administration and bureaucracy, where its mouth is. We can implement this without great disruption. It can be done. What is missing is simply the will of this government to act.

I have spent some years in this Legislature, almost nine years now, trying to analyse how the Conservative government makes decisions. It has been an interesting learning experience for me. If I can spend a couple of minutes, I would like to analyse what I think leads this government to move.

The first principle it takes into account -- and I do not know whether it is called a principle -- is what the majority of the population thinks. The way it measures that is by doing public opinion polls over and over again on all sorts of subjects to find out what various people in society and the majority of people in our province think about various issues.

After a number of opinion polls have indicated the population generally or the majority of the population is shifting in its view of a particular matter, then the government appoints a commission to study it publicly, hold hearings and have people and groups make presentations so we can have input. Then that commission makes a report.

If the opinion polls indicate there is not sufficient support for whatever the commission has decided, which is usually what the government has decided ahead of time, then they do not act; but if the opinion polls suggest a lot of people agree with the commission, then this government will usually take action. Often it will not move as far as the majority is prepared to move, but it will move. This is probably what we have seen with regard to the Catholic secondary school education issue.

Another thing the government does is that when it has decided to move, long in advance of actually bringing in legislation or new regulations, it carries out an advertising program. It puts out a glossy advertising program from which its corporate friends in the advertising field benefit greatly. It tries to win over that group of the population that is still against whatever it is considering doing through advocacy advertising. Then it moves.

I suppose the parliamentary assistant may disagree with my analysis of how this government works and makes decisions to change, but if I am anywhere near an accurate description of how it operates, it seems very strange that it is not yet prepared to move on equal pay for work of equal value. The opinion polls that have been carried out, not just in this jurisdiction but in North America generally, indicate a very substantial part of our population, the majority, is prepared to move in this area. If they are and if we are in an economic upswing, as the government keeps saying, why is this government unprepared to move? Is the proposal that has been made by the government simply the first in a long series of baby steps that might lead us some day to equal pay for work of equal value? That is another way this government moves, I suppose.

My study of this government over a number of years has indicated it follows the Mackenzie King principle of government. That could basically be described by using the analogy of a flock of sheep. According to Mackenzie King, a successful ram that is the leader of its flock is the one that stands back in the paddock and watches in which direction the flock is going, which gate the flock is going to go out. When the gate the majority is going to go out becomes obvious, the ram runs around and gets in front.

Mackenzie King made that statement and was quite successful in governing in that way. After all, he was Prime Minister of this country longer than anyone else. Nobody particularly liked him, but they kept voting for him, I suppose because that was how he operated. He tried to determine what the majority wanted, waited until that became obvious and then suddenly was in favour of it.

That is how this government tends to operate, in my view at least. If that is the reason and the way in which it decides things, why is it so slow to move in this area? People are ready for it. We are in a position now where people are prepared to move on this very basic issue of equality for women in our society and in our economy.

As I said when I first took part in the debate, I want to put this issue in the context of the statement made by the Premier yesterday with regard to the rights of the Catholic minority in secondary education. It has taken many years of controversies, confrontations and divisions to come to the point where all members of this Legislature and all leaders in the Legislature can stand and agree with one another that the time is ripe to provide for equality for that substantial and important part of our society that adheres to the Roman Catholic faith.

It has taken us since before 1867. We have gone through the 1917 schools question. We have gone through very divisive election campaigns on this issue. We have had people in our society fighting one another on it, literally fighting one another, and certainly divided in prejudice over that issue.

5:40 p.m.

I hope we are not going to have to wait 120 years before we can have all members of this House standing and supporting equal pay for work of equal value. If that is the case, if we have to wait a long time while the government takes slow steps in that direction, such as the one proposed, to the point where we are almost there and it does not take a great deal of guts to get up and say, "This is something that is right and we are doing it because it is right," then I can only conclude that this government is basically a cowardly government.

Governments are elected to represent the wishes and the views of the majority and to protect the rights of the minority, but they are also elected to lead. It is the responsibility of the government to do what is right in its view and to inform people in the society so as to persuade those who do not understand why it is doing this or how it will be implemented.

A responsible government does not sit and wait for the people to move ahead of it and then run to catch up when they are going out the gate. I hope the parliamentary assistant will be able to stand in his place and explain how the legislation his government is proposing is in any way an indication of leadership by his government, and how his and the government's opposition to equal pay for work of equal value is an indication that Ontario and the Conservative government of Ontario are leaders in the field of equality for women and equality in general. We are certainly not leaders in this field when we look at the fact that Quebec and the federal government have already moved, and this government is still saying we cannot.

I do believe we have an opportunity to meet the challenge of providing for an equitable resolution of the problems that women face in our economy. We have this opportunity. The government can take it, or it can simply say, "Yes, there is an opportunity there, and we are going to respond with rhetoric but not with meaningful action." Too often this government moves simply in what it says rather than in what it does.

Interestingly enough, one of the arguments the Premier has used over and over again with regard to equal rights for the francophone population in our society has been to say, "Watch what we do, not what we say." His argument has been that we do not need to have a constitutional guarantee for francophone rights as long as the government is moving to provide services to francophones in a number of areas and as long as things are improving. If on that particular issue the government is saying, "Rhetoric is not important, action is," why is it that in this particular case all we have is rhetoric and no action?

In my view we must have both. The words must be enunciated in a way that everyone understands; but words are not enough. We must have a commitment by the government to move to ensure that women who are making less than men in our society -- because they are in job ghettos and do not have the opportunity to move into less traditional jobs where men are in the majority and are making more money -- are able to have an income that is commensurate with their skills and their contribution to the society.

We have the opportunity; I wish this government had the courage to move.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, it gives me pleasure to participate in the debate on this bill.

Interjection.

Mr. Boudria: The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) says he is also pleased. I am glad the New Democratic Party is finally recognizing the valuable contributions of the Liberal caucus.

Mr. McClellan: Do not generalize. I was not talking about you.

Mr. Boudria: We have spoken at some length in this debate. Obviously, we have reached a time when the government must consider equal pay for work of equal value. It is time that we moved in this area. There is no longer an acceptable and rational reason not to, if there ever was one; probably not.

One can trace back through the ages, looking at the reasons why governments have failed to enact laws in the past to protect people. We look back at the issue of child labour that has been mentioned by some members. All kinds of reasons were given why we could not stop child labour. It was said that the whole economies of certain societies and countries, and even the whole world, would collapse according to certain views at that time, if child labour laws were enacted to stop children working in mines and in the other jobs they were made to do. That work was seen as being perfectly acceptable.

Only a month or so ago I had the opportunity to visit the state of Louisiana as part of a parliamentary group attending a very interesting conference. We visited some plantations with large homesteads. We were shown the areas where the families owning the properties lived. We were also shown the areas where the slaves had lived. It was such a contrast it was almost impossible for me even to comprehend how those differences between people could ever have happened so that people were owned outright by others. Yet that was all seen as being acceptable at that time.

It was seen as being totally irrational to change the laws, because if the laws were changed the whole economy and everything else I enumerated two minutes ago would collapse, according to the people who advocated the retention of those practices. Obviously, America is still one of the great countries of the world, notwithstanding the fact that those laws were removed. Nothing collapsed, everything is still there -- or most things are still there.

5:50 p.m.

In 1984 we see ourselves looking at laws that will recognize the true equality of women. It is not enough to say equal pay for equal work for the following reasons. We have seen historically that the jobs women take end up being at the lower salary level. Even if they are as meaningful as other positions, not only do we have that situation, but I think if we went into a thorough investigation we would find that jobs taken over by women, even if they were well-paid jobs at one time, have gradually lost their relative importance.

I am sure if one looked at the salary of a secretary at the time when only men were secretaries, a secretary would not have been making less than a floor cleaner. That is the case in certain places today. How did this happen? Largely because women dominated that job and then the people in charge, the people in management positions, came up with the brilliant deduction that if women had those jobs we could afford to pay them less; therefore, the salary of the women holding those positions tended to go down.

Equal pay for equal work is just not sufficient. We have whole professions that have slid down the salary scale, and to say that underpaid woman A is paid the same amount as underpaid woman B is just no longer good enough; it does not do anything to recognize the true equality of women.

I said a few weeks ago in this Legislature. when we were in the second reading debate on this bill, that I just cannot comprehend how any one of us in this room today would think any woman is worth less than any man. The true fact is that when women make just over 60 per cent of the salaries of men, they are not equal. They should be, but we have not accepted as a society that they are. If we had, how could this possibly go on?

As I said a few weeks ago, I have a daughter who is six years old. Some day she will enter the work place and earn a salary like everybody else, I assume, and I will never accept -- nor will anybody else in this room -- that my daughter is worth 60 per cent of somebody else's son. That is an unacceptable way of looking at things, and I will never accept it. She is worth at least 100 per cent -- maybe a little bit more, because she is my daughter, of course -- but certainly no less.

We as legislators have just got to think about this very seriously, as I am sure some of us have done over the few weeks -- it is more like months -- during which we have been debating this bill. We have been debating this for a fairly lengthy period of time, and I am sure the time we have spent listening to the very good and very thorough contributions of various members of the Legislature should lead each and every one of us to the view that it is time to move on and amend this legislation to ensure that there is equal pay for work of equal value, not equal pay for equal work, because of course that means nothing when we have professions that are dominated by women. When we have that, the whole profession loses its relative importance in salary and it does not do justice to the position.

I would suspect that if all people working in car plants today were women, they would be paid less, just as practically all secretaries are paid less than those in other positions of relative importance.

Someone made the remark in this Legislature that the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) is paid the same as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), and that is equal pay for equal work. Not quite. I like the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs better and I think he is more competent, but they are assumed to have equal competence and therefore should be paid equally, and rightfully so. That is equal pay for equal work.

It is interesting to note that in meetings we have had with various parliamentarians, if we take only our function as legislators, the American jurisdiction that has the highest number of women legislators is the state of New Hampshire. Do members know which American legislature pays the smallest salary to its legislators? You guessed it, Mr. Chairman. New Hampshire pays its legislators $750 a year, and the place is dominated by women. More than half that legislature is made up of women.

The US Senate, which probably has the highest-paid legislative positions in the world, does not have too many women around. It is interesting to make that parallel in the single function of legislating. One could say, of course. they have been elected, and since they were chosen to run for office, the odds are the people who chose them felt they were best qualified.

That is not even so if one looks at the candidates who ran for office here, a relatively well-paid Legislature. Of course, all of us think we are very competent and worth far more, but in a relatively wealthy Legislature, if we look at all the candidates who ran in the last election, approximately 95 percent of them were men. It is very difficult to elect two thirds women when only five per cent of candidates are of that sex. On the law of averages, only men will be elected to this Legislature, and to all intents and purposes that is almost what we have. We have only a handful of women legislators in this province.

I noted similar examples in the visits I have made to other legislatures. Last summer in a parallel incident I went to Jersey, a British island off the coast of France, where the legislators receive no salary. There were approximately 50 per cent men and 50 per cent women there, which is a passing strange coincidence.

if we just look around us, it should not take us very long to notice that women are being discriminated against and it is important that laws be enacted to ensure women are treated as the true equals of men, which they obviously are.

The Deputy Chairman: It nearing six o'clock and there being a few motions to put forward. would the member for Hamilton Mountain mind waiting until the next opportunity to speak?

Mr. Charlton: I have no objection, Mr. Chairman.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment and progress on another bill.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate the business of the House for next week.

On Monday, June 18, in the afternoon, we will have second reading of Bill 74, committee of the whole House on Bill 88 and consideration of the motion for interim supply. In the evening, we will have second reading of Bill 77.

On Tuesday, June 19, afternoon and evening, we will have second reading and committee of the whole on Bill 99, followed by second reading of Bill 101.

On Wednesday, June 20, the House will sit in the afternoon with routine proceedings, followed by second reading and committee of the whole, if required, on Bills 66, 64, 84 and 85. Then we will continue in committee of the whole on Bill 142.

On Thursday, June 21, in the afternoon, we will consider Bill 142. In the evening, we will continue with Bills 62, 75 and 141, if they have not been completed before that time.

On Friday, June 22, we will consider any legislation still on the Orders and Notices that I have already indicated will be considered. We will announce the particular pieces some time next week.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might also have consent to place a motion about sittings next week.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Is there unanimous consent to revert to motions?

Agreed to.

MOTION

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding any previous order of the House, the House will sit in the chamber on the afternoon of Wednesday, June 20, and that, notwithstanding standing order 64, private members' public business will not be taken up on Thursday, June 21.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish my friends in the official opposition well. I hope those of them who have stayed to the bitter end here in the House will continue as happy and smiling as they are at this minute. We will look forward to hearing all the details of the momentous occasion this weekend when we gather on Monday.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

June 13, 1984