Journal des débats 1984-juin-12 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: It is with a sense of sadness that I rise in my place today to inform the Legislature of the passing of one of Ontario's leading trade unionists, someone who made an enormous contribution to the labour movement and, indeed, to the people of this province and of Canada. I heard this morning from the United Steelworkers that Mr. Bill Mahoney, a former national director of the Steelworkers, passed away last night.

Bill Mahoney made an enormous contribution to the people of his native community, Sault Ste. Marie. He was the first president of the Algoma Steelworkers and led the Algoma local into the United Steelworkers in the early 1940s. Mr. Mahoney went on in the early 1950s to become the national director of the United Steelworkers and in that capacity he served not only the people of this province but also the people of Canada, both at home and overseas, in a way that I think is worthy of the appreciation of all members of the Legislature.

To know Bill Mahoney was to know a great fighter, somebody who believed very deeply not only in the cause of trade unionism but also in progressive causes generally. I am sure the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) will know it was Mr. Mahoney's drive that led to the creation of the medical clinic in Sault Ste. Marie, contrary to the organized wishes of many people in the medical profession but certainly in the interests of the people in the Sault.

He was a fighter for medicare, a fighter for the trade union movement, and I think if anybody can be said to have given the Canadian Steelworkers a distinctive voice internationally and at home in Ontario and Canada, it was Bill Mahoney. Together with his friend and occasional rival Larry Sefton, he really put industrial unionism on the map in the steelworking industry, in the mines and right across this province.

I am looking at the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea). He and I do not have very much in common, but one thing we do have in common is that we were both hired by Bill Mahoney at one time to work for this great organization.

It is with a real sense of personal regret that I pass on to Mrs. Mahoney and the Mahoney children the sense of sadness felt in our party that such a great fighter is no longer with us. I would simply like to bring this to the attention of the House.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise to join in the comments that have been made by the leader of the third party. However, I rise not as the Minister of Labour but as the representative from Sault Ste. Marie and, most important, as an old and good friend of Bill Mahoney. It was Bill's son, Steven, who called my office this morning to tell me the news. He did so on the basis of our friendship, not on the basis of my position as Minister of Labour.

I feel a little uneasy now. Bill Mahoney invited me to his house for lunch about three or four months ago. I went up one day and had a delightful time. When I left, I said, "Bill, lunch is on me next time and I will call you." I have not called him back and I feel very badly about that.

The leader of the third party very correctly identified the contributions Mr. Mahoney has made, not only to the trade union movement but also in the field of health care. He certainly was the driving force behind our medical clinic, along with John Barker, who was a representative for the United Steelworkers. Those two, above all others, deserve the credit for that clinic which has become such an important part of health care in our community.

I am pleased to advise they held a 20th anniversary of that clinic less than a year ago. After quite a long illness, Bill Mahoney was able to attend and had an opportunity to meet and greet a lot of his old friends and acquaintances. I rise today on a personal basis to pay tribute to an old friend and one of our country's truly outstanding citizens.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise to associate myself and my party with the remarks which have been made by a friend in the person of the Minister of Labour as well as those of the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Rae). Having had a personal opportunity to visit the clinic which was set up by Bill Mahoney and by the fine work of the Steelworkers in that area, it seems to me the Legislature, as a gesture to this fine man, could do well to use the capitation clinic system which was begun in Sault Ste. Marie as a model for clinics across Ontario.

We know the minister has some commitment in this regard. We know Bill Mahoney believed in it enough to make sure it became a reality in his community. We would hope the work he did in setting up that clinic would not be lost upon the people of Ontario and that we see more clinics across Ontario like the fine clinic he helped to establish in Sault Ste. Marie.

My party and I join in expressing our regrets to his family and also to say that his work will not be forgotten. He will remain in the memory of many people, not only in the labour movement but also outside, who look to the work of the Steelworkers in the Sault Ste. Marie area with some pride.

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege to be associated with Mr. Mahoney for a number of years. I think it is very important in 1984 that some of the contributions of Mr. Mahoney which were perhaps not as visible as the ones mentioned by the leader of the third party or by the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps), be recalled by this Legislature.

It was Mr. Mahoney who, by his own personal initiative, by his personal example and by the very wide respect he had in the community, did probably more than anybody else in post-war Canada to make organized labour respectable. This was at a time when it was struggling for existence. It was Mr. Mahoney who pioneered the tradition of labour representatives on public bodies, particularly universities. He was the first labour leader to be named a member of a board of a university. That was quite a remarkable thing, even as late as two decades ago.

Mr. Mahoney was also someone who was very interested in the economics of industrial unionism that went beyond the plant gate. Those were the fringe benefits, which he maintained were far more important to families than the hourly rate perhaps ever would be.

It was not just the question of financing medical care or the very significant breakthrough that happened with the Sault Ste. Marie health clinic with himself and his lifetime friend, Mr. Barker, it was a myriad of social benefits that by today's standards may be taken for granted but in the late 1950s, 1960s and into the early 1970s were regarded as somewhat radical.

He was also a devoted family man and a man whose personal integrity was so substantial that at the time there were a great many scandals in organized labour in the United States and some parts of Canada, the consensus in Ontario was that it could not happen here because Bill Mahoney would not let it happen. In terms of very simple and fundamental social justice, the fact this was said about him may be the most significant thing of all.

His contributions at a crucial time to the people of this province, to Canada and to the United States, through the world trade union movement were very substantial and will be remembered in a great many households for many years to come.

ANNUAL REPORT, COMMISSION ON ELECTION CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENSES

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the ninth annual report of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses for the year 1983.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform members of the Legislature that the government has undertaken a careful and fresh review of the outstanding issues surrounding public support for the Roman Catholic school system, and this afternoon I wish to outline a new course we have decided to pursue.

As colleagues on both sides of the Legislature will appreciate, this has been a subject of long and heartfelt controversy in the development of our province, ever since we assumed the burdens and choices that go with responsible government in 1842.

In an open and dynamic society such as ours, basic issues are not resolved or sincere differences settled in silence. However, we have managed to grow together because we have respected each other and from time to time we have reconciled long-standing differences and then moved forward. Progress is made not by opening old wounds but by healing old grievances. In that spirit, I believe we have an opportunity now to put one of these difficult issues behind us as we seek to continue the progressive and harmonious development of our province.

The architects of Confederation, John A. Macdonald and George Brown, were Protestants who preferred the development of a nonsectarian educational system. However, in order to secure their national vision, they accepted and advocated the protection of denominational "common" schools in the British North America Act.

All Ontario provincial governments since that time have interpreted the "common" schools of that day as the elementary system. Consequently, dual elementary Roman Catholic and public education systems have been maintained and equitably funded across this province.

Historically, it has been possible for elementary schools to continue through to the 10th grade and, in recent years, many Roman Catholic school boards have organized their programs with public support to enrol pupils at the grades 9 and 10 level. In keeping with the understood interpretation of the Canadian Constitution, secondary Roman Catholic schools have not been provided public funds beyond grade 10. Roman Catholic families have seen and continue to see such a limitation on public funds beyond this level as arbitrary and inequitable.

In considering at this time whether the government of Ontario should extend financial support to secondary Roman Catholic schools, as has been requested by the Roman Catholic community for over half a century, we have been guided in our deliberations by three fundamental principles, all of which must be respected in the resolution of this matter.

First, we must not only respond to the claims of the moment, but we must also work to honour those contracts and obligations that were struck to create a united Canada in 1867. Second, we must not undertake a course of action that by its nature or in its execution would cripple or limit the viability of our nondenominational public secondary school system, which is accessible to all and universally supported and which will always remain the cornerstone of our education system. Third, we are not mere hostages to old arrangements, so we have a contemporary responsibility to be sure our answer on this question strengthens rather than fragments the social fabric of this province.

While men and women of courage and conviction have been divided on this issue, up to now no Ontario government has felt it was able to discharge its duty according to these fundamental principles while at the same time granting public funds to a complete Roman Catholic secondary school system. I now believe this can be responsibly undertaken and, therefore, it is our obligation to resolve the issue.

This new direction is not compelled by or founded upon a reinterpretation of old statutes or jurisprudence. The letter of the old law cannot substitute for common sense. Further, we must all appreciate that historic benefits must keep pace with changing conditions. Roman Catholic families do not object to paying their share of the cost of an extensive universal nondenominational educational system; however, they cannot at the same time accept a logic that argues their taxes should be up to date but their historic benefits should be locked in.

Since the beginning of our parliamentary democracy, freedom and therefore diversity and pluralism have been fundamental values. Our public school system has always been fundamentally important and our commitment in this regard must not be diminished. The strength of Ontario's educational heritage rests in the general merit and the value of a universally accessible, publicly supported school system. Experience has now taught us, however, that a limitation on public funding which confines it to the public secondary school system is no longer required to sustain the viability of public education in our province.

Implementing a dual secondary system will necessitate wise administration, which I will address in a moment. Yet I am confident our secondary system, in which we can all take considerable pride, will not be jeopardized. For some time, a third of the students in our dual elementary school system have been enrolled in our Roman Catholic schools. Through the administration of core curriculum and proper funding, our public elementary school system certainly has remained viable and, indeed, second to none.

With more stable enrolments at this time, along with appropriate funding, core curriculum changes and soon province-wide testing, there is no reason to believe our public secondary school system will perform any less effectively in the future.

2:20 p.m.

Members should be aware of the fact that to protect our public education system, while assuming some costs which are now carried privately by Roman Catholic families, will require additional public funding. While some of this can be accomplished through appropriate redistribution, our ultimate objective will remain one of providing high-quality education at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayers.

In practical terms I do not believe we could or should create a separate public system for a small segment of our community that wishes to isolate itself, but we are addressing today the aspirations of a good third of our families, who have demonstrated their competence and determination to provide contemporary education for their children.

Above all, I wish to address a concern I have always held and which has been honourably put forward by many others. In all our endeavours we must seek to build fellowship and common values, not segregation and mutual suspicion; but dualism today surely does not mean upholding, advancing or legitimizing the ancient idea of a separate Protestant Ontario and a separate Roman Catholic Ontario.

Clearly, our Roman Catholic citizens want to maintain their own school system for their children, but our community is not, as tragically some other parts of the world still are, divided on religious grounds. Roman Catholics, regardless of their educational backgrounds, work equally within our society and are every bit as ambitious to share fully in the life and progress of Ontario.

If we are to serve the spirit and the realities of 1867, we should acknowledge that basic education was what was recognized then and that today basic education requires a secondary, as well as an elementary, education. As the nondenominational system has evolved to meet society's needs, so too has the Roman Catholic school system.

The extension of financing to separate school grades 9 and 10 demonstrates that financial and operational arrangements can evolve over time and honour the intentions of the original constitution. If we work co-operatively and prudently, we can complete this task without compromising the quality of our public schools, while demonstrating the essential justice and good faith of our society.

It is, therefore, the government's intention to permit the Roman Catholic school boards to establish a full range of elementary and secondary education and, as a part of the public system, to be funded accordingly. This new program will be introduced at the rate of one year of secondary education for each school year, beginning September 1, 1985. This process will be accomplished in much the same way we are implementing the new special education provisions and will parallel the revised secondary school structure. Some flexibility will be included to allow for a phase-in period that is in keeping with the capacity of the individual board in question.

Our first step will be to set up a planning and implementation commission to guide and advise all parties on the implementation of this change. It will receive and adjudicate the plans submitted by the Roman Catholic school boards. It will advise the government on required changes in the Education Act and, most important, it will conduct arbitrations that may well be required in some instances arising out of the sharing or the transfer of schools and school locations, as well as other matters related to the transition.

This commission will be vital to the effective execution of this program and will be made up of representatives of the Ministry of Education, the educational community at large and the Roman Catholic community.

It is not the expectation of the government, and I trust the separate school systems across Ontario will recognize this clearly, to expend large sums on new capital grants to accommodate demands for new secondary school facilities. Rather, the commission will ensure that our abundant existing capital stock is effectively employed to provide a full range of programs. I underline this point because I think it is very important. As my predecessor, John Robarts, indicated, a duplication of facilities caused by such a policy would be impractical and indefensible. The first planning task is to make maximum use of existing school plants.

Equally, we must consider the interests of our secondary school teachers. It has been a long-established practice for elementary Roman Catholic school boards to have Roman Catholics constitute the large majority of the teachers they employ. In the light of declining enrolments in our secondary system, it would be unacceptable and unfair to extend this practice to the new Roman Catholic secondary school system. Consequently, for a period of 10 years, Roman Catholic school boards will employ non-Catholic teachers in their secondary schools who, once hired, will be permitted to earn tenure -- the proper word would be "seniority" -- religion notwithstanding.

The planning and implementation commission will work with the Ontario Teachers' Federation, the Education Relations Commission and others to assure that all teacher personnel matters are addressed in an equitable fashion. Further, while the essence of this new policy is to enrich the education resources available to Roman Catholic families in Ontario, it is my hope the new Roman Catholic school boards will consider granting to all students and their families in the most positive way universal access to publicly supported Roman Catholic schools, should such access be desired, limited only by the availability of space and the designation of assessment support.

I should also like to take this opportunity to state that it is still the wish of the government, pending the response to questions now before the courts, to create within certain boards of education panels of trustees elected by Franco-Ontarian electors who will have defined powers governing classes in schools where French is the language of instruction.

While my hope today is to resolve a historic issue in our traditional public education structure, what we have decided to do legitimately raises questions about the place of independent schools in our province. While rights are not at issue, the diversity and quality of our society are affected and served by these schools. The government believes it is timely and useful to review the role of these schools in educating our children. Thus, a commission of inquiry will be established by the Ministry of Education, first, to document and comment on the role of independent schools; second, to assess whether public funding and its attendant obligations would be desirable and could be compatible with the nature of their independence; and, third, to identify possible alternative forms of governance for these schools and make recommendations for changes deemed to be appropriate.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to address briefly our responsibility in funding education generally. The current formula for calculating general legislative grants has been in place since 1969. There is also the public concern about the costs of education and the ability of our school boards to contain such costs.

Given these considerations, along with the statement of policy I referred to at the beginning of my statement, the government intends to set up a commission to inquire into the financing of elementary and secondary education in Ontario. This examination is appropriate in order to ensure efficiency, economy, effectiveness and equity. It is also timely as the province moves to extend support for the Roman Catholic school system.

Both the commission on independent schools and the commission on the financing of elementary and secondary education will report in May 1985, and responses to their recommendations will be concluded by January 1986.

Before I close, may I return for a moment to the basic decision upon which we seek the understanding and acceptance of the community at large -- the extension of public funding for our Roman Catholic secondary school system. Of course, there will be difficulties and, clearly, as with all changes in the order of things, some advantages that may seem to be found in the status quo will be given up in securing new benefits. I am convinced, however, that our secure and vibrant school system is not threatened and the majority of our citizens who support our nonsectarian school system will not be hurt.

As Sir John A. Macdonald explained the accommodations of his time to the majority over a century ago: "We do not want to stand on the extreme limits of our rights. We are ready to give and take. We can afford to be just, we can afford to be generous, because we are strong."

It is neither my hope nor my expectation to settle all differences today. No one enjoys the last word in any democracy. However, as has been the case in nation building and constitutional reform, it is my strong conviction that the path we have chosen is worthy of broad agreement and will serve our common interests.

It is time to put behind us any lingering doubts about our regard for one another and to rededicate ourselves to the bright hopes of our future.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In the light of the historic statement the Premier has just made, I wonder if it would be appropriate for the leaders of other parties to be allowed to respond to a statement I think is one that does a great deal to unite this province. It is certainly one I would like to respond to on behalf of my party.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the direction of the House.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, can I suggest, because I go back in history a little, that there have been three occasions in my time as a member of the House when statements were made by the then Premier, at which time the leaders of the opposition parties made some observations. I appreciate the suggestion from the member for York South.

I recall it at the time Mr. Frost made certain observations and I recall it at the introduction of the foundation tax plan when Mr. Wintermeyer -- I think I am correct in this and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) can correct me -- and the then leader of the New Democratic Party made certain observations. On an issue of this nature, I would have no objection to accepting that as precedent.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a historic day and I think all members of this Legislature recognize it as such.

When the Premier's assistant phoned my office at roughly one minute to two this afternoon to say there would be a major announcement, knowing the Premier as we do I must confess we thought it would be about the dome and not about so significant an issue in the history of this province.

We unreservedly support this statement. I am sure the Premier is aware of that. With the Premier's strong sense of history, which he revealed today in his statement, and his acute memory for what has transpired in this province, I am sure he would be the first to stand with me in applauding the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk for the strong stand he took on this issue when he was the leader of the Liberal Party.

It is no secret that in the history of this province many people have given blood -- some real and some symbolic -- over this issue. On behalf of my party, I am proud today to identify myself and my colleagues with the statement of the Premier on this major advance in position. I am not one of those who is going to ask why. I am only going to say "hurrah." It is long overdue. It has been too divisive an issue for too many years in the past.

I take this occasion to celebrate the road-to-Damascus conversion of the government on this issue. We are committed to trying to work with the government in any way we can to bring forward a successful, speedy and easy facilitation of these policies. We will work through a select committee, if that is one of the ways chosen. We will use our good offices to make sure these historical injustices are rectified as quickly and expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, few issues in our public life are as difficult or as divisive as issues surrounding religion and language. It is a curiosity to me that this is true. Ever since I went into politics I have been surprised by it, struck by it and sometimes appalled by it. Anything any government can do to bring the people of this province together on an issue that has proved to be as difficult and as divisive as this particular one is a tremendous contribution to decency and to our sense of civility as a province.

I would be wrong not to be generous today to the Premier, as he has, I think, been generous to the people of this province in making this policy clear today. I would also be wrong if I did not pay tribute to the courage of many members of my own party who made this case and, indeed, made several parts of the Premier's speech before it became popular or before it became easier to do so. I pay tribute to some members of my own party who, at considerable personal cost, have participated in various election campaigns on this particular issue.

I say this not in a spirit of partisanship but simply in the sense that sometimes those who are prepared to say things 10 or 20 years in advance do pay a certain price. I think it would be wrong for us not to pay tribute to members in all parties who have taken the position that it was time -- I believe some time ago, but certainly today -- to recognize that we have fundamentally two public systems at work in the province, that they have to be funded fairly and equally and that we have to recognize the claim of a very substantial minority to genuine equality in educational funding.

It is going to take a great deal of goodwill, it is going to take a great deal of give and take and it is going to take a great deal of understanding to make this policy work.

When I raised this matter with the Premier in his estimates six months ago, I was hoping for an answer. I am very pleased with the answer we have received. I did not receive one at the time I asked for it; I am delighted to have received it today.

We will be coming back with some questions about implementation, some questions about how the policy can be made to work and some questions about overcrowding still in the elementary system; there are a number of problems that are still outstanding. But I want to say the Premier has made a very important contribution to a sense of fairness in this province by making this statement today. We congratulate him for it. We look forward to working with his government in seeing that it can work on a nonpartisan basis. All of us in this House have an obligation to make it work. The Premier has my personal commitment and the commitment of our party that we will make it work.

The time was right. We are delighted the move has been made. Equality has made an important advance in Ontario today.

M. I'Orateur, I'égalite a fait uncertain progrès aujourd'hui. Nous pouvons être fiers d'avoir un gouvernement qui a enfin répondu a des sentiments profonds de Ia part de Ia minorité catholique de notre province. Nous avons encore du progrès a faire pour garantir les droits de Ia minorité. Mais, en tout cas, on avance vers une égalité réelle pour tous les Ontariens.

2:40 p.m.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that later this afternoon I shall be introducing for first reading a series of important amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act.

As honourable members know, the government, and latterly a committee of this House, have been engaged for the last several years in a detailed and wide-ranging study of the entire workers' compensation system. The study has been characterized by a great deal of helpful consultation with labour, management and a variety of other interest groups and organizations as well as individuals. The Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1984, is the culmination of that lengthy and indispensable process.

In the next few minutes, I propose to deal with three broad topics. First, I wish to deal briefly with the history of the review process. Second, I will discuss the phased approach to the reform of the system that the government proposes to take. Third, I will describe the measures in the bill which, taken together, comprise a major evolutionary step in enhancing the compensation system's equity, fairness and efficiency.

At the outset, I would be remiss if I did not pay tribute to the members of this House and in particular the members of the standing committee on resources development for their tireless efforts which have played such an important role in the development of this legislation.

Although the Workers' Compensation Act has been subject to periodic incremental amendments throughout its 70-year history, the most recent stage in this review process began in 1979 with the publication of a paper prepared for the joint consultative committee of the Workers' Compensation Board dealing with financing and program reform issues. This paper was tabled in 1979 by my predecessor, the member for York East (Mr. Elgie).

Early in 1980, Professor Paul Weiler was asked to undertake a comprehensive review of the administrative and benefit structures of the WCB. He reported in November 1980 and many of his recommendations were incorporated in the white paper issued by the Minister of Labour in 1981. The Weiler report and the white paper occasioned vigorous debate on the merits of alternative approaches to the reform of the system. This debate culminated in public hearings before the standing committee on resources development.

The standing committee held 51 hearings in Toronto, Thunder Bay, Sudbury and Windsor. It received and studied oral and written submissions from private citizens, injured workers, injured workers' groups, community legal clinics, organized labour, businesses and business organizations, health care and legal services organizations and municipal governments -- 53 different groups and agencies in all. It also examined 156 exhibits. It received testimony from Professor Weiler and WCB officials.

The standing committee's final report, published in December 1983, provides a thorough review of the many issues involved in workers' compensation reform.

As I have indicated, the process has been deliberate, thorough and comprehensive. There has been ample opportunity for all interested parties -- labour, injured groups, injured workers' groups, employers' organizations, as well as members of this House -- to express their views.

Having carefully distilled the issues and weighed the various submissions, we have decided to embark on a phased program of reform, dealing with both administrative process and benefit structure. Our approach recognizes that while changes are justified, we are modifying a system that is recognized as one of the best in the world and therefore we must be careful not to dismantle or weaken the many positive features of the existing law.

Before outlining the principal features of the bill, let me comment on one of the main reasons for adopting a phased approach. Honourable members will recall that the white paper had two basic thrusts. First, it suggested a number of changes to the structures and processes of the board to make its operations more open and responsive to client needs. Members will see that many of these structural and procedural suggestions have been incorporated in the bill.

Second, the white paper proposed a fundamental change in the way in which compensation benefits should be determined. Currently, benefits are established by the board on the basis of a clinical rating system which determines the extent of disability. The white paper suggested a dual award system, with lump sum payments compensating for the noneconomic loss suffered by injured workers together with a continuing benefit based on the actual wage loss resulting from the injury.

A dual award wage loss concept has many appealing features, and when it was first proposed in 1980 there was considerable general support for it. Over the past few years, however, that consensus has not been sustained. Serious concerns have been raised by both employers' groups and labour organizations about the desirability, feasibility and costs of such a system.

Sustained high levels of unemployment would require earlier cost estimates of a wage loss system to be re-examined. While several other provinces have introduced variations of the wage loss model, none has implemented the system as proposed in the white paper.

In addition, there are a number of untested administrative aspects of the wage loss system. There is as well some reluctance to depart from a system of lifetime pensions for permanently disabled workers unless and until we are sure of the financial and operational soundness of any substitute system.

For all these reasons, it has been decided not to proceed with the wage loss concept at this time, but to continue to examine it in the light of representations received and the developing experience in other jurisdictions.

I would now like to deal with the highlights of the administrative and benefit reforms contained in the bill.

As to structure, administration and coverage, the following are the principal changes: an expanded corporate board with a majority of external, part-time directors; an independent tripartite appeals tribunal with provision for independent medical assessors to assist the tribunal in its deliberations; an industrial disease standards panel to provide expert advice concerning the criteria for compensating for industrial diseases; an expansion in the office of workers' advisers and the creation of a new employers advisers office, both independent of the board; the inclusion of domestic workers under the compensation act; and provision for the payment of wages to injured workers on the first day of injury.

As to benefits, the changes are equally significant: an increase in the covered earnings ceiling to $31,500; revisions to the sections of the act providing for rehabilitation supplements for partially disabled workers. The changes provide for inflation adjustment of pre-injury earnings in computing the supplementary benefits and integrate them with Canada pension plan disability benefits. While the latter will be considered in computing the WCB supplement, the receipt of CPP disability benefits will no longer constitute a bar to receiving a WCB supplement. In addition, those older workers who are unlikely to obtain employment will be eligible for supplements equal to the level of old age security pensions.

Compensation benefits will be based on 90 per cent of the injured workers' pre-accident net earnings rather than 75 per cent of gross earnings. as under the current act. At present, a worker with three dependants, for example, receives the same benefits as a single worker with the same gross income and the same injury. Under the new act, the worker with dependants will receive greater compensation, reflecting his or her higher pre-accident take-home pay.

There will be a new and enhanced formula for determining entitlement of surviving spouses and dependants. Survivors' awards will comprise both a lump sum and a continuing benefit, fixed as a proportion of the deceased's pre-accident net earnings. The level of the lump sum award will be age-related, as will be the continuing payment for the sole surviving spouse. Where dependent children are involved, the continuing payment is to be fixed at 90 per cent of pre-accident net earnings, the same level as would be paid to a totally disabled injured worker.

As honourable members know, it has been traditional for this Legislature to provide annual increases in workers' compensation benefits effective July 1. Since the Workers' Compensation Act amendments I am proposing today are complex and wide-ranging, a constructive and thorough debate on them can be expected. Consequently, to ensure injured workers receive this year's benefit increase as soon as possible, a decision has been made to deal with the increase in a separate bill, in the hope that this House will see fit to pass it before the summer recess.

2:50 p.m.

I am therefore pleased to introduce these further amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act effective July 1, 1984, providing: (1) a five per cent increase in benefits levels for pensioners, surviving spouses and dependants; (2) an increase of five per cent in the covered earnings ceiling, from $25,500 to $26,800; and (3) corresponding increases in burial and clothing allowances and minimum benefits payable.

The provisions contained in the two bills being tabled today constitute a major step forward in advancing the equity, fairness and efficiency of the workers' compensation system in Ontario. I should add that in designing these measures we have been guided not only by considerations of equity and practicality but also in a significant way by the views of the major client groups, recognizing that one of the keys to the successful operation of the system is its acceptability to those who benefit from it and those who pay for it.

I would like to reiterate my appreciation to the hundreds of interested parties who made submissions during the lengthy consultative period. Their wise counsel has played an invaluable role in reshaping the legislation, and I look forward to their continued advice and assistance as we continue our deliberations in areas that require further study.

Copies of this statement will be in the honourable members' boxes later this afternoon, if they are not already there.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT BILL

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, after four years of deliberation and hard work, I have to say we are not totally satisfied with the minister's efforts. The injured workers have been waiting a long time.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mancini: They have given this government four years to come in with substantive changes.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Mancini: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour for some clarification. He said in his statement to the House today that Canada pension plan benefits, a plan paid into by workers and given to them by another level of government, are going to be integrated with workers' compensation benefits.

Am I to understand that Canada pension plan benefits will be deducted from workers' compensation benefits, therefore leaving the injured workers literally without any benefits from a plan they have paid into, a plan administered by another level of government?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, under the present system, recipients of a permanent partial disability pension may be eligible under subsection 43(5) for a supplement to their pensions where impairment of earning capacity is significantly greater than is usual for the nature and degree of the injury.

Supplements may be paid for a reviewable 12-year term in an amount that, in combination with the pension awarded, equals the level of the equivalent total disability pension. Eligibility is dependent on the worker's co-operation with the Workers' Compensation Board rehabilitation programs and availability for suitable employment. Workers receiving a CPP disability pension are not entitled to a rehabilitation supplement.

Under the new proposal, older workers not in a position to benefit from a board vocational rehabilitation program would be eligible for a supplement to their PPD pensions, the amount of which would equal the level of old age security supplements. The board has in the past awarded supplements of this type to workers 60 to 65 years old but does not do so currently.

Mr. Mancini: What right does the Minister of Labour have legally or politically to interfere with a separate pension plan paid into by workers and administered by a different level of government? What gives him the right to move into that area and interfere with a plan separate from the workers' compensation plan? Why is he denying the injured workers of Ontario their full disability benefits from the Canada Pension Plan?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The short answer is that overall we will be improving this benefit structure for the injured worker.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the minister's statement, and considering that there is a specific paragraph which states that the views of all interested parties have been taken into consideration in relation to the delivery of the new legislation and the amendments to increase the injured workers' level of compensation, how can the minister reconcile the principle that injured workers have been supporting, which opposes deduction of the Canada pension plan benefits from injured workers' pensions, with the fact that, by the introduction of the new law, the minister is going against the views of injured workers in dealing with that specific issue in the new legislation?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, we are going to have full opportunity, both at second reading stage and again in committee, to debate the point the honourable members opposite have raised. The proposal to offset CPP survivor benefits against Workers' Compensation Board survivor benefits is founded on the notion that this represents the fairest and most rational approach in seeking to relate the economic impact of the fatal accident to the level of compensation provided from whatever sources.

Mr. Mancini: The Minister of Labour says it is rational to deduct the CPP benefits from injured workers' benefits received from the WCB. I say that is irrational.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Mancini: I want to know from the minister, clearly, what political and legal right he has, and why has he decided to integrate the two and so be able to subtract benefits that are due to injured workers from a plan they have paid into and is administered by another level of government. Why is the minister using these funds to do the job he is supposed to do? Why does he not let the WCB do the job it is supposed to do and allow the injured workers to receive the benefits of a plan that has been paid for by them and another level of government? What legal and political right does the minister have to interfere with that separate plan?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, not to tell you how to do your job, and with the greatest of respect, that same question was asked in the first and second questions.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, this minister never answers the questions.

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

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the minister, following upon his statement. Nearly four years ago, in his report called Reshaping Workers' Compensation for Ontario, Paul Weiler said on page 67: "Clearly, the current response to this issue by the long-established clinical rating model is entirely discredited and must be replaced."

Professor Weiler rejected the so-called meat chart almost four years ago. Yet four years later, as I read the minister's statement on page 8, he says: "It has been decided not to proceed with the wage loss concept at this time, but to continue to examine it in the light of representations received and the developing experience in other jurisdictions."

Does this mean we will have the meat chart on into the future? Is there nothing new at all, after four years of study, for those injured workers who have come before us on the steps of the Legislature and in the public galleries of this Legislature, and who have said they cannot live on $200 or $300 a month? If there is something new, will the minister please tell us and those injured workers what it is?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, as I tried to point out in my opening remarks, when we first got involved in studying the Weiler report and the white paper, there was reasonable consensus for a wage loss system. As we continued to hold hearings and as we continued to consult with the Association of Injured Workers' Groups and other interested parties, we began to come to the conclusion that the alternatives suggested by Professor Weiler were not acceptable to the client groups. For that reason, we have tried to respond to their wishes and we have not moved forward at this time.

3 p.m.

Mr. Wrye: What appears to have scared this government off are the estimates of the costs of some kind of dual award system, whether it is a specific wage loss or a pension based on a projected wage loss, as was proposed by the Association of Injured Workers' Groups. Perhaps it was the fact that the WCB, having had months of hearings of the committee, decided to send out yet another survey to the employers of this province.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Wrye: Professor Weiler said the current response to this issue is discredited. He called it "the meat chart." He said people would no longer tolerate the inequities produced by a system of rough justice.

Is the minister standing in his place today and saying, in terms of permanent partial disability pensions, the workers of this province are going to have to continue to tolerate this system of rough justice? Are we even going to get a new medical model in terms of the clinical rating system?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am very surprised. I thought the member opposite, for whom I have great respect, would have been in touch with the various interest groups that were genuinely concerned about the alternatives to the "meat chart" type of system. We tried to respond to those groups by moving forward with other amendments and taking a more careful and considerate look at this issue.

This does not mean we have shelved it. It does not mean we are not going to do anything about it. However, rather than hold up the rest of this package, we felt it was appropriate to step aside from that point at this time.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, there is a very major question at stake here. A 50-year-old construction worker who has a serious back injury and is effectively not able to work again in construction and is not going to be able to get a job for some time to come in another industry because of the nature of those jobs and the nature of his skills, is effectively disabled to an extent that is not recognized today in the act, nor is it recognized in the amendments the minister has brought forward. This is the issue, and the minister knows this.

Because of the arbitrary meat chart, which goes back to the time of Napoleon as far as we can gather in terms of assessing disability --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: -- it does not take into account the real loss which has taken place. I have no quarrel with the unfair wage loss system and its rejection by the minister, but why did he not look at changes that would address the very real unfairness which exists today for a great many workers who are forced to live on $100, $150 or $200 a month, who are having to support their families on that much money and who are not really assisted by any of the amendments the minister has brought in?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the last statement, that there is no benefit to the workers from the amendments we have brought in. This is not correct at all.

Why did we not move? Why did we not study? Why did we not think of alternatives? I believe these are the questions the member has asked. My goodness, we have looked at so many alternatives and we have spent so much time consulting, conferring, studying and assessing. There has not been any issue in the ministry in the two and a half years I have been there that has received greater study, greater attention or greater assessment than the amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act.

Mr. Wrye: The minister will know that the meagre pensions injured workers get at present and will get in the future from the so-called meat chart are based upon the earnings they have had. In his amendments today, the minister proposes to increase the earnings ceiling to $31,500 a year or approximately 150 per cent of the average industrial wage.

How did the minister arrive at this figure, given that Paul Weiler said four years ago, "I am not convinced there is a good case for any ceiling at all"? He said, "We must respond to the practical problem of ensuring that essentially all the earnings of all the industrial workers in the province are protected by the same compensation legislation which takes away their right to sue in court."

After Paul Weiler proposed 250 per cent as the ceiling to insure all injured workers and after the minister's own Tory colleagues on this committee proposed 175 per cent, how in heaven's name did we get it down to 150 per cent? How can the minister consider this to be justice for all the injured workers and all the industrial workers of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I used the words "a phased approach" on several occasions. That applies to the matter of the ceiling.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Labour. Can he tell us why there is not a specific provision for the indexing of all benefits under the act? Why do we have to continue to go through this exercise of passing separate bills every time the government decides to increase the level of benefits? Why does the government not move to an indexing system that at least ensures that at no point will the benefit level of any injured worker fall behind the rate of inflation?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Considerable attention was given to that point and we felt it would be more appropriate to address it in the second phase of the act.

Mr. Rae: Because it is not clear in the bill before us, can the minister tell us what happens to the 80,000 existing pensioners under the new scheme? Are they opting in or are they left out? What exactly is being provided for them?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: As far as the benefit increases are concerned, they will all be looked after. It is my understanding that these new amendments will be based in the greatest part on new claims.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, we are talking about the present WCB pensioners. I am particularly concerned about the issue of the dual award that has been postponed for further study until other jurisdictions across Canada have a full assessment of that issue.

Now that the present WCB pensioners do not have the option to move into the new system and get the benefits of the dual award if they so wish, can the minister give us an assurance that a full revision of the clinical rating system will be introduced in the province? The clinical rating system in Ontario is archaic and works against injured workers' interests.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the honourable member, he is wondering about further action and progress. He also mentioned the studies of other jurisdictions. A meeting has been arranged with the other provinces for the month of July, at which time we are all going to sit down and look at the experiences of the various jurisdictions.

OVERCROWDING OF SEPARATE SHCOOLS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. It concerns the subject of overcrowding in the separate school system and the number of portables that are currently in use in the elementary system.

I am sure the minister is aware a survey was completed in October 1983 which showed that in 13 Roman Catholic separate school boards there were 1,331 portables in use at the beginning of this school year.

Can the minister tell us whether the government has any plans today to deal with the very real problem in existence right across the province of the number of kids in the separate school system who have to learn in used portables rather than in completely permanent classrooms?

Is it the minister's intention to increase capital funding to deal with that problem, or are kids in the school system going to continue to suffer as a result of having to work out of portables?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be unfortunate if the impression were left that all the separate school boards across the province were facing the same difficulty, because that is not the whole truth of the matter.

There are several separate school boards which are experiencing at the present time, as are the public boards in some circumstances in those areas, fairly rapid growth in enrolment as a result of the patterns of shift of population that have been established in those areas in the development of housing.

3:10 p.m.

I believe there are seven separate school boards registering some difficulty accommodating their elementary school children. There have been very concerted efforts directed towards resolving the problem for those boards experiencing accommodation problems. Indeed, for the past several years more than 90 per cent of all the capital allocation that has been made available to the Ministry of Education has been directed towards providing school accommodation for those students who in many instances did not have any place to go to school. As a result, we have not met some of the requests or demands of other school boards that were not suffering this accommodation problem.

It is absolutely essential that we look at all alternatives related to the accommodation of those students. In some instances it might be quite possible that the sharing of accommodation with a public board in an existing school building would provide accommodation for a certain number of separate school students. It is quite possible that a school that is not being used by the public system might be made available to the separate school system, and we have been attempting to facilitate this kind of exchange or sharing. This is an activity that I think we are going to have to step up.

In addition to that, we have been working with school boards in the development of schools that could be considered to be demountable. These are somewhat different from the traditional school buildings that have been established, and we have been able to build more schools as a result of moving in that direction.

As well, we have ensured over the past several years that the majority of our dollars for the building of new schools in those areas in which they are needed has gone to the separate school system, and this is a matter that I think we will continue this year. I believe more than 61 per cent of all the allocation has gone to the separate school system in order to help it meet its needs.

We continue to work with them to help them solve their problems through the many means that are available to us and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That was a very complete answer.

Mr. Rae: I wonder if the minister can give me -- she might attempt it; I do not know whether she can do it or not -- a yes or no answer to this very simple question.

Capital spending has been cut in the last 10 years from $88.9 million in 1972 to $60.6 million in 1982. One Catholic student in 10 in the elementary system studies in a portable. Will the minister at least commit herself to increasing that capital allocation in order to ensure that the number of Catholic students studying in portables goes down?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not sure I can support the figure the honourable member has suggested. I will look at it, but I would like him to know that on an annual basis I make every effort to ensure there is not a reduction in our capital allocation, and it is my understanding that this year we have not had a reduction. In fact, we have had a fairly stable capital allocation for elementary school development in the last several years.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister a supplementary with regard to an area in my riding in which the town council has refused to give permission to Ste. Anne high school and also St. Pius X elementary school. Ste. Anne has nine portables and St. Pius X has four portables, all in one town. They are asking permission to bring more in, and the town council says it just does not want more portables in the town. They want something done to make those schools more permanent.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I believe in some areas, as I suggested, there are greater opportunities for the utilization of existing buildings which might be made available by other boards in a way that would be helpful to the separate school system.

I understand the concern raised when the word "portable" is used. As a matter of fact, the new portables, which are very much akin to the units used in demountable schools, are built for a 20-year life expectancy, not five years as they used to be, and they are reasonable structures which can be reasonably heated.

The one difficulty, of course, is that in most circumstances they are not connected to the main school building and they require the students, of necessity, to leave the portable sometimes in the middle of winter to go into the school building.

But it is my understanding that in most instances where portables have been used they are decreasing in total numbers, although there are one or two boards in specific areas -- I can mention Wellington-Dufferin-Peel and York region -- where the number is growing because instant communities are being created by developers in those areas.

Mr. Rae: The minister should be aware that because of the cutbacks and the overall refusal to move on the capital side by the Ministry of Education, St. Nicholas of Bari, a school just outside my riding which serves a great many kids in my riding, is not even on the 1985 capital budget allocation list.

It was built in 1977 with an original capacity of 604 and an actual enrolment of 847 when it opened. The excess today is 243, more than 40 per cent in excess. There are 18 regular classrooms and 13 temporary ones; 13 portables out of a total of 31 classrooms. That school is not even on the 1985 capital budget allocation list because of the restrictions placed by the ministry.

The minister can look as strange, weird and wonderful as she wants, but those are the facts. Would she please go back and have another look at what the ministry is doing on the capital spending side? If this government is going to provide, as I hope it will, genuine equality in educational opportunities for children in the Catholic system as well as in the public systems, it will have to do it partly by recognizing the need to invest in the future and provide for that capital spending. The government cannot do it if it is not prepared to do the capital spending that is necessary. Will the minister at least move to ensure that the goodwill expressed by the Premier (Mr. Davis) today can be carried out because of her willingness to look at the money implications of what it is she claims she wants to be doing?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: About a year and a half ago, under the aegis of the Ministry of Education, we established a Metropolitan Toronto School Facilities Committee which has now become independent of the ministry. The directors of education and some representatives of the boards of education of all the boards in Metropolitan Toronto, including the Metro separate board, function as members of that committee.

As a result of their deliberations, the problems related to St. Nicholas of Bari are going to be solved because school sharing or the sharing of facilities, which we have been trying to foster, is the route that can provide the solution in areas where there are problems of accommodation. I would urge all the boards to consider the taxpayers of Ontario and ensure we make the most appropriate and effective use of existing school facilities to ensure we do not overburden the taxpayers by the building of schools which may not be necessary.

BARRIE-VESPRA ANNEXATION BILL

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Given the fact that Bill 142, the bill dealing with the Barrie-Vespra area, is and has been before the Legislature and committees of this House since last December and given the fact the minister has not participated in second reading of the bill nor in committee considerations, that at least 103 rural municipalities and thousands of people in the Barrie-Vespra area are opposed to this legislation, and the fact this bill will not resolve the dispute but will only fire up the emotions that already exist there, will he in all fairness withdraw Bill 142 from the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, Mr. Speaker.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Epp: The minister is aware of the article he wrote in Municipal World where he clearly takes the side of Barrie in this dispute against Vespra township in trying to rape Vespra township of 2,000 acres, and he is aware he has not shown any impartiality in this issue.

Will he, therefore, change section 9 of Bill 142, where he is the final arbiter of the compensation to go to Vespra township and Barrie? Will he remove himself from that and appoint the Ontario Municipal Board to resolve that problem, rather than retain those powers for himself?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I have not taken the side of Barrie. I have tried to enunciate in a clear and proper fashion exactly where we are in the negotiations between Barrie and Vespra. As the member will recall, I used the comparison of Innisfil and how we were able to negotiate that one to a successful conclusion. Indeed, the reeve of Innisfil came to the hearings, said forcefully, and bragged to a certain degree, that Innisfil had made an excellent deal with the province in the change of boundaries in that township.

I have presented the case very fairly. I have talked to the reeves. We have talked to various other elected people and the mayor of Barrie. We have tried to take the most impartial position we possibly can, going to the position of sending the bill to committee so the committee could review it here at Queen's Park and could review the situation in person on its journey to the Barrie-Vespra area. I was hoping we would find some degree of understanding and compromise in the situation.

I believe the conclusion of the bill will put things to rest. I do not intend to take away the position of the minister, whoever the minister happens to be, in trying to draw to a conclusion the financial responsibilities among Vespra, Barrie and the province. I hope I will have the opportunity of arbitrating it with a degree of understanding from both Barrie and Vespra, and that we will find a joint understanding and an acceptable position.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to participate in that debate --

Mr. Boudria: Briefly.

Mr. Breaugh: -- briefly. It is what one calls intervention.

I have a new question concerning the activities of one Fast Eddie Goodman, representing his clients Cadillac Fairview in Vespra township. Can the minister explain to this Legislature why on the evening of December 5 the council of the city of Barrie withdrew its objection to the $20-million expansion of the Cadillac Fairview Georgian Mall and on December 6 the minister introduced Bill 142 in the Ontario Legislature? Was that deal put together by Fast Eddie Goodman?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of who put what deal together.

Mr. Breaugh: Does the minister know why the council of the city of Barrie withdrew its objection to that expansion of the Cadillac Fairview mall?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am not completely aware why they withdrew their objection. I think they realized they were getting to a position where some action had to be taken. The member knows well that at that time there were long, drawn-out discussions among Vespra, the staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Barrie, trying to find some conclusion to the situation.

They had legal counsel. If I recall correctly, it was not Mr. Goodman. I think it was Mr. McCallum, a notable lawyer practising in the city of Toronto, who has been on that case for about nine years and has likely made for himself the greatest pension situation one could possibly have because of the duration of the arguments that have taken place among Barrie, Vespra and lnnisfil.

Putting that aside, I am sure Mr. McCallum advised his clients that the actions they were taking were likely in the best interests of the municipality. For what reason, I cannot read into the record because I do not know.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, why would the government --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: That is right. It is a question, supplementary and a supplementary here, with all respect. We are having an argument with the table here.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You are supposed to call time out.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Epp: Why would the government be so interested in permitting the Georgian Mall to proceed under Barrie's direction, when it would not let the Georgian Mall proceed through expansion when it was under Vespra township's jurisdiction and when Barrie has no intention of providing additional services to that area? That was one of the reasons the government originally gave for the annexation.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we are now going to go back through the historical factors of why we get into this freezing situation that applies to Vespra, as it did to a number of other townships across the province. The member will recall clearly that a number of shopping centres were starting to be established on the perimeter of major cities or the growth centres in the various provincial jurisdictions we are talking about. Barrie was known as the growth centre for its area. This shopping centre went in two or three ministers prior to my coming into Municipal Affairs and Housing and taking over the planning responsibilities.

It was entirely against the provincial philosophical position as to who should be allowed to develop and what areas should be allowed to develop to allow major commercial areas to be on the fringe of a municipality that is paying all the freight while the other one gets the free ride. That is exactly what the situation has been in Barrie and Vespra. I do not think anybody in this House can deny that situation for a moment. We are clearly saying that commercial development belongs to the city of Barrie.

That has been argued before two or three Ontario Municipal Board hearings and it has been before the courts. The cases have been set aside time and time again, not because of the planning policy or the question of geographical location, but on some very small legal technicalities. The member knows we have gone through nine or 10 years of hearings on this situation. Clearly, every hearing has been positively on Barrie's side on the question of having the development in the geographical area of Barrie.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, the courts did not deal with that.

SURNAMES OF CHILDREN

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Premier and Minister responsible for Women's Issues. I draw to the minister's attention a publication distributed by the women's bureau of his ministry. The title of the publication is Women and the Law. On the second page, it says, "The legal position of women: A married person has a legal capacity for all purposes and in all respects as if she were unmarried."

Since when do married women have the right to give their children their own name under the present Vital Statistics Act and several other laws that are totally discriminatory towards women? When will the minister, along with his colleagues, see to it that those laws are amended?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member wanted an answer, he would have asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, to whom I refer the question once again.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think that is an important question and one to which the member knows full well the government is directing its attention. It is a policy position we are in support of. The matter is now being implemented with a view to legislative introduction, as the member knows already. This is just a little bit of grandstanding.

Mr. Boudria: Thank you. It is nice to hear about grandstanding. I have taken lessons from the minister for whom I am the critic.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Boudria: That has nothing to do with the brochure in which the ministry gives erroneous information to the women of this province.

Will the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations promise to bring in legislation before we adjourn for the summer? It only needs a minor bill to correct the Vital Statistics Act. I am sure we would all agree to pass this bill very quickly if he were to bring it in. Will the minister do this one thing for the women of this province whom he purports to serve with all the new gimmicks and gadgets his government has lately?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not want to give a lengthy response to this. I know if I did, Mr. Speaker, you would draw to my attention the fact that I was taking an undue length of time in responding. That is not something you want members who are answering questions to do.

If I were to take a long time to answer the question, I would tell the member that the fundamental problem he has always had is that he does not understand it is not a simple issue. He knows very well it involves changes to the Change of Name Act as well as the Vital Statistics Act. The fact that he cannot get that through his head is his problem, not mine.

COMMUNITY HOSPITALS

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Does he recall answering a letter from the hospital board in Nipigon in the following way: "Under the circumstances, it is recommended that an external planning consultant with familiarity with the problems and issues facing small hospitals be engaged to redevelop the master program"? Does he recall the letter also said, "It is also recommended at the outset close liaison with the Thunder Bay District Health Council, so that the council is fully appraised of your efforts"?

3:30 p.m.

Is the minister not aware from a letter I sent to him on May 17 as a follow-up to the letter from the board's chairperson that the board has developed its plan over two and a half years and that the plan before him for study now has the blessing of the district health council? Why is the minister being so ornery in responding to a very legitimate request?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the last part of that three-part question is that it is just my nature to he ornery. However, the answer to the first part of the question is, no, I do not recall that specific letter. I would have to refresh my memory. If that letter followed the receipt of the plan, then obviously the answer to the second part of the question would also be no. I would be pleased to review the whole situation and correct whatever misunderstanding there might have been on my part, if there was one.

Mr. Stokes: Briefly, will the minister not take the advice of the district health council, which has been working with the hospital board for the past two and a half years? How is he going to rationalize his actions to date with the stated objective in the speech from the throne of March 9, 1982, indicating that his government was prepared to assist small community hospitals in northern Ontario? That is all I am asking for, no more and certainly no less.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is certainly both the stated policy and the policy in practice of the ministry with, in some respects, the active support of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

I will certainly review the advice of the district health council. I am sure the honourable member would understand that in most cases we do try to give credence and implementation to the recommendations of the district health councils on local planning issues. It is not always possible. By saying this I am not suggesting at all that it will not be possible in this case.

Mr. Stokes: The minister is asking them to go back and do it all over again.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes. It is important to remember the district health councils are advisory but not decision-making bodies. However, if the sequence of the two documents to which the member has referred legitimately represents some misunderstanding on my part at the time of the drafting of that letter, then I certainly shall correct that, but I will have to review them both to do so.

ONTARIO STATUS OF WOMEN COUNCIL

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister responsible for Women's Issues will remember that the snow was still on the ground four months ago when Sally Barnes, whose tenure came under a cloud of partisanship and a storm of controversy, resigned as president of the Ontario Status of Women Council. Four months later, no replacement has been announced.

I want to ask the minister a very simple question. Why has there been a delay in replacing the potential future candidate in the riding of Frontenac-Addington? Is it because the government simply cannot find a qualified woman to accept the paltry salary that comes along with this part-time job?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, without boring the honourable member with all sorts of dates, he will recall that during some discussions with him as my critic I shared the fact that, following the establishment of the Ontario women's directorate, I thought it advisable to have some type of objective review of the role of the directorate, particularly as it related to the advisory council. Therefore, we commissioned a study by Touche Ross and I got the results of that study.

Before I could act on the study, I felt it would be wise to consult with the advisory council and see what it thought of it. I sent the report to the advisory council, but then the president of that council retired. I met with the advisory council on March 1 and had a preliminary round with it with respect to the Touche Ross report. The council asked me for more time to go into this matter. I have been standing by waiting to be invited back to a second meeting.

I got a letter from the council dated the first part of this month -- either June 1 or June 2 -- with a written report on the matter. I intend to deal with that and then bring recommendations forward to my cabinet colleagues.

I think it is important to know, as the honourable member will recall, that it was clearly my intention to wait until I had the advice and opinion of the council itself with respect to its future role. If we were going to invite people to serve on the council or someone to serve as its president, I felt it would only be fair to them to have some explanation of what their duties would be and what the relationships would be after some determination of those matters that would come as a result of the discussion I had had with the council.

I would remind the member that I did not hear back from the council until the letter dated either June 1 or June 2.

Mr. Wrye: If the minister had been in a little bit more of a hurry perhaps he could have picked up the phone. I would remind him that the council is not only without a president, but the council is and has been for some time without an executive director.

Is the minister ignoring in his search for a replacement the recommendations of the standing committee on procedural affairs that the job of president be full-time with improved salary and that the council itself have a substantially improved budget? As the minister knows, the budget is now somewhat less than $200,000 annually, and that compares with a budget of about $1 million in Quebec.

Is the minister prepared to stand in his place and make a commitment today that, no matter who the replacement is, this replacement will be full-time and receive a full-time salary and the council will finally get the funding necessary to do the kind of independent, nonpartisan research that is so sadly lacking in this province?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I will be prepared to address those issues when I have finished the determination of roles, responsibilities and relationships. The Touche Ross report makes some comments on those issues as well, so they have to be taken into account.

The honourable member might do well to take a look at the estimates, which are now out, and come to his own conclusions as to whether or not there has been a substantial increase in so far as this area is concerned. I think he will be quite impressed by the fact that there is some increase in resources there. How they will be expended will depend on how the council sees its role after we have had a further meeting.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the estimates show that funding is almost flat for the council but that it is going up in the minister's own directorate from $3.5 million to $5 million. Two years ago it was about $1.5 million for the women's groups. How much of that $5 million will go to the Ontario Status of Women Council if the minister decides to carry it on? Is he thinking of expanding the participation of groups within the council and changing the method of selecting people for the council?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am very anxious to clear up this matter. I think we will do so fairly soon now in view of the letter I have received from the council. But I do not feel as the Minister responsible for Women's Issues that I am in any way restricted with respect to the full consultative process. Ever since my appointment a year ago I have been meeting with individuals and representatives of a number of organizations and I want to maintain that relationship. I do not want us to so organize ourselves that I am prevented from consulting with a wide variety of organizations and representatives of those organizations throughout the whole province. That is the very point we have to make.

If the member looks at those estimates once again, she will see that the council has not been flat-lined; this is a matter of fact that can be determined in an examination of the estimates. I am quite committed to the consultative process. Indeed, I think those with whom the member has come in contact will assure her that we have spent a fair amount of time in this particular exercise.

3:40 p.m.

TENDERING PRACTICES

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food, if I can have his attention. This past spring the minister contracted out, as he will recall, the soil and feed testing and the leaf analysis, which formerly was done, and as a matter of fact still is being done, by the University of Guelph, to Griffiths Laboratories Ltd. This firm is a wholly owned subsidiary of Griffiths Laboratories of the United States, which, incidentally, has 20 branches in different countries around the world.

Is it not true that at the time the contract was let Mr. David George, executive director of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's research services, could not give any indication as to what saving there would be, and that in fact the ministry's tendering criteria are so imprecise that any bidder could have been picked?

Is it not true that the real reason for taking the service away from Canada's best-known and highly respected agricultural University of Guelph was his government's perverse addiction to privatization and its desire to feed public funds to its corporate friends?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose in tendering the laboratory services in question was to obtain the very best laboratory services available. Extensive analysis of the submissions was done by members of the ministry staff, and the one submitted by Griffiths was found to be of the highest calibre of those submitted. It was able to show that it could provide a better service than that provided by the University of Guelph.

Mr. Swart: That is not what the Ontario Federation of Agriculture feels, as the minister very well knows, because it passed a resolution asking that it be left with the University of Guelph.

Is it not true that the senior officials of the Griffiths Laboratories are also senior advisers to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities? Is not Edmund Bovey, who is a heavy contributor to the Conservative Party and, of course, the chairman of the Commission on the Future Development of the Universities of Ontario, also a director of the Griffiths Laboratories?

Is it not correct that a Dr. D. H. Lees, who is group vice-president of Griffiths Laboratories and government relations specialist for that company, is also vice-chairman of the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario, whose mandate, according to the annual report, is: "The institute, which is responsible to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, reviews research programs in agriculture, veterinary medicine and household science. It determines whether the objective facilities and staff meet the needs of Ontario's agriculture and makes recommendations accordingly"?

Finally, is it not correct that Jim Schollar, the president and chief executive officer of Griffiths Laboratories, is a close associate of the minister and is on the board of the Don Mills Foundation for Senior Citizens Inc.?

Does the minister not think serious questions are raised about patronage and the conduct of his ministry by putting his corporate friends ahead of the farmers' best interests? Will he refer the still-secret tenders to the standing committee on public accounts of this House for examination, along with all other aspects of the awarding of the contract to Griffiths?

Mr. Speaker: That was a very long question of about five parts.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do not extend the question period.

Mr. Speaker: I am not, but I suggest that we have a very brief, concise answer.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am happy to do so, Mr. Speaker.

I have never asked for, nor have I ever seen, a list of the board of directors of any of the companies involved in the tendering. I have never been contacted by Griffiths Laboratories in support of its application.

The awarding of the contract was based entirely on analysis by my senior staff, who are expert in the areas covered by the contract. I did not, in any way, shape or form, direct the staff of the ministry as to how the applicants, be it the University of Guelph or any of the private firms, were to be treated.

If the honourable member wants to make allegations of impropriety, if he wants to cast aspersions on my character, I invite the member to walk out those doors and do it out there in the public domain.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, for some time I have been wanting to ask a question of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the minister in charge of French-language services. I am pleased to welcome him hack.

Hon. Mr. Norton: When did he leave?

Mr. Roy: Is the minister going to quit interrupting me?

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, please.

Mr. Roy: How could all the members across the House keep a straight face when the Premier (Mr. Davis) made this announcement?

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Roy: Were they tied to their seats?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member please place his question.

Ms. Copps: J. Earl is very persuasive. He has been over there only two weeks and has got the government to move on a condition it would not move on for 13 years.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: If the Premier keeps making such statements, we are going to get the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. McEwen) back here, and we do not want him.

Is the minister aware that the office of the co-ordinator of French-language services has put out its 1983 annual report? In the report there are statements from various ministries about the progress that has been made towards the establishment of French-language services in the government of Ontario. Is the minister in charge not somewhat embarrassed by the paternalistic, fatherly and mushy type of approach taken to the provision of French-language services in this province by the various ministries? As one who is committed to the cause, how can he accept statements that give no specifics?

As I look at his colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), who is seated behind him, I am reminded that most ministries say something as neutral --

Mr. Speaker: I presume you have a question.

Mr. Roy: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Well, let us have it.

Mr. Roy: My question is, simply, is the minister embarrassed? I have to tell him what he is embarrassed about.

Mr. Speaker: He already knows. Order. Will the honourable member please --

Mr. Roy: Yes. I will just finish this.

Mr. Speaker: Please resume your seat. You have already asked your question.

Mr. Roy: No, I have to tell him.

Mr. Speaker: So you told me.

Mr. Roy: I have to tell him why he is embarrassed about this statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: I just have a brief statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for asking the question. As he knows, I have not been in the House for the past few days because I was in France, of all places, with one of his colleagues and the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick). We had a very enjoyable time there, and we found that Ontario is very highly regarded and well received. The only thing that surprised me was that of all the very fine French men and women I met there, no one mentioned the name of the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Van Horne: They have not even heard of him.

Mr. Boudria: Omer Deslauriers knows his name.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I did not visit Omer this time.

I might indicate that one of the very fine appointments made in the last couple of weeks is a person with whom my friend is well acquainted; Gisèle Lalonde has now become the chairman and president of the Conseil des affaires franco-ontariennes.

The answer to the honourable member's question, if he will read that report very carefully, is that the government co-ordinator "is responsible for the application, co-ordination and development of the Ontario government's policy on French-language services." That is an excellent policy that is carried out by government co-ordinators in each ministry.

No, I do not think the report is -- what was the phrase he used? -- "mushy and paternalistic." I think the report is very realistic and indicates the actions various ministries are taking, I might say very willingly, under the direction of and with the help of the co-ordinator of French-language services.

Mr. Roy: If the minister is learning --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Roy: I will simply say to the minister that it is no wonder he got no answer to his question about who knew whom in France if he learned his French from this report; they probably did not understand him.

Does the minister think he can satisfy the demands and l'épanouissement of the francophone community with such paternalistic reports? If he does, he is sadly mistaken. When is the minister going to accept some of the recommendations of his former co-ordinator, Mr. Stevenson, and bring forward legislation rather than just paternalistic statements?

When is the minister going to bring in legislation, such as I proposed in 1978, that would guarantee French-language services, tell civil servants what their obligations are and tell Franco-Ontarians what their rights are in obtaining French-language services, rather than having paternalistic platitudes such as are in this report?

3:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I do not want to intrude on the time of the House, but my friend knows I answered that question quite adequately and properly, I think, in a speech I made in his home town not so long ago.

Mr. Roy: The minister did not impress anyone there.

Hon. Mr. Wells: As a matter of fact, the mayor of the member's municipality was there and he seemed quite --

Mr. Roy: He was confused, as was everybody else.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, he was not. I do not think he was confused. He understands the quiet revolution that has happened in Ontario and the significant gains that have been made in the last 20 years --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this has been a historic afternoon with the Premier's statement respecting Catholic secondary education. In addressing a supplementary question to the minister, I would like to use a quotation from the Premier's statement with respect to bilingualism and French language rights in the province.

The Premier quoted Sir John A. Macdonald as saying we must not stand on the extreme limitations of our rights; he said this is a matter where we can afford to be generous. If that is true today with respect to Catholic secondary education. I ask the minister why it is not also true with respect to French language rights in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this government has indicated its affirmation of French language rights in legislation time and time again in this House. I think that --

Ms. Copps: What about the WCB legislation? There is nothing in that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: With the permission of the House, I would like all honourable members to join with me in welcoming two guests in the Speaker's gallery. They are the mother of the Deputy Speaker, the member for Mississauga (Mr. Jones), and the other Mrs. Jones, his wife, who are both in the gallery.

PETITIONS

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, you will be glad to know I have another petition here today. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

This petition is signed by 77 more people, bringing the grand total to 11,077.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, which reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

"The supporters of these schools also face a form of financial double jeopardy through a lack of access to the compulsory and indirect taxes they must pay in support of education. We seek a just public education policy that supports all schools deemed to be operating in the public interest."

This petition is signed by hundreds of supporters in the good riding of Halton-Burlington.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"The supporters of Rockway Mennonite Collegiate cannot accept the fact that the government of Ontario can boost its support for Catholic and Franco-Ontarian schools while continuing to neglect to support other educational communities.

"In a democratic, multicultural society, choice in education should not provide some schools of choice funding while denying the same rights to others. In at least five Canadian provinces, independent schools are recognized as providing a public service and they receive various forms of financial grants. In Ontario, legislators act as if the 80,000 children in independent schools do not exist.

"Parents and supporters pay the total cost for their education while also paying taxes at the same level as everyone else for public schools they do not use. In fact, in the past five years, parents of children in independent schools have contributed $1 billion to educate other people's children in Ontario.

"When will their children receive some benefit from public education tax dollars? When will this government accept its responsibility to recognize the value of these schools and provide support for them as it does for Franco-Ontarian and Catholic schools? When will this denigrating blot be removed from our democratic, multicultural province?"

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

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

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

"The supporters of these schools also face a form of financial double jeopardy through a lack of access to the compulsory and indirect taxes they must pay in support of education. We seek a just and public education policy that supports all schools deemed to be operating in the public interest."

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. G. W. Taylor), I table the following petition from Bradford, addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, supporters and friends of Holland Marsh District Christian School respectfully ask for your support to redress an injustice.

"Provincial grants normally follow children from one board of education to another within the public and separate school systems all over the province. However, when parents choose to enrol their children in Holland Marsh District Christian School, not a provincial cent follows them.

"For the past 40 years we have faithfully and effectively provided quality education to the children of Christian parents in our community. We are people of modest financial means who have faithfully paid our taxes but are having a difficult time financing our schools.

"We feel we are entitled to receive at least some of the moneys we have paid for the education of our children. In a democratic and pluralistic society, choice in education should not carry a financial penalty."

INFLATION RESTRAINT ACT

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition as follows:

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

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

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights;

"And whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which would have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask for your assistance with regard to the question I placed in Orders and Notices on May 23. I raised this yesterday. That question should have been answered last week, but there has not been even an interim answer.

I am wondering whether you can give me and the House some direction on what we can do when ministers of the crown flout the orders of this assembly. How can we in some way enforce the rules of the House? Why can we not get even an interim answer to a question when the 14-day deadline is up?

4 p.m.

Surely there must be some way other than to have a member of the House raise the issue with you, and for you simply to say, "I am sure the House leader for the government side has listened and will do something." That is what you said yesterday and nothing has happened today. There must be some way we can enforce the rules of the House. What way is there?

Mr. Speaker: As you may know, and I am sure you do, that is a matter over which I do not have any authority. I am not going to repeat what I said yesterday.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on the point, since this is a rule of the House that requires a response in a certain number of days, I submit to you that you do have the authority. If you, as Speaker, brought it to the attention of the representatives of the ministry that the rules had been broken, it might stimulate them to keep to the rules.

Mr. Speaker: In so many words, although not exactly, that is what I said yesterday, only through the government House leader rather than to the specific minister involved. For me, as Speaker, to try to impose wishes on the government would be very difficult. I point out that the government House leader has heard the exchange. I hope he will bring it to the minister's attention and that you will have an answer.

Mr. Elston: How about corporal punishment?

Mr. Speaker: Of course, we do have an empty tower on the west side.

Mr. Nixon: Lock them up.

Mr. Wells: Could the member indicate the number of the question? Every time these requests are brought up I check into them. There are more and more questions. The volume has grown greatly over the last few years. It takes a lot of time and effort, and it is probably just a clerical error that we have not given an interim answer, because we do give interim answers to all of them, even if it says the answer will be ready in six weeks.

Mr. Wrye: Or six months.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Or six months.

Mr. Wildman: In response to the House leader, the question is 399 and, as I said yesterday, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) is obviously continuing his stonewalling tactics and his unwillingness to provide us with any information when we ask for it.

Mr. Speaker: The government House leader has already taken it upon himself.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, could I also ask whether an answer will be forthcoming shortly on question 408?

Mr. Speaker: The government House leader has taken note of that and I am sure he will respond.

ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification and I believe a point of privilege: The member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) in his remarks the other day was talking about people not attending certain votes in this Legislature.

Mr. Boudria: Did he tell the truth?

Mr. Ruston: No, he did not.

In the vote on Thursday, October 20, 1983, he states, and I am reading from Hansard, "The following members of the Liberal caucus were absent." The member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) and the member for Victoria Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) were two of the members mentioned. I have Votes and Proceedings of October 20. When the vote was taken, the members were both in their seats and are shown in Votes and Proceedings.

In the November 17 vote with regard to Bill 108 of the member for York South (Mr. Rae), the member said those who were absent were the member for Wentworth North, the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) and myself. I have Votes and Proceedings for November 17, 1983. I voted, the member for Wentworth North voted and the member for Huron-Middlesex voted.

The other day I had to withdraw when I said he was misleading the House. Damn it, I do not think a person should be able to get up in this House, make a false statement and then when he is accused of it and we know it is false we have to withdraw. Here is the proof he made a false statement.

Mr. Haggerty: Run him through.

Mr. Speaker: And dirty the new sword? I want to be serious for a moment, if I may, and respectfully point out that it is neither order nor privilege. Having said that, I point out that it is not up to the individual members, obviously, to keep track of who votes and who does not; that is the duty and responsibility of the table, and it is so recorded.

If members get up and make statements that are mistaken --

Mr. Haggerty: It is not honourable to make a statement like that.

Mr. Speaker: The record has proved what the member has said. The people were there, and there just is not any problem.

Ms. Copps: There is a problem.

Mr. Speaker: I know there is a problem, but it is not a problem with which I can deal. That is all I am saying. The member has made his point.

At this point, where were we?

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, perhaps you can clear this up if I misunderstood, but I understood you to say it was not a question of privilege. The reason I would like a clarification on this is that the remarks of the member for Windsor-Riverside were clearly meant to reflect badly on the voting records of members of our party.

If the members were present, as they clearly were according to the record, and if the member for Windsor-Riverside in his usual fashion distorts the facts and decides he will send this information to groups and organizations all over Ontario in an attempt to cast some doubt on the commitment of the Liberal Party to equal pay for work of equal value, then that is indeed a question of privilege and I think the Speaker should call upon the member for Windsor-Riverside to retract his statement and table the correct information in the House. He cannot make statements like that and simply walk away from them with impunity.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect. I must point out, as I said, that it is neither order nor privilege.

Mr. Nixon: Correcting the record, right? You allow that.

Mr. Speaker: Correcting the record if you wish, but it must be the honourable member who made the mistake in the first place who corrects the record.

Mr. Nixon: The member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) was named in the incorrect statement. There has to be some way of correcting it.

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute now. Obviously it was a mistaken statement.

Ms. Copps: It is a mistake he has circulated across Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: All right. Order. All I am saying is that the recordings of the Votes and Proceedings of this House are on record. The member for Essex North has read them out; I allowed him to do that, and it completely corrects whatever misinterpretation may have been left out the public. But I know what you are saying.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on what basis then can a member get up to correct the record? So often you tell us, and we have to take your word as correct because you get the very best advice, that we are wrong all the time. Yet my colleagues feel there has to be some way in which they can protect themselves against the kind of information that might tend to mislead.

Mr. Speaker: If I may just correct one misinterpretation, when I get up and say that something is not order, privilege or whatever it may be, it does not mean I am correcting you or that you are wrong or whatever. I obviously have to hear out the member who is making the point, and this corrects whatever misinterpretation there may have been.

But the only correction of a record that could be allowed would be that of an individual member who is correcting his own record. I cannot correct somebody else's record.

Mr. Wrye: Surely one has the privilege to ensure that when one votes it is recorded.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, and that was the point I was making.

Mr. Wrye: That is privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, that is what I have said. You can make a personal statement, of course.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I would like to seek some clarification from you in this regard since I was one of the individuals mentioned on two occasions by the honourable member. Are you saying to us here today that we do not have a vehicle to defend our character and reputation in this House should we be maligned?

Mr. Speaker: Oh, sure.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Cunningham: Are we denied that vehicle? I would like to put on the record that I very deeply resent the imputation that I do not support the principle of equal pay for equal work.

On a very brief personal note, my father died when I was 10 years old. I was raised by a woman who put the bread on our table, and fortunately in our society she was treated equally with other people. On that basis, I have a very deep commitment to that.

The imputation by the member is one I resent very deeply. I would be very upset if we in this chamber, as honourable members, lack the opportunity to correct the record and to defend ourselves against what I consider to be a very sleazy and scuzzy attack.

Mr. Speaker: I think I mentioned that any member may get up and make a personal statement, but it is very --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, with notice to me. It is very difficult not to make a ruling when members rise on a point of order or a point of privilege merely to gain the floor. It would be much better if they sent me a note and told me what they are going to do, then made their personal statement. That is no problem. That is the vehicle that can be used to correct the very point you are making.

Mr. Cunningham: Is it not a matter of privilege?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabour the point, but the reason we are obviously very concerned about it is because the member for Windsor-Riverside has on more than one occasion passed out this alleged record as part of the Hansard process.

If you leave the record to stand as it stood on misleading statements made by the member with respect to the voting record and the commitment of other members of this House, then that member will be perfectly free to mail that out as the gospel of this Legislature without any kind of follow-up from the Speaker.

It seems to me the Speaker should have some vehicle at his disposal to ensure that when members' privileges are abused, when motives are imputed for alleged absences that did not even occur, there should be some way of redressing that in the record through Hansard so the member does not have the opportunity to carry out a vicarious attack on the commitment of this party.

Mr. Speaker: You are absolutely right. I think I mentioned what can be done through making a personal statement. Certainly the record has been corrected several times by various people this afternoon.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ramsay moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Bernier, first reading of Bill 99, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my statement earlier today, we are splitting the bill. The section I have just introduced deals with the benefits package, the benefits increases.

4:47 p.m.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ramsay moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Bernier, first reading of Bill 101, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Ramsay's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McEwen, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Mitchell;

Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Wells, Williams.

Nays

Allen, Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, Lupusella;

Mackenzie, Mancini, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Roy, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Sargent, Spensieri, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wildman, Wrye.

Ayes 63; nays 49.

ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: To be helpful to the House and to my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke), I want to indicate that the members for Wellington South (Mr. Worton), Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) and Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) were the only Liberal members absent. I hope he will get that accurate.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Just to continue the flow from the west end of Windsor to the east end of Windsor, I would like to correct the record.

I have been a member of the Legislature for seven years as of last Saturday. and this is the first mistake I have made.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: I would like to point out to my friends on the right, and some might say the extreme right, that I was wrong whenever I spoke on Bill 141. I would apologize to the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) and the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell). I believe I indicated they were not here for the vote on the bill by the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) and they were here.

I could read the names of the rest of the members who were not here, but the record is now correct. All the rest of them were away.

BIRTHDAY OF MEMBER

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: On a different note, can I just --

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member failed to correct the record. He did not mention my name and I was here for the vote.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already recognized the member for Downsview. Then we will go back to the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke).

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are fighting. On a different note, I want to express our wishes to the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) on his 40th birthday.

Mr. Speaker: If I had known that, I would have baked a cake. Congratulations. Did the member for Windsor-Riverside want to say anything else?

Interjections.

ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, as one of my colleagues said, I only correct the record one day at a time. I will have to check the record and the research and put our whole research team to work. I do not remember quoting the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston), but I will look at Hansard and, if I am incorrect, in due course I will correct the record.

MUNICIPAL TAX SALES ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Timbrell, first reading of Bill 102, An Act respecting the Sale of Lands for Arrears of Municipal Taxes.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate there is a slight change in the business paper. Tonight, as well as considering Bills 74 and 88, we will also consider government notice of motion 6 standing in the name of the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) for interim supply.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

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.

ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS ACT

Mr. Rotenberg moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, third reading of Bill 59, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

5 p.m.

THIRD READINGS (CONTINUED)

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

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 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 Corporations Act.

House in committee of the whole.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

(CONTINUED)

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

On section 1:

The Deputy Chairman: We are dealing with the amendment by the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) to Bill 141 to provide for equal pay for work of equal value.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak briefly on the bill.

The parliamentary assistant will be aware that I spoke last December on second reading of the bill, and I had a very brief opportunity to comment since the bill has been in committee with respect to the previous amendment to this section.

I want to make a couple of comments about it in the hope the parliamentary assistant will be in a position, with the immense authority he carries in this assembly and in the ranks of the government, to indicate quite clearly that it is his intention to adopt the amendment that has been placed before the assembly by the member for Hamilton East. His amendment is, of course, to provide clearly and adequately the mechanism by which the principle of equal pay for work of equal value can be enshrined in the legislation that is before us and in the labour law of the province.

I suppose I need to refresh the memory of the parliamentary assistant briefly with respect to the questions I put in the assembly, and to which there was no particular response on second reading of the bill, about the semantic problem he is creating when he attempts to indicate that anybody will be able to understand the nature of the change that is being introduced or proposed by the government in the law of the province.

When we looked at the Employment Standards Act in the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1970, we had the following wording: "for the same work performed in the same establishment, the performance of which requires equal skill, effort and responsibility, and which is performed under similar working conditions." That was the initiation of the question of the equivalence of pay to work in the province.

I think it is obvious where it came from. It came from the United Kingdom statute, which was passed, strangely enough, in the same year and in which the same language was used. I am not an expert in what the course of the English statute was, but as is often the case with respect to labour law, this government reflects in its laws here what has been passed in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. They seem unable to comprehend in any way the need for independent initiative on the part of this government.

Then we had the amendment in 1974. The following wording was introduced, "for substantially the same kind of work performed in the same establishment, the performance of which requires substantially the same skill, effort and responsibility..." On the question of equal pay for equal work, that change perhaps reduced to a small degree the extent and degree of the rigidity that was included in the original statute in 1970.

Now we have before us the following words, "...for substantially the same kind of work performed in the same establishment where the work requires,

"(a) substantially the same skill, effort and responsibility and the work is performed under similar working conditions; or

"(b) substantially equivalent or greater skill, effort and responsibility under similar working conditions when the skill, effort, responsibility and the working conditions are considered as a whole and not individually."

What confusion the government is introducing into the law of the work place in the province, when the first thing either an employer or an employee, trying to question whether it is in conformity with the law or whether the law is providing the employee with the benefits to which he is entitled, has to do is run to a lawyer to find out what the intention of the government was and what expansion was intended by the government, when we play semantic games with legislation with respect to equal pay for work of equal value.

In the discussion of this bill, I want the parliamentary assistant to tell us in what specific way this change in the language is going to affect anyone in factual situations that must be available to the ministry. It sounds very much to me as if the lawyers have been asked to prepare a form of words that will camouflage the decision of the government to move in a microscopic way on a matter of basic principle, but no factual information is available.

What situations will be covered if we pass the bill as the government has asked us to that were not covered by the legislation now in place in the province? For example, the government must have a tremendous range of information available to it on the question of comparisons of work and the factors that go into making those comparisons. From those who have been protagonists of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, many instances have been put forward. Some of them are so ludicrous as to make us wonder how they could have escaped the net of the law even under the present legislation.

Others, however, must be within the precise framework of business operations about which the government is knowledgeable and about which it has had complaints on the question of equal pay for work of equal value under the existing law, but has had to turn them down because the language was simply equal pay for equal work instead of equal pay for work of equal value.

5:10 p.m.

This is in committee of the whole House and we have to understand that. We have to get some flexibility in the exchanges that take place. I would like to know what information the parliamentary assistant is going to put before the committee that will indicate the extent and degree of the change he proposes. Without that, I stand convinced that it is microscopic, legalistic and unlikely to affect any significant number of people in any way.

When I spoke in committee very briefly in the course of an exchange I had with the parliamentary assistant following comments made by some of my colleagues on this matter, I tried to get across to him the fundamental problem we have in society of the inequality in pay and benefits for women in the work place as compared to that for men in the work place. Basically, the work of women has always been considered to be essential but subordinate and inferior, whereas the work of men has tended to be described as essential and, therefore, superior.

What the parliamentary assistant refers to as the "attitudinal response" to the problem of inequality in the work place is so fundamental and so ingrained in this society that, in my view, it is essential for the government to embrace the proposition of equality. That is important from my point of view and from my perspective on the bill before us.

We have attempted in the amendment we proposed, which is before the assembly, to say clearly and unequivocally, without any doubt, that the principle is equal pay for work of equal value. Once that principle is established, an obligation is imposed on employer and employee to make the decision on whether the work is of equal value. The mechanism is provided in the amendment before the House for a process to be developed to carry out that equivalence. It seems to me to be quite simple to deal with it in that way.

I ask the parliamentary assistant two basic questions up to this point. First, what change from the factual situations and the knowledge available to the ministry will the wording proposed by the government create in the work place to equalize in some degree the discrepancy between the pay of men and women in the work place? Does he not feel that, rather than using the term "one of a number of weapons in an arsenal," which I believe is a phrase he has used from time to time, we must distinguish very clearly between the principle and the number of weapons in his arsenal to bring the principle into play?

Until the principle is adopted, and this is my second question to the parliamentary assistant, is there not something which appeals to him that says the principle should be enshrined in the legislation and the attitudinal and other changes he refers to as the arsenal should be brought into play against a background of legislative fiat? That point deserves his response.

I suppose the parliamentary assistant noticed, as I noticed a couple of weeks ago in the Toronto Star, an article by Richard Gwyn in his column headed "National Affairs" and entitled "The Real Issues in the Question of Equal Pay." I tried to understand what Richard Gwyn was saying in the context he was referring to of the comments made by Jean Chrétien about the question of equal pay for work of equal value. He also referred to the positions of Brian Mulroney and John Turner on the matter, which had led him to write the column.

The basic number of confusions that could be compressed into one article on this matter has been accomplished by Mr. Gwyn. Rather than referring to it as "The Real Issues in the Question of Equal Pay," this column should have been headed "How to Avoid Ever Bringing Equal Pay into Force as a Principle of the Work Place in the Relations between Men and Women."

He stated: "The other day, Jean Chrétien performed a most unusual political act. He told a group of Toronto Liberal women what they did not want to hear. As his leadership rival John Turner has done, and equally so Progressive Conservative leader Brian Mulroney, Chrétien declared he supported a policy of equal pay for work of equal value and its extension to private companies doing business with Ottawa. But Chrétien, uniquely, then went on to be honest: Doing this would not be easy, he warned, and there was a risk of 'giving the appearance of action without making real change.'"

He then raised the rhetorical question as to whether any one of the three, or at least the other two, had adopted this principle simply because it was a catchy phrase which had some appeal in the present political climate. They did not dare not adopt the view of equal pay for work of equal value but they really did not know what issues were involved.

The fundamental issue is equality and the fundamental problem is discrimination. Yet one will find very little in the article to which I refer that deals with the question of discrimination. The great bulk of the article -- and I am interested to see the parliamentary assistant appears to be reading it -- is devoted to the proposition that there is no discrimination. He uses all sorts of examples to indicate it is not discrimination. If the parliamentary assistant does not agree it is discrimination, then I find it difficult to have a discussion with him in this assembly on that question.

First, Mr. Gwyn said, "It is likely circumstances rather than discrimination." The circumstances he cited are that most women marry, have children and drop out of the work force entirely or part-time. Therefore, when they return to the work force, they are not in the same position to compete as men who have remained in the work force, married or otherwise. If one says most men marry, most men have children, the same as women have children, then one finds the unusual situation that the woman is forced to drop out of the work force but the man is not. Otherwise, they are equivalent.

In collective bargaining negotiations and in some statutory requirements, some of which are in this bill, some real steps have been taken to remove that inequality; to provide for pregnancy leave from work, for continuation of benefits, for protection of seniority and to provide, in many cases, maternity leave on the basis of sharing between men and women. Efforts can be made by way of legislation and by way of collective agreement to reduce that discrimination. To call it a difference in circumstances seems to me to be a complete misunderstanding of the problem.

5:20 p.m.

He then went on to quote a quite unusual study. It is the kind of study that only the Fraser Institute in British Columbia would think had some relevance. "In a 1982 study, the Fraser Institute found the earnings of unmarried women over 30 are 99 per cent of those of unmarried men who similarly have to provide for themselves but for no one else."

I do not quite know what that is supposed to say. I do not know whether that is supposed to say there is no discrimination; that given equality of circumstance but avoiding the term "discrimination", women over 30 are substantially the same in their earning capacity as men over 30 provided the men and women are, in each case, unmarried. Even he found that a little bit difficult to adopt.

He indicated that, in his opinion, "Unmarried women are better educated, work longer hours and are a bit older than comparable men. So their incomes ought to be higher, rather than just equal." He ducked again the question of whether there is discrimination in circumstances such as that. He appeared to indicate, if anything, that the women should be paid more than men.

I do not need to go through the whole of the unacceptable arguments that Mr. Gwyn put forward, because they would give some solace to the government in persisting with the legislation it has put before us.

He had this to say: "Conscious or unconscious discrimination ... may be the least important factor of all." He went on to say that occasionally "it is maliciousness, more often it's sheer thoughtlessness."

Just answer that. If one has an attitude in society based on the proposition that the work of women is essential but subordinate and the work of men is essential but superior, then it is very difficult to break through that attitude and say that when one runs into an instance of essential work being done by a woman and essential work being done by a man it is very difficult to build a bridge between the two examples.

Therefore, one cannot call it discrimination, because it is not discrimination in any real sense of the term. It is either maliciousness, which presumably the law is adequate to deal with, or it is mere thoughtlessness. If it were just drawn to the attention of the people who were thoughtlessly discriminating, they would see the error of their ways and correct their attitude.

I do not presume to understand the thinking of Mr. Gwyn on this issue, nor do I pretend to understand how he reaches the examples which he then gave. He quoted some of the examples with respect to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and some other cases that are pending before the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

He went on to indicate a "perverse result" could follow, "particularly because 'equal value' comparisons can effectively only be made in hierarchical, bureaucratic organizations, governmental or corporate. But such employees are ... already better off than most Canadian workers of either sex."

I emphasize the word "only." He is saying it is beyond the wit of people, except in bureaucratic organizations, either corporate or governmental, to have the kinds of comparisons that we are urging should be throughout the whole of the employment work place world of Ontario.

He comes out very strongly against extending the program to companies doing business with Ottawa, which of course is within the question of the constitutional ambit or authority of the federal government. He hopes that the matter will not be imposed upon private companies that have their own payroll costs and problems and that likely it will be the women who will suffer because of less seniority.

Of course, that has been customary for a long time. As soon as we do something to make women equal with men in terms of conditions of employment, usually the woman in the initial instance ends up penalized by that equality.

That happened in Ontario when we established some equality of working conditions. Immediately, one of the major companies ceased sending its female employees home by taxicab if they worked after 11 p.m., because it was found it would otherwise be treating its employees differently and discriminating one against the other. Fortunately -- if my memory serves me correctly -- we were able to correct that so the female employees of the particular companies could take taxicabs to their homes as they had done over a considerable period.

The parliamentary assistant has the balance of the article. It ends up using the argument that the unemployment rate among women now is lower than among men, and by as much as one quarter among those aged under 24; therefore, the problem of equal pay for work of equal value does not appear to have the same force it once had as an issue of public concern to women in the society.

That article seems to me to run counter to an article which the parliamentary assistant has undoubtedly read. If he has not had an opportunity to read it, he should take a few minutes to read the article by Her Honour Judge Rosalie Silberman Abella, republished in the March 1984 issue of the Law Society Gazette, one of the publications of the Law Society of Upper Canada. It is entitled "The Critical Century: The Rights of Women and Children from 1882-1982."

Her fundamental position is that, apart from the flurry at the turn into this century with respect to the right to vote and the suffragette movement, the position of women between 1882-1982, except for the last 10 years, has been substantially unaltered. She has some very interesting and valuable things to say about the whole of that period of history and women's relation to it.

I would like to very briefly draw to the parliamentary assistant's attention the fundamental contradiction that, for reasons I do not understand, the subordinate position of women in society in the work place has been camouflaged by an equal dissertation about the value of the family as a unit. In some way or other, the women, rather than being in the work place, should be in the family respecting those values of the family within the society. We no longer have to talk about women as individuals entitled to equality in the society but as women within their roles within a family.

5:30p.m.

She has a considerable amount to say about the way in which that particular conception of the place of women in society has affected the world in which we live. She says the equality in her opinion of "social and economic rights could be achieved only by attitudinal revisions" -- which would appeal to the parliamentary assistant; but she then says -- "which in turn required statutory impetus."

She quotes John Stuart Mill, who at that time was a precocious and lonely voice, when he wrote: "The legal subordination of one sex to the other is wrong in itself and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement. It ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side or disability on the other." That is a quotation from John Stuart Mill in his essay The Subjection of Women, which was published in 1869.

She then goes on to refer to changes that have taken place in connection with the law of marriage and the law of property in relation to marriage only within the last few years in Ontario and, indeed, in our part of the world. She has this to say:

"Canada also got explicit jurisprudential recognition of the notion that marriage is an economic and social partnership of equals. With this recognition of equal status in marriage, the possibility now exists that attitudes to and assumptions about women will permit the full development of the right to sexual equality.

"One of the most persuasive barometers for measuring the existence of gender equality is the one proposed by economist Gail Cook; namely, are the whole range of advantages and disadvantages or costs and benefits of particular choices unrelated to one's sex? If so, we have equality of opportunity of choice between sexes. If not, and clearly we do not in Canada, then women are still being discriminated against."

She goes on to illustrate the applicability of this to the Canadian situation. She then refers in a hopeful way to the newly entrenched Charter of Rights.

"With the newly entrenched Charter of Rights, there is infinite opportunity to explore the parameters of equality of rights. Many of the obloquies directed at the charter focus on the history of judicial restraint in the interpretation of rights legislation such as the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights. The more optimistic, however, look to the judiciary to clear the debris of traditional stereotyping by interpreting the charter as broadly as they would any other remedial legislation.

"With the guidance of positive judicial direction and the complementary amendment of discriminatory legislative provisions, at least social behaviour will be forced to change. One can only hope that attitudinal equality will follow. Only then will the inchoate rights of women to equality materialize."

I suppose this is the point at which the parliamentary assistant and I disagree. He says we must have, if anything, only incremental, marginal, microscopic changes in law because we must await the changes in attitude. I commend to the parliamentary assistant the article to which I have just referred, which says simply that the process must be reversed. We have a charter. With complementary legislative changes to end the kind of discrimination that I trust will be in opposition to the charter, it will then be possible to have attitudinal change affect the behaviour of people under the pressure of an adequate legislative framework.

There is no doubt that it was quite a well-known statement by Dean Roscoe Pound at the Harvard Law School when he said, "Of course, people say that you can't legislate morals or standards of behaviour, but in fact we legislate little else."

I commend that to the parliamentary assistant. A clear, ringing declaration of principle enshrined in the statutes of Ontario in this Employment Standards Act would be an indication that this assembly of representatives of people from across the province believes there should be changes in attitude, backed by the law, which will bring about a reversal of the situation of inequality that currently exists.

The history of that inequality is ancient and very long. I do not intend to pretend in a debate such as this either to create the illusion that I understand it or that I have in any way studied the whole of the problem of the relationship of men and women which has led us to the situation of the degree of subordination of women to men in society and all the aspects of it.

I did find one quotation from one of the great thinkers of the 19th century, Charles Fourier, which is an apt way of expressing the philosophical, spiritual, idealistic and moral position behind the question of equality which I commend to the parliamentary assistant. "The change in a historical epoch can always be determined by the progress of women towards freedom, because in the relation of woman to man, of the weak to the strong, the victory of human nature over brutality is most evident. The degree of emancipation of women is the natural measure of general emancipation."

As a test of civilization, that is not a bad way of gauging whether a society is moving rapidly and carefully towards the achievement of equality so that test would stand up as the measure of the degree to which a civilization is improving, advancing and righting some of the wrongs of the past.

There are many other elements we might have an opportunity to come back to, unless this debate were to conclude today.

I thought I would conclude my remarks by referring to the conclusion of Judge Abella's article.

"It has been said that one person's truth is another person's tyranny. In the history of the development of the rights of women," and she was also writing about children, "and children in the past century, a development which in each case was relatively stagnant until 10 years ago, each growing awareness created an adversarial climate while the right claim fought to be entrenched. The development of women's rights were perceived to be at the expense of the rights of men, children's rights at the expense of those of their parents.

"In fact, no rights are jeopardized. Expectations may be bruised but nothing in the way of rights as we legally define them is at risk because of these two powerful social movements. The risk is rather the other way around. By failing to accommodate and synchronize the various legitimate claims to full rights on the part of women and children, we encourage an unproductive competition of claims. What this competition puts at risk by not permitting full membership rights in the community is that society will be less than it could otherwise become. There are few things we should try harder to avoid."

5:40 p.m.

I have spoken in somewhat idealistic terms in my approach to this problem. In practical terms, if one looks at the history of labour legislation in this province from the end of the second war until today, what one basically finds is that when the process of collective bargaining under the labour relations laws of the province -- which were part of a treaty between the working people of the province and the government established in 1943 and 1944 with the enactment of our Labour Relations Act -- when the collective bargaining process had produced results that were of benefit to the economy and the relations in the work place of employers and employees, we usually then found the government took portions of it and enshrined them in the general employment law of the province under the Employment Standards Act in the guise of passing labour legislation.

I trust the government is not doing that with the question of equal pay for work of equal value. I trust the government is not saying: "We are going to leave it to the labour movement to negotiate equal pay for work of equal value. We are going to leave it to the labour movement to negotiate all the ancillary benefits that are necessary in order to approach that kind of equality in the work place, such as day care, participation in pension plans, no penalties for absence from employment because of pregnancy or maternity leave; without any of those causes or reasons." I trust the government is not trying to put the technical changes piecemeal into the employment standards law of Ontario without at the same time embracing the principle involved in it. That principle is one of equality.

I do not know what impact this has on the parliamentary assistant. While he has a great deal of charm, he may have very little clout where it counts, namely, in the counsels of the government. I do not know whether he can pick up the phone tonight and say to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay): "I have on this further occasion listened to the debate in this assembly on this important issue and I think we should reconsider. I think we should withdraw the bill or adopt the amendment."

We do not have any side; we would be happy to withdraw our amendment on the understanding he would introduce as a government amendment one identical to that before the assembly tonight. The goal is much more important than who happens to introduce it.

The parliamentary assistant could say to the minister: "Let us think about this because there is a lot to be said for the principle. Let us say that, yes, we will put in the Employment Standards Act the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. We will not just move forward incrementally."

Of course, on a day such as today I would assume the government would be most receptive to that view. Equality was a very important factor in the statement made today about the educational system in Ontario. I simply embrace that concept of equality. The equality of educational opportunity for children within the school system is one of fundamental importance to where we are going.

I say to the parliamentary assistant in that spirit that the equality of men and women in the work place, let alone their equality in all conditions of human life in the province, is equally important. For those reasons, at least at this juncture in the debate, I would be quite content to let the matter stand and have the parliamentary assistant perhaps simply say he adopts the amendment and the government will support it, or that if we could withdraw the amendment, he would introduce a substantially similar amendment and we could all vote on it and get on with the other business of the assembly.

There may, however, be unanswered questions. Some of my colleagues may want to participate further in the debate on the bill. If that is so, so be it. There may be another occasion on this clause of the bill when I too may participate again on this clause of the bill.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to reply to the honourable member now, or if there are no other speakers I could reply by way of a wrapup.

Mr. Chairman: There is no real wrapup in committee. Are you going to respond to that speaker?

Mr. Gillies: I will respond to this speaker. I have a feeling we are not near a wrapup in committee, practical or otherwise. I would like to spend a few minutes in replying to the member. He has certainly raised a number of issues, both on the specifics of Bill 141 and, as he noted, on some of the questions of philosophy and principle with which we are wrestling.

If I might be allowed a brief editorial comment, and I am not saying this gratuitously, it was nice to listen to the member and see a tone, a degree of thought, return to this debate which I sensed was lacking in many of the contributions on this bill in the last number of days. We are back at long last to talking about the principle of the bill and the amendment as opposed to discussing who was here for which vote, who was more committed to the principle, and the sort of nonsense we were getting into at the last sitting.

I assure the member I have read and considered the column in the Toronto Star written by Mr. Gwyn the other week. Like the member, I find very little in that column to attract me. It avoids some of the major questions of equal pay for equal value legislation which we are addressing.

The crux of Mr. Gwyn's column, as far as I could see, fell at about the fifth paragraph where he says the principal income handicap that hinders women is less their sex than that they get married, have children and drop out of the work force entirely or part-time.

In other words, he speaks only to the practical problems and the situation in which working women often find themselves. As the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) noted, he does not speak to the broader question of discrimination or anything related to the principle of equality for all working people in the labour market.

I am the first to agree with the member that there is much more to this debate than the question of the number of months a woman is out of the work place because of child bearing, etc. I suppose it is impossible to prove -- maybe we never could prove it -- but I would hazard a guess that if one discounts the question of time taken away from the work place because of pregnancy and child bearing, we would still be faced with a gender gap. It is not just a practical situation. There is also a question of principle to be addressed, which the member put into a historical context, as he so often does.

Where we again part company is on the question of the comparison of dissimilar work. As persuasive as the member's arguments were, as they usually are, we in the government are not persuaded of the practicality of the amendment as put forward by his party. I do not consider the changes made in Bill 141 to be microscopic. They are quite significant. I will talk about that in a minute. What we want to do is to bring about amendments to this legislation which are enforceable and which will lead to a practical improvement of the situation of working women.

5:50 p.m.

As the member requested, I can give a couple of examples of how we feel this legislation will improve the situation over the legislation in place now. In order to do that, I would like to bring us back to the original thought behind our amendment to the existing legislation, which is to bring in a composite test that will allow for a broader and a more thorough and honest appraisal of the conditions of work than the "skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions" which are now only singly considered under our existing legislation. There is no provision for an across-the-board look at these conditions.

I guess one example of that, to take a little example of two factories in a related industry, would be to say that men were making large machined metal tubes and in a similar facility nearby women are making small machined metal tubes. Under the existing legislation, it may be argued that for the men making the big tubes, because of the weight of the piece they are manufacturing, the movement of those pieces and so on, the effort involved in making those tubes may be greater.

We may similarly argue that because of the more intricate work involved for the women making the smaller tubes, it requires more skill. Here is a practical example of where the existing legislation could not adjudicate a case for comparing those two types of work. Because we would not be comparing in the composite approach the overall conditions, it would just be a question of the employment standards officer saying, "Certainly the effort is greater in this case and the skill is greater in this case, but there is no comparison we can make individually among the four criteria that we use."

Under our legislation in Bill 141, the employment standards officers will be able to do that. I feel, and my hope, especially with the added complement that we are making to the employment standards branch, is that in many cases across the province they will be making judgements of that sort and making very reasonable arguments in many cases for adjusting the wages of the people who are being aggrieved.

If the member would allow me, I might just cite another example, one that the ministry has run up against. Here is a practical example of where we might be able to go further with Bill 141.

If we look at the operation of a sewing machine concern where there is a lot of sewing of fabric going on, most of the operators of those machines would be women. Those holding the position of "sewing machine operator, finishing and trim" do fine sewing work, are all female and receive a lesser rate of pay than those who hold the position of "sewing machine operator, initial seam," who do a heavier type of sewing work and most of whom in this particular case are male. Based on the fact that both jobs require operation of sewing machines, the employment standards investigator makes an initial determination that the jobs are substantially the same.

Turning to the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations criteria, the investigator finds there is not a separate classification for the two jobs, which confirms that the initial assessment was correct. Accordingly, the investigation proceeds to the comparison of the job factors.

Under the current legislation, the equal pay rule does not apply unless the jobs being compared involve substantially the same skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions. Because initial seam sewing requires greater effort, the equal pay requirement does not apply.

However, under the composite approach those jobs would be compared in a composite sense across the board rather than being ranked just on the individual and different factors. Although the initial seam sewing would rank higher on one factor, for instance, physical demand, the finishing and trim work would be ranked higher in terms of skill or the complexity of the work. Based on an overall comparison of those two jobs, our employment standards officers would now be able to make a meaningful comparison of the two jobs, and I would think in that case render a judgement that would be positive for the female employees who were being underpaid.

In terms of the overall philosophy of what we are doing, again I want to assure the member -- and I am sure the Minister of Labour has said this during the course of second reading debate or in committee -- that part of what we are about with Bill 141 is definitely to address the question of discrimination.

We do not agree with any columnist who says the situation we are addressing has come about because of practical considerations, because of time and circumstances. We believe a question of principle and of discrimination has to be addressed here. We do not accept or condone any suggestion that the work of women in the work place in this province is in any way subordinate, however essential, to the work of men. We do not accept that.

Based on the best advice available to the ministry, especially the work done for us by Professor Gunderson, we believe the steps we are taking can close the unacceptable gender gap in pay by about five per cent. In the work he did on behalf of the ministry, Professor Gunderson said, and I am quoting from the committee Hansard when the minister was speaking to this:

"During our ongoing consultation with Professor Gunderson, he stated the maximum feasible impact of the composite approach would be to raise female wages relative to male wages by about five percentage points, with the actual figure probably being smaller. In other words, a gap of 63 per cent would be closed to 68 per cent at maximum." The minister went on to point out that is not in the Gunderson report, but is in the discussion reports that went between him and the minister.

The minister continued: "On equal value, in his paper on the wage gap, Professor Gunderson concluded that while the potential of equal pay for work of equal value is clearly broader than current equal pay legislation, it would also have its own associated problems and, 'it cannot hope to completely close the discriminatory gap.' In other words, at no point did he say two percentage points." That was a wrong impression that came up in the committee.

I have to say again we believe we are attacking the practical problem and the problem of principle with what we are about. I know the member for Riverdale was in France and perhaps has not seen all the Hansard discussion in the last couple of weeks. I would urge the member to review some of the arguments being made for equal value by some members of the opposition. I do not say this to be partisan or smart. One thing that became very apparent to me during the debate is that so many of the arguments being made in favour of his party's amendment did not really speak to the question of equal value; they were on the question of equal pay.

On a number of occasions, members talked about the historical development of equality, in the teaching profession, for instance. Somebody said, and this has come up on a few occasions, "We do not pay female MPPs or ministers less than we pay male MPPs or ministers." Granted, and there is no argument on the justice of that; but to me that does not speak to equal value. Obviously, when we are talking about all the people in the teaching profession or all the members of the Legislature, we are talking about similar work.

Mr. Nixon: There are other forms of sexism.

Mr. Gillies: Yes, but we are talking in those two cases about areas where we feel a meaningful comparison can be made. There is no disagreement on that whatsoever.

I have said before, and at the risk of being repetitious I will say again -- I am sure members will bear with me because it has been a lengthy debate -- we do feel our approach is different, but we also feel it can be as effective as the one being proposed in the third party's amendment. We have to look at the experience in other jurisdictions. My belief is that our amendments, through Bill 141, with the correct degree of enforcement we propose to put behind them, can go a long way to closing the gender gap and ending discrimination in the work place in the province.

We do have some concerns, as the minister and the Minister responsible for Women's Issues (Mr. Welch) have said, about the implementation and the practicality of what is being proposed in the amendment. There is no problem on this side of the House with the principle of equality in the work force and we will continue to work towards that principle.

I have an eye to the clock and wonder if this might be an appropriate place to break.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Eaton, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

12 juin 1984