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

October 11, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L080 - Thu 11 Oct 1979 / Jeu 11 oct 1979

HANSARD REPORTERS

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

GENERAL MOTORS EXPANSION

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHER-BOARD DISPUTES

PROVINCIAL CONTROL OF RESOURCES

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

GAS AND OIL SUPPLIES

ASSAULT CASE

CAS FUNDING

PROPOSED JUDICIAL DISTRICT FOR REGION OF YORK

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

INTEREST RATES

FANSHAWE COLLEGE

REPORTS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BALLOT

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO BIBLE COLLEGE AND ONTARIO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ACT

DINORWIC METIS CORPORATION ACT

SMITH BROTHERS JEWELLERS LIMITED ACT

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

CITY OF CORNWALL ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

TABLING OF ANSWERS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

INTEREST PAYMENTS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

INTEREST RATES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HANSARD REPORTERS

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the face-lifting changes which have taken place in the chamber. I won’t go so far as to suggest to the House that this place is not properly constituted, but I think members should notice the absence of the Hansard reporters from the floor of the chamber today.

As I understand the situation, shorthand writers have been present since 1943. Although the new electronic system is apparently quite adequate it does not have the charm and good nature of the writers who have been present over the past number of years.

I didn’t think the occasion should pass without members noting the change.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I am tabling a copy of order in council 2493-79 which indicates that the Board of Internal Economy of this House is, effective September 11, 1979, composed of the following members, including Mr. Speaker: the Honourable Thomas Leonard Wells; the Honourable George Raymond McCague; the Honourable Douglas Wiseman; the Honourable Milton Edward Charles Gregory; Mr. Robert Fletcher Nixon and Mr. Elie Walter Martel.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

GENERAL MOTORS EXPANSION

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the Legislature that General Motors of Canada Limited announced this morning its plans to undertake a $2 billion expenditure program during 1979 and the ensuing three years.

A substantial portion of the investment will be allocated to present operations in Windsor, St. Catharines and Oshawa and will permit the company to develop and produce engines and parts for the new, lighter, more energy-efficient automobiles.

General Motors’ Windsor plant currently manufactures transmissions for conventional, rear-wheel drive vehicles. The Windsor operation will be modified to produce transmissions for the new front-wheel drive cars and production capacity will be doubled, from 2,000 to 4,000 transmissions per day.

GM’s St. Catharines operation currently manufactures engines, axles and a variety of automobile components. One of the plant’s V-8 engine lines will be converted to the production of lighter, fuel-efficient V-6 engines.

Both the engine and transmission projects are expected to be onstream for the 1982 model year.

These two projects will result in the creation of approximately 2,600 new jobs in Windsor and 700 new jobs in St. Catharines between now and 1982. They will be stable, secure jobs, reflecting General Motors’ determination to respond to the demand for new and modem vehicles. The balance of General Motors’ $2 billion investment program will be directed to the upgrading and expansion of operations in other plants, such as a new paint facility in Oshawa.

In addition to the 3,300 new jobs which will be created by this investment, several thousand supplemental jobs will be created in supply and support industries. It is anticipated that there will be an annual favourable impact on Canada’s automotive trade balance of approximately $350 million.

Mr. Speaker, General Motors of Canada Limited has had extensive discussions with my ministry concerning their major capital programs in Windsor and St. Catharines. I believe the decision to proceed with these investments in Ontario underlines the confidence of General Motors’ management in both the economic environment of this province and the future of the automotive industry in Canada.

[Later (5: 47):]

Mr. Cooke: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: this afternoon the Minister of Industry and Tourism made a statement to the House regarding the expansion of General Motors in Ontario. He indicated there would be 2,600 new jobs created in the city of Windsor. I would like to point out to the House that from reading the statement General Motors made today at a press conference it is clear that what we are talking about is not 2,600 new jobs in Windsor. The 2,600 jobs included jobs made in a statement by GM two years ago.

Mr. J. Reed: Here we go again.

Mr. Cooke: The plant construction for that particular facility is well under way.

Mr. Rotenberg: What’s your point of privilege?

Mr. Cooke: We are actually talking about 1,100 new jobs, of which I am very appreciative. Not only are we talking about 1,100 new jobs, we are talking about 1,100 individuals who will also be laid off from December 1980 to March 1981 while the retooling takes place.

Mr. Rotenberg: What’s your point of privilege?

Mr. Cooke: The minister’s statement was very inaccurate and not the type of statement that should be made in this House.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, may I say that we attempted faithfully to relay the information that was given us by General Motors, and we had worked with General Motors on these projects for some time.

I believe it was made quite clear in General Motors’ documents and ours that these did include works under way. The statements both said, I believe, that this will bring --

Mr. Warner: You’ll repeat anything they tell you.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- to something like $2 billion the amounts of investment, including those currently under way. They gave the grand total of jobs that all of the new works included. I believe if you will look at the statements carefully you will find that they are entirely accurate. The emphasis again is on the great job we have done, not only today but in past years, to add employment to the great community of Windsor.

[Reverting (2: 08)]

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHER-BOARD DISPUTES

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Now that the Ministry of Education has apparently completed its internal review of Bill 100, what is the Premier’s position and his government’s position on the right of teachers to strike and of school boards to lock out? Will the Premier be tabling in the Legislature the government’s internal review of Bill 100? What is the government’s position? It’s not enough to tell us what he thinks of mine. What’s his position?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m always in a bit of a quandary as to how to answer some of the --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: At least unlike your leader, I do acknowledge my limitations.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m going to get around to an historic speech from Peterborough by the former Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: This has nothing to do with the original question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, the former Leader of the Opposition was the first one in this House to suggest that the way to deal with the rather complicated school-board-teacher relationship a few years ago --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- was to give teachers the right to strike. It was a very historic speech made by the former Leader of the Opposition, the same way he suggested county school boards, regional government and many other things, as I recall.

Mr. Speaker, I read a press release from the Leader of the Opposition -- and I really can’t answer the questions without commenting on what he asked me not to comment on, because that would not be realistic -- where he has apparently changed his point of view on this very sensitive issue, as so many do. It is his right to do so. I have no quarrel with that at all, except that to see some measure of consistency from across the House on some issue, at least, would be encouraging.

The government made it quite clear, through the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), that it was concerned about the application of Bill 100, although if one looks at the statistics, if one recalls the situation prior to the introduction, passage and support of Bill 100 by members opposite, one will recall the number of confrontations that were taking place with no reasonable way as to their solution.

The minister made it quite clear that she wanted an internal assessment and without the sort of precipitate action that the Leader of the Opposition. would suggest; that there be a public opportunity for the school board of this province, for the teachers of this province, for people who are affected by this legislation, to review in a public sense what should be done.

Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I do not have instant solutions to a particular problem. In a matter of this complexity and sensitivity, the position being suggested by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to compulsory arbitration based on final-offer selection, is not a realistic approach, because some of the matters in dispute, such as ratio and job security, could never be resolved in real terms by final-offer selection, as I am sure some of his more enlightened colleagues would understand.

The position of the government, very simply, is that we do intend to have a public discussion with respect to Bill 100.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: I assume that when the Premier speaks of consistency he is recalling the comments made in 1973 by his then Minister of Education, the present government House leader, who said:

“I feel that it would be morally wrong to allow our young people to be victimized by school shutdowns, with resultant disruption in the educational process just because a school board and its teachers cannot reach agreement on a contract.” That’s the kind of consistency, I suppose, the Premier is looking for when, in fact, the then Minister of Education made that statement at the time. I assume he was thinking of that.

Does the Premier intend to introduce amendments to Bill 100 this fall, or is he instead going to try to study this question to death, as every other thorny question is dealt with in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: This government has studied a number of important and sensitive issues. This government, through that approach, has developed policies that are consistent with the wishes and expectations of the people of this province.

The Leader of the Opposition talks about “every thorny issue.” I would only suggest to him that perhaps he should identify some of those thorny issues. He should recognize that the policy of this government in the economic field has led to a lower rate of employment --

Mr. S. Smith: The Premier is right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- a lower rate of unemployment than has been the case in many years. It has led to an educational system that is superior to most other jurisdictions, to a health system that is one of the best anywhere in North America, and to a quality of life, as the former Leader of the Opposition plays his violin, that really is the envy of many other jurisdictions.

So, yes, we will study difficult issues. We do not pretend to have instant answers, as the Leader of the Opposition has on so many occasions just to change those instant answers to different ones six months later.

Mr. Conway: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: I am interested to hear from the Premier or, if he is not able to answer, from the Minister of Education, as to what exactly is the present status of the internal review offered and spoken of by the Minister of Education some 15 months ago with respect to questions that I raised in connection with the Renfrew county school dispute. Can the Premier be specific in directing our attention to where it is that this internal review stands at present, when it will come forward and when it might be tabled, if indeed we can expect it before the millennium?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I expect the honourable member opposite will be around for the millennium, whenever that takes place.

Mr. S. Smith: He will -- on the other side of the House.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, if he is still looking with covetous eyes across the House, that he should really put on a pair of dark glasses, because that ain’t going to happen. If the gentlemen on his left were there, I would not be quite as sure.

I would say to the member for Renfrew North that my recollection is that the minister made some observation in April. I could be wrong on the exact month. I’m not sure about the 18-month period, but I think it was some time in April.

[2:15]

Hon. Miss Stephenson: April of this year.

Hon. Mr. Davis: April 1979. My mathematics indicate to me that is still less than 12 months, which, for the honourable member, is about 50 per cent right.

Laughter.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, as a batting average, that’s not bad.

Mr. Conway: What is it? We want to know.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the question should properly be directed to the Minister of Education.

Mr. Bolan: Give it to Attila the Hun.

Hon. Mr. Davis: My understanding is the internal review is in fact completed, but I am sure the honourable minister would be --

Mr. Breithaupt: How are things at your riding office?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is the member interrupting? I’m sure the honourable minister would be delighted to answer the question.

Mr. Conway: I would so redirect, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Martel: Is that the Premier’s tough image coming now?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Ontario is indeed correct. The internal review of Bill 100 has now been completed. Within the next very short period of time, we will announce the structure and the terms of reference of the external review process --

Mr. T. P. Reid: External?

Mr. Breithaupt: Like peeling an onion.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- which will take into consideration the recommendations of the internal review --

Mr. S. Smith: That’s not going to help.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- and which will hear the presentations of teachers, school trustees, parents, and all of those with a direct interest in the effects of Bill 100 upon the school system and the children of the province of Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: A final supplementary of the Premier: Since the dispute in Peel could, in fact, result in a lengthy strike that could ultimately end in arbitration, as so many other disputes do end, why will the Premier not introduce legislation very shortly to get teachers back into the schools, which is what they want? They want arbitration.

Why does he not get them back into the schools, give them the arbitration and get the children taken care of again?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know the Leader of the Opposition is really fully informed as to the outstanding issues in the great region of Peel and, as a result of his depth of knowledge, he will understand it isn’t quite as simple as having it go to arbitration. While some of the monetary matters are still being discussed, as I understand it, there are two or three issues that do not normally fall within the purview of arbitration, one being the question of security.

I would think the Leader of the Opposition, if he were to reflect, might understand that rather difficult problem and perhaps he might reconsider his intention, which, as I understand his press release, is to introduce his own bill some time tomorrow.

PROVINCIAL CONTROL OF RESOURCES

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Premier: Does the Premier agree with the decision of the Prime Minister of Canada to give the coastal provinces control over offshore oil and mineral resources? Is it something he has discussed with the Prime Minister, either before the election of the current Prime Minister or since then? Does he not feel Canadian interests would dictate that Ontario strongly recommend against giving the control of offshore resources to the coastal provinces?

Mr. S. Smith: What’s your position?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me finish. I know it’s hard for the Leader of the Opposition to tolerate somebody else speaking, but I will try to give him as good an answer as I can.

Mr. S. Smith: I’m so anxious to hear the Premier’s views.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m sorry. Does he have a supplementary?

Mr. S. Smith: I’d like an answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m trying to give him one. I’m trying very hard.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Try harder.

Mr. Roy: Are the Argonauts not doing too well?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I always try harder. Never mind the Argonauts, that’s a sensitive subject. Don’t introduce it; it will provoke me.

As I recall, during the meetings that led up to the last first ministers’ meeting under the leadership of the former Prime Minister, there was a fair measure of consensus relative to the resource field, which included offshore resources as well as those geographically situate within a province.

That has been the general posture of the government and it is one that is consistent with the discussions that have been going on for some four or five years.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since I did not hear in that response an answer to the question, may I phrase it slightly differently? Is the Premier in favour of or against the idea of the federal government unilaterally giving up 100 per cent federal control over the offshore resources and giving that control to the coastal provinces? If by any chance he is not in favour of that move, would he consider a move by Ontario to refer the matter to the courts to find out if the federal government is within its constitutional jurisdiction to give up control of coastal resources?

I think the Leader of the Opposition is not phrasing the question properly because we never have supported, neither do we support now, control in the sense that the federal government has no right to become involved or to intervene, whether in the resource field or some other field that relates to the economic wellbeing of the nation.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary: I understand there is no dispute over the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario over the lands underneath the Great Lakes and that, in fact, the resources there belong to or are attached to Ontario.

Does the Premier have a decision from the people in his government as to the rights of the province of Ontario to those lands underneath James Bay and Hudson Bay? If so, what is that position? Has the Premier approached his kissing cousin in Ottawa and asked that those resources be attached to and for the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want to make it very clear to the honourable member, I don’t have that sort of relationship with the Prime Minister of Canada.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I don’t blame you.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, you don’t?

Mr. Ruston: Not like the former one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I said “that kind of relationship.” The member for St. George should know anyway.

I find the question intriguing because what the member is really saying is that the province of Ontario should, in fact, have control of the resources under James Bay and Hudson Bay, which would put the province of Ontario in the same position Newfoundland is seeking and Nova Scotia is seeking because when one gets down to it there isn’t much difference to the question of whether the water is under James Bay or the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It is water; it is offshore. It is not an internal body of water.

I haven’t that determination, but I’m sure if there is to be some federal policy that gives “control” in the sense that I use the word, then I am sure this would also apply to those areas where Ontario too has potential offshore resources.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Listening to his answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I wonder if the Premier would agree that first of all the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that jurisdiction over offshore resources rested with the federal government?

Second, in view of his answer and the position taken by the government of Ontario and himself as Premier, it is obvious from his answer that he and Joe Clark are not in agreement. Is he going to advise the Prime Minister of Canada about his position and the fact that he differs from the position, at least publicly, he has taken with the provinces -- be it British Columbia or Newfoundland -- and advise them that he as Premier of Ontario does not agree with his policy and the giveaway of the last few weeks?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member, who is also a constitutional expert, perhaps misunderstood what I said to his leader.

Mr. Roy: The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) says it’s got a better record than he has.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t know what kind of record the member is referring to.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If those two members want to go outside and compare records they can be my guest. I have no intention of getting into that debate.

Mr. Speaker: Meanwhile, back to constitutional matters.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, getting back to the question that was asked, I will try to explain it again.

The Prime Minister of this country made an indication to the Premier of Newfoundland in this area of debate that has been going on for many years. It came relatively close to a form of conclusion at the first ministers’ conference, where the question of resources -- both offshore and, shall we say, geographically not offshore -- was a matter of considerable debate.

Mr. Roy: That’s not what Joe has done.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Prime Minister is quite aware of this.

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Premier on the question of health, I want to tell the Premier that the Wellesley Hospital has had to close 180 beds this summer because of the financial constraints of the Ministry of Health. I want to tell him as well, that the --

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: I can ask him: Is he aware that the senior administrators of the hospital reported to the minister six weeks ago that these cuts had imposed intolerable strain on the services of the hospital? If I can quote, they said that “the continuation of the ministry’s present policy will inevitably result in deterioration in the quality of the health services available to the public at the Wellesley Hospital.”

In the height of this kind of sober determination by senior administrators at a hospital like the Wellesley Hospital, is it the government’s intention to continue its policy of hospital and health cuts in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not sure that all of the information suggested by the leader of the New Democratic Party is quite as clear-cut or as simplistic as he presents. The Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) -- who at this very moment is attending to an increased capacity at the East General Hospital -- more beds are being made available by an increased operating grant -- will be here tomorrow morning. I am sure he would be delighted to discuss the particulars of Wellesley Hospital with the honourable member.

I have a particular interest in that hospital. Five of our five were born in that great institution. I would be the last one to see --

Mr. Swart: He’s not asking for details on Wellesley, he wants to know your policy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right, I’ll state our policy very simply.

Mr. Warner: Destruction of the health-care system.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Our policy very simply is to maintain the finest health-care system anywhere in North America and I defy anyone to find any place that’s any better. That’s our policy.

Mr. Makarchuk: It’s known as the vandalization of the health-care system.

[2:30]

Mr. Warner: Premeditated destruction.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, since I have just come back from a couple of weeks travelling across the province and since administrators, health staffs, health-care workers and health councils told us the same story, which is of emergency wards overcrowding --

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question there some place?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, since the stories that we have heard from the Wellesley are similar to what we have heard from across the province, and in view of what the Premier has just said, is he prepared to guarantee to this House there will be no more hospital bed cuts in the province of Ontario until adequate alternative services are available in the community?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have made this statement before; I will repeat it. I give a commitment to the people of this province, not to the leader of the New Democratic Party, that they will continue to have the finest health-care system available anywhere. That is factually the case right now.

Mr. Makarchuk: You are the best thing we have got going for us, Bill.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary to the Premier’s statement about the finest health-care system in the world, has the Premier and his government decided to make a formal presentation as a government to the federal inquiry just struck by the new administration in Ottawa which is going to review the principles of medicare? Has this government taken a position about making such a presentation which would hopefully make it clear that the government of Ontario is not prepared to allow a further erosion in that part of the central policy which has to this point been substantially compromised by a lack of leadership here and elsewhere?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know where the honourable member thinks the erosion is taking place. Perhaps it was with his former friends in Ottawa, I don’t know. I can only say to him this government will be making its views known.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the administrator of the Wellesley Hospital has told us that every day this summer two or three patients would have to be sent to other hospitals because of lack of beds; since emergency patients have had to be located into other hospitals and couldn’t be accepted because of a lack of beds; since elective surgery was being cancelled on occasion because of a lack of beds in that hospital this summer; and since they talk from their professional point of view of intolerable strain on their health services to people in downtown Toronto, is this the kind of health care the Premier of this province considers adequate for Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would never by any stretch of the imagination presume to suggest that the honourable member has really asked that question now three times this afternoon. My answer is, very simply, the same. When it comes to a discussion of a particular hospital, I happen to know the Minister of Health will be delighted to discuss Wellesley in specific terms.

I also would reiterate what I said for the third time this afternoon. The policy of this government remains consistent: we intend to provide the finest health system possible in this province. It is a system that, with great respect -- I don’t care how many tours the member takes around the province -- he can go anywhere else in North America and will not find a superior health system to what we have in this province.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary of the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Is the Premier aware the health-care services in the city of Windsor are not up to the level they should be? Quadruplets were born in the city of London because services in the city of Windsor were not good enough for that birth to take place there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not really competent to comment on that. However, knowing the city of Windsor somewhat -- not as well as the honourable member -- I would say that on balance Windsor has an excellent health system available to the citizens of that community. Whether or not a hospital is in a position to handle the particular situation, I quite honestly can’t say, but I am sure the Minister of Health would be delighted to give the member some information about it.

GAS AND OIL SUPPLIES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a new question for the Premier relating to supplies of heating oil this coming winter.

In view of the optimistic statements that were given to this House in the spring about the supplies of heating oil over the course of the year, can the Premier now assure the House that there will be adequate supplies of heating oil in Ontario over the course of the winter 1979 and 1980?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I must confess that I enjoy question period more than any hour of the day and I am delighted to answer almost every question, but I really think a question of that nature should be given to the new Minister of Energy, who is handling these responsibilities with such great logic and intelligence.

An hon. member: Duck the issue again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am prepared to give this assurance, but I really think you should ask the Minister of Energy his answer to that question.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the minister’s predecessor said the government would be closely monitoring the situation over the course of the summer, is the minister aware that the North Shore District Roman Catholic Separate School Board has been told by the four multinational oil companies that normally meet the board’s heating oil supplies that they are not tendering this year and that three of those four companies have specifically said they are not in a position to tender because of supply constraints?

Can the minister tell the House what is going on, when major public bodies, such as this school board, are not able to get their supplies from the traditional suppliers?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The honourable member may be able to point to some particular parts of the province wherein the --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would have thought that fair play would have allowed me to at least finish the sentence. Maybe you can be yourself tomorrow, but give the new boy a break today.

An hon. member: The new boy may not be here tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The original question, to which we now have the supplementary, had to do with the overall supply situation, as far as this winter is concerned.

My predecessor, in responding to this earlier -- and I now associate myself with that particular answer -- indicated that the situation would be tight but manageable. I have no reason to believe that there has been any significant change that would prompt any other answer.

In the last day or two it has been brought to my attention by one of my colleagues and now by the leader of the third party that there may be some particular problems where there couldn’t be a complete operation of the tendering system -- that all companies may not tender.

That is saying something different than the fact that there would not be any fuel oil available for heating, and I draw that very nice distinction. He didn’t say there wouldn’t be any; he simply said that some companies may not be able to tender in some parts. That is a much different comment than there being no fuel oil at all available, surely.

Interjections.

Mr. J. Reed: Understanding the American experience, where a four per cent shortfall in supply caused serious disruption in the transportation industry last year; understanding the Ontario energy review which shows the domestic oil supply dropping at an accelerating rate; and understanding, as well, that the Premier has indicated publicly that he doesn’t want petroleum price to be the signal for conservation, would the minister at least complement the Premier’s position by undertaking insurance that there will be adequate petroleum supply in Ontario this winter?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I wouldn’t want to suggest the honourable member is attempting to misunderstand the earlier answer, but surely the responsible position is not really to try to suggest other than what the answer itself quite clearly stated; that we have no reason to believe that we have problems for this coming heating season; that the security of supply is there, and we are doing it on the basis of information which we have from the National Energy Board, and in our own monitoring processes.

I repeat that I am advised at the moment, on the basis of all information that is available and barring some unforeseen international incident, that the supply situation, although it’s tight, is manageable and the people of Ontario have that particular assurance at this time.

Mr. Wildman: Final supplementary: Can the minister explain for us why it is that not only the North Shore board is having trouble but the Espanola public board is switching to natural gas because they can’t get supplies either and why it is that Texaco, Gulf and Shell all said they couldn’t supply because of constraints on supply this winter?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think the honourable member is entitled to some more detailed explanation as to why certain companies may not be submitting tenders in that situation and I will attempt to get that particular explanation from those companies.

ASSAULT CASE

Mr. Stong: I have a question of the Attorney General: Would the minister comment on the report appearing in one of the Toronto dailies yesterday which is attributed to a provincial judge in finding Tom Wardle, a local politician, guilty of common assault? He is reported as having said that he wasn’t going to be any noisier than he had to be about What was -behind the assault, but that if an ordinary citizen was before him he would want to know.

If plea bargaining between the crown counsel and defence counsel played a role in this court procedure is the minister satisfied that in the interest of deterrents, the public’s right to know and the preservation of the integrity of the judicial system, his representative brought all relevant facts to the attention of the presiding judge?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am quite satisfied that crown counsel acted in the best traditions of that office and did bring all relevant facts before the provincial court judge.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: Is the Attorney General also satisfied with the statements of the presiding judge as they appeared in the press?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’m not sure just what statements the member for St. George is referring to. I am not going to comment at large about some unspecified statements which were purportedly reported in the press, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Stong: Supplementary: Is the Attorney General not concerned that should this statement have been made by one of our presiding judicial figures that it would have a very detrimental effect on the judicial system?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Again, I do not know what specific statement has been referred to, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Campbell: Final supplementary: Would the Attorney General, having heard the expression of concern from the official opposition, order a transcript so that he may know as a fact what his honour did say?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would again, Mr. Speaker, invite the members of the opposition to sort of communicate in some more rational form the nature of their concern.

CAS FUNDING

Mr. McClellan: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services on the financial crisis facing our children’s aid societies in this province.

In view of the fact that 10 children’s aid societies, including Hamilton-Wentworth, Niagara Regional Children’s Aid Society and Thunder Bay Children’s Aid Society, have been held at budget increases below five per cent despite the minister’s promises of increases of five per cent on the base and up to 12 per cent for additional initiative money; in view of the fact that the average increase for societies in Ontario is only 6.9 per cent; in view of the fact that contingency plans have already been made by children’s aid societies to lay off as many as 300 child-care workers in this province; and in view of the plain fact that the Algoma Children’s Aid Society has been out of service since July 10, I want to ask the minister, if these constraints continue, how long does he think it will be before we have another Jennifer McGill case, another Kim Anne Popen case, another Tanya Lesard case, another Robert Shepherd case or another Adrienne Paquette case?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could address the latter part of the member’s question first by saying although we are monitoring each of the specific situations to which the member has referred, we have no reason to believe there is any greater risk at the moment than there was prior to the current round of discussions on budget matters.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would point out to the member some of the figures he is referring to -- for example, the reference to layoffs -- require some very careful analysis on his part. They are figures that have been used by some of the agencies.

I would point out we have met with in excess of 15 of the agencies in the last couple of weeks and resolved some of the concerns they had with respect to their projected layoffs. That is somewhat inflated because of the fact some of those societies chose not to respect the guidelines the ministry issued back on February 1 of this year.

Mr. McClellan: Some societies are facing bankruptcy.

Hon. Mr. Norton: As a consequence, if they have waited until the end of the fiscal year or this late in the fiscal year to respond to those guidelines, what they were faced with was --

Mr. McClellan: Some of those societies are facing bankruptcy and the minister knows it.

Mr. Samis: The minister can’t blame it on the societies.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- the necessity that if they had one staff person more than their budget allowed for, and they had only two months in which to recoup that difference, obviously they would have to multiply that by six and lay off six people.

Mr. Warner: Why doesn’t the minister blame it on the children?

Hon. Mr. Norton: We are addressing that and we are altering the cash flow to assist those societies that are in that difficult situation to allow them a longer period in which to respond to the guidelines.

I am hopeful that most of the outstanding differences can be addressed. There are a few situations where societies made decisions prior to the receipt of our guidelines of February 1. I hope to be able to address that situation with those societies and ease some of the difficulty they are facing.

I must say, though, those societies that have chosen to ignore the guidelines issued by the ministry in February and have taken decisions which flew in the face, if you wish, of the reality with which we are living, are going to have to make some difficult choices. We will try to ease those as much as we can, but my sympathy is greater for those which

made certain decisions prior to receipt of the guidelines.

Mr. Wildman: A supplementary to the minister: In view of the fact that the longer the disruption of CAS services continues in Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma the greater is the risk of a serious tragedy occurring, will the minister inform the House how much longer the dispute must continue before he will make available the funds necessary to enable the CAS board to bring about a settlement and begin to fulfil its obligations under the Child Welfare Act which they themselves have indicated to the minister they cannot now fulfil?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me at times that the honourable members opposite will in a given situation take a position that one ought not to be interfering in these processes and at another time will insist that one ought to be interfering.

Mr. McClellan: The minister is interfering by not giving them enough money to do their job. Fund them properly.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I will assure the honourable member it is my information, the best information available through senior staff of my ministry on site, that the children are not at risk as a result of that situation. I must say I am concerned about the strike; I am deeply concerned about the length of time it has lasted; but I also want to make it very clear there are other parties who have responsibilities they must acknowledge in resolving that situation.

I am not going to act precipitately to interfere with the bargaining process.

Mr. McClellan: The minister’s cutbacks have caused the strike.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Those individuals who have embarked upon it must accept the responsibility of having embarked upon it and resolve it. My responsibility is to ensure children are not at risk --

Mr. McClellan: It’s been four months.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- and I will do my level best, I assure this Legislature, to ensure that does not happen. I would dearly love to see that resolved. But I think the suggestion the honourable member makes is in fact jumping in on one side or the other; I don’t know what he envisages me doing.

Mr. McClellan: Fulfilling your responsibility under the act; that’s what.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not going to interfere with that process unless it is clear to me, on the basis of the information I have from my staff, that in fact there are children at risk.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: How does the minister respond to the charges that have come from children’s aid societies in my area that it is their feeling that the minister himself and his panoply of administrative officials have not reduced their own budget by any significant amount and continue with the regionalization of their offices, the whole group of public information officers, and the review of all the policies on an expensive basis, rather than channelling the money where it would do the most good, to the societies themselves, which are on the front line of children’s care?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the honourable member that the conditions under which we got approval for the reorganization of my ministry from management board and cabinet were that there would not be increased expenditures as a result of that. I can assure the member that is what we are doing. We are not spending more money through the reorganization of my ministry. It is a fallacy to say that we are. It’s not so. It may appear that way to some who do not understand fully what is being done or how it is being done. There may at some point be a saving, but there is not a saving at this point. There are no additional expenditures involved in the reorganization.

PROPOSED JUDICIAL DISTRICT FOR REGION OF YORK

Mr. Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Since the courthouse and registry office in Newmarket will be ready to move into early in the new year, in 1980, will he be preparing legislation during this session so that the region of York will be made a separate judicial district?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am of the view that with the opening of the new courthouse there should be a special judicial district in the region of York, and we are preparing legislation with that in mind.

In so far as the registry office is concerned, I think that portion of the question should be directed to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, can I redirect my question?

Mr. Speaker: If the minister chooses to respond.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, with the legislation creating a separate judicial district for the region of York, I will be delighted to put a new registry office in there. I like new registry offices.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education. It pertains to the change of policy in her statement of October 5, 1979.

First of all, does the minister realize she is fast becoming the most reactionary of the bunch over there?

Mr. McClellan: Not fast becoming; she’s been there for a long time.

Mr. Roy: In making a change in policy, why did she not have the guts to tell the people of Ontario and the people of Canada, in terms of the 10,000 students involved in French-language education, in what we call the 35 mixed schools, that what she calls the best of French-language education is out of the question and that assimilation is inevitable?

Why did she reject the approach taken by her predecessors in Education? Why did she reject recommendations from her own ministry and from her Languages of Instruction Commission as to guidelines and as to numbers? Why did she take the approach, as far as Penetanguishene was concerned and the 35 other mixed schools in Ontario, that she was accepting what she called a new policy but one that has been proven in the past not to work and one that her own ministry officials have said in the past does not work?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I hope the honourable member is very much aware that we are not talking about the continuation of mixed schools but about the development of further francophone programs for secondary school students in Ontario specifically directed towards expanding the educational experience in French for francophone students, 10,000 in number, who are at present enrolled in mixed schools.

Nine of those mixed schools are in areas where there is, in addition, a separate francophone secondary school. I would presume many of the students in those situations have made the decision to attend a mixed school on the basis of their freedom of choice to attend either a mixed or francophone school.

Mr. Roy: They have no choice.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In the other 26 schools, there is no choice for the students. That is the direction we are attempting to move in -- to ensure that those students will have the opportunity to achieve their secondary school graduation diplomas, both grade 12 and honour graduation diplomas, totally within the French language. That is the purpose of the action described in the statement which was made. I think I’m probably a good deal less reactionary than the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Breithaupt: Nobody in Ottawa East is reactionary.

Mr. Roy: I’d like to ask the minister why, last week in a press conference, she gave the Hamilton case as an example of a mixed school that was working when apparently she knew that the school was not working well. It is not working well.

Secondly, when she is calling something that is not “mixed education” she is just changing the name of it, but her new policy is to emphasize mixed schools. Her own ministry officials have stated, and I quote: “It was almost a total denial of basic educational needs on a massive scale affecting almost all schools in the sample.”

Why did she change policy, except for that principle, and reverse a position that had been taken by the government and accepted by her predecessors? Why did she take that approach?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I should very much like to see the example of statements from the officials of the Ministry of Education the honourable member is waving in his hand at the moment.

We are not, in fact, promoting assimilation. We are attempting to minimize assimilation in the best possible way at the present time, given the problems of declining enrolment and the increasing capability of school buildings --

Mr. Martel: Minimize?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- already existent to accommodate students in a variety of ways, including separate francophone entities.

I feel very strongly that I have the responsibility as a representative of the taxpayers of the province to ensure that whatever funds are available to me for construction of schools is directed towards those areas in which there are no pupil places.

The specific problem of the francophone students in Penetang is one which is of very real concern to this government and to the Ministry of Education. We have tried to find an appropriate solution which would ensure the enhancement of the educational program for those students within the limitations of the existing structures in that school board area. We are also concerned with the demographic projection that within two or three years the existing secondary school, which comfortably accommodates more than 900 students, will probably have within its walls not more than 650 students both anglophone and francophone.

It is very difficult to justify building new, separate, expensive accommodation when there will be ample accommodation in the very near future.

Mr. Bounsall: The minister has clearly retreated from the policies of her predecessors, the members for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells) and Brampton (Mr. Davis).

With respect to the specific effect of the announcement of not building the distinct school, Ecole Secondaire de la Huronie in Penetang, and the appropriateness of that decision, is the minister not aware that since her announcement the principal of Penetang secondary school has said he can’t see how the program she enunciated can be accommodated within the present school facilities? The superintendent of education has said it is not feasible and the Simcoe board of education at its meeting last night did not accept her proposal as a solution. It felt the $100,000 was clearly inadequate to hire a director and sufficient teachers to run a fully French program in that school.

Why has she retreated? Why has she not continued the policies of her predecessors in constructing this distinct high school and consulted, as she hasn’t for three and a half months, the francophones and the French-language advisory committee in that community?

[3:00]

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, in order to set the record straight --

Mr. Cooke: It will be the first time you’ve done that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- there was a meeting of the Simcoe County Board of Education last night, at which there was a request made of the director of education, who is working diligently at this point with the director of the central region of the Ministry of Education, to examine the implementation of the program. The request from the Simcoe county board last night was for a report on a potential implementation program, which was to be supplied to the board within two weeks. It was not rejected in any way.

An hon. member: It was not accepted.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: A request was made of the Ministry of Education to define more clearly the requirements of staff. I was asked for a ball-park figure at Simcoe and I gave them a ball-park figure. I’m aware it is not accurate.

Mr. Mackenzie: You’re backing down.

Interjections.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: An accurate figure will be developed.

In addition to that, I believe the excellent record of the government of the province of Ontario in providing a French minority language education program is being pursued and upheld vigorously, with our efforts which are directed specifically towards the expansion of French-language educational programs for secondary school students and with the program that has been announced.

We are sensitive to the needs of the francophone community. We are sensitive to their requirements and to their aspirations --

Mr. Cassidy: No, you’re not.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- and we understand those aspirations. The ideal is what is being proposed in Penetanguishene and I should be delighted, as would any other politician, to always be able to say with a very open-handed gesture, “Yes, we will provide whatever it is you need in terms of structure.”

Mr. Warner: You have to close schools.

Mr. Cooke: Put your money where your mouth is.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I cannot say that in all conscience at this time, without knowing precisely how many students we would have in that school and knowing that within a very few years’ time it is obvious the present structures will be more than adequate to house any number of students within the Penetanguishene area.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Have you read the statement?

Mr. Martel: I’ve read the contradictory statements.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In arriving at her decision, what weight did the minister give to the fact that the majority -- not the minority; as a matter of fact, 60 per cent -- of the elementary school students feeding into that secondary school come from French-language elementary schools? In that situation, it’s a majority, not a minority.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We gave a great deal of weight to the information available to us from the census of the school boards and from the demographic projections of that area made by that board and by others. It is quite possible, as I think the honourable member is probably suggesting, that within about three years’ time there will be, in the Penetang secondary school area, approximately 650 students instead of the 900 there at the present time --

An hon. member: Your policies will drive more away.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- of whom probably more than half will be francophone students in a fully francophone course. We gave great weight to that specific figure which has been developed.

Mr. Roy: Change the whole policy.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. In view of the fact the Treasurer and the Premier both spoke out for Ontario’s interests on the price of oil, I’m wondering if the Treasurer is prepared to do the same on the price of money. Would the Treasurer tell us what representations he intends to make, or perhaps has already made, to his federal counterparts in Ottawa to have the latest interest rate increase rescinded?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have grave concerns about the automatic policy of following the American rates.

Mr. Warner: However.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’m delighted to see a committee of the federal House has been set up to study that very matter and give it the airing it deserves. I think one of the things that has to be pointed out is inflation in Canada is a full four per cent less than it is in the United States and, of course, the American moves to some degree have been predicated on their inflation.

Mr. Laughren: To start with, the Treasurer didn’t answer the question, but secondly, has the Treasurer done any projections at all on the impact on the Ontario economy of this latest increase -- specifically, in terms of investment, in terms of housing starts and in jobs, since this is a 89 per cent increase in the interest rate in the last two years?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give you a specific effect of the change in the interest rate. As some of the economic people have said, the borrowing continues to go on, but the real people who, I would say, suffer from it are small businessmen and individuals who are borrowing for their own purposes. We have a very real concern, because that can spin off and cause unemployment and other problems.

FANSHAWE COLLEGE

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on June 19 and again on June 21 the member for London North requested information concerning the settlement between the board of governors of Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology and the former president, Dr. James A. Colvin.

On June 21 a letter was dispatched from me -to the chairman of the board of governors, and I would quote the letter:

“Dear Dr. Siess:

“As a result of questions in the Legislature I would appreciate receiving from the board of governors of Fanshawe College the details of the settlement between the college and Dr. J.A. Colvin.

“Yours truly,” with my signature.

In a letter which was dated September 4, which was received in my office on September 10 and brought to my attention late the following day, the chairman advises me as follows, and I quote the letter:

“Dear Dr. Stephenson:

“Your letter of June 21, 1979, requesting the details of the settlement between the board and Dr. James A. Colvin was received by the board of governors at its August meeting and I have been directed to reply.

“In the settlement of the action commenced against the board by Dr. Colvin, the board paid $70,000 to Dr. Colvin, transferred to him the title and ownership of the car that he had been driving for the past three years, and agreed to continue the group life insurance policy for 15 months.

“While you will, no doubt, do what you think is best with this information, you should be aware that it was the understanding of the parties that it would in fact be confidential.

“Yours sincerely,

“T.F. Siess, Chairman of the Board.”

Mr. Van Horne: I appreciate the answer from the minister but I would ask, in the light of the public funds involved, have you given any direction, or should direction be given, to boards or institutions over which the ministry has some authority, indicating to them that they don’t make secret deals with private funds?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I shall take that into consideration.

[Later (5:45)]

Mr. Van Horne: May I rise on a point of privilege?

I would ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this afternoon I asked a question of the Minister of Education and I would like to correct the record. I would like to redirect the question. It should have been: “I would ask, in the light of the public funds involved, has any direction been given or should direction be given to the boards or institutions over which the ministry has some authority, indicating to them that they don’t make secret deals with public funds.” That is the correction, “with public funds.”

Mr. Speaker: I’m sure our people in Hansard will take note of that.

[Reverting (3:08):]

REPORTS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Lawlor from the select committee on the ombudsman presented the committee’s seventh report.

Mr. Lawlor: In accordance with standing order 30(c), if I may be permitted to make a brief statement on this particular report, I shall then move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, just on a point of order, I might advise I am dissatisfied with the answer of the Minister of Education. I intend to raise the matter at the adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Lawlor has the floor.

Mr. Lawlor: The committee, I am sure, is particularly anxious to thank the members of this House for the confidence you have reposed in this particular committee.

Secondly, we wish to say we trust the House is gratified to learn the work of that committee is substantially cut back, and the sitting dates are not as great. That is because of the new co-operative attitude on the part of all sides, and particularly the cabinet of this province.

On motion by Mr. Lawlor, the debate was adjourned.

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Villeneuve from the standing resources development committee presented the committee’s first report.

On motion by Mr. Villeneuve, the debate was adjourned.

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, just before I move some motions, I would like to do as my friend from Huron-Bruce did in drawing attention to a change in this chamber. I would like also to draw members’ attention and yours, sir -- you may have difficulty noting the change since your back is to it -- but I noticed for the first time since I’ve been sitting in here that the drapes are open.

Mr. Nixon: You’ve seen the light, haven’t you, Tom?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Some people say it’s to let in a little light on the discussions here; others say it’s to let us know there is a real world out there. But I think it’s a move for the better and those who planned it are to be commended.

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that notwithstanding the motion of the House adopted on April 9, 1979, the estimates be referred to the standing resources development committee in the following order.

Reading dispensed with. (See Votes and Proceedings.)

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BALLOT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved resolution 6.

Reading dispensed with. (See Votes and Proceedings.)

Resolution concurred.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the following substitutions be made:

Standing general government committee: Mr. Watson for Mr. Rowe.

Standing resources development committee: Mr. Newman, Durham-York, for Mr. Watson; Mr. Yakabuski for Mr. J. Johnson, and Ms. Gigantes for Mr. Foulds.

Standing administration of justice committee: Mr. Cureatz for Mr. Jones; Mr. Rotenberg for Mr. Kennedy; Mr. Sterling for Mr. McCaffrey; Mr. J. Johnson for Mr. Ramsay; and Mr. Williams for Mr. Turner.

Standing social development committee: Mr. Rowe for Mr. Pope, and Mr. R. F. Johnston, Scarborough West, for Ms. Gigantes.

Motion agreed to.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that when the House adjourns at six o’clock today it stand adjourned until 10 o’clock tomorrow morning.

Motion agreed to.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate my dissatisfaction with an answer received from the Attorney General and submit it in writing to you.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Disgraceful.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO BIBLE COLLEGE AND ONTARIO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ACT

Mr. Kennedy, on behalf of Mr. Williams, moved first reading of Bill Pr 20,

An Act respecting Ontario Bible College and Ontario Theological Seminary.

Motion agreed to.

[3:15]

DINORWIC METIS CORPORATION ACT

Mr. Hennessy moved first reading of Bill Pr17,

An Act to revive the Dinorwic Metis Corporation.

Motion agreed to.

SMITH BROTHERS JEWELLERS LIMITED ACT

Mr. Sterling moved first reading of Bill Pr26,

An Act to revive Smith Brothers Jewellers Limited.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill Pr10,

An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF CORNWALL ACT

Mr. Samis moved first reading of Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting the City of Cornwall.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I wish to table the answers to questions 166, 173, 214, 215, 216, 217, 222, 223, 227, 235 to 237, 242 to 245, 247, 249, 250, 254, 257, 259, 263 to 269, 272 to 274 and 276 standing on the Notice Paper.

[Later (5: 55):]

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions 197, 275, 224 and 251 on the Notice Paper.

[Reverting (3: 20):]

TABLING OF ANSWERS

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: There are a number of questions that the minister has just tabled which under the rules of this House were to be answered within a two-week period and for which the members have all accepted that there were extensions necessary. Could the Speaker give us a ruling on whether it is desirable or in order that ministers of the crown would withhold such answers until the House resumed?

I am told, for example, that many of these answers were available much earlier -- in fact closer to the projected dates given by the ministries -- but were held until the opening of the House. I am perplexed as to the reason for that.

Mr. Speaker: I don’t know that there is any specific mechanism for a minister to table an answer to an inquiry when the House is not in session. If it is the wish of the assembly that answers be tabled with the office of the clerk as they are available, I don’t suppose anyone would have any objection to that.

If there is unanimous consent for that procedure, I see no reason why the House shouldn’t have the authority to do that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think it is well that we consider this matter because certainly there has been a slight difference of opinion.

My friend is quite correct, some of the answers have been ready, but the government has taken the position that they should be tabled in the House and that there was no appropriate way to take them when this House was recessed. For that reason we have kept them and they are now being tabled, and I expect to have some more either today or tomorrow morning.

If the members wish to look at the matter of a vehicle to table answers within the time frame we have talked about and agreed upon, other than when the House is sitting, I think we wouldn’t disagree with that; but perhaps you, sir, and the committee, could make some suggestions on that.

Mr. Speaker: Rather than have it resolved in an informal way, I think perhaps it would be in order to have the member who raised the question, who is also the chairman of the procedural affairs committee, bring in a recommendation to the House. I am sure members would be happy to act on it one way or another.

Mr. Roy: Point of order, briefly: Pursuant to the standing orders, as you know once notice has been given in relation to dissatisfaction on a question, they refer to either a Tuesday or a Thursday evening at 10:30. Considering that this Thursday the House will not be sitting at 10:30, what is the usual procedure?

Mr. Speaker: The following Tuesday.

Mr. Roy: The following Tuesday?

Mr. Speaker: At 10:30.

Mr. Mattel: You have to come back, Albert.

Mr. Roy: I will be back.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Charlton moved second reading of Bill 126,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Mr. Charlton: I very much appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to deal with this matter of an amendment to the Employment Standards Act.

I introduced this bill out of a growing concern on my part, and on the part of a number of my colleagues, that the lot and the problems facing the domestic employees in the province of Ontario have been ignored for far too long by this government and by this House.

We have come a long way in the province of Ontario in providing basic protections for the general public and for working people in this province. We haven’t solved all of the problems, we still have a lot to accomplish; but for the most part, for most people, we have come a long way.

We have, for example, the Labour Relations Act, the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Employment Standards Act. All of these pieces of legislation are reasonably progressive. They have their faults, and we will work at amending them, but they are reasonably progressive and we have provided for most people in our society a level of security, of dignity and of fairness in their day-to-day lives and in their work places which probably is not outdone anywhere in the world.

Strangely, though, for all of the humane traditions that we have developed in this country and this province over the last century, it seems as though we still have to make the case for being humane and for understanding, for providing dignity and security and fairness and protection towards society, to the individuals in our society and to the working people in our society, sector by sector, job category by job category. We still haven’t been able to accept that the minimum standards we have set for the majority should be universal as minimum standards.

Our society in general believes, for example, that the minimum standards, protections and compensations provided in the four pieces of legislation which I mention are there for everyone. Most people in this society believe that everybody is covered already. Unfortunately, that is just not the case.

There are a number of groups who remain without coverage under one or more of those acts and there is one group which is excluded in total or in part from all four of those acts. That group is domestic employees.

Domestics have no coverage under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, so they have absolutely no protection whatsoever against work-related injuries. They have no coverage under the Labour Relations Act, so they have absolutely no right to organize and to bargain more effectively in an effort to better their own lot. They are excluded from coverage under

section 4(8) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, which cuts them off from the access that the rest of us have to protection in the expectation of equal rights in their employment and for protection against discrimination and discriminatory practices in employment.

Domestics are also denied coverage under the Employment Standards Act for hours of work, for minimum wages, for overtime pay, for pay for public holidays and for vacation pay. These are all things which the rest of our society has come to take for granted. Unfortunately, I can’t deal with remedies for all these inadequacies this afternoon, so I have chosen to deal with coverage under the Employment Standards Act as probably that is the one area where domestic employees in this province would gain the most immediate and most substantial benefits.

I hope this process this afternoon can be the first step in providing, ultimately, for domestic employees in this province, some measure of social and economic justice, and that eventually we in this House and we in this province can deal with people in domestic employment as equals in every respect.

A number of arguments will be made this afternoon against the coverage I am proposing. One of the foremost arguments that will be used against the coverage is that if we provide the minimum wage for domestic employees we will, in fact, be helping them to price themselves out of jobs because the employers in the field won’t be able to afford them any more.

I should just point out to the House and to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), who doesn’t appear to be here, that identical arguments were used against the minimum wage itself before its implementation, and the same arguments have been used over and over again every time we debate in this House increasing the minimum wage. I should point out that very few, if any, of the predictions of impending doom have come about. Regardless of all of that and regardless of whether even providing the minimum wage to domestic servants may have small negative effect on employment opportunities in that field, we in this House can’t use that as a rationalization which, in effect, condones exploitation.

Let me speak briefly about the exploitation of domestic employees. I will start by saying that I don’t think anybody here in our caucus believes -- in fact I don’t know of any one who believes -- that every employer of domestic employees is bad and that every employer of domestic employees exploits his servants. That wasn’t the case when we gave coverage under the Employment Standards Act to the other sectors in this society and this economy.

There was no instance where every single employer was bad, exploitive and taking advantage of his employees; that is not the reason we gave coverage under the Employment Standards Act. Coverage was given then and should be given now to domestic servants, in order to root out whatever exploitation does exist and to prevent exploitation in the future.

[3:30]

Based on a 48-hour work week, even when we included the value of room and board for those employees who were live-in employees, the salaries of domestic servants in Toronto in almost every instance fell below the minimum wage. The best example we could find was about six to eight per cent below the minimum wage. It got much worse, ranging up to as much as 76 per cent below the minimum wage, and we all know that the minimum wage is no hell on its own.

As I mentioned, the figures were all based on a 48-hour work week. In the cases we were able to find, for the most

part 48 hours appeared not to be an average work week for domestic servants but a minimum work week, the bottom end. The hours ranged anywhere from 45 to 48 hours right up to 80 hours a week.

The situation in terms of wages and how far those wages are below the present minimum wage is far worse than I cited in the figures I have used. In case after case, we found what we perceive to be very serious exploitation in the areas of wages and hours of work. There are other areas of exploitation as well, but those seem to be the most serious. Without using any names and without causing any problems for some of the individuals who have come to us and laid out their stories, I would like to cite a few examples in terms of conditions.

We had a woman who worked full-time as a domestic. She worked five and a half days a week, 66 hours a week. Her total pay package per month was $400. That included salary, room and board. That works out to about $1.50 per hour. That’s only half our present minimum wage.

Then there was a woman employed as a mother’s helper. She worked full-time for a salary of $250 a month. If you add to that the value of her room and board it comes to $390 a month. She worked 50 hours a week or $1.91 an hour. That’s a little bit better than the first example but still only two thirds of the present minimum wage.

Another mother’s helper paid her own health insurance premiums. She was required to work on statutory holidays without any additional compensation. She worked 60 hours a week. Her salary, plus room and board, was $390 a month. It worked out to $1.63 an hour. On top of the 60 hours which she related to us, which are only the hours when she actually physically worked, she was required on several evenings a week to stay in the home to baby-sit. It may not be physical work, but other people receive pay for that kind of employment. She received no extra benefit for those hours spent babysitting.

In another case, a full-time domestic employee works five and a half days a week; 10 hours a day or 55 hours a week. Including her room and board, in addition to her wages she earns approximately $2.13 per hour. Again, that is a little bit better than the last three examples, but still only slightly more than two thirds of the present minimum wage. The same situation is true for her. She is continually required to work on statutory holidays without any additional compensation. She is required to babysit in evenings in addition to the regular work schedule. She receives no vacation whatsoever and no pay whatsoever for vacation.

Over the last few months we have seen a great deal in the press about this issue. In fact, there have been major articles and a series of articles in the Hamilton Spectator and the Globe and Mail, as well as two major efforts in the Toronto Star, one a series in the regular Star and one in the Star’s Weekend. In each case the reporters have gone out and talked to both employers and employees, and in each case they have found some good employers and some happy employees. However, in each instance the reporters have found far too many cases of exploitation -- exploitation in terms of salaries, hours of work, threats, some sexual harassment and abuse, and in fact some physical abuse.

The lack of coverage for domestics creates another serious problem. It lies in the area of what normally is supposed to happen in the economic sector in the job market when there is a shortage of people to fill jobs in a sector. The normal process in the free-market society in which we are supposed to live is that if there is a shortage of employees it is either because there are not enough trained people or because the wages, benefits and conditions in that sector are just not acceptable. In the case of domestics, although there are some skills involved, it is largely unskilled people who are filling those jobs.

There is at present a massive shortage of domestics compared to the demand for them. We have no sign anywhere of any effective pressure in the marketplace to raise wages, to raise benefits, to improve working conditions or to shorten hours in order to attract people to those jobs. That is not occurring largely because the present structure of the federal immigration Act allows employers who are looking for domestics and who cannot fill the positions with whatever it is they are offering -- because what they are offering is far below the normal minimum standard in our society -- allows them to advertise abroad and to bring in immigrants.

Most of these immigrants are women. There are language problems as well as problems in terms of skills and in terms of their ability to deal with any sector other than the domestic sector. These people are brought into Canada, for the most part, on work permits. They have very few rights while they are in Canada on a work permit.

In addition to all the other economic exploitations I have talked about, we have the exploitation of people who are dealt with in the management-employee relationship in terms of threats -- threats of deportation, threats of being reported to the federal officials. As a result, we have a situation where most of these immigrant women who are employed in domestic positions under these conditions not only have very few rights, but also are afraid to speak out and to enforce what few rights they do have.

We have had situations brought to our attention where people who have been brought into this country to do a job, and the job did not work out, were dismissed and left on the streets without any money, because the money they were being paid did not leave them with anything to leave the job with. They are left on the street, and they are in Canada on a work permit. They have to have a lob to stay in Canada. They have to have a job as a domestic, though. They cannot go out and look for jobs in other industries, because the work permit restricts them. They do not even have the fare to get back to wherever they came from.

We in this House cannot allow these kinds of things to continue. We have a responsibility to domestic employees, as we have to the rest of society.

I would just like to take a few moments to thank some of the people who assisted us in the process that has gone on this year, the process of raising the consciousness; the people from the Labour Rights for Domestic Servants and the people from the Immigrant Women’s Centre, and those people who came forward and told us their stories with some concern and some trepidation. I’d like to commend special thanks to my colleague, the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) who spent considerable time and effort in dealing with these people and their problems.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has two minutes remaining. Does he wish to reserve that time?

Mr. Charlton: No.

Mr. Hennessy: The honourable member for Hamilton Mountain is proposing a couple of amendments to one of the finest pieces of labour legislation on this continent.

I am very proud of this government’s excellent record in promoting the fair and just treatment of all the province’s workers. We should keep the fact in mind, while we consider the two proposed amendments before us today, that this province is unequalled for the range of protection it provides to employees.

The member wants, first of all, to extend the coverage of the Employment Standards Act so these persons will come underneath the heading of domestics or domestic servants should they be covered by more sections of the act than now apply to them.

This is a very broad category of worker. We had better take a careful look at what we mean by the term. It is a term we don’t use much these days and I don’t think there should be any move in this direction.

According to the regulations of the Employment Standards Act, domestics include maids and butlers, as you would expect, although I would think they are a pretty rare species these days. Also included are chauffeurs and cooks, nannies, mothers’ helpers and housekeepers. House couples, in which the female partner performs the duties of the cook and housekeeper and the male acts as chauffeur, butler, and possibly handyman, are also within this category. Also included are laundresses and paid companions for the elderly or the ill.

The term “domestic” or “domestic servant” also includes house clean- erg, chars or cleaning ladies. It also includes gardeners, both full-time and part-time. Even baby-sitters are included in the provisions of this act.

We are examining a proposed amendment which would have the government regulate the minimum wages paid to people in all these areas, as well as their hours of work.

The member is also proposing that coverage under the act with respect to these people should be expanded to include the regulation of overtime pay, granting of time off for public holidays and vacations with pay.

Mr. J. Reed: What’s wrong with that?

Mr. Hennessy: It was precisely the same humanitarian concerns for all the workers in this province that moved the government to include the people we call domestics under the provisions of the Employment Standards Act of 1974, and all domestics employed by a third party, that is those who work for individual households through an agency, are already covered by all sections of the act.

There are approximately 75,000 people employed, directly, both full and part-time, by private households. They are covered by sections which regulate such vital matters as wage protection, equal pay for equal work, pregnancy leave and notice of termination.

Mr. McClellan: What?

Mr. Hennessy: In other words, it is against the law for someone to tell the cleaning lady there is no money in the pot today and would she mind waiting until next week for the pay to which she is justly entitled. That is entirely as it should be. I’m sure we all agree on that.

According to a survey conducted a couple of years ago --

Mr. M. Davidson: If you didn’t have the money in the pot you wouldn’t have the maid.

Mr. Hennessy: -- by the staff of the Ministry of Labour, something like three-quarters of live-in domestics in this province already receive vacation with pay, even though it is not legislated. This may not be the ideal situation --

Mr. Mackenzie: Let them beg, eh?

Mr. Hennessy: -- but the fact is, basically, these people have been fairly well treated and they are protected in vital areas by the act as it stands.

Mr. M. Davidson: That’s not true, Mickey.

Mr. Hennessy: With regard to the entry into Canada by live-in domestics from other countries, that is controlled by Employment and Immigration Canada through the issue of non-immigrant employment visas. Employment and immigration approve the employer offer, which covers salary, hours of work required, duties expected, fringe benefits and so forth.

[3:45]

I would like to say that in Thunder Bay there are a lot of people who work for a living at the paper mills or at Canadian Car. We have to realize they only make so much money a week. If we do raise the salaries, in the case of a man who is to some extent dependent on someone taking care of his wife while he is at work, or of a wife who is dependent on someone taking care of her husband, it would make it very difficult for those people on low incomes. There are many people in that category, and this is why I bring this to the attention of the opposition.

An hon. member: Why don’t you give assistance to those people through another

section of your bill?

Mr. McClellan: That’s so crazy you must have written it yourself.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a difficult time following the logic of the speaker who has just presented the government version of how to shoot down private members’ hour one more time. I am really disappointed with that presentation and I would hope it doesn’t reflect the thinking of all the members opposite.

I personally, and the members of my caucus, as far as I know, are supportive of this bill. I would like to congratulate the member for Hamilton Mountain and suggest at the very beginning that although this bill does not attack all the problems that confront domestics, it certainly is a step in the right direction. For example, I don’t see how anyone could have an objection to seeing the hours of work defined, the minimum wage defined, overtime pay, public holidays and vacation with pay. I don’t see any reason in the world for these items not applying to domestics.

As an aside, I would note that the member for Hamilton Mountain and all of us perhaps have a little difficult time with the term “domestic servant.” There is something that rubs us the wrong way, particularly that word “servant.” On occasion, the members and I slip into calling these people “domestics” or “domestic employees.” Hopefully, some day along the way we can get away from that word “servant,” which I personally find somewhat of an anachronism in 1979.

In our caucus we do have some concern, however. I would point this out to the proposer of the legislation, simply to offer a suggestion that perhaps if this bill ever gets to a committee there be some consideration about standards which were designed basically for industrial situations and perhaps clerical situations, situations really intended to be the concern of the Employment Standards Act 1974. I have some concern about standards designed for those areas applying to the domestic.

However, it seems that if we want to attack this piecemeal, we could say the same thing if we were to amend the Ontario Human Rights Code. It would seem we could make the same piecemeal attack if we wanted to consider these people in some aspects with the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Rather than do that, I perceive that the member for Hamilton Mountain is trying to make his point by proposing this bill and perhaps directing our attention to the broader need beyond it.

Certainly, I don’t see any point in repeating the concerns which have led up to this piece of legislation being brought in front of us. We all have the same concerns. I don’t think the members of the New Democratic Party have cornered the market on the labour force or on those people in society who are being abused in some way, shape or form by the system. Domestics do talk to members of the Liberal caucus and, I’m sure, also to the Progressive Conservative caucus.

We have had some discussion with some of the people who have expressed concern to the members and we are very much in sympathy with them. Again, I don’t have to repeat all the reasons for that.

I would like, however, just to underline one example that has not come out. For the immigrants who have been described by some of the members today, I have particular concern. Before I became a member, I was superintendent with a school board and one of my responsibilities was to chase after truant students. I had considerable concern for those young people who came as children of immigrants into our school system. As soon as they became old enough to work, in the eyes of their parents, which may have been at age 12 or 13, they were plucked out of the school system, before they were legally able to be taken out, and put into many “domestic” working situations.

These young people, particularly the young females -- in my community and in the county of Middlesex, they were by and large Portuguese young females -- suffered considerable abuse at the hands of their so-called employers and were given very little consideration in any way, shape or form in so far as their future was concerned. I really do have a strong feeling that this type of legislation is needed.

Let me conclude by again commending the member for Hamilton Mountain and, secondly, by reiterating my surprise that the members opposite might choose to find fault with this. I would hope we can at least see this bill passed on to committee for some consideration.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill 126 which deals with domestics and proposes that they be given the most elementary protection afforded to workers in Ontario today. That is really all it does. It does not go nearly far enough, but it is a first step.

I am rather amazed at some of the comments I heard from my good friend across the way. I don’t know who prepared all the information in his speech, but it is not accurate. The protection and coverage is not there for domestic workers. It is hard to accept the fact that a province as blessed as Ontario has exempted from minimum coverage one of the most vulnerable and yet hardworking groups of people in our society.

How is it that a group among the most easily exploited, most open to abuse -- as I said earlier, most vulnerable -- is denied the most basic and minimal protection afforded by law in Ontario? This government and all members of this House should hang their heads in shame that we have not ratified or corrected a gross -- and I say “gross” in the truest sense of the word -- mistake and miscarriage of justice in Ontario.

Domestics working in Ontario are mostly women. The record is really not that good in this province on women’s issues. Not only are women in a majority, but in a good percentage of cases they are immigrant women. The language and educational levels cover a broad area and many of them are unsure of themselves and know the meaning of fear.

Some domestics are here on temporary work permits hoping to find a way to eventually become citizens of this country. Others are young people over for a year as nannies, homemakers or housekeepers, in many cases hoping to master the language, to see what this great country of ours is all about and how it works. Some are native-born without office or industrial skills and are trying to make a living as best they can. All, for reasons that are obvious to all but the uninformed or the supreme redneck among us, are vulnerable in Ontario today.

They have no coverage under the labour laws in Ontario. If they are here on work permits they know they can be deported in a hurry if there is a bad report sent in by one of their employers. They sign -- I have it here -- a document when they get their permit, those who are coming across from foreign countries, which says they will get $250, $275 a month, plus room and board, a couple of weeks’ vacation, a few other minimum standards.

The paper is not worth the powder to blow it to hell. It can’t be enforced. They come under the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario and the province doesn’t give protection under the Labour Relations Act because they are specifically excluded not only from employment standards but from all four acts including human rights that may deal with the problem of domestics. It is a shameful situation.

They have no avenue of appeal. Like my colleague, I talked to a number of them and we documented the cases. Some of the case sheets make very interesting reading. I was tempted as I stood up here today to start reading off some of the names I went through of some of the prominent Toronto families that are hiring these people -- the husband a lawyer, the mother a librarian, and so on. However I decided probably it wasn’t the way to approach it.

I’ll give you one example that really threw me: A young German girl came over here, probably not in desperate need for the money but on the understanding that she would work a 45-hour week, that she would get two weeks’ vacation with pay at the end of the year if she filled in the year, and that she had certain other amenities she could look forward to in the home. Right off the bat she worked an awful lot longer than the 45-hour week.

She put up with it, but halfway through the one-year contract she was told she had to handle all the baby-sitting any hour of the night with the very young baby in the house. She objected that she was already working about a 12-hour day. She was told to leave the house that same day, having completed just a day or two short of seven months, without a cent of pay for the two weeks’ vacation she was supposed to get. In some terror, she felt she had done something wrong, was sort of ashamed, and did not want to go back to the agency. Fortunately she had made a Canadian friend who took her in.

She spent four days with her before she could get a Lufthansa flight back to Germany. She has gone back with one hell of an impression of this province, let me tell the House.

Not only do they have no avenue of appeal if the hours are lengthened or the days off are denied, or vacation pay is not provided, but other than through legal action they have no recourse even if they are forced to submit to degrading acts. All of these things have happened. They happen all too often in the case of domestics.

While checking the act I was surprised to see the number of exemptions that have been included in the act. I really hadn’t realized it until I went through it. It might surprise some members of this House to know of the number of calls I receive, particularly from young lawyers and from druggists, who complain because they are excluded. They weren’t working on their own, as used to be the practice in the past. There were a number of other categories as well, but they were working for IGAs or various chain stores and were also denied the coverage that most of us have under employment standards in Ontario. So the whole act desperately needs an overhaul.

But my concern basically today is the domestics. We have put them in the position where they are the closest things to slaves we have had since slavery in this country. Surely no member of this House can justify, on any grounds, the continued denial of the most elementary and basic coverage. Any member of this House and any employer who argues that such minimal coverage should be denied because it would cause a loss of jobs or because they treat their employees with decency, or because they are sure those employed as domestics enjoy the job and are quite satisfied, is in my opinion nothing short of contemptible.

No human being should be denied the simple protection afforded almost every other worker in the province so that some individuals, almost always of financial means far beyond that of the domestic, can profit by what amounts to nothing short of exploitation.

This is not a matter of philosophy and it’s not a matter of any basic political position, and it’s not a matter of great cost to this government. It is a matter of simple human decency and certainly a matter of the most elementary justice.

[4:00]

I am asking as seriously as I can for all members of this House to support this bill. I think it would be a disgrace to do otherwise. I beg the government and the Minister of Labour to have the decency to see that his colleagues don’t block the bill, and to initiate action that assists in the organizing and informing of domestics of the rights that they will have if they are included under employment standards, and that’s not giving them a heck of a lot. I ask this House to proceed with haste to rectify an error that has gone on for far too long in justice in Ontario.

Ms. Bryden: Where is the Minister of Labour?

Mr. M. Davidson: Here is the other half of the blocking team.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns of my colleagues for the fair and just treatment of employees in all sectors in this province. I also share the convention expressed by my colleague from Fort William that this government has a very fine record in the development of standards to protect employees.

No doubt we have not yet reached Utopia but I do not think that we have to react every time the members across the way accuse us of encouraging exploitation of casual labour and the broad range of people encompassed by the term “domestic servant.”

Mr. M. Davidson: Don’t be so mush-headed.

Mr. Ramsay: The problems facing domestics are currently under review in the Ministry of Labour. As has been pointed out, the regulations under which the Employment Standards Act is applied already cover all such employees in those areas where it has been judged feasible to extend protection.

As my colleague has pointed out, these include the sections of the act relating to equal pay --

Mr. Foulds: Who made the judgement?

Mr. Ramsay: -- for equal work, notice of termination, wage protection and pregnancy leave. These protections represent a very enlightened and fair situation for a large segment of our work force, if you compare other jurisdictions and consider what is really feasible in a situation where you have approximately 275,000 employers with an average of one employee each.

I am convinced that adopting this proposal would create a very difficult situation for large numbers of people. It would mean that many households would no longer be able to afford to hire people to help with the cleaning, the gardening and looking after the elderly and the infirm. Many people would not even be able to afford baby-sitters.

That’s fine, you may say. If they can’t pay them a fair wage, then they shouldn’t try to hire them. I am afraid I couldn’t disagree more. We are not talking about a situation where we see the shameful exploitation of large groups of unskilled workers. We are dealing with the myriad of close and often personal relationships which provide employment and means of earning a living for many thousands of people in a very satisfying way.

I am afraid that the effect of this bill would be to destroy many of those relationships. It would curtail many employment opportunities and throw many families into very difficult situations. Depending on the willingness and ability of employers to absorb additional costs, many domestics would lose their jobs or have their hours of work reduced if coverage as proposed in the bill was introduced. Where hours are cut back, the weekly earnings of some domestics might be reduced, if the higher rate of pay does not compensate for fewer hours.

Fewer new job opportunities would be available as employers seek alternative solutions instead of seeking a domestic. I can foresee an increase in demand on our chronic care facilities coming out of this proposal as well. That would certainly be an unsatisfactory situation for many families who wish to keep their loved ones with them and it would mean an additional burden on the taxpayers of this province.

Covering domestics under the hours of work provisions of the act gives them the right to refuse work beyond eight hours per day and 48 hours per week.

Mr. Foulds: The almighty buck comes first, does it?

Mr. Ramsay: This raises safety concerns, for example, in situations where the domestic has the sole care and responsibility for a child, the aged or the infirm.

I submit that it’s unrealistic to require households to maintain accurate payroll records, particularly where working time cannot be defined precisely. Hence, application of hourly based employment standards, such as minimum wage, overtime pay and premium pay for hours worked on public holidays, becomes a serious problem.

Mr. M. Davidson: Why don’t you reconstruct the work?

Mr. Ramsay: This is particularly true for live-in domestics whose place of residence and employment is the same. That includes some 20,000 people in Ontario. The proposal would give rise to other problems as well, I believe. Investigation and enforcement by the employment standards branch would be difficult, because of the hours identification problem.

It would also be made difficult, if not impossible, as disputes between employers and employees tend to be full of emotion, but there is often little concrete evidence on either side. There would be problems gaining access to the employer and his or her home.

The problems facing some domestics are recognized by the government, and the matter is under continuous and careful -review by the ministry.

Mr. M. Davidson: Yes, for 35 years.

Mr. Ramsay: Such persons are already well protected in key areas.

Mr. Mackenzie: At 75 or 80 cents an hour in some of the cases.

Mr. Ramsay: The member for Hamilton Mountain is also proposing that we change the Employment Standards Act as it covers notice of termination required. I suppose he feels this would be a small but significant step towards increasing the fairness with which employees are treated in Ontario. I am afraid he is proposing, probably without realizing it, a piecemeal approach to a fairly complex problem.

The Employment Standards Act is a piece of legislation that covers a carefully designed, comprehensive range of protection to employees. It is still one of the best such measures in Canada.

The proposal on termination in Bill 126 only covers one aspect of the multi-faceted provision regarding termination in the act.

Mr. Foulds: That is just copping out.

Mr. M. Davidson: If we have to do it one at a time, that is more than what you are doing at all.

Mr. Ramsay: Termination notice provisions are not part of the government’s approach to the handling of layoffs. A review of the broader issue of layoffs is now under way, I understand, and I am informed by officials of the Ministry of Labour that this should be completed shortly.

While there are rough estimates on the number of people laid off in a year, there are no figures indicating how many of those people would not already be protected under

section 40(1)a of the Employment Standards Act, or under the provisions of the act covering those who have been part of a mass layoff. There is no means for collecting detailed data on layoffs, so while we cannot be specific, numerically speaking, I am confident that termination notice is essentially not an area of concern among employees in this province.

Causes for termination of employment are much more serious, and by increasing costs this proposed amendment to the act could have just that negative effect. The proposal could cause problems for small businesses which cannot forecast work stoppages two weeks ahead, because of their sensitivity to competitive conditions, loss of contracts and that sort of consideration.

Also, this amendment would undoubtedly cause some difficulty, including disruption of production to businesses which have higher turnover of short-term employees.

Mr. Foulds: Give us an example.

Mr. Ramsay: These include such areas as the accommodation and food services, logging and the mining industry.

I am afraid that this amendment, though well intended, is unreasonable.

Mr. Mackenzie: We have seen rednecks at their worst.

Mr. Makarchuk: The dinosaurs are still alive.

Mr. McGuigan: I rise to support the bill of the member for Hamilton Mountain, and to congratulate him on the work that he has done and the intent and the effort of his bill.

I rise on behalf of my empathy and sympathy with people in bad work situations. I also rise in memory of a lady who spent her life with my family as a domestic.

My mother’s mother having died at childbirth, this lady was called in to look after my mother. When my mother married, just prior to the great depression, and the family broke up, there was no spot for this lady, so she came to live with our family. She was a partial mother or second mother to me.

I remember the devotion, love and the care we received from that lady and also that my mother had received, and her brothers and sisters. She has an honoured place, certainly in our family. I suppose you could say she was exploited, but you must remember that those were the days when we were all exploited by the ravages of the depression of the 1930s.

From that standpoint I give my wholehearted support to this bill. I feel rather sorry for members opposite who have the difficult task of reading these speeches that have been prepared in order to defend a rather untenable position. I know that both members, on a personal basis, are very warm and concerned individuals and I extend my sympathy to them.

Mr. Makarchuk: Don’t be too generous.

Mr. Foulds: The trouble is, they really believe it, underneath that warm, generous exterior.

Mr. McGuigan: I don’t think we need to spend time worrying about all of the points because some of these have been touched on by other speakers, but I would like to mention the fact that in Ontario and, as a matter of fact, in Canada, we have an offshore labour program to help in our agricultural industry. These workers come in under an agreement among the federal government, the provincial government and the country from which they emanate.

They are given very excellent protection by that agreement. The farmer pays for the air flight both ways. He pays either the minimum wage or the going rate in the area, whichever is the higher and in most cases it is a rate higher than the minimum wage. He also provides proper housing and transportation to and from town for personal matters, visiting doctors and so on. These people are protected by, I think, practically all the legislation that we have in Ontario and in Canada.

Yet we have the picture of the females of these same countries coming to Canada and being denied that same protection. I can’t find any justification for it.

I listen to the reasons that are given that it will of course amount to reduced employment. I might say that this is an argument I have heard all my life in the agricultural sector when, as farmers, we tried to organize ourselves into marketing boards. Whenever we approached the processor or the handler of the product we were always told, “that is the end of that product; we will no longer use it, the industry will die.” Of course, we know that didn’t happen because today we have, I think, 25 marketing boards handling some 40-odd commodities and it is a thriving and alive system.

We also have the argument that it is impossible to control and regulate such a system. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we give more protection to our fish in Ontario than we are willing to give to our domestics because the fish and game laws say that you cannot catch a fish, I think it is eight inches, perhaps varying with the different species.

We don’t put a game warden in every boat or on every dock but we put a standard there to tell the fisherman that it is unsportsmanlike, it is unlawful to take and keep fish which fall below that standard.

So, I would make the analogy that when we set some minimum standards for domestic servants we say to a lot of good people who hire these persons, “This is what we expect of you. This is what society expects of you. We are not going to put a policeman in every kitchen, in every garage, in every upstairs, every downstairs; but this is the law and we expect you to obey it.” We give this as a protection for those people to fall back upon if some unthinking or unwilling employers choose to ignore it.

[4:15]

I’m not so sure that the proposed amendments to the act are perfect in every way, that they address all of the problems that pertain to domestic help. One that comes to mind would be the question of averaging the hours of work during the day, especially in the case of a live-in employee who might be given time off during the afternoon and be expected to compensate with some time in the evening, I think there is room for some consideration for the special nature of the work, at the same time giving adequate protection to those involved, so the worst fears of members opposite -- that is, that it will result in less employment -- will not be realized.

Mr. Mackenzie: It’s not even worth discussing, the argument is so phony.

Mr. McGuigan: The member is not referring to my argument, is he?

Mr. McClellan: No, no -- the Tory argument.

Mr. McGuigan: That’s what I thought he meant; he just interrupted my train of thought.

Mr. Mackenzie: I just wanted to underline the obvious, that’s all.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, these are old arguments; we’ve heard them before. We believe the time has now come, either through this vehicle or through one very similar, to address this problem of the perhaps 70,000 people who are estimated to be domestic employees in Ontario and who have very little, if any, protection.

I would like to add the weight of all my moral suasion and whatever few words I have been able to say here this afternoon to persuade government members to reconsider their position and support this bill.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, I know members would be interested in my thoughts when I was a very little boy. As a very little boy, up to age two --

Mr. Riddell: Keep it clean.

Mr. Bounsall: -- I was in love with my baby-sitter and named all my stuffed animals and toys after her for the next three- or four-year period. Her name was Eileen, a name very dear to my heart.

I realize that naming my stuffed toys after my baby-sitter did not properly make amends for the low rate of pay she received for babysitting someone like me, and I am whole-heartedly in favour of the bill presented by my colleague.

I haven’t been able to hear all of the debate which took place this afternoon, but I heard some of it. I must say I have never heard from the benches opposite such reactionary phrases as I heard in their arguments as to why they couldn’t support a bill of this type.

In one of the minister’s previous incarnations as Minister of Labour, he will recall that in the estimates I was always concerned about the exclusion of domestics from the Employment Standards Act and the Labour Relations Act.

We had discussions about the rationale of this, some of them not too lengthy, but I think both of us felt one could dig up arguments on both sides. But I felt this exclusion was a carryover from some bygone age and had no relevance to legislation of today in this province.

Speaking of the Labour Relations Act, I don’t know who on earth would be interested in organizing domestics. They would be a very difficult group to get together as they are in scattered locations, et cetera. But they should have the basic civil right to be organized should a group of them decide to do so, or should a union decide their situation was so bad that, despite the difficulties, it should organize them.

The same thing applies even more so to these minimum standards we find in the Employment Standards Act. These are minimum standards, most of which are extended by most employers and certainly by employers who are organized.

What we are saying is we should at least give domestics in the province what are very minimal standards. They should have that right. Their required hours of work should be a reasonable number per week; if they are required to work beyond that, like anybody else in the province of Ontario, they should get time and a half for the additional hours worked.

This is a very discriminated-against group of people, many of them immigrants and the overwhelming majority of them women; why should we take the discriminatory line we have always taken with them? If we work them more than 40 hours a week, we should pay them time and a half. There should be a minimum wage for these persons.

The Employment Standards Act in its schedules lays out for farm workers, for example, the amounts which they can have deducted from their wages for room and board. The same kinds of schedules can be applied to domestics so that a reasonable amount for room and board can be deducted from their wages. But that does not mean there should not be a minimum to those wages from which those deductions are made. That is simple justice, and it cries out for redress in the very way this bill proposes to do.

In families in which domestics, live-in or otherwise, are employed, they are most often needed on public holidays and may well be required to work on public holidays; this is particularly true of a live-in person. But they should have the same protections given to them in terms of money, or days off in lieu thereof, for working on a holiday as everyone else in Ontario would get if they were required to work on a holiday. Days in lieu thereof most likely would be the way in which the provision would apply.

There is no reason on earth why we should take this very maligned, overworked and unrepresented group in Ontario and deny them the provisions under these minimum standards for employment in Ontario as pertain specifically to public holidays.

We should guarantee them the minimum standards for vacations in Ontario as set out in the act. Most employers have gone away beyond the minimum established in this act in terms of what their employees receive for vacations. Perhaps the private employers of domestics also do that. But one finds there are some employers in the non-domestic field who hew to the very minimal number of vacation days they are required to give their employees. I am certain there are employers employing domestics who give less than the minimum granted in this act for vacations. There is no reason why domestics in Ontario should not receive two full weeks’ vacation as a right. That is all this institutes.

Section 2 of the bill would amend the present one week’s notice in writing to an employee -- to the domestic, in this case -- if the period of employment was less than two years, to replace it with, after three months, which is the same in both cases, two weeks. That is eminently reasonable. If someone has worked more than three months, she should be able to have two weeks’ notice in writing. I cannot see any problem with that.

With the Landlord and Tenant Act and Residential Premises Act, we are used to giving a month’s notice -- it was two -- for moving out of an apartment, or for a landlord to ask someone to move, I can’t see any reason why -- it’s not thought to be reasonable by any member of this Legislature -- you cannot and should not give two weeks’ notice in writing to a domestic if that employment is to be discontinued as long as they have worked, following the provisions of the act, for over three months. Obviously, I think it should apply after 30 days and not the three months.

I might also say that it’s this

section of the act which, over the years, I have spoken to in estimates and on private members bills myself. I think the general provisions for notice, or pay in lieu thereof if you don’t give it, to employees in the Employment Standards Act in Ontario is, indeed, quite inadequate.

A domestic in the province of Quebec gives two weeks’ notice to an employer after they have been employed for one year. That is the provision, with those increased provisions, and in their case they give four weeks’ notice between one and five years, and they give four weeks’ notice thereafter. That is much more than is granted under the Employment Standards Act here in Ontario for termination notice. So for any employee in Ontario, notice of termination should be vastly increased.

I would hope and think that this government, some time in its wisdom, would bring in amendments to this

section that would reflect what should be the current thinking in Ontario with respect to termination notice. But, certainly, this provision, as it is contained in this private member’s bill, is an eminently reasonable one. It’s not excessively generous. All we’re saying is that between three months and five years there should be two weeks’ notice of termination. To me that is eminently reasonable.

I could wind up by saying that I support every clause in this bill wholeheartedly. Domestics should be brought into the mainstream of employment in Ontario in every respect. They should not be discriminated against by not having the right to organize, should they so find themselves in that position. It’s not covered by this bill.

The very minimum that we can extend to that very disadvantaged and taken-advantage-of group is the minimum standards as outlined here under the Employment Standards Act with respect to the hours they must work, the minimum wages that they should be guaranteed that they should receive, the overtime provisions should they be required to work a vast number of hours a week, or over the 44, and certainly they should get proper vacations and public holidays or time off in lieu thereof, none of which they are guaranteed.

It’s a disgrace in this day and age that we should deny those guarantees to that group of women, largely, and immigrants, largely, who are working with us in Ontario to build this province.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I hadn’t intended to speak on the bill --

Mr. Acting Speaker: I should point out that you have three minutes.

Mr. Foulds: I have three minutes? Terrific -- but I must say the specious claptrap from the government benches has forced me to rise to my feet in support of my colleague’s bill. I have never heard such erroneous, specious arguments.

Let me just go through them as the government presented them. It said: “The bill is unenforceable, so let’s not have any legislation at all.” That was one argument. Does the government apply that reasoning to the Highway Traffic Act? Does it apply, as my colleague from Sarnia --

Mr. McGuigan: Kent-Elgin.

Mr. Foulds: -- Kent-Elgin said, to the Fish and Game Act? There is a whole range of acts that the government passes that it knows that we know will not be enforced every single time, but we trust on the good faith of the people of this province.

[4:30]

What I am saying to the government is we in this caucus believe the people of Ontario are decent human beings and if this Legislature passes a law, the majority of them will obey it. In those cases where it is not obeyed, we have the authority through a piece of legislation to enforce it when one of the domestics makes a complaint under the act. That is the important thing, that domestics who are at present unprotected have the right of appeal, which they simply do not have at the present time.

Secondly, we are asked to appeal to what is called the special relationship between the domestic and the employer. If there is a special relationship, I am sure all kinds of special things can be worked out. But, once again, there is no doubt, as both my Hamilton colleagues have documented time and time again, of the exploitation that occurs. What this bill does is prevent that exploitation and prevent the exploitation of a so-called special relationship.

Frankly, I do not like the use of the term “special relationship” because often it is exploited, guilt feelings are laid upon the domestic and there are all kinds of things that are uncivilized in the 20th century that we should not allow to occur.

We are told that people on modest incomes who want to take care of their children or their aged parents through the use of a domestic will not be able to do so because wages will be pushed up too high and they won’t be able to afford it. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if we in this society really think highly of our children, our aged parents and other infirm people, surely we should be prepared, both as individuals and as a society, to pay for the protection of those people. What is more precious to us, the buck or people about whom we feel deeply? I submit to you that we should pay the price in monetary terms of protecting those about whom we feel deeply.

I just want to conclude by saying that the mark of a civilized society is how its parliament treats the unprotected in that society. This bill tries to go some way towards protecting those who have been unprotected. Frankly, if the government blocks this bill, in my view it will be one of the most disgraceful and uncivilized actions this government has taken.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The time for debating this bill has expired.

INTEREST PAYMENTS

Mr. Rotenberg moved resolution 29:

That in the opinion of this House the government consider requiring the payment of interest to suppliers of goods and services to the government on accounts outstanding longer than 80 days.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Do you wish to reserve any time?

Mr. Rotenberg: I’ll see, Mr. Speaker. I’ll reserve a few minutes, depending on what other people might have to say.

Mr. Acting Speaker: I think the rule is that you must notify us now whether you wish to reserve any of the time you may have remaining of your 20 minutes.

Mr. Rotenberg: Then I will reserve about five minutes of my time. If I don’t use it, then I may withdraw it.

Mr. Acting Speaker: You don’t have to tell us how much time, but just whether you wish to reserve it.

Mr. Rotenberg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, I apologize if th