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

May 17, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L049 - Thu 17 May 1979 / Jeu 17 mai 1979

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DEATH OF DORA MAVOR MOORE

BUS INSPECTION PROGRAM

ROAD DEATHS

VISITORS

COMMITTEE ADVERTISING

ORAL QUESTIONS

ROAD DEATHS

RADIATION FROM X-RAYS

CUSTODY OF PAQUETTE CHILDREN

CAS FUNDING

COMPUTER SERVICES

FOOD PRICES

FALSE INVOICING

BURNING OF PCBS

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

GAS COMPANY BILLINGS

HYDRO TRANSMISSION LINES

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RAILWAYS AMENDMENT ACT

RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS’ LANDS ACT

ANGLICAN CHURCH OF CANADA ACT

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALDIMAND-NORFOLK AMENDMENT ACT

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

INSURED HEALTH SERVICES ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

WITHDRAWAL OF RESOLUTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT

PREARRANGED FUNERAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS ACT

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DEATH OF DORA MAVOR MOORE

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment of the House’s time to pay tribute to a remarkable woman who virtually created Canadian stage drama, Dora Mavor Moore, who died on Monday at the age of 91.

Mrs. Moore was an actress who felt that no one should be denied the pleasure of live theatre, and she set about activating Canadian theatre from her base in Toronto shortly after World War Two. She covered all bases: She launched a theatre company. She encouraged actors, cajoled directors and inspired playwrights. She played a

part in establishing the Stratford festival in 1953, and she influenced the establishment of theatres across Canada.

Her legacy in terms of Canadian theatre is so wide as to defy measurement. What can be isolated is her specific legacy in the person of her son, playwright and actor Mavor Moore. Mr. Moore was recently appointed head of the Canada Council. There is also her granddaughter Terry Moore, a popular television and film actress.

The lesson of Mrs. Moore’s impact on Canadian life is simple: It is not only forces that mould events in history; it is individuals. One person who set those forces in motion until they reached the dimensions which even the originator would never have dreamed possible was Mrs. Moore. Every Canadian with a concern for the cultural life of this country owes her a debt. That debt can best be acquitted by continuing the work she began and fostering in any way we can the development of the theatre and all the performing arts in Ontario and in Canada.

BUS INSPECTION PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to announce that a new mandatory bus inspection program will become effective in Ontario on October 31, 1979.

A recent survey by my ministry has shown that the great majority of buses operating on provincial streets and highways are in good mechanical condition. But to ensure that all buses are safe, we are establishing a mandatory bus inspection program. I would like to outline briefly this new inspection program for the members. It’s based on our highly successful school bus inspection program, which is one of the most comprehensive in North America.

Under the new regulations, a bus means any motor vehicle with dual wheels or tandem rear axles designed to carry 10 or more passengers, other than vehicles fitted with a truck or delivery body. It includes all buses operated by or under contract to a municipality or other transit authority; buses licensed as public vehicles under the Public Vehicles Act, and vehicles used for the transportation for compensation of persons in wheelchairs, regardless of the designed seating capacity of the vehicles.

In effect, the new inspection program covers nearly all bus categories, including buses privately owned and operated by colleges and universities, church and service groups, sports organizations and industry.

Incidentally, we have discussed our new regulations with several other jurisdictions, including New York state, which has the most stringent, universally accepted bus inspection program in the United States. I am pleased to report that they have all responded favourably to our new regulations. I am confident we will be able to negotiate reciprocal agreements with out-of-province authorities, thereby allowing Ontario buses to travel free and clear in other jurisdictions.

The inspections must be carried out by a registered licensed mechanic at one of the 9,000 licensed inspection stations in the province or at licensed, company-owned facilities. Owners of vehicles which meet the required standards will he issued two stickers: a safety inspection sticker valid for six months and a special brake inspection sticker valid for 12 months. Both of these stickers must be prominently displayed in full public view on the inner surface of the windshield.

Ministry inspectors will carry out random audit inspections of the 8,000 vehicles included in the program to ensure bus operators comply with the new regulations. Buses carrying passengers after October 31 of this year without valid safety and brake inspection stickers will be removed from service until such time as inspections are carried out.

In conclusion, the new regulations will effectively bring all Ontario buses under a regular safety inspection program, thus providing additional safety for Ontario travellers.

ROAD DEATHS

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much having to give this second statement, but I would like to bring to the attention of the members of the House the most recent statistics concerning motor vehicle accidents in our province. It is with a certain degree of alarm that I present them because they indicate that in the initial three months of this year driver-passenger fatalities have climbed a tragic 76.5 per cent.

I am alarmed because, in cold figures, 126 drivers and passengers died through the first three months of 1978 and 211 have been killed in the corresponding period of 1979.

In total, 270 people were killed in 47,329 accidents on Ontario highways and streets in the first three months of 1979, as against 198 in the first three months of 1978.

These grim statistics, particularly among drivers and passengers, represent a complete turnaround when they are related to the figures compiled since seatbelt legislation and lower speed limits came into effect on January 1, 1976. The reason for this complete and sudden turnaround is something that my ministry staff cannot give with any degree of accuracy. We do know, however, that accident-related figures are often cyclical in nature, meaning that three month’s figures don’t indicate a hard-and-fast trend for the entire year, but that’s not very consoling when one considers the horrendous loss of life.

We are also aware that multiple-death accidents are becoming more numerous; that is, as many as six or eight people have died in a single accident. What kind of precise figures these kinds of accidents represent, we still don’t know, but our collision data people are compiling them for further analysis.

Why so many multiple-death accidents are occurring is a key question. So far, we have only some inconclusive evidence that as the cost of gasoline climbs, there is a corresponding climb in the number of people per vehicle, particularly when vehicles are used for recreational purposes.

One thing is obvious and it is that these grim statistics point to Ontario’s drivers as the culprits, especially when one considers that cars and trucks are generally safer than ever before -- with collapsible steering columns, padded dashboards, radial tires, all designed to prevent serious injury or death in an accident.

Clearly, then, if these figures are to be reversed -- and I am convinced they can be -- it is up to the drivers to prevent accidents, through safe and careful driving habits. It is up to the drivers and their passengers to buckle up. It is up to the drivers to obey the posted speed limits.

Permit me to return to the use of seatbelts. Regardless of what you hear or read, I have some interesting statistics that merit attention. Through 1978, out of 27,275 unbelted drivers involved in accidents, 336 were killed. During the same period, out of 258,578 belted drivers involved in accidents, 154 were killed. Those figures indicate if you are driving and involved in an accident, you are 20 times safer if you are wearing your seatbelt. I don’t believe further comment is necessary.

In conclusion, it is apparent to me that neither the latest safety features built into cars nor safety legislation deters the careless or inattentive drivers who cause most of our accidents, something like 90 per cent of them in any given year. How can we reach these people? How can we remind all drivers that it is their behaviour and driving attitudes that are critical in these regrettable statistics?

To begin with, we are planning a two-pronged approach, using radio and police enforcement. To this end, my ministry personnel have already met with the senior OPP officials and I have been assured that highway surveillance will be stepped up through the use of radar equipment in unmarked cars and the return of aircraft to patrol provincial highways.

As a backup operation, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications will kick off a two-week awareness radio campaign, beginning May 25, a campaign involving a series of commercials aimed at making drivers more aware of their own carelessness and the carelessness of other drivers.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that all members of the House would like to recognize a very distinguished visitor in our gallery, in the person of the Minister of Education for St. Vincent, the Honourable St. Clair Dacon, and Mrs. Dacon. Would you please welcome them.

COMMITTEE ADVERTISING

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order: on April 27, the subcommittee of the standing administration of justice committee met to consider the procedure of dealing with Bill 19. It was decided by the subcommittee there should be public hearings on the bill and advertisements should be placed in some 50 daily newspapers, at a cost of approximately $6,000.

Neither the procedure of dealing with the bill nor the specific expenditure was: approved by the justice committee, nor was the committee ever given such a mandate to make these decisions. The clerk of the committee subsequently placed these advertisements.

Under

section 92 of the standing orders, a committee is provided with the authority to strike subcommittees, but it is silent as to the powers of that subcommittee. The global budget for the justice committee permits a total advertising budget for this year in excess of the specific expenditure I have mentioned above.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on whether these actions are within the jurisdiction of this particular subcommittee.

[2:15]

Mr. Speaker: As all honourable members know, there have been some changes in the standing orders dealing with subcommittees of standing committees. I will take your point of order under advisement, and I will report to you and the House later.

[Later (5:50):]

Mr. Speaker: This afternoon the member for Carleton-Grenville, on what he considered to be a point of order, requested a ruling on the question of the expenditure of funds by a subcommittee without the express authority of the standing committee from which it is composed. I must point out that it is an established rule of procedure that the Speaker and the House may not deal with matters originating in a committee unless they are properly brought to the House by a report of the committee presented by the chairman thereof.

I realize the member has raised an important question in view of the fact the provisions for subcommittees are now new in our standing orders and that the provisions of budgets to standing committees are a very recent development. I, therefore, suggest that this question should be properly considered by the procedural affairs committee, which might be inclined to bring in a report to the House proposing guidelines for the proceedings of subcommittees and generally for the expenditure of funds by standing committees and subcommittees thereof.

[Reverting (2:17):]

ORAL QUESTIONS

ROAD DEATHS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to question the Minister of Transportation and Communications concerning the statement on first-quarter highway statistics and the very alarming increase in the death toll, which may or may not be just a statistical abnormality, but it is certainly very disturbing. Can the minister tell the House what percentage of these fatal accidents were alcohol related? Can he tell the House anything with regard to the proportion of these accidents that involve people of any particular age group, that involve small cars, anything about the location of these particular accidents that might assist the House in placing the information in a more reasonable context?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, my ministry tabulates all these accident figures and submits a report annually, breaking them down into different types of vehicles. I am not sure at this moment whether small cars and large cars are separated but, certainly, in many of the other areas mentioned, those statistics are produced on an annual basis. I do not have the breakdown for the first three months at this time, as I have just received the total figures for those months, showing the large increase which I reported to the House today.

I think our preliminary information would tell us that most of these accidents appear to happen with vehicles that have no mechanical deficiencies, under normal driving conditions and, in most cases, with the drivers in normal, good condition as well. The weekend a few weeks ago was the black weekend, as far as I am concerned, with a large number of deaths on the highway. That was the weekend of March 23 to 25 which, I believe, was a clear weekend when the roads were bare and dry. I think there were 23 or 24 deaths on that particular weekend.

I have a preliminary report on those accidents; they are from varying causes. I cannot state the cause because in many cases the police reports or court actions are not completed. But certainly there were situations where the tentative report showed impaired driving. In some cases the driver was on the wrong side of the road, in some they crossed the centre line -- the type of thing which is just hard to understand under good driving conditions. Speed was involved in some. Unfortunately, on looking through this report, several of these involved people who moved left of the centre line for no apparent reason.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Will the minister undertake to give us some further breakdown of the accidents that have happened in the first quarter so that we can judge what the trends appear to be? Since he concluded, on page four, that the real problems are careless or inattentive drivers, I think it is important for us to know on what those conclusions are based, whether there is information with regard to alcohol or to any defects in the automobiles and so on. If the minister would be kind enough to table all these data as soon as possible, I am sure we could share with him the prospect of examining it to make some decisions.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Let me answer one supplementary before another is asked, will you please?

Mr. Mancini: I just wanted to keep you on the ball.

Hon. Mr. Snow: You get so excited about jumping on your feet, you don’t want answers, obviously.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will provide all that information to the Leader of the Opposition as soon as we can get it together. I have my officials working on this particular matter.

The Leader of the Opposition commented on my statement that obviously, a lot of these accidents are related to careless or inattentive drivers. I guess I draw my conclusion on that from the fact that in about 85 per cent of all accidents there is no apparent reason for the accident. They are not related to weather conditions or detectable mechanical condition of the vehicle. Eighty-five per cent of the accidents would appear to be caused by inattentiveness of the driver, or whatever one might wish to call it, causing him to make an error of some type. Only about 15 per cent of the accidents we have assessed involve mechanical deficiencies, liquor or bad weather conditions.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister: On page four of his speech the minister indicates he has met with the Ontario Provincial Police, and the use of radar equipment in marked cars and planes will be coming very shortly. Does he not think one of the very serious problems is the carelessness with which drivers swing in and out of lanes, and that we might move to less emphasis on radar and more on the police moving with the traffic to determine those who are driving in a careless fashion? Just primarily observing for speed is not going to eliminate the type of carelessness that leads to some or many of these accidents.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I won’t disagree with the honourable member. I didn’t say I had met with the OPP, as the member stated; I said my officials had. I think certain of those questions relating to enforcement and to the operations of the OPP and other police within the province should rightfully be asked of my colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry).

I would have to agree a greater presence of the black and white cars on the road, not only observing for speed, would be useful. I agree speeding is only one of the offences that cause accidents. Certainly, a greater number of police on our highways would, I am sure, make it possible to apprehend drivers committing offences other than speeding that also contribute to accidents.

A recent article, which just happened to arrive on my desk this morning, was published in the bulletin of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. This

article makes a comparison on a 12-month basis, not on the basis of three months such as we do. Their recent statistics show a considerable increase as well in deaths in automobile accidents in the United States. I will read just one paragraph:

“The fatality increases have occurred predominately on highways that post a 55-miles- per-hour speed limit, and in the western and southwestern states, where failure to observe the 55-miles-per-hour limit is believed to be most widespread…”

It is just hard to understand. We have had such a tremendous record for the last two years, during 1977 and 1978, when the number of deaths and injuries in Ontario were the lowest, I believe, since 1962. Then, all of a sudden, in the first three months of 1979, we have had this horrendous increase. I hope it is not indicative of what we are going to experience for the whole of this year. We will be monitoring and I will report to honourable members on a quarterly basis.

Mr. G. Taylor: Supplementary: Has the minister any statistics on how many of those automobile accidents are related to the use of alcohol or alcohol involvement?

Mr. J. Reed: That question has already been asked.

Mr. G. Taylor: Has he any relationship to the change that we used in the age differentials this past year? Can he relate them to that?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what reference the member is making to age differentials.

Mr. G. Taylor: Can the minister show in his statistics whether the increase in age did or did not reduce the amount of accidents?

Mr. Ruston: The drinking age.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The drinking age, I’m sorry.

Mr. Speaker: I thought the honourable minister took that as notice.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We did not change the age of drivers, which I thought the member was referring to.

As I stated to the Leader of the Opposition, we are assessing the statistics and breaking them down into different categories, but I have just received the overall statistics for the three-month period. I do not have a breakdown. Certainly, alcohol is related in a number of accidents; there is no doubt about that. When I look at the March 23 weekend, five or six of the accidents that weekend were related to alcohol.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary: I would like to ask the minister, when he has the opportunity, to check a little further into his statistics, which he probably should have done before he made his statement, to find out just how many of these accidents were caused by alcohol. When the minister does get this information, would he make a presentation to the cabinet to curb alcohol advertising and the lifestyle type of advertising that breweries are using on television to encourage the consumption of alcohol?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Part of that question is repetitive. I said we will be assessing and breaking down the figures we have. I would suggest to the member that I felt it important to bring the information I had to the members of this House.

Mr. Mancini: Will the minister make a presentation?

Hon. Mr. Snow: If the member had wanted me to wait until all the inquests --

Mr. Mancini: Will the minister make a presentation to cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Would the member please wait a minute while I answer his question?

Mr. Mancini: Don’t twist my question around.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The member obviously doesn’t want an answer.

Mr. Mancini: I want the answer. Don’t twist the question.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would like to give it to him. I would like to say that I felt it my duty as the minister to bring the preliminary figures of the number of deaths, which I have, to the attention of the members of the House. I did not feel it appropriate to wait for several months until inquests and investigations into accidents are completed to be able to tell the members whether there was alcohol involved in particular accidents or not. We will be following up on that information.

Mr. Mancini: Is the minister going to make a presentation?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I wish the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) were here today. I know he is as concerned and as interested as I am. He is lead minister in the cabinet as far as the drinking-driving problem is concerned. He is holding both portfolios as Solicitor General and Attorney General. I know of his great concern in this area. We will certainly be looking at every possible way that we might be able to recommend to our cabinet colleagues to curb this. But I assure the member it is not an easy problem.

RADIATION FROM X-RAYS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of Health concerning X-rays. Is the minister familiar with the data referred to by the so-called Dr. W. Gifford-Jones in the Globe and Mail, in which he says that in chiropractors’ offices 90 per cent of patients receive a full trunk X-ray, which is alleged in an

article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal to be a major radiation hazard?

[2:30]

Since the minister has said to the people of Ontario that patients should never refuse an X-ray for the reason that missing the diagnosis might be worse than the risk of radiation, what advice can the minister give to patients who attend chiropractors? Should they ever refuse such a full-body X-ray, or should the present practice continue whereby some 90 per cent of patients allegedly receive these X-rays?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, this morning I met with Drs. Hobbs, Taylor and Johns who are conducting the work through the Radiological Research Institute of the University of Toronto which has been discussed here in recent days. I didn’t have a chance to read Dr. Walker’s comments this morning in the Globe and Mail and, therefore, I’m not familiar with that aspect of it. I was assured, however, that the project which is under way will cover chiropractors, dentists and all applications. I will look into that particular aspect.

I’m sorry I haven’t had a chance to read those comments. In all respects, they reemphasized to me again this morning that when it comes to diagnosis the risks are much greater in refusing diagnostic radiology.

While I’m on my feet, I want to take some exception to a comment which was attributed to the Leader of the Opposition. He suggested there has been some secrecy about this matter, that the ministry or that I as minister somehow have not taken the matter seriously. I want to draw the member’s attention to Hansard for the estimates of my ministry on November 21, 1977, at which time the matter was fully discussed.

Mr. Speaker: The answer should relate to the question that was asked.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Perhaps it could be counted as a point of privilege, because I think my privileges have been abused. The honourable member suggested there has been some secrecy and lack of concern. In point of fact, this was discussed at estimates in November 1977 and it was clearly set out what the ministry was doing and what our plans were. Perhaps the honourable member would at least afford me the privilege of an apology.

Mr. S. Smith: I’ll certainly read the estimates and decide then exactly what action should be taken concerning the so-called point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I thought you decided what happens with points of privilege, not the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Breithaupt: We’ll apologize if necessary, but not necessarily apologize.

Mr. S. Smith: The Speaker called on me, as I understood it, to ask a supplementary question. The supplementary goes back to the original question and that was: As Minister of Health, responsible to give advice to the people of Ontario, what does he advise the people of Ontario? Should they accept having X-rays done by chiropractors when they go into their offices -- routine, full-trunk X-rays -- or should they not? If the minister believes the risk of refusing is as great as or greater than the risk of accepting the X-ray, would he please outline for us what the risks on either side are?

What is the risk of refusing such a chiropractic X-ray on a routine basis and what is the risk of accepting it? What is the average radiation exposure of such a full-length X-ray?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I want to tell the member why I had this meeting this morning.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s not what I asked.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It’s all part and parcel. The doctors in question were very concerned about the kinds of things that have been said and written about their report. In fact the purpose of the meeting was to bring me up to date on what they had said and to provide me with additional information.

When I came to the House today, I was also provided with a statement which the doctors have prepared and which they are apparently releasing. I have asked for some copies to be made to distribute here today. They deal with the question of comparable risks. I think this will answer in part what the member is asking.

Mr. S. Smith: I was asking what the minister is advising the patients of chiropractors. He is the minister. What is he telling them?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member asked me about risks, with respect, and that is why I want to tell him the expert advice I have had.

Mr. S. Smith: Chiropractors. C-h-i-r -- chiropractors.

Hon. Mr. Snow: He can spell it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Can the member spell “cat?”

I think this will answer the honourable member’s question in part, and I will get further information.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister is not prepared to advise the patients.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: This is on the question of abdominal -- let me quote from this paper. I’ll be glad to send the member a copy when they arrive in the House.

“One abdominal X-ray procedure carries with it an average risk of 40 in one million of producing leukemia. This should be compared with the following equivalent risks. A person has the same risk of dying in: (

a) travelling 16,000 miles by air; (

b) travelling 2,400 miles by car; (

c) smoking 32 cigarettes” --

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of order: The question period is difficult enough for you to manage, Mr. Speaker, and it is difficult enough for us to have to bear with the answers, but this answer has nothing whatever to do with the question I put. The answer must surely be somewhat pertinent to the question.

The question is whether the Minister of Health is able to give advice to patients of chiropractors, in his capacity as Minister of Health, as to whether or not they should accept a routine X-ray which is commonly offered to them, because of the risk-benefit ratio. Instead, we are hearing something about travelling by airplane or by car and so on. Would he not answer the question? If he can’t answer it, why doesn’t he simply admit he can’t answer it?

Mr. Speaker: In all fairness I think the answer goes at least some way to answer, in an indirect way, the question that was asked. I don’t think the Leader of the Opposition would want me to interfere with the way in which he asks a question, any more than he would want me to interfere in the way in which a minister answers it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the honourable member would go back to the original research work which was done by these eminent physicians and physicists; if the honourable member will look at the project which is at present under way, the latest aspect of their work; if the honourable member will look at the statement I read into the record a week ago; if he will look at this statement, once I send him a copy, he will realize these eminent scientists are saying that the problem is one of education of all professionals to inform them and ensure they apply the information that they can get as good diagnostic pictures with lower radiation dosages.

I don’t have information here because I didn’t read Dr. Walker’s column this morning on that particular type. I wanted to give him this information because I think this puts it into perspective. This is the information we are getting from these gentlemen who have carried out and are carrying out the most comprehensive program in this area anywhere.

Mr. McClellan: By way of supplementary, since the issue relates as much to the competence of the people who are running X-ray equipment as to anything else, may I ask the minister if he is willing to provide to the House the number of people who work in public hospitals running X-ray equipment, and of these, the number who are registered radiological technicians? Secondly, how many people in the province who are employed as X-ray machine operators in all medical institutions, other than public hospitals, are registered radiological technicians?

I would assume the group referred to by the Leader of the Opposition would come within the latter group, so I would like the minister to obtain that information for us if he doesn’t have it here.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I believe I answered that question the other day. If I remember correctly, the information I have is that 97 per cent of those technicians working in the hospitals are registered. I indicated that as far as the technicians in the ministry were concerned, a year and a half or more ago we decided, and conveyed to the society our decision that we would, henceforth, hire only registered technicians. We asked the society to give us its thoughts on how we could put together a program to upgrade those who are employed in the ministry and who are not registered, so that they could, in fact, become registered.

Let me say one final thing. I was concerned about one set of comments in one of the newspapers that was apparently attributed to these scientists which said that people were not qualified. They assured me that at no point had they said that and at no point had they said the inspection service, as such, was inefficient or not doing its appropriate role.

Mr. S. Smith: Dealing with chiropractors’ offices, could the minister tell us what percentage of the X-rays taken in chiropractors’ offices are taken by registered technicians? Could he tell us at what rate the machines in chiropractors’ offices are inspected, and could he make the inspection reports public? Finally, could he tell us what the risks would be of refusing a routine chiropractic X-ray and could he tell us what the risks would be of taking the X-ray; what is the average exposure? What is he prepared to advise the people of Ontario to do when they are offered a chiropractic routine X-ray? Should they say yes or should they say no?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m amazed that the Leader of the Opposition, who is himself apparently a physician, would ask that kind of a question. Clearly, he knows from all the evidence that has been prepared, particularly in the most recent studies, that the risk is much greater -- and it has been documented by these scientists -- in refusing what is advised as a diagnostic radiological or fluoroscopic procedure. I will try to get comparisons for that kind of an X-ray comparable to what these gentlemen have put into this statement they have issued today. Clearly, the risk is much greater in denying a prescribed diagnostic radiological procedure.

Mr. S. Smith: A routine chiropractic X-ray; is that what you’re saying? Stop shilly-shallying. Give us the answer.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I simply ask the minister to provide us with the actual number of X-ray machine operators in the province in all institutions -- the number, not a guess at the percentage -- and, of that number, to tell us how many numerically are registered radiological technicians.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’ll see if I can get those figures and how quickly. We are going to be discussing the matter at the social development committee at some point. I want to point out that under the existing regulations, for an individual to be in a position to operate a machine he or she must be registered or must be trained to a level satisfactory to the responsible individual, i.e., the physician, the dentist, the chiropractor or whomever.

Mr. S. Smith: The chiropractor runs the place.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I keep coming back to the basic point. What these gentlemen have found and what we are at present engaged in is a process whereby the results of their research to date are being applied right today. In the work which is at present under way, the $600,000 or so study, plus a couple of others that are also being completed, we will at each step along the way implement new techniques and apply new machinery as they are developed to address this particular problem.

CUSTODY OF PAQUETTE CHILDREN

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question, in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) for the Minister of Community and Social Services with respect to the Paquette case, which was the subject of a report to the House by the minister in March 1978. I want to ask the minister whether he recalls that Louise Paquette was sentenced to 21 months indefinite in March 1978 as a result of the death by hanging of her child Adrienne.

I want to ask him also if he can explain why Mrs. Paquette was released from reformatory some time last fall and particularly if he can explain why a family court judge, Judge G. Y. Goulard, in December 1978 awarded the custody of the four surviving Paquette children back to their mother and ordered the children returned to the custody of the same Louise Paquette?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I really don’t think I ought to attempt to answer the first question. I simply don’t know what matters were taken into consideration in the determination to return Mrs. Paquette to the community, but there are established procedures before boards of review that take those matters into consideration. I think it would be better if I were to refer that question to the Attorney General for a more complete answer when he returns to the House.

I would point out that to the best of my knowledge, first of all, the Paquette child was not hanged in the sense of the picture it conjures, but I believe it was suffocation as a result of a gag that caused the death. That was not particularly relevant to the question, but I think the image of hanging the child is quite different from what I understand took place. The matter of the return of the children to the family, which was ordered by a judge a few months ago, as I understand it, is the subject of an appeal before the courts.

[2:45]

I am aware of the fact that at least the official guardian is reputed to have commented on the case to the press, indicating an interest. As well, I have asked my staff to be in contact with the official guardian to pursue the matter. I must say, given the history of the family and the circumstances from which the children were originally removed, I would be very reluctant to intervene in any way so as to hasten their return.

The order, as I understand it, still stands subject to appeal that they be returned. If the report in the media is correct, I understand the official guardian feels that is an appropriate disposition. I must say, perhaps on the basis of more limited information than the official guardian has, I would be very reluctant to accept that it is the most appropriate one.

Mr. McClellan: The minister has anticipated my supplementary, which is this: How can he explain to us that the official guardian, or the person who is supposed to be the official guardian in this province, is quoted in Wednesday’s Globe and Mail as saying he is convinced the children, that is to say the four surviving Paquette children, should be returned to their parents? Doesn’t this remind him of the Ellis case?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, whenever a person is charged with the responsibility of exercising certain discretionary decision-making authority, as is the case with the official guardian, it is always difficult for someone to try to second guess. I don’t know what information he took into consideration in expressing that position, if in fact it accurately reflects his position. I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss it with him personally, and of course he does report through the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) as opposed to through my ministry.

I think, though, if we do entrust to persons certain independent decision-making authority on behalf of children in the province we have to be prepared, provided the appropriate information is available to them, to let them exercise that independent decision-making authority. Of course I realize if the honourable member opposite were in government perhaps he would let nobody but himself make decisions, I don’t know, but all I am saying is --

Mr. Swart: The minister has the final responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- the official guardian has apparently expressed an opinion or a position. I am not prepared to say if he is right or wrong, because I don’t know what information he had to take into consideration. I will say that perhaps on the basis of more superficial information that I have had over the period of this case, I would be reluctant to advocate the return of those children to their home, although I would keep my mind open on that subject to see whether there is additional information of which I am not aware.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary. I would like to ask the minister why the four surviving Paquette children were taken out of foster homes in September, 1978 and placed in the Ottawa Children’s Aid Society assessment home where they have been kept for the last nine months? I gather the official guardian’s representative in Ottawa has said it’s a horrible setting, and I am again quoting from the Globe and Mail. Can the minister explain why they have been taken out of foster homes and put in the assessment home for nine months?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I can’t explain that specifically other than to say I presume it was in response to the court order, and that in fact they were being prepared for return home. I cannot explain why they have been resident in the assessment home.

Mr. McClellan: How about finding out all these things and letting us know?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I will see if there is any particular explanation for that. I am not satisfied that is critical to the real issue the honourable member is attempting to address in his line of questioning.

CAS FUNDING

Mr. McClellan: I have a second question for the same minister, if I may Mr. Speaker. In March, the Minister of Community and Social Service announced a sum of money would be available to children’s aid societies to implement the new standards and guidelines for the management of child abuse cases. I want to ask the minister whether he is aware that the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies did a survey of each of its 51 societies, and determined that, based on their estimates of the increased workload coming out of his ministry’s standards, they would need a budget of $3.9 million in additional, brand-new money.

In the light of the fact that he has only allocated $2.4 million, one third of which is for staff training, I want to ask the minister how the children’s aid societies are going to finance the work they are now required to do as a result of the new Child Welfare Act and the standards and guidelines for the management of child-abuse cases, where there is a huge shortfall in the amount of money that the minister is prepared to provide to them?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the results of any such survey -- and I am not suggesting it has not been taken -- but I would point out that there is a very big difference between saying to individuals or groups of individuals who are engaged in a specific area of service, “How much would you spend if you had no limits upon what was available?” That is one approach they could take, and I can imagine -- in fact, you could come up with a figure much greater than $3.9 million.

Mr. McClellan: No. They are saying what their responsibilities are and how much they will cost.

Hon. Mr. Norton: All right. Even in the

interpretation of that, I suggest there is a great range of assessments of what the dollar need might be.

I would also say that it is a different matter if one is going to plan responsibly in the area of human services, in any area of government services, because it seems to me that an essential and an integral part of responsible planning is an awareness of what resources are available and what it is you are planning for.

We believe those guidelines can be implemented for less than the figure the honourable member has quoted. Our staff will work with the children’s aid societies in the implementation of that. It may well be that some of the societies will persist in the position there is not enough money. On the other hand, I reserve judgement upon that until such time as I can be satisfied that they cannot effectively plan, within the limitations of the $2.4 million new dollars available for this particular implementation, and meet the objectives that are established by those guidelines.

Mr. McClellan: By way of a supplementary question: Since it was not clear in the original announcement, but it is clear now, that the $2.4 million that the minister has made available is subject to a 20 per cent cost-sharing with the municipalities, how are children’s aid societies, which are five months into their budget year, supposed to negotiate at this point in time with municipalities, which have already set their budgets and their mill rates, in order to obtain the 20 per cent cost-sharing to do the work that they are required to do once the act is proclaimed on June 1?

Hon. Mr. Norton: In so far as it is possible, we will work very closely with the municipalities and the societies in that respect. But I would point out that every year there are supplementary budgets submitted by children’s aid societies across the province for far more money than that to take into consideration the growth in the case-load during the course of the year. That is something the municipalities, without any difficulty, have always managed to anticipate, and I do not expect any different problems this year.

Mr. McClellan: A final supplementary question: Will the minister give a commitment now that he is prepared to be flexible with respect to these amounts of money and, if it turns out that the financial burdens imposed on societies as a result of the new act and the new standards are in excess of what the minister has budgeted, that he will be prepared to provide the amount of money they need to do the job they are required to do under the law?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The honourable member knows that I am always a very flexible person. However, there may be some restrictions or limitations upon my flexibility; I cannot print money. There are certain limitations that we have to live with in terms of our planning; I have to expect children’s aid societies and others to live within those same limitations.

COMPUTER SERVICES

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Government Services. Is the minister aware that his ministry is expanding its computerized services to municipalities in Ontario at a time when small computer companies are seeking business; and is the minister convinced that these services the government is offering are less expensive, as the government claims they are? Why is he expanding these services to municipalities when in fact he has given commitments to various private industries that his ministry will not expand its services?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the honourable member is referring to the service we put out with respect to assessment rolls. Is that the service to which he is referring?

Mr. Epp: Tax bills.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, it is more the assessment notices than the tax bills. The tax bills are supplied to municipalities at their request and at our cost. I believe it is a good service to the municipalities. We do not go out looking for the business; the municipalities come and ask for the service.

Mr. Epp: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister convinced all the costs of the program -- such as insurance, telephone, et cetera -- are being plugged into the system when he is trying to determine the costs? Is this not an example of the government’s having overbuilt computerized services within the provincial jurisdiction so that it is now seeking municipal customers at the expense of private enterprise?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. We have the necessary equipment to do the job; if the municipalities request it, we will supply it.

FOOD PRICES

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, with reference to report number one of the food prices monitoring program produced by his ministry. On page 15 it notes that in the first two months of this year the wholesale price of turkeys dropped four cents, from 40 to 36 cents. At the same time, the price spread between the wholesale and retail increased from 19 to 30 cents, which is an 11-cent spread. Is this not clearly a ripoff of the consumer? Does the minister conceive of any justification for it, and if so what? If there is no justification, what is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will note the data on turkey prices was available for only the first two months. One of the reasons the price to wholesalers declined during that period of time, quite frankly, was the events of last November and December when the retail price rose and the consumption of turkey dropped dramatically. When the leader of the NDP asked me what I intended to do about the galloping price of turkey, I did something about it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Galloping?

Hon. Mr. Drea: It was very galloping, even for a turkey.

Mr. Speaker, traditionally there is an increase in the spread between the wholesale and the retail price in the sale of turkeys right after the Christmas period. One of the difficulties, for the producer of turkeys particularly, and it is one I am sympathetic to, is the sale of turkey peaks in the holiday season, at Christmas, and to a lesser extent at Easter. The rest of the year it is at a very low ebb. Suppliers have been trying to promote consumption on a more equitable basis. Those two are the recommendations. I do not think turkey is a ripoff at all.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if the minister does not consider an increase in price to the consumers of 11 cents while the wholesale price was going down by four represents a ripoff and he rationalizes it, may I ask him another question in another area but in the same context? On page 17 the report says the wholesale price per hundredweight of Ontario pork dropped 28 per cent. At the same time, the retail price the minister monitored went up 5.35 per cent. How does the minister justify that; and what is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member knew anything about the movement of pork through the system he would not ask a question like that. It takes much longer for a decrease in the wholesale price of pork to reach the retail level than it does beef or any other product. He knows that, he has been on the agriculture estimates.

[3:00]

Mr. Riddell: A supplementary to the minister: Inasmuch as turkeys lay eggs, although consumers are more inclined to eat hen eggs, would the minister look into the allegations we heard about so much in the news media yesterday that consumers are paying 20 cents a dozen more for their eggs because of the national supply management system? Could the minister look into that, or check with the Minister of Agriculture, to see if there is any truth in that?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I can look into it. I have discussed the matter with the provincial Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman). One of the reasons I will look into it is that it may be my last occasion to talk with Mr. Whelan as Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Swart: By way of supplementary, may I ask the minister whether he has looked closely enough at the 12 charts which gave the markups between wholesale and retail prices to realize that the markup on Canadian farm produce during the last three months has increased substantially, while the markup on imported produce has increased very little or not at all?

May I also ask the minister if he is prepared to permit food merchandisers to make excess profits? The profits are increasing very dramatically; doesn’t the minister think it would be better that the profit be made on imported food rather than on our own, where it results in decreased consumption of our own food?

Hon. Mr. Drea: If the member would pause to think for a moment, he would realize the price spread on domestic produce increased. One reason is that virtually all of the produce from a very good year in Ontario was in great demand in the northeastern United States because of the failure of certain crops in the southwestern United States caused by poor climate conditions. When there is inability by the American or Mexican markets to deliver in the off-season here, the storage crop is in great demand in the United States.

Part of the reason, as well, was the very attractive discounts that Americans got based upon the rate of the dollar.

As I cautioned the other day, one of the things one must be aware of in terms of food prices, particularly with fresh produce, is not to have the naive impressions of the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) that because the Ontario growing season is coming in all will be well. A great deal depends on the growing season in the United States and the ability of the American government to solve the gasoline crisis.

If that crisis is not solved in California and in the western states there is going to be great demand for Ontario produce in the northeastern United States, which will lead to a shortage of supply here, and inevitably to a rising gap between the producer’s price and the final market price. That will be reflected at the consumer level.

Mr. Swart: The consumer is going to pay the price, and the supermarkets are going to make the profit.

FALSE INVOICING

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is the minister aware that throughout the year businesses are inundated with solicitations for inclusion in some kind of classified directory? Examples of such are telex services suggesting that cheques be mailed to the Tribune Publishing Corporation Limited, Post Office Box 1036, 56 Leinster Road, Dublin, Ireland; and another example, which states, “Please return this with cheque,” Classified Directory Publishers Incorporated, Post Office Box 1428, Downsview, Ontario. How does the minister plan to stop such business practices?

Hon. Mr. Drea: This type of false invoicing or phoney invoicing based on the purported insertion of an advertisement in a directory is, next to the “bank inspector” game, probably the oldest commercial racket in this country.

We are moving in two areas. We have joined with business groups, particularly the better business bureaus and chambers of commerce, in sending to their members strong warnings about this practice. One of the reasons it succeeds so often is that it is taken as an invoice and just flows through the business organization as though it was a legitimate one.

Secondly, although I don’t recall the case exactly, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has prosecuted such an operation and there was a very substantial penalty imposed. After discussing the matter with the minister I would be prepared to report back to the member on that matter.

Third, we were always in the position -- although in the particular case I am talking about it was referred to the criminal division of the courts -- through the Business Practices Act, where this is an unconscionable transaction, to bring in a cease-and-desist order as well as go for a prosecution in the courts. The difficulty is that, the moment we do that, they come up under another name and with another postal address.

We are in consultation with the crown. There has been a test case which was prosecuted very successfully. There is now a much more powerful deterrent out there in terms of criminal law, and we are stepping up our inquiries and our information in regard to aspects that are under our jurisdiction in terms of the Business Practices Act.

In addition, I may say we have had excellent co-operation from the postal authorities regarding our foreign imports.

Mr. Speaker: I may say that the minister’s answers are far too long.

Hon. Mr. Drea: There was one from Ireland; I didn’t want you to think I was going there to prosecute.

BURNING OF PCBS

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Now that the Environmental Assessment Board hearings on polychlorinated biphenyl burnings at the St. Lawrence Cement plant in Mississauga have been adjourned until June, will the minister respond to my open letter of last March requesting that he consider some public funding for ratepayers’ organizations and other citizens’ groups appearing at the hearings so that these groups can hire researchers and other experts to assist them in preparing their submissions over the next month in order that all points of view will be adequately presented to the board?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I suspect the member knows the answer to that question, but let me restate it. No, we will not specifically fund those people who are wanting to bring in experts on their own volition. But we have amended the terms of reference for those hearings so that evidence by experts will be a part of the submissions that are made to the Environmental Board hearings. We do so very willingly; we want as much information as possible at those hearings. We will be glad to see that those witnesses are there, but we will not fund the legal expenses of those who oppose.

Ms. Bryden: A supplementary question: Has the minister read the 1978 report prepared for the Environmental Assessment Board and entitled Public Participation Program Proposals? Has he considered its recommendations for funding of public interest groups and the fact that two thirds of the board members who were polled by the writers indicated support for the principle of funding public interveners?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am aware of that report, yes.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Since the minister has taken a consistent position with respect to public funding, would he reconsider additional funding within his own ministry to go towards further research in this matter of PCB burnings, since one of the key experts within the ministry is discouraged to the point that he is leaving and going to the United States?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any need to give more funding to anyone on this particular thing. We are prepared, as I said previously, to bring in witnesses, even if they are from the United States; as a matter of fact, I think one is coming from the United States. I do not think the reason for that particular member of staff to leave is related to the hearings in Mississauga.

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, in the absence of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), on violence in secondary schools; it follows up on questions I asked the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) on March 30 and the Minister of Education on April 20.

Now that we have yet another report outlining severe problems with violence, vandalism, arson, extortion, et cetera, in the secondary school system in one particular part of the province -- and, one could conclude, throughout the province -- would the minister not agree that there is a need for immediate action on the part of the Ministry of Education to ensure that administrators and teachers have the tools with which to deal with these difficult kinds of problems?

Would she not agree that immediate action can be taken with regard to the Petty Trespass Act to deal with the most obvious problem, which is that of unwanted intruders into the secondary school system, which is causing most of these problems?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education initiated a study in this general area. It’s my understanding that the report has been finalized and the recommendations are being assessed at the moment. I’m sure the Minister of Education will be able to elaborate on that when she is in the House.

Mr. Bradley: As a supplementary, would the minister not agree that the view expressed by teachers that there is a creeping cynicism that affects teachers’ attitudes to incidents of violence and vandalism, caused by the belief that very little gets done to really effect a change in students involved in such incidents, calls for some innovative approach to this problem? We recognize, of course, that there are social problems underlying the question --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Bradley: -- but there must be some immediate action before the new school year.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I don’t agree there should be a separate school for children with those kinds of problems. I certainly do not agree with that. I think we should await the recommendations arising out of the report done by the ministry.

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, supplementary: As a person who taught in the school system for a few years and who used the strap sparingly but as it would be used by a judicious parent, what is the minister’s opinion and that of her government as to the more liberal use of the strap, under certain guidelines, on students on whom it might do some good?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I don’t think I would like to give a government policy response to that question, but as a parent who believes in discipline I think I would agree with the member.

GAS COMPANY BILLINGS

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It concerns the billing practices of Union Gas in Hamilton, Consumers’ Gas in Toronto and Northern and Central Gas in North Bay; practices authorized by the Ontario Energy Board. These companies are currently charging a five per cent late payment fee, which is the equivalent of 60 per cent per annum interest. This is done even when the customer has a favourable credit balance under one of their equalized payment plans.

Would the minister not agree this is a consumer ripoff and that he has a responsibility to protect the consumers of Ontario? Should he not be using his influence to stop this unfair practice?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I have an obligation under law to protect the consumers of Ontario. The member’s customary adjective in describing virtually every business practice is “ripoff.” I will look into the matter and I will report back to him tomorrow.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Supplementary: While he is looking into that matter, would be not agree that in view of the degree of monopoly power in this sector it might be a good idea if he would undertake a broader investigation to see if there are any other practices of these gas companies that are operating to the detriment of the consumer in the province?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I’m always looking at things. I would draw to the attention of the member that the natural gas producers of this province have to go before the Ontario Energy Board. At that time, when the rates are established, certain of their collection and business practices are also taken into account. That is the place where it is established.

If the member is asking me, as the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, if I will intervene before the Ontario Energy Board the answer is no. The proper place for an intervention on that is before the energy board, and there are groups that do that.

HYDRO TRANSMISSION LINES

Mr. Stong: A question of the Minister of the Environment: Pursuant to the minister’s undertaking to the clerk of the town of Markham, when can the people east of highway 48 expect environmental assessment hearings into the Nanticoke-Pickering transmission line?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don’t think I can answer that today. I would like to review that before I give the member an answer.

Mr. Speaker: The time for question period has expired.

[3:15]

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: With the honourable members’ leave, I know you would want me to read into the record the names of the pages who are serving with us at the present time and who will be leaving tomorrow. They are as follows:

Jeffrey Bell, Simcoe Centre; Elizabeth Burns, Wellington South; Daniel Burr, Windsor-Riverside; Laura Chapman, Hastings-Peterborough; Shawn Haggerty, Erie; Sarah Hall, Huron-Bruce; Kimberly Harris, Grey; Stephen Jolly, Mississauga North; Marily Koval, Lake Nipigon; Tannys Laughren, Nickel Belt; Finn Lovsted, St. Andrew-St. Patrick; Ronald Martin, Durham-York; Ilana McGrath, Kingston and the Islands; Diana Morrison, Ottawa Centre; Eliza Parkinson, St. George; Brian Shannon, Port Arthur; Matthew Snell, Eglinton; Martha Stong, York Centre; Peter Vanderheyden, York South; Sundar Viswanathan, Sudbury; Glen Watson, London North and Eileen Wood, Scarborough Centre.

I am sure all honourable members would like to thank them for their service while they were with us.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RAILWAYS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of Bill 91,

An Act to amend the Railways Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The purpose of this bill is to nationalize the CPR. No, I’m sorry. Please retract that.

The Railways Act applies in part to the operation of the Ontario Northland Railway and the Toronto Transit Commission. This amendment will meet the TTC request for increased penalties for interfering with mechanical equipment on its vehicles, committing any nuisances on its vehicles or the entering of its rapid transit system at other than designated passenger entrances.

The present penalties, with maximums of $20 and $25, date back to the mid-thirties and are no longer an effective deterrent. The requested and proposed increase allows for a maximum of $500 in a penalty.

RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS’ LANDS ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 92,

An Act to provide for the Holding of Land by Religious Organizations.

Motion agreed to.

ANGLICAN CHURCH OF CANADA ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 93,

An Act respecting the Anglican Church of Canada.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Today I have reintroduced two bills which I introduced at the end of the last session of the House. The first bill, the Religious Organizations’ Lands Act, is a replacement of the existing Religious Institutions Act. It permits religious congregations to hold lands for religious purposes in the name of trustees. The religious group does not have to go to the expense of incorporating. By the same token, when there is a change of trustee the group does not have to incur the expense of registering any new deed from the old trustees to the new trustees. This convenient method of landholding is retained in the new bill.

In addition, the bill extends this convenience to all recognized religions. This legislation is perhaps more important for its symbolic value than for its practical effects as it recognizes the equal standing of all religions in Ontario,

whereas formerly only Christians and Jews had the benefit of the Religious Institutions Act.

The second piece of legislation, the Anglican Church of Canada Act, removes the specific provisions covering the Anglican Church from the Religious Institutions Act and places them in their own separate act. These bills result from the recommendations of the Ontario Law Reform Commission.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALDIMAND-NORFOLK AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 94,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The purpose of this bill is to amend the quorum requirements of the regional council of the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk. Under this amendment, 10 members of the regional council representing at least four area municipalities will be necessary to form a quorum. This bill is introduced at the request of the regional council chairman and many of the members of regional council.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Parrott, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, moved first reading of Bill 95,

An Act to amend the Planning Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: This amendment repeals and re-enacts

section 85(

a) which contains provisions enabling municipalities to pass bylaws to control certain detail features of new developments. The amendment is necessary because of a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which declared a bylaw passed by the city of Toronto under

section 35(

a) to be invalid. The decision has implications beyond the city of Toronto, however, because there are at least 70 other municipalities in the province with similar bylaws.

INSURED HEALTH SERVICES ACT

Mr. Martel moved first reading of Bill 96,

An Act respecting Insured Services under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: The purpose of the bill is to declare that surgical procedures for breast reconstruction are insured services under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

[Later (5:30):]

Mr. Speaker: This afternoon the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) introduced a bill entitled,

an Act respecting Insured Services under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. At the time the member made his explanation of the bill’s purpose, I felt that it was a money bill. However, I reserved a ruling on it until I could examine it more carefully.

Having done so, it is obvious to me that as the bill would increase the services under OHIP, it must of necessity increase the expenditure of public funds under the plan. I must rule that the bill is a money bill which can only be introduced by a minister of the crown supported by a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor.

The bill is therefore out of order and must be omitted from the order paper.

[Reverting (3:23):]

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I wish to table the answers to questions 14, 33, 38, 41, 59, 122, 171 and 172 standing on the Notice Paper, and the answer to a petition presented to the House, sessional paper number 47. (See appendix, page 2042.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Pursuant to standing order number 13, I wish to indicate to the House the business for the remainder of this week and next week. This afternoon, we take into consideration ballot items numbers 13 and 14. This evening we will go to legislation, starting with Bill 49 in committee of the whole House, to be followed by a second reading and committee work if required, on Bills 32 and 33. Then we will consider second reading and committee work, if required, on Bills 22, 34, 72 and 73. Tomorrow morning, the House will sit in committee of supply to continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

On Monday, May 21, the House will not sit. On Tuesday, May 22, being Joe Clark day throughout Canada, this House will not sit.

Mr. Martel: Who?

Mr. Swart: Memorial Day, isn’t it?

Mr. Wildman: Mordecai Richler calls Clark a little boy with the hollow laugh.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I just wanted to make sure you were listening. On Wednesday, May 23, the general government, resources development and justice committees may meet in the morning. On Thursday afternoon, we will consider ballot items numbers 15 and 16. In the evening on Thursday, May 24, we will take into consideration legislation, starting with any legislation not completed this evening, then turning to Bill 17. We will consider second reading and committee work, if there’s time, with respect to Bills 43, 44, 45 and 46. On Friday, May 25, the House will be in committee of supply, carrying on with the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

WITHDRAWAL OF RESOLUTION

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have on the order paper a resolution for debate this afternoon. This resolution provides for the consideration by this House of legislation which would prohibit strikes and lockouts in certain enumerated essential public services, such as sewage treatment, water purification and garbage collection. I have learned the government I support is somewhat sensitive about the issue being debated at this time. I have also concluded a free expression of opinion would not necessarily emerge from the debate. Accordingly, I hereby withdraw the resolution.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable House leader.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The development, I must say, has caught the entire House by surprise. We were going to have two items and I simply indicate, Mr. Speaker, all of us have come this afternoon assuming those two ballot items would be discussed today. The first indication the House leaders had that one of the items would not be discussed was now, and I want that on the record. In view of the apportionment of time and the fact the rule calls for no vote until a quarter to six, I think the House might of its own want to make some arrangements with respect to time.

We might want to decide whether or not this debate should take the full amount of time, or if we should fill in; or indeed that we might go to some other business and then resume at quarter to six for the voting of this item. I really haven’t had a chance to consult with my colleagues in this matter, but I would suppose we might want to have some indication now.

Mr. Speaker: Our table officers are looking into it. It seems to me that the maximum time for any debate of this nature had been 90 minutes, but I understand that has been taken out of the standing orders and now equal time will be apportioned to the two balloted items on occasions such as this.

The chair will look for some guidance from the House leaders as to how they wish to proceed. We could use half of the available time between now and 5:50, and perhaps they could agree how we could use the time more profitably after half of the time has been spent. The chair looks for some direction in that regard.

Perhaps the member for Windsor-Sandwich can proceed. Since it has been procedural in nature, we will not deduct this amount of time from his presentation if he wants to take advantage of the full 20 minutes. But I will look for some direction from the House leaders as to how they might wish to spend the balance of the time between now and 5:50.

[3:30]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Bounsall moved second reading of Bill 3,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has up to 241 minutes for his presentation and he may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, I introduce this bill with a great deal of enthusiasm and pride. The purpose of this bill is to establish in Ontario, equal pay for work of equal value.

Interruption.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind our visitors in the gallery that we do not allow any outbursts. They are perfectly welcome to be here to view and to listen to the proceedings, but they must remain quiet. I will ask them to respect that. The honourable member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mr. Bounsall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That certainly was not organized by me. I would just make a comment at the beginning of my address, Mr. Speaker. Because of the very great importance to all the women in this province of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value -- and to anyone in this province who cherishes justice -- I would hope that the decision of the House leaders would be that we would spend the entire afternoon on the discussion of the principle of this very important bill.

I was surprised but delighted to see the enthusiasm of members in the gallery for the presentation of this bill, because I believe they feel very strongly, as I do, that the time has come, if it is not long overdue, for this legislation to be in the books of the province of Ontario.

This legislation would end any discrimination or differential in pay which exists on the basis of sex. The present Employment Standards Act would be replaced by the sections in this bill. The Present Employment Standards Act contains only the provision that there will be equal pay for men and women when performing substantially the same work. This did help, when it was introduced back in 1974, in equalizing the pay between men and women who were performing very nearly equal work, such as orderlies and nurses aides.

However, it does absolutely nothing beyond that for the women-only jobs, which are traditionally paid, irrespective of their skill, effort or responsibility involved, at rates much lower than those for men-only jobs, although the same employer is involved.

There have been instances, which members of the government party may well quote and in which we rejoice when they occur, where there have been groups of men and women in which they are not necessarily performing substantially the same work -- there are some minor differences -- but in which equal pay has been achieved. I refer specifically to the public health nurses and the public health inspectors working for the city of Toronto.

But let me assure the Speaker and the House that it was not the Employment Standards Act that brought this about; it was primarily because there was a group of very bright, very articulate and very well-organized women in that nursing sector in the city of Toronto, and because of their very strong efforts and presentations, that that equal pay situation came about. If they had had to follow only the protections under this act, they would not have achieved it.

This act must be changed to ensure that jobs across this province are valued in the nature of their worth to the company and that those jobs are then paid according to that value to that employer, irrespective of who fills that job, a man or a woman. Until that happens, we will not have any justice or any equality in pay, and it is based purely on a differential of sex only across Ontario.

The idea of equal pay for work of equal value is not a new one; it was first passed in 1971 by the International Labour Organization convention number 100 and ratified at that time by 83 countries. This convention was ratified in Canada in 1972 when it received approval in principle from all provinces, including Ontario, yet Ontario has to date done nothing to implement that commitment. There was an internal ministry report advocating equal pay for work of equal value some two years ago, which was rejected by ministry officials.

There is absolutely no activity or consideration of equal pay for work of equal value taking place within the ministry now. As I understand it, that concept has been killed totally within the ministry, which is a disgrace and this gross discrimination against women continues in Ontario.

At this time may I just take some time to quote some of the figures from Statistics Canada for a variety of occupations. It is very clear that this discrimination continues to exist. These are 1975 statistics. The average income of full-time workers by occupation shows this breakdown: In managerial occupations, women’s average salary was only $10,805; the men’s average salary was $18,747. In the professional category, for women the average was $9,952; for men, $16,772. For clerical occupations, where women have historically dominated, the gap is clearly there and is clearly far too wide: for women, $7,157; for men, $11,045. In sales: for women, $5,545; for men, $13,758.

We can go on through a whole series of categories indicating the gross discrimination in gaps which exist between men’s salaries and women’s salaries. In the transport industry, for example, women’s average salary was $6,660; men’s, $12,174. In the service industry, women again very much lower: $4,711, as compared to the men’s average salary of $10,136.

The gap continues to widen over the years. The gap between women’s wages and men’s wages has grown over the past 10 years for which we have figures. In 1965, the gap was $2,694 on average for full-time wage earners; by 1975 the gap had widened to $6,060. So we are not achieving, by any of our efforts, any lessening of that gap, nor are we achieving any equality. We are in fact moving further away from it.

It is clear that the private sector, under the existing legislation in the province of Ontario, is not redressing nor is it interested in redressing these huge pay differentials. From the Ontario government’s own women’s bureau figures, in 1976 women’s average earnings were only 53.5 per cent of male average earnings. Who are these women in the work force, one might ask? We have some attitudes from the federal government which wants to classify them as secondary wage earners. In changing the Unemployment Insurance Act the federal government wants to put them in a much more discriminated against situation.

But who are these women in the work force? Sixty-one per cent of these women in the work force are single, widowed, separated, divorced or married to men whose earnings are less than $10,000 a year. They all must work and most of these are sole supporters of either themselves or their families. They must and will continue to work and the compensation for their labour must reflect this.

The women’s bureau newsletter of February 1979 cites that in 1976 the average income of male-headed families was $19,803 in Ontario, and of female-headed families only $10,327. A staggering 42 per cent of these female wage earners had family incomes which fell below the poverty line, as compared with only 9.2 per cent of the men. We have women in Ontario in a poverty situation in the work place.

In my bill, the only criterion to be applied in assessing the value of the job to an employer is a composite of the skill, effort and responsibility required in the performance of that work. I have had cause over the years to be in various plants, and when I am there have a look at some of the jobs that are performed.

I was struck by the situation in one plant in particular that I visited a couple of years ago, a plant at which jeans are made, in which all of the sewing-machine operators who were doing very intricate work in stitching the seams and attaching the pockets were paid, on average, about slightly more than a dollar less than the man who loaded a stack of 12 pairs of jeans on to a cart and then wheeled the cart away.

If one evaluated the skill, effort and responsibility of the job performed by the man compared with the work done by the machine operators, it would be quite clear to anyone that in that company the women were performing with much greater skill and a much higher degree of responsibility, and at the rate at which they were working with much greater effort and output. It is that kind of imbalance which must be redressed by an evaluation system across Ontario.

The bill provides for evaluation to be done by an employment standard officer. If he finds that in a given company there exists an improper evaluation, he may order that correction, and in certain circumstances order back pay to make up the differential.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said to me occasionally that this would perhaps require the formation of an entire cadre of employment standards officers and that we would be expanding our bureaucracy to a great extent. The answer to that, I firmly believe, is no. When we put a law on the books of the province of Ontario, most people in Ontario respect and obey that law. Many employers would, therefore, start almost immediately to take that law and apply it within their own plants without urging, devising for themselves a system of evaluation of jobs and paying a rate for those jobs which would reflect the effort, responsibility and skill required.

It is only with certain employers that an employment standards officer would have to go in after receiving complaints that this was not being done. I do not envisage a whole cadre of additional officers needed for the employment standards branch if this bill passes to achieve the net positive result we all seek. But even if that were required, it would be a very worthwhile, necessary effort, and one which would bring justice to our system in Ontario.

I might say, through you Mr. Speaker to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), that this is a very necessary part of the work situation in Ontario. The Affirmative Action Program is not the answer; it is certainly not the answer in and of itself. Affirmative action, if successful, provides an opportunity only for a woman to get a job. But what kind of a job? What kind of a job and what kind of work? In the present situation, what are we providing for them if we only provide an opportunity to be ghettoized in these lower-paying jobs?

Although it is a very necessary thing to have an Affirmative Action Program to provide the opportunity for women, it is virtually useless if it doesn’t go hand-in-hand with equal pay for work of equal value so that in the jobs those women then get they are properly paid and properly remunerated for the skill, the effort and the responsibility they have in those positions. Affirmative action by itself is a very voluntary thing.

Whenever any employer is visited by someone he can certainly appear to be agreeing to everything that is being said in terms of opportunities for women to be employed, but too easily he can just never accomplish it.

[3:45]

The appointment of the Advisory Council on Equal Employment Opportunities was the minister’s reply on International Women’s Day to questions as to what the ministry is doing this year. His reply to this effect in the House, when I asked him the following day if there was going to be any legislative activity in this coming year or would it be a big goose egg, as has been the situation for years now in this Legislature, is certainly not the answer. It’s a group which intends to meet only three to four times a year and report upon what progress, if any, has taken place on the affirmative action side.

It certainly does not at all speak to the pay that the women will he receiving out there in the work place, nor to the fairness of that pay for the skill, effort and responsibility which they are required to perform in that work.

I would personally prefer not to have quantity of production as one of the variables, but I can’t reform the entire working place in the province of Ontario all in one bill, and at the same time get rid of the piecework situations that do occur.

Mr. Wildman: You’ll have to do it; the minister won’t.

Mr. Bounsall: I’ve had many groups across the province of Ontario send me telegrams and messages of support over the last couple of days. They include the Ontario Status of Women Council; the Ontario division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees; a group that’s been working very hard to obtain equal pay for work of equal value called the Equal Pay Coalition; and the Ontario Federation of Students. A telegram was just handed to me from the Ontario Nurses Association, saying it was speaking on behalf of its 10,000 members across the province of Ontario urging this government to support this legislation.

The Ontario Federation of Labour representative and the CUPE representative on the minister’s committee are very committed to equal pay for work of equal value. If this committee cannot move in that direction, they say they must very seriously consider their participation on that committee.

Mr. Warner: What about the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson); did she stand you up?

Mr. Bounsall: Virtually every women’s group in this province that one can think of wants this bill passed, and nothing short of putting equal pay for work of equal value in legislation will be effective. Clearly, the time has come for justice to prevail in this province. Discrimination in pay and salaries on the basis of sex alone must end totally and now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has one minute remaining. Does he wish to reserve the one minute?

Mr. Bounsall: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as the minister of this government bearing special responsibility for employment policies affecting women, I have a deep concern and determination that workable solutions be found to remove compensation inequities facing women in the work place.

Mrs. Campbell: In which year?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I hope the member for St. George is still around. I enjoy her company. I hope she doesn’t go.

Mrs. Campbell: I’m not going.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I would remind members that, historically, Ontario has been a leader in the enactment of equal-pay legislation. The Female Employees Fair Remuneration Act in 1951 was the first piece of legislation in Canada dealing with equal pay. Since that time, successive amendments to our legislation, and in response to a developing jurisprudence, have led to the enactment of the present

section 33 of the Employment Standards Act, a

section which provides substantial protection against discrimination in payment based upon sex.

While existing Ontario legislation compares favourably with that of most jurisdictions in North America and of those in western Europe, I do not for a moment suggest that we have achieved perfection.

Mr. Warner: That’s why we’ve got a bill today.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Down, boy, down.

Aside altogether from the equal-value issue, to which I shall turn in a moment, there are aspects of the present

section 33 which deserve serious consideration as well. For example, the existing protection extends only to employees employed in the same establishment, and I think it may legitimately be asked why a single employer having a number of establishments ought not to be required to maintain equal-pay provisions for all of them. Similarly, I am concerned that we do not permit the intent of the

section to be evaded; for example, by allowing employers to lower the pay rates of male employees to achieve equality. I am confident that reforms of this kind can soon be achieved.

I would now like to turn to the bill introduced by my friend and colleague from Windsor-Sandwich. It is difficult to quarrel with equal pay for equal value as an abstract principle of equity. However, I think we all must be concerned about how that principle cars be translated into practical, workable and enforceable legislation.

As members may recall, the Ministry of Labour published a discussion paper in late 1976 which raised a number of problems about the concept -- problems relating to definition, measurement techniques, labour market implications, cost and enforceability. The paper was widely distributed, and recipients were invited to comment on the specific problems as identified.

As I think my friend knows, the response to that paper was rather discouraging; by that, I mean there were relatively few responses and those that have been received shed little light on the important issues raised in the discussion paper. I want to make it clear that my mind is far from closed on the issue of equal pay for work of equal value, and I am sincerely seeking assistance and guidance in assessing the very difficult issues raised in that discussion paper.

The paper points out, for example, that one of the threshold questions relates to the establishment of an appropriate and reliable test for determining relative value. If it is assumed that market-determined values may not be ethically fair, socially desirable or practically efficient in this area, which alternative criteria may be substituted for the market? The most common alternative proposed is some broadly based system of job evaluation. However, few would pretend that job evaluation is an exact science.

Moreover, as the ministry’s paper points out, the results of purportedly objective and scientific job evaluation can be influenced by many of the same factors which affect wages as they are determined now in the marketplace, either by collective bargaining or otherwise.

I do not suggest any of these problems are insuperable, but I merely point them out to show that job evaluation as a measurement technique does have its limitations. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, for example, has commissioned a $250,000 study to examine whether it is feasible to develop job evaluation methods that are fair, objective, comprehensive and bias-free. You can be sure that when the results of this study are released at the end of this year, we will examine them very carefully.

I wonder as well about the extent to which equality of value can be fairly and satisfactorily reflected in terms of pay alone. What about the significance of related matters having to do in general terms with the quality of working life? Should not the evaluation equation be affected by the environment?

I am troubled, as well, about the implications equal value has for the work force as a whole. Does the concept and the implications flowing from it not transcend the male-female equality problem that we are concerned about today? If one is to legislate equal pay for work of equal value, what about the comparisons where sex is not affected.

Does the principle contained in the member’s bill mean we must have a universal comprehensive job evaluation scheme covering the entire labour market eventually, so that the social value of a tool and die maker, for example, must be rated or evaluated in relation to other totally unrelated benchmark occupations? I raise this not frivolously or facetiously, but because I am genuinely concerned about the breadth of the proposal.

Mr. McClellan: You are concerned about everything.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am concerned about you and I will get that dog of mine after you again.

In this connection I think we must be clear about the way in which the equal value concept can be reconciled with our collective bargaining system. It has been my observation that in bargaining, wage levels are determined by the realities of the work place and the priorities of the bargaining unit operating as a collective. Does the equal value principle mean that bargaining goals are to be circumscribed by an overriding government imposed concept of equal value? If so, where does the notion end?

Does it inevitably lead to some sort of incomes policy, with everyone assigned and locked into some place in a wage hierarchy? That may be the logical end consequence of an equal value concept and that may be something we will want to look at some day in the future.

We are, I suggest, back to the original question that I raised: what are the criteria upon which relative values are to be based? Even more fundamentally, perhaps, who is to develop, impose and enforce these criteria?

I repeat that I don’t ask these questions facetiously, but rather in a genuine effort to try and understand where the principle, which I have conceded on its face is a laudable one, leads us.

As I attempted to indicate, we are still looking for satisfactory answers. This is not to say that answers don’t exist. The ministry discussion paper dealt with the experience of other jurisdictions, including the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, France and the Netherlands.

Mr. Martel: Who wrote that, Genghis Khan?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No, your son. You know what has happened to him, he’s coming around.

I think it is accurate to say that only in the latter two jurisdictions does the equal value concept apply, at least nominally. The available literature does not cast much light on how evaluation problems to which I referred have been tackled in those countries.

Since the publication of the paper, the federal and Quebec human rights codes containing equal value provisions have come into force. We are monitoring the experience under those acts with great interest, but so far it is too early to tell what results will emerge.

I have purposely used the time allotted to me to share with members the concerns I have about the equal value notion. I could have spent much time on collateral but related matters concerning the activities which we have undertaken to enhance the prospects of equal opportunity for women in the labour market.

It has often been said that equal value is no substitute for equal opportunity, for example, and I think members know of the aggressive action this government has taken in the equal opportunity field. I believe we have set an example through our five-year-old program on equal opportunity within government, monitored by the women crown employees’ office in my ministry. I also believe the equal opportunity advisory council confirms our commitment to this principle.

I am committed to the principle that this province must ensure equality for women. I will work for real solutions to the problems and removal of barriers which exist, in order that the legitimate work aspirations of women can be realized. Ultimately it may be that the equal value concept can be translated into legislation. However, as I have indicated, many questions remain to be answered before a sound and responsible legislative decision can be made. For that reason, I regret I cannot at this time support the honourable member’s bill.

I assure him and other interested parties that the concept is not dead in this minister’s mind, and I reiterate that. Let me assure him there is no more vocal spokesman about the issue of inequities facing women in the work place than this minister.

[4:00]

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, there are occasions when I have to rise in this House with a deep sense of humiliation. As a woman, I am, in the year 1979, once more trying to prove that women are people. That is really what the essence of this is all about. The minister is so concerned about equality. I knew what the minister was going to say before he said it.

I have written to the minister on a simple matter, something that shouldn’t take years of study, and that was: “Why, if we are studying the quality of life in the work place, is it an all-male corporation?” Do you know what his answer was? I’m paraphrasing but I think he will correct me if in any way I misinterpret what he said. He said: “I am not trying to make decisions on the basis of sex. My deputy chose these people and we were looking for the best people,” so therefore, of course, automatically the best people were all males.

He has assured me, however, that the committee, which is made up of labour and management, did not feel that they should enlarge that committee at this time, but if somebody retires or dies he’s going to think about putting a woman on that committee.

What we have to remember is that this matter was debated in International Women’s Year in the committee where the Liberals led the field in trying to get this amendment through. The minister of the day said that really the people of this province were not ready for that. I must confess that I was terribly disheartened when some of the spokesmen for labour stood and scolded women for asking for this on that occasion.

However, that is no longer a part of this debate. All I wanted to demonstrate is that this government has had all that time to give thought to this and we’re still going to study it. Of course, on that occasion what we did to give equality to women basically, to make sure they were equal, was to eliminate for them, at a time when sexual violence was growing in the community, the right to be protected at night when they left on the graveyard shifts. So much for the philosophy of equality of this government.

Let me just say what this government is prepared to tolerate. Between 1974 and 1976, the gap in salaries and wages, in earnings, widened faster than it did between 1969 and 1971; but that’s a hip, hip, hurray, with this government, that’s why there’s no urgency. It has already been stated a woman in a managerial position in 1969 was earning $5,216 less than her male colleagues and this minister is worried about inequality; nonsense.

In 1971 the difference was $5,762. By 1974 she was earning $7,794 less and in 1976 the gap was $10,846; and the minister wants to do more studies.

All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that so far as I am concerned, I will fight as long as there is breath in me for this principle. I am not afraid to tackle the difficulties which we all agree would be inherent in trying to work out the job classifications and qualifications. Nor do I for one moment, intend to cease to fight for job opportunities for women, so don’t try to separate the two. What I am fighting for is a recognition by this government, a recognition I thought was legal years ago, that women in fact are people. I will fight against discrimination for people as long as I live.

Interruption.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would just like to remind our visitors in the gallery we cannot allow any demonstrations of any sort and I would ask them for the second time to govern themselves accordingly.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate my colleague, the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall), on introducing this important legislation. He has been putting forward similar bills for several sessions, but this time I hope the House will adopt his bill.

If the bill passes, Mr. Speaker, we will simply be catching up to the legislation which has been in effect in the United Kingdom since 1970, and to federal legislation which is almost two years old. We will also be implementing a United Nations convention supporting this principle of equal pay for work of equal value, a convention which was adopted as far back as 1951 and was ratified by Canada in 1972 after consultation with the provinces. Mr. Speaker, we will be adopting a principle which the New Democratic Party has been advocating for a great number of years.

Mr. Speaker, the equal pay legislation the minister boasts about, which has been on the Ontario statute books since 1951, has really been a dead letter ever since it was put on the books. Even after several changes in the wording, it is still far too restrictive to be effective in guaranteeing women parity in remuneration for work involving the same skill, the same effort and the same responsibility and performed under similar conditions.

Mr. Speaker, the figures speak for themselves. The present law simply says employees shall receive equal pay if they perform “substantially the same kind of work.” The number of complaints and the amounts collected have been pitifully small. In the past fiscal year, only eight employers were assessed and 29 employees collected a total of $8,311. In the previous year, only nine employers were assessed and 20 employees collected a pitiful $6,672.

Women in the full-time work force are at present earning only 53 per cent of what men make, as my colleague pointed out, and the gap is widening not narrowing, despite our so-called equal pay laws on the statute books. Female heads of families made only 50 per cent of what male heads of families made in the last year.

While those differentials are partly due to attitudes and to discrimination, they are also, of course, due to the ghettoization of jobs for women. But we will never end the ghettoization of jobs until we have adopted the concept of equal pay for work of equal value.

Over 97 per cent of secretaries are women. Two thirds of women are clerks, waitresses, saleswomen and hairdressers. Even here the wage gap between male and female employees has been widening. In the past 10 years it has increased by 168 per cent. This seems to answer the claim, which the minister makes, that all we need is equal opportunity legislation.

The record in the public service seems to indicate that equal opportunity and affirmative action still does not close the gap between men’s and women’s salaries to any great extent. It would be nice to take the crown to court for violating a law that requires equal pay for work of equal value.

The legislation is simply not working. While the members opposite may say that legislation is not the best way to implement this principle and to overcome the barriers to economic parity for women, I believe it is very important to enshrine the principle in legislation. We have found this effective in other human rights fields. It is an integral part of the process of changing attitudes which are often the reason for women failing to be granted both equal opportunity and equal pay.

Only when the principle is enshrined in the legislation will governments and employers and trade unions set themselves seriously to developing the techniques for implementation of this principle. I must say I was very disappointed to hear the minister introducing a lot of red herrings about the meaning and application of the principle and how difficult it would be to sort out what would apply in implementing and enforcing the legislation. I think he was simply trying to find a reason for not voting for the bill.

The argument has also been made by the minister that we can leave the establishment of economic parity between men and women to collective bargaining, but a great many women are not in trade unions. Moreover, when he suggests that the attainment of equal pay should be left to the collective bargaining process, what he is suggesting is that all the members of a union forego needed wage increases and additional benefits in order to enable the employer to fulfil his obligation in justice to pay men and women at the same rate if they perform jobs requiring similar levels of skill, effort and responsibility and work under the same conditions in the same establishment.

[4:15]

Women have been subsidizing employers for decades to the tune of -- estimates range from five to seven billion dollars. There is no reason why this subsidization should go on. It may be that the minister thinks his newly-appointed equal opportunity advisory council, announced in the speech from the throne this year, is a vehicle to deal with this problem. In my opinion, this is akin to appointing an advisory committee of passengers and crew on the Titanic to study whether the ship is sinking.

The question of economic equality for women has been studied to death by this province. We have had studies arid conferences and yet we have no commitment, no position statement on it. This advisory committee will meet, perhaps, three or four times a year and will have many items on its plate. It is certainly not the vehicle for achieving this principle.

The one advisory committee that knows what it is talking about on this subject has already spoken. It is the Ontario Status of Women Council. Its chairman, Lynn Gordon, said in her annual report for 1978: “Ontario’s existing equal pay laws simply are not working for women. I urge the Ontario government to follow the lead of the federal government by enshrining the principle of equal pay for work of equal value in law. Only when we compare one job to another, using the criteria of skill, effort and responsibility, will we eliminate women’s job ghettos.”

Lynn Gordon underlined this in a recent letter to the members supporting this bill when she said, “The council is unanimously agreed that women in the paid labour force will not begin to reach economic parity with men in this society until the province’s labour laws have been modernized.”

Mr. Speaker, if members opposite vote against this bill they are reinforcing the opinion that they consider the status of women council to be simply a fifth wheel.

Mr. MacBeth: I am sure the member for Windsor-Walkerville will not be surprised to learn that I have entered the debate on this matter, to speak to this bill, because in the past we have had many long discussions on this very topic.

Mr. Bounsall: Windsor-Sandwich, not Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. MacBeth: I apologize to the member because he has been the spokesman for this cause for a long, long time.

Having, as he knows, shepherded the present Employment Standards Act through this House and knowing it to be the best of all possible acts I consider that its integrity should be left untouched, and am, therefore, a little reluctant to see this amendment. However, I am speaking facetiously, as he knows, because the topic is one of concern to all, and I know the sincerity with which the member has put forward his amendment.

The member is espousing a popular and a just cause. I am sure I will be attacked for defending the present act and will probably be misinterpreted in what I am about to say. It is not difficult for opposition to put forward this bill and support it, because as I said, it is a very popular and worthwhile cause. Yet at the same time, as we have said before it is up to the government to administer these laws. For that reason, and I suppose for no other, the government has to look twice at it.

Mr. Laughren: That’s not so.

Mr. MacBeth: Well, it is so. The government has the responsibility to administer, and it wants to make sure what it has to administer is workable.

Everyone is against injustice. The failure of any employer to pay to women the same wages they pay to men for the same job is just that; it’s an injustice. Common sense and harmony in the work place require equal pay for work of equal value. It seems to me the self-interest of the employers dictates they should attempt to achieve this.

However, the members have mentioned difficulties and regrettably this bill does not solve the difficulties, or does not find the answer to those difficulties. I hope soon the minister or someone from the opposition will be able to find a bill that will solve those difficulties. Because “equal value” -- and I say “equal value” in quotation marks -- is a matter of judgement and that judgement is in the eye of the beholder.

We all think we are doing a pretty good job, no matter what we are doing, and if we were asked to compare our work with that of the person next to us, we would probably say we were doing a better job than they are. In that sense I say equal value becomes a matter of the person who is doing that judging.

I believe the employer in this province still has a few rights. In my mind, one of those remaining rights is to decide the relative value to be placed on the various facets of his operation. The employer is more qualified to judge this value than some employment standards officer.

“It’s no great problem,” the members will tell me. “It is done every day in the unions.” I know it is done every day in the unions, but I would remind those members opposite unions don’t try to make their assessment on the basis of equal value, they make it on long-time, respected, categorizations that have been established over the years. A plumber gets so much, a bricklayer gets so much, and the value of that work is not taken into consideration at all. It is more history and tradition than anything else. Of course, it has been established over the long term, but very rarely do they compare the work of one person with that of another person, but rather decide what category they fit into.

It is not very much of a problem in a large organization or where there is a unionized shop, but it certainly becomes a problem in a small office or firm. We in this House, and I have heard it said so many times, all want to help the small businessman. We pay lip service to how we can do this. At the same time, we continue to harass business by a growing number of intrusions. I suggest to the House, no intrusion will be more onerous, more aggravating, or more disruptive of harmony, than having a government agency making the kinds of decisions this bill will force that agency to make.

Mr. Grande: I thought you were saying this was just.

Mr. MacBeth: The members will say they don’t anticipate too many of these intrusions, but I assure them, because of the nature of the assessments that have to be made, there will be many of them.

It will be interesting to watch how the small-business advocates vote on this bill. This is not just an amendment to say women shall get the same pay as men. The present

section 33, regardless of how ineffective it may be, provides just for that, and I admit, we should work to improve that. But this bill, in effect, says there shall be no difference between wages paid to male and female employees who are performing work of equal value. The corollary is there shall be no difference between wages paid to males performing work of equal value. That, of course, is not now in the law, so it is not a case of comparing one woman’s work against one man’s work, but comparing one man’s work against another man’s work, and one woman’s work against that of another woman.

We are opening up a field we have not travelled before. As I say, it is not a case of women against men, but of assessing one job against another in all facets of that place of business.

Who decides whether the salesman is more valuable than the worker who makes the product? Referring to law officers, who decides whether the title searcher in a law office is more valuable than the process server?

I think I can point to a few legal secretaries who are more vital to the operation of law offices than the lawyer. That’s not hard to do.

An hon. member: The ministers’ assistants could fall into that category as well.

Mr. MacBeth: Their work is more productive in many respects than the lawyer’s. If work of equal value is what has primacy, then of what importance are degrees in seniority? The member is ready to recognize that equal value is not the only thing one should take into account; if it’s not the only thing, then why is it that he can recognize degrees in the teaching profession and the matter of seniority if the real criterion is work of equal value? One can’t have it both ways. The member even wants to allow a difference for quantity. Quantity and quality, of course, are entirely different things.

Surely, these items are inconsistencies. Over the years, society changes its views of values as well. Once a PhD was considered fairly valuable. A skilled trades certificate is probably regarded and is, in fact, much more valuable in today’s society.

So I say who is to decide this work of equal value? Who is to decide it in such fields as the arts?

Mr. Grande: Obviously you aren’t deciding it.

Mr. MacBeth: Who is to decide it in the field of politics? Who is to decide it in the field of research? Who is to decide it in professional sports? I’d like to play around with that one for a little while.

The Employment Standards Act has general application. It’s not limited to the factory situation. It’s in all employment places.

What are we going to do in the world of sports if they decide the goaltender is worth a little bit more than the right winger or some other position? This act has wide implications. It is not just limited to the work place as, I think, many of the members understand.

There is a paradox which I fail to understand with the socialists across the way. They always are objecting to government, generally “the government.” They are most critical of this government but no one appears --

Mr. Grande: Only the injustices that you perpetrate.

Mr. MacBeth: -- to have greater faith in bureaucracy’s ability to accomplish tomorrow what they have failed to achieve in the past. I think they are still dreaming of perfection through legislation.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Why don’t you get rid of all of the legislation?

Mr. MacBeth: It might be better but certainly we’re not going to correct this world by way of the kind of legislation the member is putting forward today.

I have no quarrel with the idea that men and women doing the same job should receive the same pay, but we’re not going to do it by this kind of legislation. We have to do it by education.

The member for St. George refers to the number of years. It may take a few years to change this after all the years these inequalities have existed. But in the last few years we have made great changes and great progress in coming to this field. I hope we con continue at a faster rate, but if we continue even at the rate we’ve done in the last five years we’ll be doing well.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Ms. Bryden: You’re going backwards.

Mr. MacBeth: So I’m not a supporter of government, per se, and to adopt this bill would increase the bureaucracy manyfold and could create more injustices than it would rectify --

Mr. Wildman: Especially this government.

Mr. MacBeth: -- without effectively aiding the position of women in the workplace.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the bill brought forward by the member for Windsor-Sandwich and I wish to congratulate him for bringing it forth. It is a shame we are here today to debate a private member’s bill on equal pay for equal work rather than legislation put forth by this government. I’m afraid that’s a vain hope, though, judging from remarks that have already been made.

We all know this government ultimately ignores or discredits ideas put forth in private members’ debates; that is illustrated here today. Nonetheless, it is a good opportunity to go over the past record of this government on the issue of fair employment practices for women, and again impress upon the Conservative Party how present Ontario employment standards legislation perpetrates discrimination on the basis of sex.

[4:30]

It’s been 28 years since the equal pay for work of equal value concept was set forth by the International Labour Organization. Early in 1978, the federal government saw fit to enshrine this principle in the Canadian human rights bill so all female employees of the federal government and its agencies would be protected from employment discrimination. In Ontario, however, the federal protection does not extend to 90 per cent of the province’s working women.

We might ask: How has Ontario responded to the concept of equal pay for work of equal value for women? In 1975, the Labour minister, then the member for Humber (Mr. MacBeth), the speaker who preceded me, turned to the Bible in an attempt to explain what he meant, saying --

Mr. Mancini: He was trying to blame God.

Mr. Handleman: God’s a Liberal, that’s why.

Mr. McGuigan: -- society was not completely sold on the idea. He asked: “Do you remember the parable about the workers going into the fields? Well, there were different rates of pay.” I’d like to remind the honourable members that the Lord Jesus Christ was probably the first --

Mr. Watson: Liberal?

Mr. McGuigan: I think he was Liberal all right, but he was the first one who recognized women when he spoke to the lady at the well.

From this low point in the debate, the Ontario government moved on to preparation of a discussion paper on the subject, a paper that the subsequent Labour minister, the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), warned could not recommend policy, but rather would stimulate discussion.

Mr. Haggerty: One of our worst Labour ministers.

Mr. McGuigan: I might add as well that the 1976 discussion paper had a rather negative approach to the concept, stating in detail the problems of administrative implementation rather than endorsing the human rights principle at hand. Again in 1978, there were more discussions arranged and ballyhooed by the government. Twenty thousand dollars was spent on a two-day conference at the Royal York Hotel, and about 250 attended. Yet this public relations gesture backfired somewhat when many of the guests made strong public statements condemning the forum as an apology for inaction. We have certainly had that this afternoon.

The director of the Ministry of Labour’s women’s bureau was quoted, along with the Deputy Minister of Labour, as admitting the present legislation is limited and inadequate.

Now it’s 1979, and a full two years after the federal government introduced the equal pay for equal work of equal value concept in its justice committee. Ontario’s Conservative government is still stalling on any meaningful improvements in the situation of working women, and the wage gap between men and women is widening at increasing speed. I won’t mention those statistics because they have already been given.

In token recognition of International Women’s Day this year, the Minister of Labour announced the establishment of yet another government committee to study the equal-value concept. Meanwhile, there has been no action taken to require affirmative action programs as a condition of contract compliance with businesses with which the Ontario government does business. My Liberal colleague from St. George introduced a private member’s bill to this effect back in 1978. That lady has always acted as a strong advocate for economic and human rights and equality for women, but this government seems to become more defensive the more it is criticized.

I notice the minister said in one of his interjections that the member for St. George is ours. Well, she is, and we’re darn proud of her.

Why should Ontario, traditionally touted as the richest province in Canada, want to stall any longer on improved employment protection for women, even though the former minister the member for York Mills, used the argument that adoption of equal pay for work of equal value would result in fundamental changes in the basis of wage determination in a free market economy.