31e législature, 4e session

L111 - Thu 13 Nov 1980 / Jeu 13 nov 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.



Mr. M. N. Davison: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: When I returned to my office at 1:40 this afternoon I was stopped at the north door by a member of the Ontario Government Protective Service. He first asked me if he could be of assistance to me. When I informed him that he could not be of assistance to me, he asked me if I worked here. I said, “No, I am a member of the Legislative Assembly.” He said, “Sorry, sir.”

When I suggested to him that I would be rather upset if any of my constituents were grilled as they tried to come to visit me in my office, his response was that his superiors would be even more upset if he didn’t stop people at the entrance to this building. This particular guard is new to his duties at Queen’s Park and I have no complaint against him personally. That does not constitute part of my point of privilege.

However, when I contacted Senior Supervisor Watts of the government protective service at Queen’s Park and asked him what orders had been given to the security staff here, I got the following explanation of what kind of people would be stopped and held at the doors of the building. I think Mr. Watts’ definition includes a large number of the members of the assembly. He said: “There is a consensus that you can spot people with a grievance against the government, people who want to air their views, or people who are not quite right in the mind.” He said he thought the guard had probably stopped me because it was the first time he had seen me.

As I say, this person is new to his duties here and I have no complaint against him, but that is an incredibly unacceptable answer for the government protective service to provide. I don’t want any of my constituents to be treated like that. I think my privileges and the privileges of my constituents have been breached. Mr. Speaker, I would like you to look into this matter. Specifically I would like to know who gave those orders to the security staff in this building.

Mr. Speaker: I think we all have had those difficulties from time to time as a result of quite a large turnover of staff. Obviously there has been a misunderstanding. I will undertake to look into it.



Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, today I will be introducing a bill that will effectively stay the execution of the writs of possession upon the residents of Toronto Island until July 1, 1981. This action is necessary because on October 27 the Ontario Court of Appeal found the writs of possession to be still valid. At that time, the commission, headed by Barry Swadron, QC, was still under way.

Last June the Lieutenant Governor in Council established this commission, under section 249 of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, to inquire into the future use of those lands on Ward’s and Algonquin islands that were used for residential purposes. Originally the intention was to have a commission made up of five people, two from the city of Toronto and two from Metro, along with Mr. Swadron. However, during the summer Metro declined to nominate its two commissioners, so the commission was set up with Mr. Swadron only.

This is the first time the whole issue of future uses for these islands has been looked at in depth by an independent commission. Mr. Swadron has been holding meetings and intense discussions over the past few months with everyone interested and concerned about this matter. There has been an opportunity for a thorough examination of the situation. The commission has received 160 written submissions and has heard from more than 140 individuals during the hearings.

I understand the commissioner has almost completed all the groundwork, the meetings, the discussions and the research, and has begun to write his report, which we expect to be submitted in December. The passage of this bill will allow the residents of the islands to remain in their homes until the Swadron commission can report and its recommendations can be responded to.

2:10 p.m.


Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the members of the House an update on our seven-point program to develop the needed facilities to treat and control liquid industrial waste.

First of all, I am tabling today an update of our investigation to date into the allegations over the operations of Walker Brothers Quarries in the Niagara Region. Secondly, I would like to report on the status of our various proposals for interim and short-term waste facilities. However, before I do that, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the interim report on liquid waste from the standing committee on resources development.

Although the report is already part of the official record of this House, I want to commend the committee for its excellent recommendation. As this House will note, many of the recommendations have been incorporated into our program, including the suggestion that the ministry should assist and encourage companies in establishing a solidification plant in the province.

The citizens of Thorold held a referendum on Monday to express their opinion on the proposal to locate a solidification facility near their community. The result was an overwhelming no. During September a local newspaper conducted an informal but well-organized poll on the attitude of the residents of Harwich township to a similar proposal. Again there was an overwhelming response expressing opposition to this proposal. In each of these communities, the citizens have taken their position before the environmental assessment process had the opportunity to study adequately the safety and the effectiveness of the proposals, or to demonstrate the urgent need.

Both sides of the House, as recommended in the committee report, have stated a commitment to the public hearing process as a step in decision-making. I not only concurred with that recommendation, but I so ordered it. Yet certain members have acted to frustrate the environmental assessment process by urging rejection before hearings could be held and the issues fully addressed. Clearly, the temptation to support the “not in my backyard” syndrome is an easy and attractive position for a politician.

Ontario is clearly running out of options for the treatment of liquid industrial waste and the crisis is building. The combination of these many factors has now served to delay the establishment of urgently needed facilities. My ministry has been considering other options for some time, but I do not intend to make a final decision on our future course of action until we have received the final report from James F. MacLaren Limited.

As the honourable members will recall, this engineering consulting firm was hired in January 1979 to make recommendations on a permanent, long-term liquid waste treatment facility. The completion of this report has been a high priority. The final cost is estimated at just under $425,000. I anticipate the recommendations will form the basis of the government’s future plan of action. I expect to receive this final report tomorrow. After I have personally had the opportunity to assess the recommendations, I will report back to the House on November 25. At that time, I will table the report and outline the ministry’s course of action.

In the meantime, I am putting a freeze on ministry activities and participation in the proposals for solidification facilities in Harwich township, as well as at Walker Brothers, and for the interim storage facility for polychlorinated biphenyls in Middleport.


Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I regret that today I must inform the House that my colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) and I have received notification from the Honourable Paul Cosgrove, federal Minister of Public Works and the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, that the community services contribution program will terminate with the expiration of the interim agreement on December 31, 1980.

The arbitrary termination of this program, which replaced funding for the former neighbourhood improvement program, municipal incentive grant program and municipal infrastructure program, and has operated successfully in Ontario, is of significant importance to bring before the Legislature for two basic reasons.

First, the unilateral decision of the federal government to share no longer in the costs of water and sewerage installations or neighbourhood improvement projects, or to provide capital support for nonprofit housing under the CSCP not only will affect the quality of life of many Canadian residents but will also have far-reaching economic consequences in terms of forgone construction and loss of indirect and induced employment.

Second, the current agreement, which terminates in less than seven weeks, states that both parties will endeavour to conclude a long-term agreement prior to December 31, 1980, and that negotiations for this program would commence not later than November 1 of last year. The termination of this program is a complete reversal of the spirit in which the original program negotiations were conducted and the direction in which my ministry and CMHC have been moving for the past two years. This places the entire federal-provincial negotiation process in question at a most inopportune time. One wonders whether unilateral federal action will terminate other existing financial arrangements.

I would like to provide the honourable members with some specifics as the program relates to Ontario. In the first program year, 1979, the federal government allocated $51.6 million to Ontario which escalated to $85.95 million in the second year, 1980. This level was to continue over a long-term period. The related provincial contributions to eligible municipal projects were $90 million in the first year, 1979, and $153 million in the second year, 1980.

Municipalities from all parts of the province, ranging in size from the cities of Toronto, Ottawa, Windsor, Sault Ste. Marie and Timmins, to the towns of Chesley, Smiths Falls and Leamington, are participating in neighbourhood-improvement-type projects funded in part by CSCP funds. These projects are upgrading existing neighbourhoods through the improvement of municipal services and public utilities as well as the provision of social and recreational facilities. These efforts, combined with the Ontario main street and downtown revitalization programs, are contributing to the fight against urban decline which is plaguing cities and towns in parts of our province and indeed in Canada.

In all, 45 municipalities are improving the quality of life for their residents through this component of CSCP in the first two program years and the demand for the program stretches far into the future. For example, the municipal demand for funds in 1980, or program year two, amounted to approximately $46 million from 48 municipalities in our province. However, only $23 million of federal CSCP funds were available on a priority basis to fund projects in 30 municipalities. Eighteen other municipalities with defined needs were deferred in anticipation of the continuation of the program and were expecting to receive CSCP funds from program years three, four, five and beyond.

In terms of employment, approximately 3,000 man-years of direct and indirect employment were generated by the expenditures of all three levels of government on hard services in the first two program years. In addition, the private sector has been encouraged to renovate and rehabilitate residential and commercial properties in NIP areas, producing employment and increasing property values and municipal revenues.

Another component of the program in Ontario was a 10 per cent capital writedown for municipal nonprofit corporations. The first program year provided $6.6 million in federal funds and assisted in the provision’ of approximately 1,200 units and produced 4,200 man-years of employment throughout this province. It is anticipated that 2,100 more units will receive grants from program year two, amounting to approximately $12 million, to produce 7,350 more man-years of employment. These nonprofit units for the most part will provide accommodation to families and senior citizens of low and moderate income and are good examples of the benefits of CSCP to the people of Ontario.

However, these federal capital grants will no longer be available. The bulk of the CSCP allocation to Ontario is utilized by our Ministry of the Environment for municipal infrastructure projects. The gross value of water and waste water facilities and storm sewers constructed annually in Ontario is estimated to be about $550 million. More than 300 projects, worth about $375 million, are directly assisted by the CSCP grants, amounting to $52 million per year.

However, the termination of the CSCP will cause about $175 million of construction of water and waste water facilities to be lost annually in Ontario. Some 95 projects in about 50 municipalities will be affected and direct onsite construction employment loss could approach 3,000 man-years annually, based on 1980-81 prices. Loss of indirect and induced employment, e.g., equipment manufacturing and supply of materials, will be at least 6,000 man-years annually.

The related effects on housing starts and the curtailment of the growth due to a slowdown in the servicing of raw land are difficult to estimate, but will be substantial. We anticipate the main effects will be felt in small to medium-sized urban centres where insufficient municipal financing will force the deferral of servicing.

2:20 p.m.

The environmental consequences of the termination of the federal funding related to municipal infrastructure projects must also be considered. For example, under the Canada-Ontario agreement on Great Lakes water quality, in excess of $600 million in federal funds was utilized to accelerate the cleanup of the municipally caused water pollution problems. The successful efforts of the three levels of government allowed Canada to meet its international commitment under the Canada-US agreement and provide leverage in promoting comparable US pollution abatement efforts.

The demands of the 1980s for protection and improvement of the Great Lakes will be even greater than those of the 1960s and 1970s. Governments are committed to an international response in connection with the reduction of toxic and hazardous substances, the control of raw sewage, combined sewage and storm water discharges, and the further reduction of phosphorus discharges from urban and rural sources. The termination of CSCP will now seriously weaken Ontario’s ability to meet commitments under the Canada-Ontario agreement and, in turn, the Canada-US agreement on Great Lakes water quality.

These are but a few of the emerging problem areas that will require capital-intensive solutions and will now further burden provincial and municipal spending. It would be unrealistic for me to suggest that the province will be able to fill the gap created by the withdrawal of federal funding. I will be meeting in the near future with the provincial Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) to discuss this matter. But we are still looking to the federal government for funding in those areas it has traditionally funded for years in the past.

My cabinet colleagues and I are deeply disturbed by the termination of the CSCP, as the municipalities of our province will be. To date I have received copies of resolutions from more than 100 municipalities addressed to the federal Minister of Public Works urging continuation of that program. This unilateral federal Liberal decision is a classic example of the insensitivity of the federal government to the needs of the provinces and their municipalities.


Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am waiting until these members start to bark about their municipalities not getting funding. I am waiting.

Mr. Riddell: Did you wait to get the Premier’s (Mr. Davis) approval before you came in with that?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member for Huron-Middlesex should wait until he finds his area does not get its sewer and water grants; we will see what he has to say then. Obviously these members are going to do their barking here because they are afraid to do it back home; I can see that.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that as it attempts to control expenditures, the federal government is adopting a policy of unilateral program abandonment. This course of action, if it is pursued to its extreme in the social policy area of which the CSCP and the housing programs are part, will seriously impair the province’s ability to provide housing accommodation for those of low and moderate income. The serious economic and social consequences that will result from this federal decision have been outlined.

In conclusion, I would like to state quite emphatically that when the CSCP was launched in 1979, there was never any thought it would not be continued for a lengthy period of time in Canada. No consultation was held with any of the provinces prior to the federal decision to terminate the program, nor have we received any information regarding a possible replacement.

Ontario, together with the other provinces, invited the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Cosgrove, to participate in an August meeting to discuss our concerns about the program but he declined to attend. He decided he would rather cut a ribbon in his own riding on a CSCP grant he was giving out that day. He has now indicated that he is looking forward to a meeting with us early in 1981; I would suggest it is a little late for the subject now.

In the interim, I would urge all municipalities and groups affected by the termination of the program to get in touch with their federal members, with the federal Minister of Finance and with the federal minister reporting for housing and request them to reinstate the long-term federal-provincial agreement that was understood to be staying in place.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the length of the statement but I felt the House should have a full explanation of the ramifications of this discontinuation by the federal Liberal government of a program that has been good for the economy of this country.


Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege relating to the mini-budget that will be brought in by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) this evening.

I have before me a copy of Corriere Illustrato dated Saturday, November 8, 1980. On page one is an article which, when translated, reads, “Grossman Predicts Sales Tax Reduction.” The article is what is described as an exclusive interview with the Minister of Industry and Tourism in which the minister clearly indicates the government intends to bring in sales tax reductions in the mini-budget tonight.

Surely as members of the Legislature we are entitled to have first look at the budget. I was always under the impression that there were traditions within the parliamentary system that had to do with the prerelease of budget information before it was brought into this House.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, there has been speculation in a number of newspapers and by a number of people, including members of both parties. I can assure the member at this point that the minister does not know what is in the budget.

Mr. Breithaupt: It would appear, surely, that it is in the tradition of cabinet solidarity in government that various speculations on component parts of any budget have caused ministers to lose their jobs in a variety of areas.

I would suggest to the Treasurer that if the Minister of Industry and Tourism does not know what is in the budget, perhaps the Treasurer should lose his job, because obviously the cabinet does not know what one side or the other is doing. If this has been a breach, which I think it may well have been from the report, it may well be a serious breach of the traditional responsibility of cabinet government.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, we have here a question of cabinet responsibility. The Treasurer has just told us that the Minister of Industry and Tourism did not know what was in the mini-budget coming tonight. If that is true, the Minister of Industry and Tourism misled the reporter who reported the story and he has misled the public who read that publication. If that is true, he has caused speculation and possible buying or lack of buying because of financial information that the reporter had every reason to expect the minister had. There deserves to be not only an apology from the minister, but a demand for his resignation put by the Premier (Mr. Davis).

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, some in the House may recall that a few years ago a federal member by the name of John Reid, MP, who was not then in the cabinet, was brought before a committee of the House of Commons because he had indicated to one of his constituents by way of letter that he thought there might be a certain tax break in the forthcoming budget. As I said, at that time John Reid was not a member of the cabinet and had absolutely no information or knowledge about what was going to be in the budget.

This matter was raised in a newspaper article and there was great concern expressed, particularly by the members of the Conservative opposition in Ottawa at that time. My brother, Mr. Reid, subsequently had his hearing and was absolved of all blame or anything else.

Surely this is an extremely important matter and goes to the fundamentals of our democratic system and process. The whole theory and practice of cabinet solidarity is that when a cabinet minister speaks, he speaks for the cabinet as a whole. I do not think we can take this matter lightly at all. We should refer this matter to the standing committee on procedural affairs for its attention.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: There are two points here. The first one is that the member for Bellwoods is drawing the chair’s attention and the House’s attention to something that is alleged to have been said outside the House by way of a newspaper interview. The other point that has been raised is whether or not there has been a leak of information about something that is supposed to be in a statement by the Treasurer this evening.

The chair cannot be asked to rule on something that took place by way of an interview. The chair similarly cannot be expected to monitor whether or not there has been a breach of cabinet solidarity. In the absence of definitive action by the House, I would have to say the honourable member has brought the matter to the attention of the chair and the House and it is beyond my purview to do anything other than to have listened to the honourable member.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, in view of your ruling on this very important matter, may I ask whether it would be in order at this time for a resolution to be put to refer this matter to the standing committee on procedural affairs?

Mr. Speaker: There is no opportunity for any honourable member to get up without a notice of motion and move a resolution in the House. If the honourable member wants to go that route, it will be up to the House to decide whether it is something appropriate for referral.

Mr. Cassidy: On this point, Mr. Speaker, I think we should wait to see what is in the budgetary statement by the Treasurer this evening. If it confirms statements that were made by the Minister of Industry and Tourism, it seems to me there will then be a prima facie case that information in the hands of a cabinet minister was improperly put out to the public and the matter should be investigated by the standing committee on procedural affairs.

Mr. Speaker: That is purely hypothetical.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, to keep this matter in perspective, I would gather my friends across the way have not seen the article in the paper. We are talking about an article in a paper that has been paraphrased for us by a member and has not been seen by anyone else in the House except perhaps some other colleagues in his caucus.

Mr. Cassidy: And the people who read the paper.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is all right; the people who read the paper.

We are taking the honourable member’s translation of that story. I think before we come to any hasty conclusions about anything, we should all have the article with a complete translation.

My friend from Rainy River referred to the case of his brother. That case and the letter were mentioned prominently in many newspapers. It was not something that was unknown to people at the time it came before the House. He is suggesting that this House take some sort of action and ask a committee to look into something without our even having a complete translation of some story that has appeared in a newspaper. I think it behooves us all at least to get all that information before anyone considers any further action.



Mr. S. Smith: On a separate point of order, if I might, Mr. Speaker: When the Minister of the Environment spoke, he referred to a certain report he was making to the Legislature. I did not hear clearly whether this additional report, which in fact constitutes an apology to Walker Brothers concerning the matter raised in this House last week --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether or not the Leader of the Opposition heard or was satisfied that the statement by the Minister of the Environment satisfied some misgivings that he has --

Mr. S. Smith: Not at all. That is not the point.

Mr. Speaker: -- he can raise it in the question period.

Mr. S. Smith: That is not the point, Mr. Speaker. On the point of order --

Mr. Speaker: There is not a point of order. There is nothing out of order.

Mr. S. Smith: There is. I did not finish my sentence, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to finish my sentence.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. S. Smith: The question is --

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order.

Mr. S. Smith: -- was this placed on the record or not?

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order. Does the Leader of the Opposition have a question?

Mr. S. Smith: I will ask the question of the minister. Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I think in this instance you should have heard the point.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What the Leader of the Opposition is saying is that by virtue of the fact that the Minister of the Environment stood up and made a statement to the House, he was out of order or the House was out of order in listening to him. That is what a point of order means.

Mr. S. Smith: No, it has to do with this report.

Mr. Speaker: It is a ministerial statement, and if the honourable member wants the minister to elaborate on it, he can simply do so by asking him a question. Do you have a question?

Mr. S. Smith: Again, you have misconstrued my point, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest respect, this says “a report to the Ontario Legislature.”

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. S. Smith: All right, I will ask a question.

Mr. Speaker: I have ruled there is nothing out of order.

Mr. S. Smith: All right, I will accept your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: You do not need to get up on your high horse. I have called for oral questions and if you have one, please put it.

Mr. S. Smith: I will ask the minister whether this statement, which is called a report to the Ontario Legislature, which he made some reference to but did not read, and which I take to be an apology to Walker Brothers as well as covering certain other matters -- on the very matters raised in this House last week -- has been tabled with the Clerk so that it is on the record of the House. I would ask why he did not read it and whether he intends not only to apologize to Walker Brothers as he has via this letter, but to apologize to this House for his refusal to acknowledge here what he has finally been willing to acknowledge in this letter?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the letter and the report are part of the record of the House and I do not have any questions that they should be. I do not mind any part of that letter or any part of this report being read into the record a second time. That is perfectly okay by me.

There were allegations made. I am sure this House would ask me to take those allegations seriously. That I did. There were three or four of them. The one matter, I think, is clearly something the official of the ministry made a statement about. I do not think the facts bear the matter out. I have said that in the letter. As a matter of fact, as a courtesy to Mr. Walker, I called him at 1:15 this afternoon so I am not at all embarrassed by having that on the record. Indeed, on the contrary, there are other allegations still pending. I think this House would clearly expect me to act on these allegations and put them all on the record. That I shall do.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Since the minister continues to be willing to admit that the point we raised repeatedly last week was correct but still refuses to acknowledge this in a gentlemanly way -- that is exactly what has happened -- I will ask him this:

Could the minister explain why he and his official, Mr. Majtenyi, still insist on expressing shock to discover liquids of some kind had been placed in the Walker Brothers quarry, when a letter to the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) in September 1978, signed by the minister, said his records indicate liquid waste disposal had occurred in these eight sites, including Walker’s quarry?

Since in 1978 the minister knew liquids had been deposited in Walker’s quarry, why should he have pretended to this House that somehow it was a shock to learn liquids appeared there and that the whole matter came to his attention at the time of the W5 program?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think it is clear that that certificate at that time was quite a different certificate from the one that exists today. The certificate was amended on June 23, 1980, and that is the continuing program of this ministry; we will update our certificates.

Mr. S. Smith: The certificates never allow liquids.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think if one were to look at those certificates carefully over the past decade, one would find that in earlier times they were not as definitive as I think they should be and as we are moving towards. That was one of the recommendations of the standing committee. We believe the certificates should be far more definitive than they were in 1973, 1974 and later. In the decade of the 1960s there were no certificates to speak of at all; one could do practically what one wanted.

2:40 p.m.

We are moving in a direct fashion to have the certificates made far more specific and much tougher on how those wastes are handled. We will continue to do so. I have repeatedly said to industry: “You have to face up to the fact that you are going to be severely regulated on the matter of liquid industrial waste. You have to face up to the fact that you are going to pay for the destruction of those wastes and there is no other alternative for industry.” They must face the reality that a new day has dawned.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the minister’s promise of toughness and in view of the fact that his statement indicates quite clearly that at least seven drums containing various kinds of liquid waste were buried in the Walker’s quarry dump -- as per the written statement from Mr. Edenson that I tabled in the Legislature a few days ago -- at a time when Walker Brothers licence quite clearly did not permit it to accept liquid wastes, and since the ministry also indicates there may be 70 more drums containing similar materials, is it the ministry’s intention now, being so tough, to prosecute Walker Brothers Quarries for illegally accepting liquid waste contrary to its licence?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under two investigations. One is being done by the Ontario Provincial Police, and I have not received that report yet but I expect it should be completed soon. The other is being done to determine whether there is a breach of the certificate. That is a very significant problem that must be addressed. I can assure the member that if and when there is proof there was a violation of that certificate, charges will be laid, but I do not have the privilege of making allegations and simply saying it will be done; I must have the positive proof.

We are in the process of getting those drums, doing the analysis on them and finding what is in those drums. Not only that, in the two that were empty, we are doing scrapings on the drums to see if perhaps the liquid has leaked out and what might have been in there. We are doing the most thorough and comprehensive investigation that is possible. Based on that certain knowledge, we will take the appropriate --

Mr. Cassidy: Last week the minister wanted one drum, that was all. It is the pressure in this House that has made that happen.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Not at all. It was done well in advance.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Why has the minister persisted in his story that the reason liquids went in there -- and they were reported to the member for Beaches-Woodbine in 1978, yet somehow come as a surprise to the minister -- has to do with a lack of specificity in the certificate of approval, when I have in my hand every certificate of approval made out for Walker’s quarry in the last decade, and plainly these state that 95 per cent is to be solid waste and the other five per cent construction debris?

Liquid waste was never permitted in Walker’s quarry by any certificate of approval, yet the minister included that as a liquid waste receiving place in his letter of 1978 and now professes surprise. Why does the minister not admit that he does not know what is happening in his ministry and it has to be cleaned out from top to bottom, starting with himself?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: If I were going to send someone to a recycling location, I think I would start with the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. F. S. Miller: You might have difficulty getting a certificate of acceptance.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I agree it might be difficult to get a certificate of acceptance.

Mr. Speaker, let me be more serious about this. I think the whole matter of what was in that site is certainly worthy of a full investigation. I will continue to report to this House on our findings. If there was a violation of the certificate, prosecutions will be held; if not, the company has the right, and I think it is an important right, to an assurance that no one is found guilty until a fair trial is held. If the company was in total compliance with the certificate, the world I will know and I will be the first to tell it.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister not realize that the opposition to the solidification plant does not come just from the not-wanting-it-in-our-backyard syndrome? It is because the people and the opposition members do not trust the minister’s ministry nor do they trust Walker Brothers. The minister’s own engineer in the Niagara area said his faith and trust in Walker Brothers has completely gone down the drain. The minister has stated that he will lay charges.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question there?

Mr. Swart: May I ask the minister, if charges are laid and a conviction is made, will he then suspend for all time the procedures for the establishment of the solidification plant with Walker Brothers because they are untrustworthy?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I will do it quite differently from the way of the honourable member who asked the question. I will do it after the trial, not before, and I will base it on solid, positive evidence. I read from the committee’s report: “The final recommendation of this committee is one of high importance, and that is, the committee believes that the public hearing should be mandatory.”

I do not know of any party that was more insistent that the hearing process be held than the member’s party. Fair enough; I agree with that. But in this instance, because it seemed politically expedient to do so, there was never an opportunity to put on the record at a fair environmental assessment hearing both the pros and the cons. That was sidestepped; it was short-circuited. I think it is a miscarriage of justice that the opportunity to put all the facts on the record and then make a decision was not given in this province.


Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services on the subject of rest homes in Ontario.

Given the recommendations of the 1977 coroner’s jury arising from a death at Dr. Rajovic’s rest home in Metro Toronto and given that the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens in April 1978 called for immediate action to ensure proper standards in rest homes -- and he has had several requests from that council -- and given that the minister spoke in the estimates on the bill introduced by the member for Sarnia (Mr. Blundy), as I recall, in favour of improved regulation and said he is studying the matter, can he explain how it is that the Dr. Rajovics of this world can continue to operate in conditions that were so graphically described in the Toronto Star recently?

Given the fact that our elderly people are being kept in such conditions of filth and squalor in 1980 in the province, will the minister pass some kind of law in Ontario that would oblige municipalities to set proper standards, or is he going to continue to rely on the individual municipalities to somehow clean up the situation by themselves?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, he obviously recognizes that municipalities do have very significant authority to ensure appropriate standards in terms of health care, fire safety and other kinds of safety in such residential accommodation. In terms of those aspects of the care, it would be perhaps unwise for the province to attempt to duplicate the authority the municipalities already have.

If these kinds of conditions do exist as the member described them -- and I think many exaggerations are being made these days; nevertheless I am willing to acknowledge there may be cases where less than adequate conditions prevail -- then I think the municipalities ought to be moving into those situations and doing something about them.

It is not good enough to sit back and simply say another level of government should come in, especially when we are talking about major municipalities; I can understand some of the smaller municipalities might have some difficulty because of the lack of appropriate staff to inspect, but our major municipalities clearly have that capacity and ought to be doing it.

With respect to the member’s reference to standards, I have indicated that my colleagues and I are looking at ways in which we might assist. I do not think we will be getting into passing province-wide legislation and regulation of each and every one of the boarding homes and lodging homes in this province because, frankly, we do not have the capacity to inspect on that basis across the province. However, what I suggest we may well look at is the possibility of providing guidelines for the municipalities or, if the member wishes, model proposals for the municipalities so that they might follow through with their responsibility.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. S. Smith: Will the minister admit that, with all his guidelines, suggestions, constructive statements and so on, we still have between 50,000 and 90,000 people in rest home beds in Ontario? There is considerable difficulty in finding nursing-home accommodation, especially when more than a small amount of nursing care is required.

Given that more and more people seem to be lining up for these rest homes, will the minister admit he has a responsibility to oblige the municipalities to act, and not merely to suggest they act? Does he not have a responsibility to set certain standards and say that the municipalities have the duty to enforce those standards, and if they don’t enforce them the province will take certain actions against them?

Surely the minister cannot just sit there and wash his hands of the squalor and the despicable circumstances in which many of our elderly are now living.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I was not simply washing my hands of the situation. The Leader of the Opposition has to bear in mind that the municipalities, as well as the provincial government, are duly elected and responsible levels of government. I certainly will continue to do whatever I can to encourage them and press them to take action in those kinds of situations.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The government was forced to bring in a Nursing Home Act prior to 1972 because of the deplorable state of nursing homes in this province. In view of this, how big a mess must be created, how much must we learn in this Legislature about the deplorable conditions in rest homes before this government will act to bring a rest homes act into the province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that question was intended to elicit an answer. It was a histrionic statement based upon information the honourable member is using in what I think is an alarmist way.


Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question, to the Minister of Culture and Recreation, about the turmoil in the Stratford Festival Theatre, a theatre that is receiving a grant of $300,000 this year from the taxpayers of Ontario through the Ontario Arts Council.

Is the minister aware that the board of directors recently told the four Canadians who had been hired to run next year’s season they were being fired because, it said, their program would incur a deficit of $1 million, which was unacceptable?

Is the minister also aware that, just days earlier, the same board of directors was making a submission to the Canada Council -- which was signed by the president, Mr. Hicks, by the treasurer, Mr. Thomas, and by the newly appointed executive director, Mr. Stevens -- that indicated they intended to have the season, that the plan would have to run on a balanced budget and would do so?

Is the minister aware of the contradiction between what the board of directors told those four Canadians who were being fired and what they were telling the Canada Council?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I have been following the events of Stratford very closely over the last few weeks and, to paraphrase a line from Shakespeare, “Methinks there is something rotten in the state of Stratford.”

I am very perplexed and, I must admit, annoyed, as is my federal colleague, because both the federal agency, the Canada Council, and the Ontario Arts Council have been supporting the theatre in Stratford at a very substantial level. Fortunately over the last few years Stratford has been able to raise a great deal of its money through the box office. This has been successful to the point where now, between the Canada Council and the Ontario Arts Council, we are probably financing only about 12 to 15 per cent of the total budget. Nevertheless, the theatre people at Stratford seem to know very well where to run and where to ask for help when they need it when they run into deficit situations.

I must say I am sufficiently perplexed about what is happening there, the termination of the contracts of these four Canadians and the hiring of Mr. Dexter, that I am asking the chairman of the Ontario Arts Council -- who is, after all, the person from Ontario who should be dealing with Stratford directly; we do not deal directly with Stratford -- to take a serious look at Stratford and see whether in the light of actions like these the Ontario Arts Council should continue to finance that at a level of about $310,000 a year, as the member for Ottawa Centre has indicated.

That is, of course, only the annual grant that Stratford gets. In addition to that, we have undertaken to pay up to $2,900,000 for Stratford under the arts challenge fund. We have given Stratford all kinds of ad hoc grants over the years; we have tried to support them, again at arm’s length.

In response to the question, it seems to me that in the light of what has happened in the last few weeks, which is really something that is astonishing, regrettable, and something I deplore, the time may have arrived for the Ontario Arts Council to take a very serious look at whether the taxpayers of this province should continue their annual support of that theatre.

Mr. Speaker: That response took three minutes and 30 seconds. I wish the minister would be a little bit crisper.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the proposal of the minister would punish Stratford for what they have done in firing the four Canadians, letting them go and bringing a foreign director in, but would not cure the problem of incompetence or deviousness that is now found in the Stratford Festival board of directors, will the government be making representations to Mr. Axworthy and to the Stratford Festival board to ensure that the artistic direction at Stratford be in the hands of Canadians rather than those of a continuing series of people who, however qualified, come in from other countries?

Will the government also be seeking to ensure that, if Ontario taxpayers’ funds continue to go to Stratford, in future there will be a representative of the arts council or the people of Ontario put on the board of directors to avoid the kind of devious behaviour we have seen in recent weeks?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Again, Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. That was a long question.

As I indicated a moment ago, I will not, and our government will not, make a direct contact with Stratford. I will ask the chairman of the Ontario Arts Council to look into these things and report back to us. I will certainly not take the kind of direct steps that I think have been suggested and were implicit in that question.


Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services which relates to the day care needs of people in the Ottawa-Carleton region, particularly in the municipalities of Nepean and Kanata where certain political events are taking place.

Is the minister aware of the fact that, despite 60 per cent of the women with children in the Carleton constituency area being at work, private day care centres in that area are seeing their waiting lists shrink because people with family incomes of more than $17,000 cannot afford even low-cost, privately run day care centres? Does the government have any plan to ensure adequate day care for these families, or does the government intend to stand by until those private day care centres have no choice but to fold?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, unless I missed something at the beginning of that question, it is not clear to me how the honourable member drew the cause-and-effect relationship in terms of the reduction in waiting lists, as I believe he said. That may be his conclusion and it may be correct, I do not know, but before I would agree with that conclusion I would have to examine the data which led him to come to that conclusion.

3 p.m.

Nevertheless, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, within the next short time -- in a very few weeks -- a series of announcements will be made relating to the initiatives on the part of this government in the area of day care. I might add, for the benefit of the honourable member, that these initiatives have been in the planning stage for a lengthy period of time. I want to assure him they bear no relationship to the current controversy that exists around the issue of day care but are the result of deliberate and competent planning on the part of this government.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister assure the House that not only will there be an expansion of day care to meet the needs in the Ottawa-Carleton region but also the traditional funding of the government will be maintained? Will he assure the House that the funding of the $171,000 recently given to the region of Ottawa-Carleton for day care purposes will not be repeated, since that funding involved only $15,300 coming directly from the province, with the remainder coming from either federal sources or the local municipalities? Will the government assure us that in future Ontario will not back out on its responsibilities to day care the way it did with that $171,000 grant, where it paid less than 10 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Norton: With respect to that particular grant, I think the honourable member ought to bear in mind the circumstances under which it became necessary. Again, it related to the particular kind of administration that was being carried on in that region, as it was in Metropolitan Toronto. I cannot assure the member or any municipality in this province of that. If they do not manage their own houses appropriately within their budgets during a given fiscal year, I cannot assure them they can have open-ended rights to spend money and expect me to come up with 80 per cent -- albeit 50 per cent federal and 30 per cent provincial -- to subsidize them if they are not going to manage their budget programs appropriately.

I would ask the member to consider that it has been acknowledged by both Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa-Carleton, knowing the circumstances under which those projected deficits arose this year, that the province has been very generous with them in assisting them out of those situations.

With respect to the other guarantees the member requested of me, I can only ask that he be patient and wait for the announcements in the next few weeks.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister is aware that even in low-cost, private day care service centres, such as the Bayshore centre in Ottawa-Carleton, the waiting list is dropping from the normal 50 to 60 parents looking for spaces to about 10 parents, although the inquiries about day care services continue to come in at the same rate. According to the director of that centre, this is because parents whose family income is slightly more than $17,000 simply cannot afford to contemplate looking for day care services for their kids.

Is the minister going to wait until these centres close and use that as proof that the day care need does not exist? This is the kind of approach he has taken in the past.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I have never taken that approach.

Ms. Gigantes: Yes, you have. What were your speeches about recently?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would ask the honourable member to remain calm for just a moment. I would remind her also, by the way, she has not raised yet in the House the issue she took me on about a while ago in terms of those subsidies. I think since she received that report from Ottawa-Carleton she realizes I was correct.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I want to make reference to the fact that I have not raised again a question which I raised twice in this House and which the minister has not chosen to answer. I would like the minister to get up and tell us what documentary evidence he has --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege; that is correcting the record. The honourable minister will complete his answer.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Perhaps in response to the request from the honourable member I could point out to her the report which I am sure she has received from some of her friends on the Ottawa council. I will stand by my original information, because that report bore me out and demonstrated my figures were quite correct. I have nothing to add to my original remarks, because they were borne out by that report.

Ms. Gigantes: Where is the report? Table it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Did the member say, “Table it”? It is not my report to table. Why does the member not table her copy? She has seen the report.

I have forgotten what the honourable member’s original question was, as a matter of fact.


Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East with a new question.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, is it safe?


Mr. Speaker: Order. In spite of all the histrionics, the member for Ottawa East still has the floor.

Mr. Roy: I can assure the minister I have no intention of leaving --

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Roy: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have. You will agree there has been some disturbance here.


Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. My question to the minister involves his colleague’s comments in Montreal yesterday before the Chambre de Commerce. If I may quote briefly from his speech, he said those “who curse the darkness, especially with inaccuracies that cannot but mislead, do not serve ... Canada. Instead, they serve a vile, hateful and mean-spirited approach based on self-interest and selfishness.”

Considering that the Attorney General was talking about the comment made by a Conservative colleague, the Premier of New Brunswick, what steps does the minister intend to take to correct the inaccuracies in his colleague’s pamphlet in Carleton which states that the Premier, “Bill Davis prevented the federal government from putting forward what is called blanket bilingual policy in favour of Ontario,” and secondly, “the leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario favours official bilingualism for Ontario,” both of which are clearly inaccurate? Is the minister going to ask him to correct that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, to correct the record, my colleague the Attorney General did not use those words that were attributed to him by my friend. The Globe and Mail’s Stan Oziewicz, who was there, indicates he did not use those words in his speech.

Mr. Roy: I have his speech here.

Hon. Mr. Wells: He can answer that. The answer to the member’s other question is that the inclusion or non-inclusion of section 133 in the Canadian charter of rights in the package that is now before the House of Commons would have provided for bilingual laws in this Legislature, in other words, all the work of this Legislature, including acts being passed in both English and French with both versions having official validity, and a full court system -- not only criminal courts, as we are in favour of, but also civil courts -- being completely bilingual in this province. These were the things suggested for the charter of rights by the federal government at some time which we said were not acceptable in this province.

Mr. Roy: That’s not what you say.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is what we say, because the implementation of those things would have gone a long way towards an official bilingual Ontario policy, which we are not for. At different times the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) has indicated he was in favour of a bilingual Ontario. If he wishes to correct the record, that is fine, but it is my understanding that at other times and in other places my friend, and some members of his party anyway, have been in favour of officially declaring Ontario bilingual as the federal government has declared.

3:10 p.m.

All we have said is that the record of what we have done in this province for the francophones is a commendable record. That record has been done without the kind of tokenism of declaring Ontario officially bilingual, which is not needed to achieve the kinds of ends that need to be achieved in this province. The record in the school system, the courts, and in dealing with governments and so forth speaks for itself.

Mr. Roy: I will not criticize the government’s record, which is not part of my question. Does the minister not think one of the reasons that he and his colleague the Attorney General have such difficulty and the government lacks such credibility at the national level is that each and every time they feel it is publicly advantageous, whether it is the Carleton by-election or the 1975 general election, they try to stir up the anti-French vote?

Why else would their candidate use about half of his pamphlet just talking about gross distortion of our policy and the federal policies?

Hon. Mr. Wells: If it is gross distortion of the Liberal Party policy, I ask the member to stand up now and tell this House that their policy is not for an officially bilingual Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would ask this of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs: Given the importance of the question of French-English relations in Canada, and given the fact that this House by a solemn and unanimous resolution in May at the time of our constitutional debate, just before Quebec went to the referendum, acknowledged that the status quo is unacceptable, that it had to be changed and clearly that some concessions had to be made in this province with respect to French Canadians because of the concerns that have been raised for so many years in Quebec, will the minister undertake on behalf of the government to stop fudging the issues the way the government seems to be so anxious to do right now?

Will he make it quite clear that adoption of section 133 for this province would mean the recognition of French in the Legislature, as it is recognized now, and the translation of our statutes in Ontario, as is taking place at this moment, as well as guaranteeing the use of French in the courts of Ontario, something that has also been accepted by the government and now is spreading across the province on a planned basis?

Since that and that alone is what was involved with section 133, will the government stop trying to pretend that concession, which would be very real in the symbolic sense for Franco-Ontarians, for the French Canadians across Canada and for the Quebecois, is quite different from what the government seems to be pretending --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked, surely.

Mr. Cassidy: Why can they not be clear and why can they not give that answer --

Mr. Speaker: That has been asked.

Mr. Cassidy: -- which is so important for the future of Canada?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Let me answer by saying that there are obviously differences of opinion between those on that side and we on this side. The kind of progress we have seen, which we have been able to accomplish in this province without taking the kind of tokenism that adoption of 133 would mean at this time, speaks for itself.

This government takes no back seat to anyone in providing services for our Franco-Ontarian population. That is an accepted fact. But it is also an accepted fact that kind of progress would be seriously impeded by taking the kind of steps the member has suggested.


Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. I made a formal request on Tuesday to Mr. John Cowan, the treasurer of Walker Brothers, to see the uncovered drums and get a sample of the liquid for an independent analysis. Will the minister explain why the reply from Mr. Cowan, after a top-level, 15-minute meeting -- and perhaps a phone call to the minister; I do not know -- was that I would not be permitted to view the site or get samples unless the minister gave permission? Does he not think this indicates Walker Brothers has something to hide? What is his cosy relationship in this matter?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think the member had better address that question to his constituent. If he wants on the site I am sure if he is there for noble ends they will be more than pleased to accommodate him. We will give him the results of the test; of course we will.

Mr. Swart: Would the minister have no objection to a representative of the citizens’ committee or the city council or myself being there at all times when digs are taking place to take samples out of the drums so we can have an independent analysis? There is no trust left in his ministry.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think the member misses one very significant point. The representatives of the Ministry of the Environment -- the representatives who should be there, who are there and who will supervise that site -- are his civil servants just as much as they are mine. He seems to have missed that point. They are there to protect the people of this province and they happen to be doing it. I was at the reception last night for the International Joint Commission. It is rather interesting to hear an outside perspective of what a fine job the officials of this Ministry of the Environment are doing in the province.


Mr. J. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Several small communities in my riding will be drastically affected by the change in federal policy relating to the community services contribution program. As a matter of fact, I have one community that received $1 million, the village of Elora, and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) put in $1.6 million. It was only because of the involvement of the two governments --

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question there?

Mr. J. Johnson: Yes, sir. The question is, will these municipalities be allowed to proceed with projects, especially the water and sewage projects, in view of the change in policy of the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, any program or project by a municipality which now has approval, both by my ministry and by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to be funded under the terms of reference of the program for 1980, will advance to its conclusion provided all funds for that project are drawn down by March 31, 1982.

As to any projects or programs that are being applied for in the current year that have not had our approval, either at the federal or provincial level -- being applied for by various municipalities across the province, represented by all parties of this Legislature -- they are not going to be approved at this time because of lack of funding as a result of the turndown of the CSCP.

At March 31, 1982, we anticipate we will have most of the programs with their total entitlement of funds drawn down.


Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Can the minister explain why an order in council was issued on his advice on July 31, 1980, to grant a severance on agricultural land in Vespra township to a Gordon Atkinson which overturned an Ontario Municipal Board decision and which went against the township official plan? What reason did the minister and the cabinet have for overturning the OMB decision other than the fact that Mr. Atkinson was a fundraiser for the Conservative member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. G. Taylor)?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member is aware that I have many orders in council. I will take his question as notice and return with a response.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Riddell: I would like to be able to ask the minister where his commitment is to agriculture and just sit down, but I will not. I will go on.

What purpose is there in a municipality’s creating an official plan and having it approved by the ministry over there if it can be ignored by the government and, if the minister felt so compelled to support this severance, why did he not do so at the hearings before the OMB? Does the minister not agree that this kind of political decision by the government makes a mockery of the planning process and of his foodland guidelines to preserve agricultural land? Where is his commitment to his foodland guidelines?


Mr. Speaker: Order.


Mr. Samis: A question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, a very simple question: Can the minister explain to the people in this province why we have the lowest minimum wage in all of Canada?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: A new question?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity not to answer, Mr. Speaker, but the member has asked about minimum wage. I have indicated to him on previous occasions that the matter was under active review. He is not unaware of the fact that the Institute for Research on Public Policy has recently come out condemning minimum wage. Certainly that has given the government reason to review it very carefully and we are actively reviewing it at the present time.

Mr. Samis: Can the minister explain to the House --


Mr. Speaker: Order. The members who are interjecting are the ones who claim they cannot get on the question period. It is no wonder why.

Mr. Samis: Good advice, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain to the House why there has been no increase whatsoever in the minimum wage in 22 months, and can he give some assurance to the working poor of this province that there will be at least some increase before January 1, 1981?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I can say nothing else other than that the matter is under active review, and I hope to have the result very shortly.


Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations concerning the ongoing Astra Trust and Re-Mor matter: Can the minister inform the House if at the time of the Re-Mor application the registrar of mortgage brokers was aware of the judge’s comments and the evidence tendered by the Ontario Securities Commission in the receivership application against C and M?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, In fairness, I will take that as notice and report back tomorrow.

Mr. Breithaupt: While he is doing that, will the minister table in the House the application for the Re-Mor mortgage brokerage licence, including all accompanying correspondence, notations and comments from all involved individuals and government officials?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Certainly. I hope to do it tomorrow, but no later than Monday.


Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question regarding industrial deafness and, after listening to the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), I think we should apply the rules here.

Mr. Riddell: You have to shout to get through to those characters over there.

Mr. Martel: In the second annual report, there is a recommendation regarding industrial deafness, that the Minister of Labour consult with the Workmen’s Compensation Board to consider appointing an independent committee of experts to investigate and make recommendations to the minister and the board on the basis of compensation for noise-induced hearing loss. Has that been done yet and, if not, when can we anticipate such a committee being established to deal with this serious problem?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, just by way of background, may I say that --

Mr. Kerrio: What do you talk about when you are out to dinner together?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Careful. I do not want to give the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) a hearing loss.

It was due to a conversation I had with the member for Sudbury East about industrial hearing loss and our mutual concern about the problem that the matter was referred by me to the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Safety for some views and recommendations. We have already initiated one part of its recommendations, namely, the standard with regard to industrial noise. We are now awaiting some briefs on that, and we will make decisions about whether it should stay as it is or whether to make some changes.

The real issue the honourable member and I are concerned about in addition to that relates to compensation and rehabilitation. I have forwarded the recommendations of the advisory council to the board, and I have received an initial response indicating it would like to wait until the Weiler report is received. That will be tabled next week. As soon as that is received, I will have further meetings with the board to pursue the matter.

Mr. Martel: With respect to rehabilitation, has anything been done to date to provide speech therapy for the more than 800 workers in the Sudbury area who are suffering from industrial deafness and to ensure there are adequate speech therapists trained in the province to meet the need, not only in the Sudbury basin but also across northern Ontario, which has the highest incidence of severe deafness in the province?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not have that information available. I will take the question as notice and respond later.


Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Can the minister tell the House what action his ministry is taking pursuant to its responsibilities for safety under the Energy Act as a result of a natural gas explosion that destroyed a Burlington home on September 16?

Specifically, will the minister explain why it took his officials more than a month to obtain the report of the Ontario Research Foundation which was completed at the end of September and which concluded that a plastic T-joint had separated from the pipeline supplying gas to the Burlington house?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I will get the report on that matter for the honourable member.

Mr. Bradley: When the minister obtains that report and reports back to the House, will he tell the House at that time whether it is correct that 30 per cent of these fittings, which were tested by the Consumers’ Gas Company at its Chatham laboratory, have failed to meet pressure specifications and that AMP of Canada Limited, the manufacturer, now makes fittings to higher specifications? If so, does the minister not agree there is a problem of some urgency with regard to the old type of fittings which have already been installed? Will the minister report back to the House on that?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The honourable member is asking a question about the joints. If there were defective joints, I am sure the minister would have known about it some time ago.


Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour on the ineffectiveness of voluntary affirmative action programs even within the government ministries.

With the women crown employees office specifically charged with affirmative action programs within the ministries, how can this minister and this government possibly condone the fact that over the last four years the government spent almost double the amount of money on staff training for men than it did for women and that in the past year the per capita expenditure on staff training for men averaged $79.56 and only $27.38 for women, a factor almost two thirds less?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to have the advantage of figures in front of one. As soon as I have reviewed those figures and can evaluate the real things that led to those figures, I will be glad to respond to the member personally.

Let me tell my friend that this government is very serious about the affirmative action program for women crown employees. That program is being reviewed twice a year, the targets are being reviewed annually and I sense a sincere commitment to it in every area of this government.

Mr. Bounsall: How can the minister say this government is serious about affirmative action for its own employees when of the 40 per cent of staff employees in Ontario who are women, 63 per cent are in the $9,000 to $12,000 bracket only, three per cent earn even less than $9,000 and only five per cent are in the highest range of $25,000 or over? The representation of women at the director level in this past year dropped from 5.3 per cent to 4.9 per cent. What sort of seriousness is that?

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member may like to select figures, but he knows from having talked to people in my branch there is no doubt that changes are taking place. The introduction of the affirmative action program within the government will, I predict, have very effective and meaningful results.


Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism regarding the heavy unemployment in the Windsor-Essex county area and the need for new industry. The Windsor-Essex County Development Commission has already approached the minister and asked that he set up a southwestern Ontario development corporation to assist them. Is the minister considering that and will he be implementing such a thing to enable the community at least to provide substantial employment in the near future?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the mechanism of starting a new development corporation would solve the problem. The kinds of things we are doing in conjunction with the industrial development commission of Windsor and Essex are the kinds of things that will make that happen. I do not think opening a new bureaucracy and setting up a separate development corporation will solve the problem.

For example, the sorts of things the United Automobile Workers in Canada proposed yesterday and some other initiatives we have been taking for a long time and the honourable member has suggested on previous occasions are the kinds of things that will bring new development there.

In the event we get an opportunity to assist a firm that is already in that area or a firm that is thinking of moving into that area, then regardless of what programs are in place through the Ontario Development Corporation or the employment development fund, we would be flexible with either of those programs or any of our programs to make sure the plant either located or expanded. So there is no problem in terms of flexibility or availability of our programs.

Mr. B. Newman: In the communication to the minister dated October 23 it specifically mentions that a southwestern Ontario development corporation could expedite applications and would be able to provide extensive knowledge to those who may be interested in setting up industry in the community. Those are two positive suggestions that the establishment of a corporation would eventually provide. Does the minister not think that is important enough to set up such a corporation?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would wonder about that suggestion because we would end up with the same people who are now there -- our ODC staff who are working in southwestern Ontario. They are very well trained to understand the economy of southwestern Ontario. They are in a position to expedite those applications that must be expedited. None of that would change one bit if we told them they would now be working for something called the Southwestern Ontario Development Corporation as opposed to the Ontario Development Corporation.


Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, if he will come back to his seat.

My question relates to the granting of an 18-month exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act for the Keating Channel dredging in Toronto. It also concerns the issue of a provisional certificate of approval under the Environmental Protection Act to permit the Ministry of Natural Resources to dredge and dispose of the dredgeate in a pond attached to the Leslie Street spit in Toronto.

In view of the fact that Dr. Donald Chant, chairman of the Premier’s steering committee on environmental assessment, has advised the Premier “that the issue of the need for dredging Keating Channel remains unresolved and that a” --

Mr. Speaker: There is not a question yet. All I heard was, “In view of the fact...”

Ms. Bryden: Let me just conclude Dr. Chants quote: “That the issue of the need for dredging Keating Channel remains unresolved and that a hearing on this specific issue should be held as soon as possible and before any” --

Mr. Speaker: What is the question?

Ms. Bryden: The question is, Mr. Speaker -- Dr. Chant said to request exemption before any irrevocable approvals are given. Will the minister indicate whether he is prepared to cancel the exemptions and certificates of approval until an independent inquiry, such as Dr. Chant recommends, is held, or is he going to ignore the advice of Dr. Chant, as has been done on many occasions?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, if the member reads the letter in greater detail, I think she will find a commitment was made. She will notice the point where it says the now-defeated mayor of Toronto has a certain plan to take care of any flooding. Now that he is not the mayor we had better consult with the new mayor to see whether the commitment to take care of the contingency of flooding is still valid. That is a very pertinent point. That will have to be addressed in the immediate future.


Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

The Minister of Industry and Tourism would like to shed some light on a point of privilege that was raised earlier.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker: Can we hear it now?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I take it that in my absence earlier today, while I was speaking to some people concerned with high technology in the Ottawa area, a point was raised here with regard to an article that appeared in a prestigious Italian newspaper. I was surprised when I came to discover that the member opposite, who I know was disappointed to see a Tory in one of the ethnic newspapers, had made the suggestion that I had been directly quoted as giving some information with regard to the budget.

First, I would like to say that while I, like many other of my colleagues, have made suggestions to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), the budget remains within his purview. I will be here at eight o’clock tonight to discover what will be in the budget.

Second, I have had a chance to receive a translation of the newspaper article, and my recollection of it was confirmed. Anyone reading the article will see that none of the points attributed to me by the member opposite is in quotation marks. They are not direct quotations from me.

Third, the article itself as translated, and I have had three Italian translations, which were all translated the same way, reads as follows in the key portion: “The government is examining the possibility of reducing sales tax since, declared Grossman, it has already been demonstrated other times that similar reductions facilitate a revitalization of certain economic sectors.”

That is exactly the same kind of speculation that the Treasurer himself, and others, have made over the last few weeks. It was the point of several questions raised in this House and therefore was entirely consistent with everything else that has been said or speculated about the budget. It does not indicate any extraordinary, unusual reflections upon the budget, nor any information, which I do not have, with regard to the budget to be presented this evening and which I know the House will enormously applaud.


Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Am I correct in saying the Speaker’s rulings on procedural affairs cannot be challenged at any time?

Mr. Speaker: My rulings can be challenged at any time except in question period.

Mr. Sargent: May I ask the Speaker how many times in the past four years has he been before the procedural affairs committee?

Mr. Speaker: Never.

Mr. Sargent: My point is this: I, as one member of this Legislature, do not think that one person like the Speaker alone can decide what should be discussed in this Legislature for the people of Ontario. The Speaker alone makes those decisions, and I very much object to those methods after what happened today with my leader here.

Mr. Speaker: I am awfully sorry the honourable member thinks that way. There are another 123 members who have charged me with that responsibility.


Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Minister of Industry and Tourism’s statement, will he give the House an undertaking to have the translation of that article typed up and distributed to us? I am not so sure that I, as a member, am prepared to accept his explanation that he was just speculating like any other member of the public. I think there is much more to it than that. I would say on my own behalf, at least, that I would like to have that translation and perhaps pursue the matter further.

3:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In view of the request from the honourable member --

Mrs. Campbell: There is nothing out of order.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Oh, the new Speaker. Was it a point of privilege the member was speaking on then? In view of the request by the honourable member and in view of the translation the minister has brought forward, I am wondering, if that translation is satisfactory to all Italian-speaking people, whether the member for Bellwoods should be asked to apologize for his translation?

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention whatsoever of apologizing to the minister or anybody else for such an obvious violation of parliamentary principles and parliamentary tradition. I will be moving a motion at the appropriate time to deal with this matter.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify what I said earlier, there were three things that I pointed out earlier. I am quite satisfied with the three translations, but the point I wish to make regardless of any interpretation or any translation anyone else wants to make of that article -- is that there are two things that are quite obvious. First, the remarks attributed to me are not in quotation marks; they are someone’s reflections. Second, I say to this House, quite openly and clearly, I did not say there were going to be retail sales tax cuts. That is a straight fact. Therefore, regardless of how anyone might have translated it, my remarks made here this afternoon may be accepted at face value and it would be challenged regardless of the translation.


Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr. Di Santo: On a point of privilege --

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of privilege? Is it the same point of privilege?

Mr. Di Santo: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As one person who can understand the language in which the article was written, I can tell the House that whoever reads the article gets a clear indication that the government is proposing two initiatives: (1) to reduce sales tax and (2) in favour of the small industries in Ontario.

This is grave because it can perturb the market and the citizens in theft decisions as to whether to buy goods. This is a very serious leak of the budget responsibility because the minister says, and it is quoted: “The government is examining the possibility of reducing sales tax ... ” In other words, the minister revealed what action the government was studying. I think my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) was totally correct. The minister not only should apologize but also should resign.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no motion of any sort before the House that the Chair can judge upon. It was raised by the member for Bellwoods by way of a point of privilege -- an alleged point of privilege -- where he seems to be saying that something reported to have been said by the Minister of Industry and Tourism is a breach of his privileges. That has not been established, and all I can do is look at the record of what other members have said and what the minister has said by way of clarification. I will look at it and see whether the allegations are well-founded and whether there is a point of privilege.


Mr. Speaker: I want to remind the members of the House that the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) had stated he was dissatisfied with the answer to a question asked previously of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott). By mutual agreement, they have decided the adjournment debate will take place at 10:30 p.m., November 20, which is next Thursday.


Mr. Speaker: I would like, for the benefit of all honourable members and as a recognition of the services of our pages over the last five weeks, to read their names into the record and the ridings from whence they came.

Anna Bayley, St. David; Leanne Burgin, Perth; Samantha Cakebread, Windsor-Walkerville; Caty Chazalon, Middlesex; Nancy Dodds, Mississauga North; Monique Dull, Wilson Heights; May Lynne Emiry, Algoma-Manitoulin; Marlynne Ferguson, Algoma; Michelle Mackenzie, Yorkview; Susan Olsen, Windsor-Sandwich; Carolyn Prentice, Humber; Mary-Beth Raddon, Prince Edward-Lennox; Kimberley Roy, Kitchener; Dawn Stevely, Hamilton East; Eileen Tucker, Armourdale; Tanya Underhill, Elgin; Susan Wall, Lake Nipigon; Vicki Webster, Scarborough West; Beverly Wilkinson, Carleton; Megan Winsor, Mississauga East; Stephanie Winsor, Mississauga East; Suzanne Zmenak, Lincoln.

Would members please join me in thanking them for their services.



Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by more than 270 of the lower-paid workers in our society, waiters and waitresses, protesting against the fact that they do not control the tips that are paid to them in the establishments they work within.



Mr. Villeneuve from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolutions:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Natural Resources be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981:

Ministry administration program, $26,338,000; land management program, $97,162,400; outdoor recreation program, $74,805,000; resource products program, $80,950,100; resource experience program, $9,414,800.

And: That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Natural Resources be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981:

Land management program, $10,000,000.

And: That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Natural Resources be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981:

Land management program, $3,638,000.


Mr. Philip from the standing committee on administration of justice reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981:

Ministry administration program, $5,262,200; commercial standards program, $11,652,000; technical standards program, $7,302,900; public entertainment standards program, $9,744,600; property rights program, $22,398,000; registrar general program, $3,397,200; liquor licence program, $7,056,500; residential tenancy program, $5,881,800.



Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment be authorized to sit this afternoon.

Motion agreed to.


Hon. Mr. Wells moved that Mr. Martel be substituted for Mr. Cooke on the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment.

Motion agreed to.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Does it have something to do with motions?

Mr. McClellan: Yes. I have a motion. I give notice of the following --

Mr. Speaker: Not under this item you can’t.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, is it not permitted to move motions at this point?

Mr. Speaker: No. These are government motions -- routine motions dealing with the business of the House.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would ask your interpretation of rule 37(c). Does the notice that is spoken of in that motion simply require a filing with the table or does it require oral notice as well? My interpretation of 37(c) would be that the motion would require notice and oral notification and permission from you in writing as well at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker: It is quite clear under the rule that any motion that is introduced under that item requires notice.

Mr. Foulds: My question then is, does the notice simply have to be filed in writing or should you give oral notice at this point in time?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform my friend that usually these notices appear on the Notice Paper, notice having been given, and the calling of those motions is at the discretion of the government House leader.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the member for Bellwoods has filed notice with the Clerk of the House for a motion that the matter he brought up on a point of privilege under rule 37 be considered by the standing committee for procedural affairs.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously a private member’s motion such as this, whether it be by way of a resolution or the introduction of a bill, would be filed with the Clerk and it would appear on the Order Paper and it would be debated in turn in the same way as any other private member’s motion.

Mr. McClellan: You will excuse my confusion, Mr. Speaker, but I was under the impression, and I may be wrong, that we had the same requirement to give notice of motion as we do to move and briefly describe a private member’s bill. I simply wanted to indicate to you and to the House that we intend to refer the matter raised by me earlier with respect to the Minister of Industry and Tourism’s remarks in Corriere Illustrato to the standing committee on procedural affairs, and the motion has been filed with the table to that effect.

Mr. Speaker: I will review it, but my understanding of it is that any motion proposed by a private member will be treated as private member’s business and will be handled in that way.

Mr. Foulds: On the point of order, if I might, Mr. Speaker: I would very much like you to review that, because there is nothing in rule 37 which confines those motions to the government House leader.

Mr. Speaker: That is my understanding of it but I will review it.



Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 181, An Act to stay the Execution of Certain Writs of Possession issued in respect of Certain Premises on Toronto Islands.

Motion agreed to.


Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 182, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this bill permits the Toronto Transit Commission to conduct a transit consulting business on a self-financing basis. We believe the legislation will allow the TTC to make an important contribution as a consulting partner in Ontario’s efforts to obtain a share of the growing international urban transit market.

The bill will also enable the Metro council to delegate to its staff the ability to grant certain permits, approvals or authorizations and, in addition, the existing section which enables the Metro council to designate lanes on Metro roads for the exclusive use of TTC transit vehicles, taxis and cars carrying a specified number of persons will be expanded to grant the area municipalities in Metro the same power over roads within their own jurisdiction and to allow councils to define classes of transit vehicles other than TTC vehicles, which would be able to use the reserved lanes.


Hon. Mr. Henderson moved first reading of Bill 183, An Act to amend the Dog Licensing and Live Stock and Poultry Protection Amendment Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, sections 19(2) and 19(3) of the act deal with compensation for killing or injuring of livestock and poultry by wolves in territories without municipal organization. The subsections are re-enacted to constitute agricultural representatives and assistant agricultural representatives as valuers in territories without municipal organization, and to set out in detail and expand the procedure for determining the amount of compensation payable. At present, such procedures are incorporated by reference to certain subsections of section 14 of the act.


Hon. Mr. Henderson moved first reading of Bill 184, An Act respecting the Marketing of Sheep and Wool.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to extend the application of the Wool Marketing Act to the production and marketing of sheep that are sold for the production of meat.


Hon. Mr. Maeck moved first reading of Bill 185, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to postpone to December 1981 the return of assessments at full market value across the province. The bill will allow us to continue with the section 86 reassessment program, which has been successfully implemented in 108 municipalities to date. Approximately 110 more municipalities will be reassessed under section 86 later this year for 1981 taxation purposes.

In addition, I am proposing in this bill administrative amendments to further clarify and update certain operating provisions within the Assessment Act.

4 p.m.


Mr. Sargent moved first reading of Bill 186, An Act to resolve the Dispute between the Bruce County Board of Education and the Secondary School Teachers.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to resolve the strike between the Bruce County Board of Education and the secondary school teachers. I hope this bill can do something towards resolving the problem.

It is a pretty unbelievable situation in a democratic, free society, and with a minority government, that this bill could get before the House, but our kids still cannot be educated. Although they are paying their bills, they cannot be educated. It is a terrible situation.


Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In view of the fact that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has introduced a bill with reference to the stay for the Islanders, can he enlighten us as to what procedures we are to follow to ensure that the bill is in place before Monday when the evictions are effective?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I was going to announce this when we announce House business later on today. We intend to call the bill for second and third reading tomorrow. It is hoped that royal assent can be given if those stages are passed tomorrow.


Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader has just tabled the answers to questions 283, 284, 370, 372, 373, 382, 384, 385 to 387, and 394, and the interim answers to questions 376, 379 and 384 standing on the Notice Paper. (See appendix, page 4250.)




Mr. Charlton moved second reading of Bill 157, An Act respecting Economic Equality for Women in Ontario.


Mr. Speaker: Order. We welcome visitors in our gallery. We are pleased that you take a great deal of interest in what we are doing here, but I will have to request that you remain silent so we will have an opportunity to hear what the member who has the floor has to say.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and proud to have been able to introduce this bill for first and second reading and to be able to debate this bill here this afternoon. It is a little unfortunate that a matter so important will be somewhat limited in time, but none the less it is a very important bill. It is, as I think the House is aware, part of an economic package this caucus put forward in three bills, all of which are complementary and all of which are very important, one to the other.

The purpose of Bill 157 is, first of all, to create in the Ministry of Labour an equal employment office which will start to deal in an effective way with the whole question of valid and successful affirmative action programs in Ontario in employment.

Second, the bill will design, along with and complementary to the other bills that have been introduced, an apprenticeship and skills training program in Ontario, and see that women have fair access to that program, which it would appear they do not now have. I think the statistics point to the problems quite clearly.

The bill, in addition, will provide for universally acceptable and affordable day care so that the women in this province will have full access to meaningful employment in a situation where they can, first, notice that most of their pay cheque is not going to be gobbled up by day care and, second, know that the quality of day care they get is adequate and meaningful for their children.

The bill will establish as well a principle we debated at length last year, the establishment and enforcement of equal pay for equal work of equal value in Ontario. This is a principle that is also extremely important in the province, and I will get into that a little bit later.

Lastly, the bill will create in statute, in law, a definition of and protection from sexual harassment in the work place.

This caucus has been in the forefront of dealing with women’s legislation in Ontario, especially in the labour field. Over the years we have dealt with a number of bills dealing with the problems and the discriminations that women are confronted by in the work place and in their employment. My colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall), who was up during question period, has dealt with bills on domestics, bills on equal pay for work of equal value and a number of other issues. This member has debated in this House the bill on domestics. My colleague the member for Hamilton Centre (Mr. M. N. Davison) currently has a bill before the House dealing with sexual harassment.

The bill we have here today is probably the most important of all the women’s bills we have dealt with in this Legislature. It is the most comprehensive bill attempting to deal in a fairly straightforward way with the kinds of problems that women in this province tell us they have: not imagined problems, and not solutions based totally on principle either, but solutions based on the realities women are confronted with and solutions suggested by the women’s organizations that have been dealing with women’s problems in the work place.

It is not even fully a case here of ideological differences between this side of the House and the government side. It is, more properly put, the difference between the recognition and the understanding of the problem and the will to deal with it.

My colleague asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) a question about the crown employees affirmative action program this afternoon, and I understand the minister’s unwillingness to admit openly the program is not working. On the other hand, we get a little tired in this House of hearing the minister brush off or rant about the government’s commitment to affirmative action when we do not see in hard statistics the success of that program. No one is going to believe it is working until we do. All of the provisions of this bill will be administered by the Ministry of Labour with the exception of the day care provisions.

4:10 p.m.

It is our belief that the present economic situation in Ontario, the intolerably high level of unemployment and the resultant social problems and social costs are the most serious and important issues currently facing us in the province. Furthermore, we recognize that the economic burdens on women are inevitably much more severe than for society as a whole when we are under the kind of economic circumstances we are under at present.

Traditionally and continually, unemployment for women is higher than that for men. Women’s wages go up more slowly than men’s. Their access to the better-paying jobs is not there. In the economic hard times we are faced with right now, they continually receive the brunt of that economic hardship. Women are participating in the work force in greater numbers than ever before. The majority of working women do so out of necessity.

We have had a social problem in this province for a long time. I suppose the total blame cannot be put on the government for some of the social attitudes that exist about women participating in the work force. There are still a lot of people in this province who believe that when women work they take jobs away from men. Unfortunately, there does not even seem to be any discrimination of the same kind against men when it may not be necessary for them to work. Let us be realistic. In a free society such as ours is, or is supposed to be, everyone who wishes to work should have the right to do so.

As I suggested, the majority of women who are working today are working out of necessity to support themselves and their families as a sole wage earner or to supplement their spouse’s income, which may be extremely low; it may result from the fact that Ontario has the lowest minimum wage in the country. Women are working, whether they be sole supporters or whether they are attempting to supplement the very low income of their husbands, to provide a decent standard of living for their families and a decent opportunity for their children in the future.

On average, women in this province earn only 58 per cent of what men earn. As inflation continues to climb, women’s wages generally rise more slowly and they fall further and further behind. At present, unemployment for women is about 7.7 per cent, while for men the rate is below seven per cent. Generally, the unemployment rate for women runs one or two percentage points above that for men.

Many working women need access to good quality day care as well to work. It has been argued that we cannot afford more day care, but I would suggest as strongly as I can that we cannot afford not to provide it, both in economic terms and in social terms.

In terms of those sections of the bill that deal with affirmative action and with equal pay for work of equal value, I would like to take a moment to read a couple of things into the record. Most members will recall that last January and February the committee on general government held hearings and did a clause-by-clause study of Bill 3, a bill designed to create equal pay for work of equal value. I want to read a couple of quotes from the former member for Carleton, Mr. Handleman, who is no longer with us. As a matter of fact, there is a by-election going on in his riding right now. He was a member of that committee.

I want to read this to members so that we can understand clearly what the issues are here today. I do not want to hear the Minister of Labour stand up and deny the problem is as bad as we are making it out to be. This is Mr. Handleman’s comment in a discussion with Mr. Towill and Mr. Keen of the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association on the morning of January 17: “Your suggestion here is that you say you could accept, I assume, or approve of a direct government policy of equal opportunity. May I ask you, because I’m a proponent of self-regulation, what have you done -- either your association or your labour relations committee -- to bring into being on a fairly general basis throughout your membership, programs -- affirmative action programs, equal opportunity programs -- supporting them, promoting them and asking your members, ‘Will you please try to do this kind of thing?’ I’m asking you as the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association and labour relations committee, what have you done to prevent the government from intervening by bringing in a bill and forcing you to do it?”

Reading further on, Mr. Handleman says, “I have had, of course, dialogues with your organization before about the need to avoid legislation by your anticipating the needs of society and doing something yourself. I happen to be against the proliferation of legislation, but where there is a void, as in this case, whether this government does this” -- “this” referring to equal opportunity or affirmative action -- “or does what Dr. Bounsall is asking it to, I think, by your own inaction and lack of recognition of the problem you have led to another form of intervention in the economy, which displeases me, but which is necessary in order to solve a social problem.”

I wanted to read that into the record so we could be very clear that the problem exists, that the problem is not now being dealt with -- by the very clear admission of the former member for Carleton -- and that the problem has to be dealt with. Because it is not being dealt with voluntarily, it has to be dealt with by this Legislature.

During the course of those hearings last winter a fairly large number of employers and employer associations who came before the committee suggested they would prefer the legislated affirmative action route to the equal-pay-for-work-of-equal-value route.

We as a party and I as a member of this House do not see those two as mutually exclusive approaches to the problems confronted by women in the work force. In fact, we feel that both are necessary parts of this government’s initiatives in those areas. Hence we have provided for both in this bill. We have taken the approach on the affirmative action program that an equal employment office should be set up in the Ministry of Labour. We have no illusion that it is not going to take some time to accomplish. But that office should sit down with those companies, industry by industry, and work out a reasonable and satisfactory approach to affirmative action in each company. We say that if an agreement cannot be reached, a tribunal should be set up to impose an affirmative action program and to impose the goals of that program. I am quite sure, if this bill were to pass and become law, the present government certainly would not abuse that.

Mr. Bounsall: They might even get re-elected.

Mr. Charlton: That is quite a possibility.

Mr. M. N. Davison: But they don’t deserve to be.

Mr. Charlton: But at least it would put government in a position that it is in now, or having some input in affirmative action programs and some input into monitoring their success and changing them when they are not working. They have none of that now, and affirmative action programs in this province just are not working.

One of the parts of the bill is an expansion of skills training programs and a commitment on the part of the government in legislation that those affirmative action programs would be accessible to women in a fair and open way. In the matter of affirmative action for women and the skills training and retraining programs that are being run in this province, the statistics are just horrible in terms of women.

4:20 p.m.

The equal pay sections are just as important to the affirmative action program in this bill as the affirmative action program itself. One of the things that was made very clear in the committee last winter was that each deals with different problems. Equal pay for work of equal value deals with the question of the value of a job. Affirmative action and equal opportunity deals with getting women into jobs from which they have been traditionally excluded. Both are necessary to deal with the economic problems that women are confronted with in the work place. Both are necessary simply because affirmative action programs, although they may move some women and eventually substantial numbers of women into better-paying jobs from which they have been excluded in the past, are not necessarily going to do anything to solve the existing job ghetto problems in the textile industry, the clerical sector and so on. It is not going to do anything to solve those problems. Equal pay for work of equal value will start to deal with some of those problems as well.

In wrapping up, I want to say quickly that the Ontario Human Rights Commission ruling on sexual harassment earlier this year was a welcome one, but it is still not good enough. A number of the comments that were made at the time of that ruling suggested very clearly that, although everybody was extremely happy with the ruling, a much clearer definition of sexual harassment was still needed. It is time that this Legislature saw that there was a clear definition of sexual harassment as it relates to the job, as it relates to dismissal from employment, as it relates to punishment and as it relates to withholding promotion and access to other positions. Those definitions are required and are long overdue in this province. We need them. We need this bill.

We need the whole range of tools with which to start dealing with, first, the economic inequality that exists in this province for women and, second, the social attitudes that have to be changed and will take time to change. We need all of these tools to deal with those, and we need them as quickly as we can get them. The longer we wait and piddle around with adding a few people here and a few people there to the enforcement of existing legislation which is not working, the worse the problem will be when it comes time finally in the government’s eyes to deal with it.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today raises some important issues, most of which we have discussed and debated before. What separates us from the sponsors of this particular bill are not its objectives but rather the means by which they can best be achieved.

Mr. Cassidy: How long? How long do we go on with that?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I extended the member the courtesy of listening; if he is capable of doing that, I would ask him to please try.

I quite appreciate that in supporting these objectives of the bill, while opposing its substantive provisions, there will be some who will argue that the government is somehow opposed to the aspirations of women for equity in the labour market. I suppose we can never hope to convince those who misconstrue our commitment. But for those who are genuinely interested in knowing the government’s strategy for achieving equal rights for women in employment, I would like to outline briefly what is now being done and what we plan for the future.

First of all, let me say that we believe the interrelated problems of equal pay and equal opportunity cannot be tackled and solved by a narrow-gauge, one-track legislative approach. What is required, in our view, is action on a number of fronts simultaneously, some legislative and some programmatic.

Mr. Foulds: Try a wide-gauge, one-track approach. Try something.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Try it again; my friend can be polite shortly.

We need a blend of legislative compulsion and educational persuasion. We believe it is defeatist and quite bluntly incorrect to assume that the only effective route to equality is through legislative action.

What are the elements of the government’s approach? First of all, there are the existing equal pay provisions of the Employment Standards Act. Under that act, women are entitled to be paid the same as men for performing substantially the same work in the same establishment where skill, effort and responsibility are substantially the same. Under the present act, there have been substantial settlements achieved in response to individual complaints, and the complaint number is mounting. More recently, a program of random audits has been undertaken.

A special section of the branch has been established, staged with specially trained officers who have been assisted in their training by representatives of the women’s bureau. New staff have been added for this purpose. In addition, as members know, there was a major media campaign on equal pay last summer. All the indications are that the campaign and the activities of the inspectorate have increased public awareness of employees’ rights and, equally important, employers’ obligations under the law.

Notwithstanding the strength of the existing law, I believe there are some changes that can and should be made to increase its effectiveness. For example, I think the present restriction to comparisons within a single establishment should be broadened. As well, provisions should be made to prohibit an employer from substituting persons of the opposite sex in jobs or restricting entry to jobs to one sex to avoid the application of the act.

Finally, I believe there is considerable merit in using a composite test, and I said so before the committee last winter, a combined profile of skill, effort and responsibility rather than requiring each of these elements to be considered and met separately in determining whether those performing substantially similar jobs are being paid equally.

I will soon be discussing these proposals with my colleagues, and I have every reason to believe I will be in a position to present them to the House in the near future.

The third point concerns affirmative action. This government is a strong proponent of voluntary affirmative action programs, not only for women but also for other groups who have historically suffered from systemic discrimination and have not had equal access to the labour market.

To reinforce this commitment within the Ontario public service, a work force of some 83,000 persons, the women crown employees office of my ministry has spearheaded a phased equal opportunity program which culminated this year in cabinet approval for individual ministry and government-wide target setting. The targets, based on projected vacancies and the availability of women applicants, are aimed at achieving a 30 per cent female participation rate in all bargaining unit categories in the management module. This program not only should benefit women crown employees but also should serve as a model and indeed an inducement to private sector employers to follow suit.

The fourth area also deals with encouraging affirmative action in the private sector. This continues to be one of the major goals of the women’s bureau of my ministry. The bureau’s efforts have two major elements. The first is the affirmative action consulting services. The staff of that consulting service informs, consults, advises, exhorts and persuades employers that it is not only fair but also in their own self-interest for them to institute and vigorously pursue affirmative action plans. A recent comprehensive questionnaire survey conducted by the bureau indicates substantial advances in this area.

Complementing the work of the consulting service is the Equal Opportunity Advisory Council, formed in April 1979 and comprising leaders of business and labour. The council has two functions: first, to advise me and my staff on how equal opportunity can be encouraged in the most effective way and, second, to exert their own influence within their own constituencies to heighten awareness and bring about positive and measurable results through new affirmative action initiatives in the private sector.

The fifth point relates to sexual harassment. As members know, and as the member has previously referred to, the present human rights code prohibits discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex. The present law has been construed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission and by boards of inquiry appointed by that commission to provide a substantial measure of protection against on-the-job sexual harassment. I believe, however, the legal protection should be more explicit, and I can therefore advise this House that will be one of the matters addressed in the new human rights code which I shall be introducing for first reading in the next 10 days.

4:30 p.m.

The sixth point has to do with strategic evaluation of the various elements of our existing programs and the exploration of alternative approaches. The Ontario Manpower Commission, in co-operation with the Ontario region of the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, is working towards the completion of a women’s employment strategy report. I expect to receive that report and to present it to my colleagues within the next month or two. Judging from the work of the commission in its other undertakings, I have no doubt that the report will be a thorough and comprehensive analysis and evaluation of a broad range of topics, including methods to ease access for women into nontraditional jobs, such as skilled trades.

In the time available, I have been able to touch upon only the principal features of our various ways of approaching this critical subject. I hope my summary has indicated that we are actively and vigorously pursuing all the matters dealt with in Bill 157, as well as some others not explicitly dealt with in the bill. Therefore, while affirming our support for the general principles enunciated in the preamble of the bill, we cannot support its content.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, at this point in time I am filled with a sense of humiliation and shame -- not for myself but for the greater part of the human race in this province -- because this government, by ministerial statement in a private member’s hour, has indicated a veto of this bill.

I would like to point out a few of the things that have happened in the course of my lifetime in the battle to try to bring dignity to each individual in our society. I do not fight discrimination against women simply because I am a woman. I fight for the right of every individual to fulfil his or her God-given talents to the fullest extent of his or her ability. That is a principle which, unfortunately, this government does not understand.

I can tell the members my mother was, I think, the first woman building contractor in Canada. As a child, I remember her saying to me: “You know, it is strange. Any drunkard lying in the gutter can vote on how my tax dollars will be paid, will be served. I have no vote.” That is the same mentality we have here all these years later.

We have a bill before us that I find sad, as I felt the equal pay for work of equal value bill was sad, simply because neither of them causes anybody to recognize the special skills of women. We are still dealing with that old business of trying to compare the woman to the male regardless of her skills. I had hoped that in my lifetime we might at least recognize individuals for their skills rather than this comparison route which denigrates women, and members know that.

This minister is prepared to stand in the House and tell us the great things the government is doing for women, yet he takes the same position as some of the other Tories did in committee, in talking about government employees, where parking lot attendants are male and switchboard operators are female. Their skills are greater; their classification and job designation require greater skills. He says the only answer for those women is to go and be parking lot attendants if they are going to get anything like equal pay from this government.

I say this to the author of the bill: Sadly, I do not think this bill takes us much further than that position. I recognize that with a government that believes, with the board of trade and the chamber of commerce and all these other prestigious groups, if you pat women on the head and say, “Be patient; all things will work together for good -- ”

Hon. Mr. Elgie: You sure haven’t heard me.

Mrs. Campbell: I have not heard the minister say anything positive the other way.

What has the government done about the pay for parking lot attendants and switchboard operators? Not one thing. And it will not do anything, because it believes it has to keep this kind of gap still in existence. This is the government. It is not somebody down on Bay Street.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: That is not true.

Mrs. Campbell: Is the minister saying what I am saying is untrue? What has he done about it? He is the Minister of Labour; what has he done?

All I am saying is this: When a government is prepared to say to the majority of the human race in Ontario: “Look, children, we will look after you in the fullness of time,” it is an insult to those women. The board of trade and the chamber of commerce have advocated patience to women; so does the minister, who is going to do more studies. I think women have been studied about as much as the native people and they have had about the same results from this government.

I regret my time is short to enter into this debate. I find this debate about the role of women and who and what they are is about the same kind of debate that took place in Britain when some stalwart -- imagine -- suggested that they should eliminate child labour. The same arguments as were used then are being used by this government to women today.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No, the Liberals opposed it then.

Mrs. Campbell: Come off it.

Let me say this: All we need from this government is a statement and a law which says, women are indeed people, their talents shall be recognized as talents and they shall be employed and paid accordingly.

I have not dwelt on the other matters in this bill, because I do not have time. Just once, I would love to be in the position where I could say to all of you, “Look, be patient, child; you will get your deserts some day.”

I simply remind the minister that the law is on the side of women. They have been declared to be people. There has been no such declaration as far as he is concerned.


The Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe the visitors in the galleries have been advised that we cannot allow any demonstrations. I must remind the visitors again that we cannot allow any further demonstration.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, after that last comment of the member for St. George, I was going to say it is nice to have some people in the gallery, particularly with respect to this bill which New Democrats think is one of the most important bills to come before the Ontario Legislature, not just this year but over the course of the last decade.

The New Democratic Party has taken a strong commitment in relation to economic equality for women and we want to carry that commitment through. If we cannot get the government to carry it through, then we will change the government and put a government in office in this province that will ensure that economic equality for women is not just a slogan and not just a program, but a reality that affects all of the 4.5 million women in Ontario.

We are now the only party to have a women’s critic, a women’s spokesman, in the Ontario Legislature. He is the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall). I am sorry he cannot speak in the debate today and I am sorry that the member for Beaches-Woodbine and the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes) and all of our other members cannot speak as well, because this is a bill that is important to all of us on the side of the New Democrats.

We have appointed a women’s organizer in the party because we think it is important to reach out to the majority of the electors of the province who happen to be women. We have appointed a women’s co-ordinator in the NDP caucus for the same reason. We are taking this question seriously. I wish the government would take the question seriously as well.

I want to tell members why we have brought the various measures of the economic equality bill forward in a package as we have done today. I want to tell about it by talking about a meeting I had a couple of weeks ago with a bunch of women at Seneca College who were training themselves for jobs where one doesn’t traditionally find women. They hope their course in nontraditional occupations will help them play an equal role in the working world, but they know from bitter experience that it is an uphill battle.

The women there told me about the problems they ran into when they tried to get better-paid jobs. They were women who ranged in age from their late teens to their early 50s. Many were mothers; some had up to 20 years of work experience and some had almost none. But the problems they faced are all the same, and they are the same problems I have heard about from countless women from all across the province in all the years I have been in politics. Most of the group had been unemployed when they started that course at Seneca College. That is not unusual, because there are 141,000 women officially unemployed in Ontario, plus many more who have despaired of getting a decent job and dropped out of the labour force.

The jobs those women at Seneca had held had been mostly sales or clerical jobs. They had run into a brick wall when they tried to broaden their skills and move on up the ladder as their male co-workers did after a few months in entry-level jobs. I think of the women in British American Bank Note, a company with a factory in my riding of Ottawa Centre. They had up to 20 years’ experience and no promotion into the chain that allows them to become skilled printers. Men with a few years of high school who came on as janitors were automatically put into that apprenticeship very shortly thereafter.

Ms. Gigantes: And made more money too.

Mr. Cassidy: And made more money as well.

The women I talked to saw themselves being trapped in a lifetime of work in a job that men saw as just a dull but necessary start to a career. They told me that sometimes they go into a bank, if they are women, they learn a job in two or three months and stay there for 15 years. That is a reality in our province today.

The women in this group who had young children could not see how they could work if they could not get day care. They were worried about how to find proper day care if they took a factory job where there were shifts to be worked. The pay is decent but there is no day care after 5:30 at night. That is not a problem that just faces 40 women at Seneca College; almost half of the women in the province who have children under the age of six are in the labour force. That is 261,000 women with young children who need day care and many of them cannot get it.

They told me about the most insidious obstacle of all for women who want to be economic equals in this society: the social pressure on them to conform to traditional roles. They spoke of the guidance counsellor in grade school who tells a woman that she should be taking domestic science and not the course in shop in which she is really interested and of the electrical subcontractor who hires one of the women that I met as a trainee but then loses business as a result.

Those attitudes are not very surprising, because they are ratified and supported by this government. Frankly, I am ashamed of what the Minister of Labour had to say in defending the tawdry record of this government in looking after the interests of women in Ontario.

In the employer-sponsored training branch -- and this minister has some input into that -- there is a fellow who explained that only a fraction of one per cent of the people in this program are women because, he said, women are afraid of moving parts and equipment. That is ridiculous. He said, “It takes a particular kind of cat to survive on a shop floor,” and he was bloody well determined that was not going to be a woman -- only men.

The ministry’s program had five women and 605 men in employer-sponsored training a year ago. Now it has 1,500 men and it has actually gone down to only four women in the program. Is that equal opportunity? That is a disgrace. That is why we think the government needs legislated answers to provide economic equality for women in Ontario. It is no good just relying on voluntary action. That has been the government’s policy for far too many years. It has not worked in the past, and there is no indication it is going to work in the future either. The voluntary affirmative action program of which the government is so proud has resulted in affirmative action programs with only 160 employers after seven years. The agreements have no goals, they set no standard and they have no teeth.

We want an equal employment office -- it is in the bill -- to work with employers to develop affirmative action plans that will legally bind them to hire, train and promote women rather than meeting with a civil servant every once in a while and saying nice things about women. That equal employment office should start by lighting a fire under the provincial government, because the record of this government is shameful when it comes to equal opportunities and treating women on the basis of equality.

The government began an affirmative action program in 1973. It is such an abject failure that today two thirds of the women who work for the province earn less than $13,000 a year, and only five per cent earn more than $21,000 a year. I would ask any minister in the government whether they would be prepared to sustain a family on that kind of income.

It is no surprise either, when one considers that last year the government torpedoed the NDP bill introduced by the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall) calling for equal pay for work of equal value. The shoddy thing about it was they took the former member for Carleton, Mr. Handleman, who they knew was going to retire a few weeks later, in the spring of this year, and used that member as the spokesperson for the government when they said, “Now is not the time to move on that vital piece of legislation.” The performance of the government simply underlines the Conservative failure to provide anything approaching equal pay for work of equal value.

The member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) mentioned a case I raised in the Legislature. Why is it that switchboard operators who need at least three more years of education and experience than the people who run parking lots in the government, but who are predominantly female, earned $38 a week less last year? Why is it that, since I asked that question of the Minister of Labour, the wage gap between them and parking lot attendants, who of course are all male, has widened to $46 a week? That is another example of how the government is failing to live up to whatever principles it happens to be putting forward.

The minister launched an advertising campaign. He hired 11 more civil servants to enforce the unenforceable equal pay provisions of the present Employment Standards Act, and so far this year he has won $72,000 in equal pay cases. This works out to four cents for every working woman in the province. I say to the government and the Minister of Labour, that is not good enough. It is not good enough even if it is an improvement over the $56,000 of a year ago. It is no wonder the average earnings of women are still 58 per cent of the average earnings of men in Ontario.

Why could we not be like France and Germany, countries where women’s wages are rapidly catching up to the point where they are almost equal with the pay of men? Why can we not have that as our goal rather than constantly making women second-class citizens? Why can we not pass this bill and give women first-class citizenship in the economy of the province?

The government’s record on day care is a record of cant and hypocrisy. In the last four years, 100,000 women have joined the labour force in Ontario. The number of subsidized day care spaces has gone up by only 5,000. We think there should be a right to day care in Ontario. We think it is a basic necessity if women are to have an equal role in our economy. Just about every municipal candidate elected in the province pledged a commitment to day care.

4:50 p.m.

When will this government recognize the demand is out there and that women will not be able to participate as equals in the work force as long as somebody has to stay home to mind the kids? It will be the women who are forced to stay home. That is a reality unless we get decent day care and make it accessible to every woman and every family in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. MacBeth): The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Cassidy: I realize that. I just want to appeal to the government. They have blocked our full employment bill and our bill on protection of workers and job security. Why can’t the government stop paying lip-service and help the New Democratic Party to make Bill 157 a reality in Ontario? It is something that has essentially been proposed by their own Ontario Status of Women Council. It is about time the government took that advice seriously and put principle ahead of partisan politics --

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

Mr. Cassidy: -- and supported economic equality for women. It is about time that came in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr Speaker, I wonder if I could have some clarification of the amount of time that remains.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Kingston and the Islands has five minutes.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I shall have to abbreviate my remarks considerably.

First, I would like to join in the remarks of my colleague. I do not think any member of this House is in opposition to the principles embodied in this bill, with the exception of one specific principle that I would not be supportive of for very practical purposes. It seems to me the honourable members must recognize that the discipline of the responsibility to implement and execute policy and programs in this province really does charge one with the necessity to assess the reality of a given situation.

What is overlooked entirely in this bill, unfortunately, in respect to day care, is that if one were to choose to establish or enshrine a right, one also must move to establish a method of moving to achieve that immediately. I suggest to the honourable members opposite that we do not fail to recognize there is a need that is not being met at the moment. I have indicated that on numerous occasions. What I think is important, though, is to see the difference in the approach. We must be pragmatic and realistic.

I would suggest that within the next short period of time -- over the next three weeks -- I will be making a series of announcements in terms of the initiatives we have been working on and planning for over almost the past two years. This will have a significant impact upon day care in this province. It is unfortunate I am not in a position today to reveal to the honourable members what that is, but I will be shortly. I think the members will be surprised at how soon they learn, at least, the first indication.

This has been in the planning for some time; it is not a response. If it were simply reactive, I can assure the House I would have done it before now. I think it is also important we bear in mind that this province has done a better job in the provision of day care than any other jurisdiction in North America. Think for just one moment: there is in Ontario two thirds of all the day care spaces available in Canada. One third of the population is served by two thirds of the day care spaces available. That is only comparative. That has no absolute value, but it is nevertheless significant. I do not think one should ignore that when commenting upon what we have managed to achieve and what we are going to continue to achieve in this area in the province.

The rates of increase may not have met everyone’s expectations over the last two or three years but, at a time when other jurisdictions were faced with absolute declines, we continued to have growing numbers of day care spaces available in this province. Honourable members and the people of this province will shortly see the unfolding of our new policy and its practical implementation in this province.

I think it is wrong to suggest the implementation of a right enshrined in legislation. Even if the member were in office, he could not meet it. To achieve what he is suggesting may well cost in the first year of implementation an additional $1 billion. He could not find it and I cannot find it.

We must be responsible and move in a phased way to achieve our objective. That is precisely what we plan to do.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I just want to wrap up very quickly. The minister pointed out very clearly the very limited nature of the legislation that is now in place. I only wish the minister could have spent more time with us during the hearings last January and February so he would have more clearly understood the inadequate nature of equal pay for substantially the same work. We had job after job after job described by person after person, all of them women, where they were deprived of a fair and equitable income for the work, the skill, the responsibility and the effort they put forward.

I was pleased to hear the minister say he did not think any member in this House opposed any of the principles in this bill. I remind the minister and all the members of the government party that to block this bill is a rejection of those principles. This is a debate on second reading on the principle of the bill.

The Acting Speaker: This matter will be voted on at a later time.


Mr. Williams moved resolution 39:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should take further action to prevent the proliferation and indiscriminate location of restaurants, taverns and theatres that feature nude entertainment or nude waitresses or similar forms of inducement to customers and that, in particular:

1. The government of Ontario should introduce legislation that would authorize municipalities to pass bylaws prohibiting the establishment and operation in the municipality of these restaurants, taverns and theatres; and

2. The Attorney General should request the Minister of Justice for the government of Canada to introduce legislation strengthening the public morals provisions of the Criminal Code to facilitate prosecutions against the owners of these restaurants, taverns and theatres.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the substance of the resolution has a familiar ring about it, and so it should. All members of this Legislature will recall that as recently as the spring of 1978 we engaged in a very lively debate revolving around Bill 49, an Act to amend the Municipal Act. That piece of legislation had a twofold purpose: to extend existing powers of municipalities over body rub parlours and to give them powers to pass bylaws to regulate and control adult entertainment parlours.

It is self-evident that in the early 1970s and the latter part of the 1960s, the business operations in our society that cater to erotic and sexual appetites or inclinations were very much on the rise. Because of that there was a public outcry that demanded government action. For this reason, therefore, Bill 49 came before this Legislature for debate and was enacted into law. That particular piece of legislation provided that bylaws may be passed by councils of all municipalities for licensing, regulating, governing, classifying and inspecting adult entertainment parlours or any class or classes thereof and for revoking or suspending any such licence and for limiting the number of such licences to be granted.

5 p.m.

One might raise the question as to why it would seem necessary to debate this issue again at this time, so soon after the enactment of the legislation to which I have referred. I think the answer is obvious. First, if one looks at the federal government’s involvement in this area through the Criminal Code, there seems to have been a marked degree of indifference by the federal authorities in endeavouring to tighten up the morality provisions of the Criminal Code to try to come to grips with these types of entertainment facilities.

Secondly, at the municipal level, until the enactment of the Municipal Amendment Act in 1978, municipalities did not have the legal power to enact bylaws to regulate or control the operation of either body-rub parlours or adult entertainment parlours.

The difficulty we have before us at this time is the gathering storm clouds we see on the horizon in the nature of the legal challenges that are being made to this existing legislation. While this government has to be given full credit for the initiatives it took in bringing in Bill 49 in 1978 and having it enacted into law, it appears that those in the industry who want to see a proliferation and unlimited operation of these types of entertainment facilities will go to all lengths to try to strike down our existing laws. While in the early 1970s the real attention seemed to be on body-rub parlours in the inner city -- in Metro Toronto in particular -- in 1980 the attention is being given to this unprecedented proliferation and indiscriminate location of adult entertainment parlours, not only in the suburbs of our large cities but in the small urban communities throughout the province.

I would like to give members a case in point. I refer to my own city of North York. There are no less than 21 applications pending at this time for restaurant and tavern licences with specific requests for provision of burlesque-type entertainment. One of these applications relates to a restaurant and tavern in the very heart of Oriole riding, located in a small plaza within yards of a neighbouring church and two high schools, one of which is the largest high school facility in North York. All these community facilities are, in turn, located within the centre of one of our finest residential communities.

In speaking to Mr. Gerry Bird, one of the teachers at Georges Vanier Secondary School, I think he expressed the views of many of the teaching staff as well as the students when he questioned the propriety of having such a facility located in the heart of our residential community. Its very presence would reflect, I would suggest, on the integrity of our community. I give credit to people such as the Levines and the Campbells living on Silas Hill Drive in Willowdale and to Mrs. Lynne Crawford living on Goodview Road. These are people who have been concerned enough to bring their concerns to the local city council and their elected representatives at the local level. They have taken the initiative in obtaining petitions from people in the area who have also expressed dismay and concern about the proposed establishment of such facilities in the heart of their community.

The local alderman, Mrs. Betty Sutherland, because of these concerns and her own personal concerns, introduced a measure before North York council and the council in its wisdom enacted a bylaw which amended zoning bylaw 7625 in North York, which would limit the location of such adult entertainment parlours to areas zoned industrial, provided that such parlours are located at least 500 metres from residential areas. That bylaw was enacted in September of this year.

From what I have said up till now, it would sound as if at the municipal level and at the provincial level we have matters well in hand and under control. Unfortunately, this is not the case. That is primarily the reason why I am here today with this resolution before the Legislature. While the local bylaw was passed by North York, it has taken almost nine months to bring that legislation to fruition. At the staff level, considerable apprehension has been expressed with regard to the validity of such a local bylaw. Both the reports from the planning commissioner and from the city solicitor of North York questioned whether the type of bylaw that was eventually enacted by the council would stand up in the courts. They suggested that a zoning bylaw is to control land use and not to control morality. The city solicitor himself has expressed concern as to whether, if challenged in the courts, that bylaw would stand up.

There have been considerable reports written expressing concern at this. Now we find, over and above these concerns being expressed at the local level, the operators of these type of facilities have challenged our own section 368(b) in the courts. As we know, there are now two cases pending before the courts: one in the city of Toronto and another in the city of Hamilton. By reason of the fact that the decisions have yet to be handed down on those cases, I won’t go into the merits.

I will simply point out for the record the basis on which our existing legislation is being challenged. The operators of the two facilities in question are questioning the vires of the legislation. In other words, they are asking for a declaration that our Municipal Act, as amended, is ultra vires the province of Ontario, being legislation in relation to criminal law as well as other relief. Of course, the Attorney General has responded and has intervened in this matter as of right, claiming that the position of the province is that the legislation is intra vires of the Legislature of the province of Ontario.

The fact is that our laws are being challenged. It appears to me that remedial action must be contemplated. If the courts should decide unfavourably with regard to the existing laws, I would suggest that immediate remedial legislation must be considered. The fact of the matter is that if, for whatever reason, these cases before the courts went in favour of the applicants, it would appear we would have to fall back on the Criminal Code as the sole basis for governing, controlling or prohibiting these types of establishments.

5:10 p.m.

I would suggest that such an application could be favourably made to the federal authorities to provide this type of enlightened legislation. We do have existing legislation under the Criminal Code, section 190, which provides that they can delegate administrative authority to the province through the Lieutenant Governor in Council when it comes to gaming and lotteries. I see no reason why such a course of action could not be taken with regard to the control of adult entertainment parlours if the need was determined to be there.

I have pointed out the fact that there is a need to tighten up the existing legislation at the municipal level because the Municipal Act is being challenged and because the local bylaws that have been enacted or proposed are being questioned. It seems to me that if we do have to resort to the Criminal Code as the basis on which we can regulate and control, then we must move in the direction I have suggested.

With regard to the existing provisions of the Criminal Code, notwithstanding our success in maintaining the validity of our legislation in the courts, I think we could and should still go to the federal authorities and ask them to strengthen those provisions of the Criminal Code, which would give further and stronger clout to what we have done and are endeavouring to do here at the provincial level.

Section 170 of the Criminal Code, the means by which charges are laid against operators of adult entertainment parlours, deals with the attire of the performers, waiters or waitresses in restaurants. It is under that provision that charges can be laid. The difficulty is that there are two aspects of the Criminal Code, under section 170, dealing with nudity that could be improved upon. First and foremost, it is ludicrous that no proceeding shall be commenced under this section without the consent of the Attorney General. I think one can count on the fingers of one hand the number of provisions in the Criminal Code and in civil law where one has to get the consent of the Attorney General before he can lay an information. There are more serious crimes by far under the Criminal Code where one does not have to go to the Attorney General to get his permission to lay an information or a charge. It is handled in the normal process. Why here, where we have a minor crime by comparison, does one have to have the consent of the Attorney General?

Further, there is a difficulty under the existing section in that the charges can only be laid against the individual, who may be charged with nudity because of the nature of his attire or lack thereof. There is no provision in the existing section to lay the charge directly against the establishment, unless the person who is being charged with nudity is prepared to lay further charges against the owner or manager of the facility where he or she might be working.

As there is provision elsewhere in the Criminal Code, it seems to me there should be a reverse onus provision in the Criminal Code and this section in particular would assume that the owners, managers and operator of these facilities have the knowledge and have given the consent with regard to the adult entertainment that goes on within the establishment.

Here are two ways in which I think the Criminal Code could be tightened up and assist us in the province to try in a more meaningful and stronger way to regulate and control, if not prohibit, the proliferation and indiscriminate location of these adult entertainment parlours.

If we can’t make progress in those particular areas, I suggest there is still a further course of action we might take. I have been referring to the initiatives of the Attorney General. I would now suggest there may be initiatives that can be taken through the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I would point out that there was an adverse decision in the courts back in 1974 in the case of MacLean versus the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. While the board endeavoured to prohibit such a facility from operating, it was decided by the courts that the regulations under the Liquor Licence Act did not specifically empower the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario to pass judgement upon entertainment offered in facilities of this nature. Specific provisions under section 45 also did not cover this particular point.

I would suggest that there may be room, through the regulatory process and through the Liquor Licence Act, by which one could consider bringing in regulations that would pertain to how persons employed in these licensed premises would dress. I am suggesting it could be done by regulation. It has proved successful in other jurisdictions in states in the United States. I understand it has in the states of California and New York.

It seems to me that provision could be made, if not totally to provide the board with the power to control the regulation of the type of entertainment in licensed establishments, at least most certainly to do it with regard to establishments that cater to minors, that is, the dining lounges and dining rooms. I would point out that the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association as well as the Ontario Food Services Association would endorse this type of regulation and control. It has been pointed out to me that of the 400 licensed establishments within Metropolitan Toronto, if there was an outright prohibition with regard to the dining lounges, it would reduce by about 70 per cent the number of facilities that could provide adult entertainment and limit that type of activity to the other hundred facilities that are licensed lounges and not dining lounges. As we know, it is to the licensed dining lounges that families will come to have meals and bring their children with them, while the licensed lounges are areas that are reserved for adult attendance only.

It would be a great step forward if this kind of regulatory enactment was considered. I am sure initiatives have to be taken; we have to be prepared for the problems that lie before us. I am sure the further initiatives of this government will ensure that there will be no further proliferation or inappropriate location of these facilities throughout the province.

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak on this resolution before us this afternoon. I believe in the spirit that is embodied in the resolution and the goal it is trying to achieve.

5:20 p.m.

The resolution, in my opinion, is not going to accomplish very much. It is doing what this government does so often, that is, point to other levels of government to do what I consider might be work it does not want to do itself. The resolution gives authorization to municipalities to do more. It is pointing at the government of Canada, through the Minister of Justice to do more. I believe it is rather hypocritical to stand up and present a resolution of this nature on such a very important matter. The principle behind the resolution is one I endorse 100 per cent. But I do not like the government, through the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams), bringing in a resolution that is going to try to get other levels of government to do what I believe this government should try to do.

It is interesting to note that this afternoon this private members’ period is being shared with the discussion of Bill 137. I know there are vast differences between this resolution and that bill but, in my view, the bill is talking about the economic well-being of women and affording economic opportunities to women, while this resolution is talking about trying to do something to prevent the continued and increased exploitation of women. Therefore, I think this resolution and the previous bill have some views in common. I think both the bill and the resolution before us now are trying to improve the position and prestige of women in our society.

The proliferation of these entertainment enterprises is going hand in hand with a substantial decrease in respect for the family, for the mother and so forth. That may be an ideological thing for many people, but I submit it is something that touches every one of us. Many of the problems today that are covered by Community and Social Services are with us because the family and women in our society do not have the same status they had years ago. I know it sounds old-fashioned, and it is hard to turn back the clock, but I do believe we should mention these points in our discussion of this resolution today.

What do I suggest we do about this type of entertainment in restaurants and taverns? I believe a great deal of it could be controlled by the government through its liquor licence board and through the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I believe they could do a great deal to reduce the number of such establishments.

What about the municipalities? The member for Oriole has mentioned the locations in which these establishments are springing up. I think he has a good point in that respect. Here is a way the municipality can become involved through its zoning bylaws if it wants to do it, but it has to have the will to try to do it. I believe this government does not have the will or the guts to do what I think it could do to help prevent the continuation and proliferation of entertainment parlours that are being discussed today. The municipalities are going to have to be encouraged to have that desire and the guts to do it also, from the standpoint of the location, through their zoning bylaws and so forth. I believe some very good points have been made by the member for Oriole in respect to the fact we see now in our own municipalities where some of these entertainment parlours are being settled.

They should not be in residential areas or even where children would be passing by the street seeing the signs and pictures on the outside. Not only are they a nuisance, but it is a bad situation, and the municipalities should try to curtail it. The points the member has made about strengthening the public moral provisions of the Criminal Code are right on. I believe this is an area where we could certainly see some very great improvement. I would do everything to encourage that to be done at the federal level.

To sum up my few words in participating in this debate on the resolution, I abhor the proliferation of these kinds of parlours in our communities and residential areas. I would like to see them curtailed, but I say all three levels of government have a part to play in doing so. I do not think this government should give up its responsibility in this matter of trying to pass legislation in this House that will help control the proliferation of entertainment parlours of this nature. The government is not without blame. I will support anything it brings in that will help to decrease the incidence of these kinds of establishments in our municipality.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. I want to speak to the members here about a particular problem I have had in my own constituency. It happens to be the Metro Theatre, which is located at Bloor and Manning.

As the member for Oriole says, it has been a disgrace and problem for people in my constituency. It is located in the middle of a residential family neighbourhood, despite the fact that it is on Bloor Street. The streets north and south of Bloor are residential family areas occupied by people with very traditional values, which I happen to share and respect. I think people have a right to have their values honoured and respected in their own neighbourhood.

We have had a problem particularly in Toronto city with strip joints. What we are talking about is how to deal with the phenomenon of a proliferation of strip joints, whether they are theatres, bars or whatever. Not too long ago there was a time when the main street in this city was virtually beyond the pale for people with families or children. They could not walk down Yonge Street because of the body-rub parlours and strip joints of all kinds and varieties. So there was an effort to clean up Yonge Street, and that was achieved. One of the consequences was the problem was not really solved but simply dispersed off Yonge Street and into the midst of residential neighbourhoods such as mine and the area of North York referred to by the member for Oriole.

Let me just say the Metro Theatre is a real blight in our community. It is close to a high school. It attracts teenagers who are underage. It is common knowledge that the age provisions are not followed. We have the additional problem of the customers of the Metro Theatre coming into the community and harassing women either before or after they go into the performance. It has become a real problem in our community. I have had numerous complaints and petitions from people in the community about this kind of harassment.

5:30 p.m.

Having said that I share the concern and support the resolution, I want to continue in the vein of the member for Sarnia because this government is as much responsible for the problem as anybody else. I remember that when the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) became Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations he shot his mouth off ad nauseam about how he was going to clean up the topless waitresses and how he was going to solve the problem of the strip joints by dealing with topless waitresses. As soon as he was appointed to the cabinet, what did he do? Well he shot his mouth off and shot his mouth off and eventually did absolutely nothing. What he should have done was brought in amendments to the Employment Standards Act. It is very simple. He should have advised his cabinet colleagues that the one way to deal seriously with the problem was to prohibit any employer from requiring a woman as a condition of employment as a waitress to be topless. That would have solved a lot of the problem. I am sure the member for Oriole knows that.

Let me speak again about the Metro Theatre. This place is operating in violation of a number of laws. As a matter of fact, it has had two convictions under the Criminal Code. The member for Oriole talks about the need for strengthening the Criminal Code. Here is a theatre that has had two convictions under the Criminal Code for indecent performance. What happens? These theatres are licensed under the authority of the Theatres Act of Ontario which is enforced by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations through the censor board.

Remember Don Sims? Last spring after this theatre had been convicted twice for offences under the Criminal Code, Don Sims renewed its licence. This is the great protector of public morals and public decencies who is all hot to trot when it comes to artistic films, but when it comes to a purveyor of smut who is involved in violating the Criminal Code, he simply signs the paper and renews the licence. I ask, where is the initiative of the government in that respect? All I see is a fairly large degree of hypocrisy and shirking of responsibility.

Getting back to the member for Scarborough Centre, he did not amend the Employment Standards Act. In fact, after making all those bravura promises about what he was going to do to clean up the strip joints, he did absolutely nothing. In desperation, his cabinet colleagues brought in Bill 49, which simply dumped the responsibility on to the municipalities and made it virtually impossible to deal with the problem.

The member for Sarnia (Mr. Blundy) mentioned the reality that the problem could be dealt with under the authority of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. That is not being done either. The government hands out licences to the strip joint operators with great abandon. I do not see any initiatives coming from the government on trying to control the problem in that area.

Finally, there is the area of police enforcement. I do not know how many times we have been down to 14 Division -- myself, members of the community, alone, separately, together -- to try to get the police to enforce the existing provisions of the Criminal Code and to make sure that people living in the area are not harassed as they walk from their house up to Bloor Street to go shopping or to go to church. We cannot get consistent police enforcement. If the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) was really concerned about this problem, in his capacity also as Solicitor General, he might have some words with police chiefs about ways of enforcing the existing laws.

I am not sure there is much more I want to say. I think it is a serious problem. Aside from the other concerns I mentioned, in terms of the assault on the values of people that deserve to be respected, I also see it as a form of blockbusting that is taking place in a number of communities. I do not have any doubt at all that the existence of strip joints in residential neighbourhoods, particularly in the inner city communities, is an excellent way to destabilize the residential neighbourhood and make it ripe for blockbusting developers to move in and begin the work of destroying family housing in favour of different kinds of development. I have no doubt at all that is part of the phenomenon we are dealing with.

I support the resolution and the measures spelled out in the resolution, but I also want this government to understand clearly it has a responsibility to deal with the problem that it cannot shirk off on to either the municipalities or the federal government. Again, to summarize, it has the authority under the Theatres Act. It has, through the influence of the Solicitor General, the capacity to speak to law enforcement officials about the enforcement of existing statutes. It has the authority to control under the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. None of these things is being enforced with any degree of vigour or consistency whatsoever. I hope the House will support the member for Oriole’s resolution in the hope it will bring this serious problem to the attention of cabinet and that we can have a more vigorous assault on what is a serious problem in many communities, particularly within Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. J. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to add my voice to those of my colleagues in support of this resolution and also to pay tribute to the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) for bringing in this timely and commendable resolution.

This government and, I would venture to say, nearly all members of this assembly have supported the restriction of establishments which rely on nude entertainment to bring in patrons. It was just over two years ago when this House debated amendments to the Municipal Act. At that time, it was hoped the legislation would reduce the number of such establishments across Ontario but, one year later, there were still over 200 premises in Toronto alone which featured some form of nude entertainment. Earlier amendments went far in controlling adult entertainment parlours by closing down many of the body-rub parlours and sex shops. There still exists a number of other facilities which citizens of our municipalities wish to see restricted. It ought to be the responsibility of the local governments, which best know the immediate local concerns, to control the establishment of restaurants, taverns and theatres that feature nude entertainment. This applies not just to the major municipalities in our province but to a number of the smaller communities as well.

We witnessed with great shock and sorrow the impact the sex industry can have in the murder of Emanuel Jaques. This incident shook as large a community as Toronto. Can one imagine the effect it would have on a smaller community? This is what is happening. Certainly, crackdowns have removed some of the more questionable establishments from Toronto’s downtown core, but many of them have moved. Instead of heading into the city centre, one can bump and grind in every Metro borough. Several of these relocated taverns and restaurants have been located close to residential sections or schools. Under the act, municipalities can regulate their location but cannot bar them from entry.

It is the community which, to a large extent, shapes the development of our citizens. Our citizens should be able to choose the kind of environment in which they wish to live. They should be able to regulate what type of business they wish their children to be exposed to. I am not suggesting this assembly attempt to legislate morality for this province, but what I would like to see is the ability of a community to determine its own pattern of development -- in other words, local autonomy.

Having served as mayor and councillor in my own community for several years, I have a tremendous amount of respect for local councils and I know they are far better qualified than any other level of government to assess what is in the best interest of the people they represent. If they are mistaken, they are turfed out of office at the next election, and we have seen some of that happen in the last few days.

5:40 p.m.

The real concern of this resolution, as I read it, is to allow municipalities a legal means of blocking establishments which a community may not want A community could, if it so desired, prevent sex-oriented businesses not only from locating in the downtown core, but in the backstreets and residential neighbourhoods as well. Several municipalities have been fighting to keep these taverns and restaurants away from their neighbourhood backyards. Often they have not had the necessary clout to force them to move. I think it is a shame when a municipality, acting in its collective role, cannot decide what type of entertainment the community will support.

There are a number of legal points raised by this resolution but, in concert with the federal government and the municipal representatives, they are points which can be worked out. The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) can approach the federal Minister of Justice to make changes to the Criminal Code which would facilitate action on the part of the Ontario communities.

We are aware that this is an area into which we enter only after a great deal of thought. It is not often that we in this assembly discuss our ability to constrain any segment of our society, but we have several questions with regard to this industry and its establishment across Ontario. The aggressive marketing of some of its supporters may not please members of our communities.

My principle here in supporting this resolution is that municipalities throughout this province should have a say in just how their communities will develop. At the very least it will give them the opportunity to bring better control to such establishments. No person in this province should be subjected to having these establishments thrust upon him if the community is opposed. The municipal representatives may best decide each community’s need and aspiration.

In conclusion, I feel this is territory which the province, together with both municipalities and the federal government, can enter. Together we can help ensure communities which are safe and which are shaped by the individuals who live there.

Mr. Speaker: I have been prevailed upon. I had a choice between the members for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. Reed), Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) and Ottawa East (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Roy: It was a toss-up, Mr. Speaker. I used my great experience and, of course, my weight within caucus to override my colleagues. I used my seniority to get an opportunity to support this resolution.

I want to say, as my colleague the member for Sarnia (Mr. Blundy) said prior to me, that we are in support of anything that appears to be against sin, sex and that sort of thing and in support of the resolution as such.

It is with some trepidation that I look at some of the provisions within the resolution. I find it a bit surprising, considering the author of the resolution and knowing the respective jurisdictions of various governments, that he would put the emphasis on the municipalities to curtail the proliferation of such establishments. In my opinion, the provincial role to be played in this respect is of great importance, and it seems to me that is where it has to be played. It has to be played at the provincial level rather than trying to use municipal laws to curtail the abuses or infringements of the Criminal Code. I do not see that the Criminal Code has to be amended. In fact, the present Criminal Code, if it was only enforced, would probably severely curtail the proliferation of these establishments.

The other thing I find to be somewhat surprising in the resolution is that the member for Oriole -- and I do not begrudge the fact he brought this in -- should feel obliged to bring this resolution to the House at this time. It was only a few years ago when the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) was sworn in that he gave a direct warning to the public, saying that those individuals participating in nude entertainment would be required to dress up. Through all the swearing in of the ministers at that time, the thing that made the headlines was the comment by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. He said that from now on things in this province would not be as they were in the past and nude entertainers were going to have to clean up their act.

I find it somewhat cynical and disappointing that after the minister said this some two years ago, the member for Oriole should be obliged to bring in this resolution. Tacked on to the resolution should have been some serious condemnation of the shallowness of that threat and that promise of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. If the member felt the necessity of bringing forward such a resolution, it is because his colleague the minister did not do his job, and that speaks for itself.

I also find regrettable about the process that is going to take place here this afternoon that part of this resolution indicates that people are abusing certain individuals in society. It is an abuse of females to perpetrate the spread of this type of establishment. On the one hand, the government wants to prohibit that while, on the other hand, there is a bill coming up, respecting economic equality for women in Ontario, that it is going to block. The government is going to put a veto on that bill.

That is a cynical gesture on the part of government members, bringing forward this type of resolution and wanting the support of the Legislature for it. We will support it. At the same time, one of my colleagues brings forward an act respecting the economic equality of women in Ontario, but these people will not even allow this bill to come to a vote. The same people who will be supporting this resolution will be blocking this bill.

I look at my colleague from Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) who is shaking his head. He does not understand it and neither do we. We think the government’s approach to the process is cynical and lacks the seriousness that this type of legislation deserves. Some priorities those members have over there! They want to prohibit these establishments, yet they do not care sufficiently for the women of this province. Shame on them!

In closing, I want to say that if the member for Oriole is embarrassed this afternoon by the process that takes place, he should look around him at his colleagues. That is what is going on here.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate on this resolution, this convoluted gobbledegook we have before us. If the member for Oriole was serious about this issue, which has a detrimental impact on our communities, why did he not first put it in the order of a bill and not a resolution? Why did he not specify some controls over these establishments in residential neighbourhoods?

5:50 p.m.

If the member were really serious about the issue embodied in this gobbledegook, he would have specified that these places of nude entertainment not be allowed in residential communities. It is as simple as that, but he could not do that. Instead, he offers a poor apology for his government’s lack of action. The government has had all kinds of opportunity through the Solicitor General, through the Theatres Act and through the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, to close down disreputable operations, but cabinet ministers sit idly by and do nothing. Instead, they put the member up to this sorry excuse. He should be ashamed of himself, doing their dirty work for them, which will get him nowhere.


The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 157:

Auld, Ashe, Baetz, Bennett, Birch, Brunelle, Cureatz, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Gregory, Havrot, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson, J., Kennedy, Lane, Leluk, MacBeth, Maeck, McCaffrey, McCague, Norton, Parrott, Pope, Ramsay, Rotenberg, Smith, G. E., Villeneuve, Walker, Williams, Wiseman -- 32.


Mr. Speaker: Mr. Williams has moved resolution 89.

Those in favour will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Resolution concurred in.


Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the standing order, I would like to indicate to the members of the House the business for the rest of this week and next week.

Tonight we will have the statement by the Treasurer and a reply from a representative of each of the opposition parties. Tomorrow we will deal first with third readings of bills on today’s Order Paper and then, with the approval of the House, complete all the stages of Bill 181, concerning the evictions on Toronto Islands. Time permitting, we will complete consideration of Bill 169 and then Bill 168.

On Monday, November 17, the House will consider the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs. On Tuesday, November 18 in the afternoon, we will have committee of the whole House on Bill 182, the special education bill. In the evening we will complete or continue Bill 182, if it is not completed in the afternoon. If there is any time and if they have not been completed on Friday, we will move to Bills 169 and 168.

On Wednesday four committees may meet in the morning: the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment, and the standing committees on general government, resources development and administration of justice. Three committees may meet in the afternoon: the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment and the standing committee on social development and general government.

On Thursday, November 20, we will have private members’ ballot items 35 and 36 standing in the names of Mr. Stong and Mr. Dukszta. Next Thursday evening we will conclude the debate on the report of the select committee on constitutional reform. On Friday, November 21, the House will continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

Mr. Speaker: So honourable members will be aware, just before the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) begins speaking at eight o’clock, to avoid any confusion, the Treasurer wants to share copies of his statement with all members. Promptly at eight o’clock we will take a few moments to allow the pages to distribute those to the members. After that is completed, we will hear whatever it is the Treasurer has to say. That will be the procedure we will take at eight o’clock.

The House recessed at 5:56 p.m.