Hansard Transcript 1993-May-12 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): The Ottawa-Carleton region has adopted the following position regarding Bob Rae's social contract, and I quote:

"Municipalities and others are being told they will be part of a solution to a problem created by the provincial government. They are being told they will have to cut services in order to finance the inability of the provincial government to control its expenditures. They are being told that the broader public sector and the people they serve will have to suffer the consequences of poor fiscal management by the Rae government. They are being told that this is non-negotiable. And finally, they are being told by the very people who have mismanaged the public finances of the province how they will absorb these cuts.

"Simply, this is not acceptable.

"Ottawa-Carleton concedes that the province has a financial problem. It wants to know exactly the makeup of the projected $17-billion deficit. It wants assurances that the province is not using savings generated from cuts on municipal cost-shared programs to fund its own initiatives.

"Ottawa-Carleton is not prepared to be told how to do it. It is not prepared to accept inferences that it has a bloated bureaucracy. It is not prepared to have its employees used as scapegoats for the province's profligate spending. It is not prepared to bow to the dictates of the Premier."

That's what Ottawa-Carleton wants to tell Bob Rae.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Over the last decade, government in Ontario appears to have become the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it wrongly and applying unsuitable remedies. That pretty well sums up the state of the Ontario Workers' Compensation Board today. It has been described as a zoo of good intentions run amok, and by all accounts, whether it's from the viewpoint of the employers, workers or government, workers' compensation is in serious trouble.

It has an $11-billion unfunded liability that's growing at a rate of $100 million a month. Skyrocketing premiums are delivering death blows to businesses and making Ontario less attractive for new business, investment and jobs. Meanwhile, the system is seriously failing to address the legitimate needs and aspirations of those it's supposed to help -- injured workers.

Charting positive new directions on workers' compensation will not only get injured workers and employers back on track; it will get the Ontario economy back on track as well, because at the end of the day, instead of more cost, paperwork and bureaucracy, we will have businesses doing business here, more employers employing and more workers working.

Surely that's a goal worthy of all our best efforts -- workers, employers and government alike -- and I have no doubt that with the right direction, with the right vision and with leadership, we can and will get Ontario and the Workers' Compensation Board back to basics and back on track.

PORTUGUESE IMMIGRATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I rise today to recognize an important date in the history of the Portuguese community in Canada, the 40th anniversary of Portuguese immigration to this country.

Forty years ago today, a group of Portuguese immigrants sailing on the Saturnia arrived in Halifax from Lisbon. Since it was late in the day, the port was closed. They therefore remained overnight in Canadian waters and stepped on to Canadian soil the following day, May 13, 1953. Thus began the first wave of Portuguese immigration to Canada.

While the first arrivals were mostly from the Portuguese mainland, by early June of 1953, immigrants from the islands of Madeira and the Azores also began arriving.

The Portuguese immigrants who came to Canada 40 years ago carried mandatory one-year work contracts as a requirement for entering Canada. Upon arrival, they went off to work on farms in the Niagara region and on the railroads. For those working on the railroads, there was the added hardship of being unable to sponsor their families back in Portugal to come to Canada. Having a fixed address was a requirement for sponsorship, and since working on the railroads involved moving around, these workers were unable to meet the criteria.

Today, there are approximately 400,000 Portuguese Canadians in the greater Toronto area alone. My riding of Fort York is home to a large and vibrant Portuguese community.

I want to acknowledge the tremendous political, social, cultural and economic contribution that the Portuguese community has made to Canadian society. It's important to remind ourselves that the foundation on which the community rests was laid by the Portuguese workers who began arriving in Canada 40 years ago today.

RYERSON POLYTECHNICAL INSTITUTE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): On April 6, the government announced that it would introduce legislation to establish Ryerson Polytechnic University, the first of its kind in Canada.

These new amendments to the Ryerson act recognize the continuing evolution of Ryerson. The current Ryerson mandate to provide undergraduate applied professional education will be broadened to include a recognized role in applied research and the future development of both master's and doctoral programs consistent with Ryerson's special mission.

Ryerson is a unique institution with a historic focus on applied learning which has a special importance and is critical to the future of the province. Minister Allen said the government's announcement to recognize Ryerson as a university was long overdue. I agree. Ryerson has been functioning as a university for many years. Ryerson students have paid university tuition fees and met university-level expectations. With the passage of Bill 1, the degrees they obtain and the name of the institution they attend will reflect this.

This year, Ryerson's convocation will begin on June 16. Ryerson expects to grant some 4,000 degrees, diplomas and certificates. If Bill 1 is passed quickly, these students will become the first graduating class from Ryerson Polytechnic University.

I am concerned with the government's delay in bringing this bill forward. As my party's Colleges and Universities critic, I am anxious to speak in support of Bill 1. On behalf of the students and administration of Ryerson, I encourage the government to bring Bill 1 forward so that this year's graduating class can take special pride in graduating from Ontario's first polytechnic university.

1340

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement's for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and it concerns his government's funding cuts that could create rural and urban chaos across Ontario.

The NDP government recently announced it was slashing about $110 million in unconditional grants to municipalities, and municipalities will also feel the effects of the $285-million cut to public sector payrolls in a bid to save another $2 billion.

The NDP government is terrorizing municipalities and alarming taxpayers by unilaterally enforcing the $110 million worth of cuts to unconditional grants without outlining exactly how these cuts will be divided among the 839 municipalities in Ontario.

The cuts to unconditional grants will spin off into reductions in day care spaces, fewer housing spaces, many cuts with regard to families and will force some daily hostel users on to the streets. The provincial cuts could also cause major service interruptions for firefighters, police, ambulance services and garbage collection.

Minister, instead of accusing Ontario's 839 municipalities of fearmongering, you and your government should show some backbone by trimming jobs from and rolling back salaries in the bloated civil service, fire the baby cabinet ministers who don't do anything but cost taxpayers $400,000 each, and make a serious attempt at cutting government waste.

LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): The Law Enforcement Torch Run is an international event held to benefit Special Olympics. The torch run has become the largest grassroots fund-raising event for the Special Olympics, involving over 75,000 law enforcement personnel worldwide.

The 1993 Law Enforcement Torch Run will continue to carry the torch, which represents the "Flame of Hope" and the values of the Special Olympics: skill, sharing, courage and joy. From May 29 to June 13, at the direction of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the seventh annual torch run will see law enforcement runners take up the torch as part of the cross-province relay which begins in every corner of Ontario and continues through each day until its conclusion in Barrie. Over 8,000 kilometres will be covered by 7,000 law enforcement personnel from over 120 police and law enforcement agencies.

Personnel from your local law enforcement agency will be collecting donations on behalf of Ontario's Special Olympics. They're hoping to build on their 1992 total of $525,000.

A special northern final leg run will be held in conjunction with the Ontario Special Olympics Summer Games opening ceremony August 26, 1992, in Sudbury, Ontario.

All donations go to the Ontario Special Olympics for the expansion of its programs throughout the province. All costs for the torch run are contributed by law enforcement participants and their corporate sponsors.

I'd like to take an opportunity to thank OPP Constable Gerry O'Dowd of the Queen's Park detachment for keeping this event large and in place in this Legislature.

CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): This year, 1993, marks the 75th anniversary of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. Later this afternoon, we will be celebrating that anniversary at a reception here at Queen's Park.

I would like to relate some of the history of the CNIB, because it is really a story of one man's vision and how that vision has changed the lives of the visually impaired in Canada.

Edwin Albert Baker, who was born in Ontario, was blinded while fighting in the trenches at Flanders during the First World War. Upon his return to Canada after a lengthy convalescence, he discovered that rehabilitation services for the blind and visually impaired were virtually non-existent. In 1918, he and six others founded the CNIB, and he served as managing director from 1920 until his retirement in 1962. Lieutenant Colonel Baker was a visionary whose leadership kept the CNIB on the leading edge of rehabilitation services for the blind, visually impaired and deaf-blind.

I am pleased that members of the Halton-Peel CNIB branch are here in the House today, seated in the members' gallery. All 10 who are here today are workers and volunteers for the CNIB and three of them are clients as well. They represent what Edwin Baker strived for. He wanted the visually impaired to be proud, self-sufficient and contributing members of society.

The services the CNIB provides have given thousands, and continues on the leading edge, an enduring legacy to a great Canadian. I extend my congratulations, and on a personal note would tell you that my own mother lost her sight through glaucoma and through a malpractice incident with an ophthalmologist, and she too has benefited greatly from the services at the CNIB. I congratulate them on being here today and celebrating their anniversary.

VOLUNTEER AWARDS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Recently, the Owen Sound Police Services hosted a volunteer community recognition evening which honoured citizens in our area who have assisted the police in various ways. The force was trying to show the city how much they appreciate the work being done by the legion of volunteers who give their time, their money and their expertise to help.

They applauded those who worked with the Community Watch groups, victim assistance programs, family violence coalitions and Students against Drunk Driving. They wanted to thank those who served on Crime Stoppers, the bicycle safety and crime prevention committees and the alcohol and drug advisory group.

I am proud that the Owen Sound Police Services understands and is encouraging contributions from the public. I believe it is very important, especially now that the government funding is being cut, that the police are opening their doors and using the enthusiasm, the energy and the talents of the community to achieve their common goals.

In addition to the 80 local recipients who received awards, they also gave one to me, as the provincial representative of the government in the riding. It reads, "To the Ministry of the Attorney General for outstanding contributions to crime prevention," and I would be delighted to give it to the minister with the appreciation of the Owen Sound police.

PRESERVE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBOURHOODS SOCIETY

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I'd like to bring the attention of the House to the existence of a wonderful group of individuals, whom I know quite well, working in my riding, who perform some very grass-roots tasks.

PENS is the acronym under which they work; it's the Preserve Established Neighbourhoods Society. It is a group of St Catharines residents who have come together, more by accident than design, to work to ensure that new development is well planned and subject to public comment. With strength in numbers, PENS provides advice and support to residents who are concerned about particular developments in the city of St Catharines. Since being formed last year, PENS has proved it is a force to be reckoned with.

Quite recently, on my cable program, I had a chance to bring to the attention of the citizens of St Catharines the resource kit they have put together, and they have converted their knowledge and experience for the benefit of all. I recommend highly the work they have undertaken and that all have the opportunity to look at the wonderful work PENS has done for one and all.

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): On April 29th, I made an unparliamentary comment toward the Leader of the Opposition. I withdraw that.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would like all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon, seated in the members' gallery west, a former member of this assembly representing Brantford, Mr David Neuman. Welcome.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the 18th annual report of the Commission on Election Finances, which covers the year 1992.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would also like to invite all members to welcome to our assembly this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, members of the regional parliament of Basilicata, Italy: Dr Francesco Mutidieri, Mr Gigi Acito, Professor Nicola Filazzola. Please join me in welcoming them to our country and to our assembly.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. Yesterday I had an opportunity to meet with more than 100 young people and people who work with youth in this province. I know that the Premier spoke to the same group of people and I'm sure that he was as aware as I was of the tremendous concerns these people have for the future of youth in this province. Clearly, these individuals wanted to hear from the Premier what his government's plans would be for young people and for youth employment. These people were trying to get a sense, a measurement, of this government's commitment to young people, but the Premier refused to answer any questions.

My question to the Premier today is: How would you have answered their questions? Premier, what hope do you have to offer the 150,000 young people in this province who are without jobs?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I would have answered, and did, in fact, in talking to people, state very clearly the fact that the government of Ontario -- perhaps the leader of the Liberal Party chose to conduct herself differently, I don't know; I chose not to give a kind of super-partisan speech, in which I talked about the fact, for example, that the government is now committed to spending $180 million on youth employment programs throughout the year, which is the highest dollar amount that's ever been allocated in the history of the province; that last year's program was a significant breakthrough in terms of new initiatives for the people of the province, and that this year's program will not only match that but increase the allocations for summer employment; and the fact that the government has moved ahead on issues that are of concern to young people, like the minimum wage, that we've moved ahead with OSAP reform, that we've moved ahead with a series of programs which are making a difference to young people.

The fact of the matter is that given the very difficult economic situation it's in, this government is investing more in jobs, is investing more in our services for young people and investing more in training, investing more in apprenticeship and investing more in opportunity than any government in the history of the province. I encourage the young people to stay involved, to stay active --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier complete his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- to continue to participate and to continue to press for the kinds of reforms that will make a difference to people.

Mrs McLeod: I'm not sure how true that answer will ring for any of the young people who just heard it, particularly when the Premier starts to talk about commitments to post-secondary and opportunities there, with fewer spaces in colleges and universities, with higher tuition fees, with less money in the student assistance program and no grants at all for student assistance. That answer is not going to ring very true with the young people of this province who are looking for opportunities for education.

Beyond that, we, like those young people yesterday, are trying to get answers to some very specific questions about the issues that affect youth. Last week in this House we raised questions about summer employment opportunities for young people, and while the Premier talks about one program under the Jobs Ontario Youth that is creating summer jobs, he will know that there is another set of summer job opportunities offered by the government through the ministries each summer to students.

Last week we raised our concern that the number of positions offered to young people through the ministries would be reduced because there had been expenditure cutbacks. The minister denied that that was in fact the case. It was obvious that the government then realized it had to cover its tracks, because we understand that instructions were immediately afterwards sent to the ministries telling them that they had to hire the same number of students even though indeed there would be $1 million less to pay for the programs. Premier, there's only one way to hire the same number of students with less dollars, and that is to shorten the length of the work experience.

Will you confirm that although the government is going to hire the same number of students in the summer Experience program, they will have fewer hours of work?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the answer overall is that you've got to look overall at the structure of the programs that are in place. I can say to the honourable member, the information that she gave to the House last week was information which was not particularly accurate in terms of the plans that had been made. As to her allegation today that somehow we were covering our tracks in response to her question, I suggest to her that she's suffering from a bad case of exaggerated self-reference.

The government's plans were in place. They were discussed explicitly at cabinet sessions when we looked at the expenditure reduction programs, and the commitment that the government made very clearly was that overall the programs would be maintained, that the funding for those programs overall would be increased, and that we would ensure that at least the same number of students was hired and that if possible, in terms of summer programs, an additional number of students would be hired.

So all those facts are out there, all those programs are in place, and in fact the commitment to youth employment by this government is greater than at any time in the history of the province and is substantially greater than when the honourable member opposite was a member of the Peterson government. We're doing far more than the Peterson government ever did, and I don't recall your voice being --

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- raised in concern or in opposition to the activities of that government at the time.

Mrs McLeod: At some point the Premier might want to turn his attention to certain discrepancies between the information that is provided to us through our inquiries to the ministries and the information which is provided to us in the House through the ministers, so that he can determine just what the facts of the situation are, and we will all be wiser as a result.

I say to the Premier that we will continue to raise questions that give us concern about how effectively the dollars that are currently being spent on training programs are being used, that we believe that many of the dollars that are currently being spent on training programs through the Jobs Ontario Training program could be more effectively used for training people who really need the training.

We have concentrated in the last week on summer jobs because that is such a current issue, and because we believe that summer jobs offer students dollars they need to be able to stay in school, as well as job experience and training that they need to get jobs in the future.

I did make what the Premier might call a partisan speech yesterday, because the Premier keeps saying, "Show us some alternatives." So yesterday we released six proposals that we believe would give young people in this province some hope, some encouragement, at what is a tremendously difficult time, that we wanted to respond to the fact that 18% of our young people are unemployed.

One of those proposals is that some $14 million currently in the Jobs Ontario Training program be redirected to create additional summer employment opportunities for young people. This would support 8,000 more young people in summer jobs.

So I ask you, Premier, as you keep asking us for constructive, positive proposals, will you commit to redirecting $14 million of your Jobs Ontario Training program to create more summer employment opportunities for our young people?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm happy to look at any suggestions that come out of the Leader of the Opposition and more than pleased to look at her suggestions. If her suggestion is that we spend an additional $14 million on youth employment, which would take us above the $180-million amount, which is the largest amount ever, then I say to her that we will look at any reasonable proposal that's made.

I think the member ought to also recognize that the money that's allocated under the Jobs Ontario Training program is money that's being taken up at a rate that is far quicker than anyone had anticipated, many of whom are young people who might otherwise qualify for the kind of training programs which she is describing. The Jobs Ontario Training programs are not by any means limited to people who are over the age of 24. Those funds are available for people at all ages and certainly over the age of 18.

I say to the honourable member, we'll obviously look at the plans which she's put forward. However, all the Liberal rhetoric in the world cannot obscure the fact that this government is investing more in training and investing more in youth employment than any government in the history of the province, and substantially more than was the case under the Peterson government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question.

GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): All the rhetoric in the world from the government benches may not provide us with the answer to my next question. My next question will be directed towards the Minister Without Portfolio but, we understand, some responsibilities for Finance.

The people of Brantford have been absolutely devastated by the government's announcement that the long-awaited relocation of jobs to their community has now been cancelled. The government will be well aware of the chronology here.

In November 1990, the government confirmed its plans to proceed with the Brantford relocation. On April 24, 1992, another review of the relocation program, and the government announced yet again that it would be proceeding with the planned relocation to Brantford. February 12, 1993, the government once again reaffirmed support for the project and promised to begin construction as soon as possible. March 25, 1993, the province paid a reported $1.3 million to acquire land in Brantford for the relocation. April 23, 1993, the government reversed itself and abruptly killed the project.

1400

The mayor of Brantford is here today along with residents from Brantford. They want some answers from the government. There is one question they want answered: Minister, will you tell the people of Brantford why your government has broken its promise to them?

Hon Brad Ward (Minister without Portfolio in Finance): I thank the member opposite for that question. I'm willing to meet with the good folks of Brantford at any time, but based on her question, I think the most appropriate individual to answer it would be the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, and I'm going to refer that question to her.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a very brief point of order, Mr Speaker: The question would normally be directed to the Treasurer of the province. This is the junior minister present today. The Treasurer is not here. Surely it's incumbent upon the junior minister to answer that question. That's why they're paid.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The minister to whom the question was directed chose to redirect the question to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, and there's certainly nothing out of order about that.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The junior minister proceeded to answer the question, said he was prepared to meet with the good people of Brantford at any time and entered into a discussion that appeared to be leading towards some sort of an answer. Then, after giving a little speech to the people from Brantford, he refers the question. I think if he's going to refer the question, he should simply stand in his place and refer it and not make a speech beforehand.

The Speaker: To the member for Mississauga West, indeed he raises a valid point. It is common practice in this chamber that if a minister is asked a question and the minister wishes to refer the question, the minister simply indicates that rather than providing a part of an answer. So in the future it would be helpful if the minister would simply refer it if that's the intention of the minister.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): May I indicate to the members who have raised concern that had the question gone to the Treasurer, he would have referred this question to me because, as Minister of Economic Development and Trade, I have been given responsibility for the $100-million capital fund with which we'll be working to help those communities which have received the bad news about the cancellation of the government relocation programs.

The residents of Brantford who are here who were spoken to by a number of MPs, including the member for Brantford, raised a number of issues which I think are very important and valid ones. There is no doubt that we understand the depth of concern and disappointment of the people in Brantford with the result of the cancellation and relocation. But as I have said to the Leader of the Opposition before with respect to the expenditure control plan and the decisions around it, in spite of some of the investments that have been made around significant savings and operating costs and on capital costs, it was an important part of the package.

We also, out of the money that would be saved, have allocated $100 million from which I will be working with the MPPs and the mayors and the communities involved to try and bring about development activities to replace those jobs that have been lost. In further supplementaries, I would be pleased to give the Leader of the Opposition more information.

Mrs McLeod: Had this relocation project been going ahead, it would have been absolutely appropriate for a minister responsible for economic development to be responding to this question. Cancelling this move had everything to do with losing opportunities for economic development; it had everything to do with shortsighted, last-minute expenditure cut decisions.

When I asked one of the ministers supposedly responsible what the total cost savings would be, I was not even able to get an answer to that question. If it was such a bad decision from an economic perspective, if it was such a poorly thought-out decision in terms of the long-term impact, why then, after a full-year review, did this government decide in February to go ahead with the project? Why did they go ahead and purchase land?

Why was it, Minister, that just days before the project was cancelled, just days, when they asked about the status of the relocation program, the Chairman of the Management Board was quoted as saying, "It's also true that the unions have said it's one of the issues they will bring to the table, and when you are negotiating, things get traded." Given this statement, Minister, will you admit today that your government has traded away Brantford's hope for the future?

Hon Ms Lankin: Let me begin by saying absolutely not.

I would like to respond to the first part of the honourable member's question with respect to if this was such a bad economic plan or so poorly thought-out. We don't say that it was a bad economic plan. It was a pre-election plan by the previous government but it wasn't a bad economic plan, and it was one which we decided, after a great deal of review, to continue to support.

In light of the fiscal situation that the government faces, in light of the attempt to bring down expenditures, we have to really question whether or not we get good value by spending money to relocate an existing job, as opposed to using some of that same money to try to attract and create new jobs. We've decided to use the money in a way now that we think is wiser and in a way that saves us some money against the overall fiscal projection for the cost of relocation.

The decision was taken by cabinet as part of the $4-billion expenditure reduction program. It is not something that was part of negotiations. It was decided prior to the social contract negotiations being commenced and before the union proposals. So I have to say to the member she's absolutely wrong in her assertions.

The Speaker: Final supplementary. The member for Brant-Haldimand.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Prior to the cancellation of its relocation, a billboard had been up by the citizens of Brantford, thanking the Premier for making the right call in supporting the relocation. These people are now wondering who made this call.

They feel betrayed by this government which, despite having thrown total support behind the project a few months ago, is now saying that it does not make sense in tough economic times to take one job from Toronto and locate it in Brantford. However, this reasoning is not being followed by the government consistently, because other relocations will be allowed to go ahead. When Brantford residents demanded to know why the promised move would not be taking place, the clear message given to them by their provincial representative, Mr Ward, and to quote, was, "Stop dwelling in the past."

Brantford citizens desperately need the jobs and the economic spinoff that would result from the government relocation. We have heard from many residents --

The Speaker: And your question?

Mr Eddy: -- that the relocation would have helped Brantford towards recovery. Will the minister give this community and its people some hope for economic recovery and commit today to taking another look at the Brantford relocation project?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think the one thing I would agree with the member on, and I know the MPP for Brantford also agrees with the member, is the devastation that community has felt in terms of the loss of its manufacturing sector, the devastation that is felt largely as a result of the effects of free trade and the GST, the high dollar, the high interest rate. It has had a very severe effect on that community.

If I reflect on the comments of some of the speakers at the demonstration today from the community of Brantford -- a youth who spoke about bringing back hope to that community, a mayor who spoke about bringing back jobs -- I think those are things we can commit to. I think that the $100 million we've established to work with those affected communities allows us to sit down with the MPP, with the mayor and the council and economic development committees, and attempt to bring those same number of jobs, through attraction of private sector investment, to those communities.

If I could just touch on the comments of the mayor, I want you to know and I want the members of the Legislature to know that he indicated support for deficit reduction. He understood that. He indicated he wanted open communications and he wanted to work in partnership with us. That community wants jobs. We're going to work with them to try to deliver that.

1410

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Premier, your social contract discussions and talks started out as a plan to contain the provincial deficit by cutting the public sector payroll by 5%. That was the raison d'être to bring the unions in to discuss the payroll costs.

Both you, Premier, and the Minister of Finance and, yesterday, the deputy Deputy Premier for the day have said that taxes are not on the social contract negotiating table, that the talks are to discuss how to find this 5% cut in talks.

But, Premier, it now appears, because the unions have talked everything but their own payroll -- they've talked taxes, they've talked spending cuts, they've talked everybody else but themselves -- that next week's budget will contain many of these ideologically driven taxes that the union leaders are calling for. It won't matter to the unions how or why they're in the budget; they've insisted that they be in the budget or they're not going to talk to you.

I would ask you this, Premier: Why are you allowing the union leaders to set the agenda for these talks that started out as the wage concession talks? Why are you allowing them to set the agenda, including even the tax increases, what type and how much they should be in your budget? Is this the real cost now of these social contract talks, that the unions will set our budget for us?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): No. The premise of the question is bogus. I would say that the leader of the third party has got it all wrong in terms of the way these things have been determined and how we've worked it through.

As a government, we've had a number of discussions over the months, obviously, in preparation for a budget and in preparation for dealing with the economic and fiscal problems facing the province. We've never made any secret -- in fact we've been stating for some time -- that we regarded the revenue situation and the overall financial situation in the province as sufficiently serious -- the long-term impact, the cumulative impact of federal underfunding, for example, this year affecting us to the tune of some $4.5 billion -- that there really is a need for us to deal with the tax question.

So this government long ago -- we're the ones who put taxes in front of the people of the province. We stated very clearly that tax increases were going to be a feature of the budget. So I would say to the member that that's had nothing to do with the social contract discussions whatsoever, nothing whatsoever to do with the social contract discussions.

The fact that the unions have independently decided to put forward some proposals on taxes, so have a number of other groups --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- so have all kinds of groups and advocacy groups out there in our society; so has the business community, from a very different perspective. I don't think any of us should be surprised that there are a number of views on the table with respect to taxation. All I'm saying to you, Mr Speaker, is that the issue of taxation is not being discussed at the social contract negotiation and that the issue of taxation will be addressed in the budget.

The Speaker: Will the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: We've never made any secret of this. So for you to stand up today and make the kind of allegation that you make is just the worst kind of political rhetoric from the third party.

Mr Harris: No, they don't need to be discussed any more at the table; they've been picked up and dropped right into the budget. This is what I am saying is really not fair and not right. These are taxes that will result in loss of investment. These are taxes that will result in loss of jobs. These are taxes that will result in a downsizing of our private sector.

Premier, my point is this: Union leaders shouldn't be bargaining tax hikes. They shouldn't be bargaining and deciding what services the public should get. That's for the public to decide. They shouldn't be bargaining how hospitals will operate, municipalities or school boards. What they should be bargaining is their payroll costs, and you told them that was the agenda.

Let's deal with these payroll costs and let's put in a perspective what it is you asked them to do. Over the last two years the costs for your own employees in the government of Ontario increased by 19.5%, more than triple the rate of inflation. You said your goal was to reduce those total payroll costs by 5%, leaving a net increase over the three years that you've been in government for the public sector payroll costs in the province of Ontario of 14%, still 6% in excess of inflation.

Now, to date, you've made no progress on how to achieve that. I don't think this is an impossible goal; I thought it was very realistic. And to date, the unions have said: "Hike taxes. Do this. Cut that. We don't want to talk about that."

The Speaker: And the member's question?

Mr Harris: My question is simply this: How have the negotiations been going on cutting back the 19.5% cost of the Ontario government payroll to 15% or 14.5%, as you told us the goal was? How are those talks going?

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the question. Our sense is that for the first time today we're going to have people around the same table, which is I think something which needs to happen, and that we're going to have a serious discussion.

But I say with respect to the really antediluvian position of the leader of the third party -- he says: "Don't ask workers to talk about working conditions. Don't ask workers their ideas on how to improve services. Don't ask workers how to deal with the question of restructuring the public service." That kind of 19th-century attitude towards improving the morale in the public service is exactly the opposite of the direction in which we should be going.

We need to be talking with people, encouraging participation and taking advantage of the best ideas we can come up with. We think the workers themselves can come up with a lot of good ideas on how to preserve services, on how to improve services in the province of Ontario, and I'm proud of the fact that instead of simply telling employees what to do, we're sitting down and negotiating with them in a positive spirit. I'm proud of that, and I think it's a better approach than the Tory approach.

Mr Harris: It wasn't me who said, "Unions, we want to talk to you about how to cut your payroll 5%." It was you. These were your discussions. This is what you said the goal was. This was the reason to bring them together. I understand there are other forums to discuss programs, but you said you wanted to call them in and discuss cutting the payroll back by 5%. And now all we've gotten out of this so far is that you're going to hike taxes in the upcoming budget so you can appease your union friends. This way of meeting your deficit target, Premier, is going to kill jobs; it's going to kill investment; it's going to downsize the private sector that we so desperately need to increase; it'll halt economic recovery in this province.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business today wrote to the Treasurer suggesting more than $2 billion worth of cuts you can make instead of hiking taxes or further downsizing the private sector. The CFIB is made up of job creators; it's made up of investors. Why is it that you're telling them that you're going to hike taxes to destroy any opportunity they have to create jobs, moving exactly in the opposite direction to the way you should be going?

At the same time, you've not had one minute of any meaningful negotiations on the original goal, which was, how do we roll back a 19.5% increase over three years to bring it back to only a 14.5% increase? How do we explain that not one word of the talks has been on the original purpose, which you said was to cut 5%?

Hon Mr Rae: Sometimes it's hard to know exactly where to cut in, but I'd just say to the honourable member that if you look at the document of April 23, if you want to go back to that, if you look at the document that we put out, if you want to address that question and not address it in a rhetorical way, we talked about the benefits of a social contract intended to preserve jobs and services, intended to empower workers and allow for new work organization, intended to broaden the base of participation, to modernize the negotiating process and keep the public sector affordable.

All those are the factors that are involved in the discussions which we've been encouraging people to participate in. It's been difficult, but I come back to my point: first of all, that the whole purpose of what we're doing is to create jobs; it's in order to keep the recovery going and to keep it alive and to extend it. That's the purpose of what we're doing in terms of the approach we're taking to the economy, and the approach with our own employees is designed to get everyone to see that there are real tradeoffs and advantages to looking to longer-term interests as we look not to the last 3 years or the last 5 years or the last 10 years but we look out for 3 years and see that if can get to some understanding of the tradeoffs, we'll make the public sector more affordable, we'll make it more efficient and we'll also do more than any other alternative to protecting jobs and to protecting services. That's the basis of the philosophy and the approach that we set out in the social contract, which the member seems to have missed.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: The Premier said he wanted to cut 5%, and now you don't want to talk about that. It's no wonder the people of Brantford don't believe you or trust you, the way you treat them. It's no wonder the taxpayers don't believe or trust you.

The Speaker: To whom is your second question directed?

1420

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question also is to the Premier. Earlier today I met with the Committee of Local Area Councils, COMLAC, and they have a simple message for you: Stop meddling in their affairs.

Premier, you have a $17-billion problem created through your own mismanagement. The municipalities know you need help with this problem, and they are willing to help you with your deficit problem. I don't know why they are, the way you've treated them, but they are willing to help. But they believe they know how to best manage their own affairs. We all know you have enough trouble managing your affairs. They believe for the last couple of years they've done a better job running their municipalities than you have the province.

Why do you not just tell municipalities how much you need them to help contribute to your deficit problem and then let them deal with it, let them tell you how it is they can help you, instead of you telling them how it is they're supposed to help you? That's the simple message they asked me to deliver to you today.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I appreciate the point, but again, I know the member would like to try to personalize this issue and say that somehow this government or this Premier has a "$17-billion problem." But I would say to the honourable member very directly that if this is the level of the attitude which the member is out there taking with respect to the deficit problem --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: The provincial economy has a deficit problem; the province of Ontario has one and what we are doing is saying to the municipalities and saying to all the transfer partners that are out there --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: The point that's being made and the one that we're having to share with our transfer partners is that the burden has to be shared. It's the only way we can get out of this. The only thing we can get out of this --

Mr Harris: They're offering to share it.

Hon Mr Rae: Now you're saying on their behalf that they're willing to share it. I would say to you that's my sense as well.

All we're saying is that then means that we have to together make sure that the impacts of the decisions with respect to the transfers are fully discussed and that we're all aware of what the potential impacts might be and that we're sharing as much information as possible and that we're seeing if there are ways in which the impacts might be less severe than if we all worked in splendid isolation. I don't think we should be working in isolation from one another; I think we have to work through together and get through this problem together. That's the kind of commitment that we're seeking and that's the kind of approach that we're taking. I think it's a wiser approach than to pretend that the deficit is somebody else's problem or somebody else's fault.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: The deficit is a responsibility that now belongs to all of us. We can argue till the cows come home about where it came from.

Mr Harris: I just got through saying the municipalities said it's a $17-billion problem. They acknowledge that it was your mismanagement that got us into it, but they also said this: "We're willing to help out." They're telling you they will help out. COMLAC is not alone in thinking that this government should get its own house in order before it tells others how to run their shops.

This morning the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario presented you with a plan that would save $100 million annually. They identified more than $25 million in duplication. The plan would deliver more effective and efficient environmental protection, on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars it would save. Quite frankly, it's similar to the announcement I made in the last campaign saying that conservation authorities were already dealing with water quantity; why not have them deal with the water quality as well? I'm happy they picked up on it.

Aside from that, what they are saying to you is, you, Premier, are telling them how they should cut back. They think they're a lot better at how they can be more efficient than you are, and their track record -- like municipalities, like hospitals, like school boards -- is a lot better than yours. I would ask you this then, so that they can help, as they want to, with the deficit reduction plan: Will you agree to their proposal instead of what you're telling them to do?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, we're not telling them what to do.

Mr Harris: You are.

Hon Mr Rae: No, we're not. The member puts that forward as a statement of fact. It's quite false.

What I would say to the honourable member is that there are reasonable proposals coming from the conservation authorities. Obviously, we will look at those proposals.

We're interested at looking at proposals and ideas that come forward from other groups in terms of the challenge facing the province. But I would just suggest to the honourable member that to try to sort of trivialize this thing and say that somehow it's all the responsibility of one level of government or another, I think the people of the province have had enough of that approach. I think the people of the province, when they hear certain mayors simply pointing the finger at one level of government or another, that's not a realistic approach. We have a problem together.

If they don't have a problem, it's because the province has been subsidizing and passing on transfer payments for many years. We're now saying we have to share these problems in a more realistic way. That's exactly what we're doing, and I think it's the right approach. And if I may say so, I think it's a more mature approach than the one that's being advocated by the member of the third party.

Mr Harris: I think the mature approach is them saying, "We're ready to help you." That is a mature approach. They're also saying, "Look at the record over the last two and a half years and see who managed affairs better: municipalities, conservation authorities or Bob Rae and the NDP government."

You may not think it's happening, but what's happening is you're telling them how they can help you. They're offering their services. They're saying, "We'll help with your deficit problem, but let us do it."

You know, Premier, just because you've been the last person in Ontario to realize the deficit's a problem, just because your party and your government are the last ones to say we have to cut back -- municipalities, others have been downsizing for the last three years. Many have had salary freezes for the last three years. They should be telling you how to do it and you should be listening, not the other way around.

The Speaker: And the supplementary?

Mr Harris: So my final supplementary to you is simply that. Instead of Michael Decter telling municipalities, hospitals, school boards and conservation authorities how they can help you, will you allow them to tell you how they can help you? It's a pretty simple, straightforward question.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say that we're very interested in the kinds of proposals that are coming forward, and frankly we're very glad that what we've started is a process by which people are participating. But if you want to just contrast for a moment the tone struck by the Ontario Hospital Association in its statement yesterday and the kind of rhetoric which we've heard from the leader of the third party, what does the hospital association say, a group which is being affected very much? We're not denying it for a moment.

They say they're encouraged that the government is coming to grips with the current realities of the province and what they refer to as a "crisis in costs" faced by the broader public sector. The tone of their submission is extremely positive. In their submission they say that in their view "the government's proposals for deficit reduction, including the social contract, are a reasonable starting point for negotiations."

That's what we're hearing from a group responsible for the expenditure of billions of dollars in the province. They say what we're doing is a reasonable approach, a reasonable starting point for negotiations. That's the approach which is being taken by a former colleague of the leader of the third party, a former cabinet colleague, with whom he sat in cabinet for some several months and with whom he sat in caucus for several years and who was himself a leadership candidate for the premiership of the province.

I would much prefer to deal with that kind of responsible approach taken by somebody with the responsibility of Dennis Timbrell than take the kind of irresponsible action that's being followed by the leader of the third party. I'll prefer to deal with Mr Timbrell on these issues.

1430

GAMBLING

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): My question is for the minister of casinos, otherwise known as the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It's interesting the Premier talks about responsible approaches.

Minister, I want to segue on that theme of responsible approach and ask you to explain how you can, with any sense of professionalism, respond to a request for proposal for an interim casino in Windsor that appeared only once, on March 26 in the Windsor Star, and required, nine days later, an interim proposal to be submitted; nine days for a proposal appearing once in the local newspaper. Let's talk about responsibility and integrity and fairness in the process. Try and explain that, Minister.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The project team from my ministry has been working of course very closely with the city of Windsor -- I hope the member will listen closely, because I seem to be getting laryngitis and I don't have a loud voice today -- has been working with the project team and the municipal council, and this is a decision that they came to together in terms of getting the RFP going and getting the ball rolling in terms of getting the interim casino up and running. I believe -- I can check further -- that the date was chosen alongside working with the municipal council.

Mr McClelland: Minister, at the end of the day, you cannot share responsibility for your jurisdiction, for the decisions that you are making, with the municipal council. You are the leader in this project, Minister. It is your responsibility.

Let's think this through very carefully for a moment. There are 24 proponents out there. Some of them will be coming to you in the near future with $300,000. To think for one moment that the system can't be skewed unfairly by having an interim operation up and running, unfairly to their advantage -- bear in mind what I told you earlier. You allowed one ad to run one day in a local paper and gave nine business days for a return. If it wasn't sad, it would be funny. You go on to say, "If the building isn't built, you can build it by July 1." That's how absurd your advertisement is. Be that as it may, it's indicative of the fact, Minister, you're totally without any direction in this.

You received a letter yesterday from the Canada Square group and Ramada Inn group, which are interested in building the permanent facility. They want to put their money on the table and have a fair, honest shot. They say to you, "In the interests of integrity and fairness" -- words that used to be high priorities in the NDP lexicon -- "will you open up the tendering process?"

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Mr McClelland: Minister, you have not explained nor accepted the responsibility for a decision you made. You are obliged to do so. If you think the dice might not be loaded in somebody's favour by limiting it the way you have, you are naïve, Minister. Do it and do it with integrity and do it fairly and do it the way it should be done.

Hon Ms Churley: This whole process has been handled with the utmost integrity. The request for proposal has been handled with the utmost integrity and is completely aboveboard. In fact, the project team in my ministry has received compliments from around the world in terms of how the project team has been handling the whole proposal, and I would be happy to share that with the member later today.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the Premier and it concerns the devastation of Ontario's tourism industry and the indefinite layoffs of over 60,000 employees in the tourism and hospitality sector under the watch of this supposed labour NDP government.

In a recent pre-budget news release, the chairman of Tourism Ontario, Bruce Stanton, made the following statement: "Our industry offers better consumer value and a broader range of experiences than ever before, but we can't compete with ever-escalating taxes."

My question to the Premier is this: What advice is he giving to the Minister of Finance to encourage him to provide tax relief to Ontario's tourism sector?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'd like to refer that question to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I'm fully aware, of course, having met with Mr Stanton and Tourism Ontario and having read the very thoughtful brief that they've submitted to our government with regard to the concerns of their industry, of the difficulties that they face. I am, and our government is, certainly very interested in making sure that we help to support that industry as much as possible.

We're certainly meeting with them. Actually, I'm just now putting together the minister's advisory committee to deal with our long-term strategy on a tourism sectoral policy, and of course tax policies as with many other factors are issues that we'll be looking very seriously at.

Mr Arnott: I must say I'm very disappointed with the Premier's lack of interest and, to the minister, Tourism Ontario has been presenting thoughtful briefs for the last three years on taxes. Right now you're collecting a meal tax, a room tax, provincial sales tax, commercial concentration tax and high liquor tariffs. You've closed the trade offices abroad without making prior arrangements with the government of Canada embassies to sell Ontario as a tourism destination. There's been no follow-up by the Premier to his January meeting with tourism representatives. There's been no sectoral strategy announcement which you committed to earlier this month. There are no new ideas in your marketing program.

When will the government start to recognize the vast untapped potential of tourism as an economic engine for growth in Ontario?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: Actually, if the member has been speaking with the tourism sector, then he would know full well that in fact our Premier has taken great efforts and seriousness in dealing with this industry. He met personally with the representatives from Tourism Ontario recently and, of course, has discussed those aspects with me that they raised with him. He's met personally with a number of key business people in both the tourism and cultural aspects.

I think the fact that he moved to put together the two ministries of Culture and Tourism in the last shuffle shows very much the seriousness that he gives to this area. The fact that there's tremendous potential to be gained in the synergy between culture and tourism is certainly the kind of thing that I keep hearing from both of those sectors when I meet with them. I think this government is showing tremendous openness to new ideas on how we can market things all the better in terms of the assets this province offers.

In terms of the area of marketing, because of that synergy that is resulting from the Premier's move of bringing culture and tourism together, my staff are in fact developing now an action plan that we'll soon be able to release, including the ability to market this province as a tourism destination, that it has every right to be as the number one feature of this country.

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is to the Attorney General. I have received numerous phone calls and letters from single parents, all complaining that the police are not enforcing custody orders. Through talking to these non-custodial parents, I have learned that they show up on time to collect their children for their weekly visit, only to be told by their ex-spouse that they can't have access to the children. When these people call the police to complain, more often than not nothing is done to make sure that the custody order is obeyed. I've even heard stories of parents, custody order in hand, being arrested by the police at the request of the ex-spouse.

According to section 282 of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is an indictable offence to harbour a person under the age of 14 with intent to deprive the parent or guardian or any other person who has the lawful care or charge of that person, and with an intent to do so in contravention of a valid and existing court order.

Does a custody order not grant the non-custodial parent lawful care or charge of their children for a set period of time? My interpretation of section 282 of the Criminal Code of Canada --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Hansen: -- is that parents who ignore custody orders or parents who deprive their ex-spouses of the lawful charge of their children are breaking the law.

Can the Attorney General advise this House and my constituency if anything's being done to ensure custody orders are enforced to the full extent of the law?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I know that the member is very deeply concerned about the issue of access and I think many members of the House are as well, so I really welcome the question.

In response to his question as to whether section 282 of the Criminal Code is the appropriate way to deal with this, I should advise him that the ministry sees 282 as being concerned with and premised on situations where a child has been abducted, and the provision does not apply to a simple refusal to allow access contrary to the access provisions of a custody order. It really must be noted that section 282 refers to a contravention of custody orders, not access provisions, which are the situations that you're most concerned with.

Sections 36 and 38 of the Children's Law Reform Act are the appropriate ones. The court has the power to act where a parent breaches those provisions. Indeed, the courts have held parents in contempt of court. Parents have sometimes been jailed or imposed with fines for that contempt of court and that is the appropriate way to deal with these issues.

1440

Mr Hansen: Can the Attorney General advise this House and my constituency what her office is doing to help parents involved in custody disputes resolve their differences outside of the court system?

Hon Mrs Boyd: There are a number of different initiatives that are under way in terms of trying to have alternative dispute mechanisms around these issues, because I think we all know that the constant returns to court are not very satisfactory and certainly are not always in the best interests of children.

One of the primary things we have done is to institute a number of supervised access projects around the province, because these supervised access projects, 14 of them as pilot projects, help people to ensure that access provision is met without the two disputing parents necessarily having to have contact and with the child being in a safe place, so that if there are any concerns about the safety of the child or the possibility that the child might be abducted, those fears are laid to rest.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: We certainly find that is resolving a lot of the conflict between parents.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to the Minister of Health, if I could have her attention. Madam Minister, on Monday my leader asked you how communities in northern Ontario can expect to receive adequate medical services when your government's expenditure control plan proposal will prevent doctors from practising in the north.

Madam Minister, you replied, and I quote: "There are many opportunities for...young physicians...on other than a fee-for-service basis. There are community health centres, there are HSOs, there are public health units which are anxious to have doctors," in their services.

Madam Minister, you must know that northern Ontario currently has 9% of the province's population, yet only 5.5% of its physicians. Minister, we add to that the geographic barriers that residents of the north face in travelling long distances to see a doctor.

My question is, Minister, can you tell us which community health centres, health service organizations or public health units in the north will be given extra funds by your ministry in order to employ the graduating class of 1993?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): No, I can't give that kind of a specific answer today, but I can tell the member that there are a number of communities in the north that are actively seeking practitioners. It is certainly our hope that in our discussions with the Ontario Medical Association -- and I would emphasize that the proposals have been put before the Ontario Medical Association -- it has chosen to release them. I hope they will soon come and sit down with us and discuss that whole series of proposals. It is certainly my expectation and hope that from that discussion will come a better way of providing services where they are needed, and I include many areas of the north as being areas where in fact doctors are required.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): My colleague the member for Kenora has really laid out the factors of why the ministry has traditionally, basically classified northern Ontario as an underserviced area. He's given you the stats and the population figures, but your ministry now only says that five regions and counties in Ontario are basically underserviced, and you've now eliminated the north from that program.

You admitted today in your earlier response, and your other officials have said, that at least 60 to 70 family physicians are needed in northern Ontario, but you've cut the very program from underneath them to attract those people out there. Don't you know that the new program is stopping the ability of towns like Matheson and Kirkland Lake and Englehart not only to hold on to and retain their physicians, but to attract newly graduated physicians to come north and practise and provide good health care to northern Ontarians?

Hon Mrs Grier: I want to say to the member and to his colleague that I think their characterization of the proposal we have put forward is doing a disservice to northern Ontario, which has recognized that the kind of differential scheme we had proposed might in fact overcome many of the difficulties that northern Ontario has had in finding practitioners.

There are about 50 communities, small towns, in northern Ontario that are actively seeking practitioners. The designation of underserviced areas by counties does not take that into account because there are no counties in northern Ontario. The member opposite knows that.

What we have to do is discuss with the Ontario Medical Association a better way of defining where need is and where professionals can be helped to locate, and that's precisely why that proposal is put on the table and precisely why it is my hope and expectation that the Ontario Medical Association will enter into constructive discussions with us as to how to solve a problem that has existed for a very long time and that all of the other formulas for resolving have failed to address.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. When interviewed yesterday about the question of graduated licences, you were asked why you couldn't implement the program quicker. You said you want "to get all of the bugs out of the system. We're heading towards it as fast as possible."

You're not, Minister. I'm asking you directly today, why don't you bring in legislation for first and second reading before the House rises for the summer, and then we can have the legislation passed as soon as the House comes back in September?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The opposition was a party to the draft proposed legislation vis-à-vis graduated drivers' licences. The Insurance Bureau of Canada was also a partner. The loyal opposition was also a partner, and we've agreed unanimously that in terms of due process we will involve all the participants and, more importantly, the people of Ontario. It's called fine-tuning. It means doing something right.

Then -- you've guessed it, Mr Speaker -- we come back to the Legislative Assembly, to this place, and we go through the political process, the process of legislation, and while we're doing this, parallel to doing this, what we do is reform the system, which impacts on 350,000 new entrants who will be joining the 6.5 million people who already have a licence in good standing.

By way of conclusion, sir, we're moving as quickly as possible. We're cognizant, we're sympathetic to the need of the marketplace to have graduated drivers' licences as soon as we can humanly deliver.

Mr Turnbull: That is what is known as bafflegab. When there was a private member's bill introduced in this House to stop young people betting below the age of 18, it was through in a matter of weeks. You were very quick in bringing through legislation which killed jobs in this province. Why can't you bring through legislation?

I can tell you, there's no trick to drafting this legislation. Nova Scotia already has legislation. You and I, Minister, can sit down this afternoon and we can make a few additions and deletions and bring it forward as draft legislation together. We can get on with talking about it, instead of waiting a year, and over a thousand people will be killed in the meantime.

Get on with it. Will you bring in legislation before the House rises and have it debated for first and second reading?

Hon Mr Pouliot: In 1991, 1,100 people lost their lives on the roads of Ontario. In the same year, 1991, 90,000 Ontarians suffered injuries due to collisions. Again in 1991, 213,000 people were involved in accidents. This is a massive endeavour. The very people -- and I say this with the highest of respect, for they had positive participation, positive input, helped us set the course -- they are the ones. Collectively, we all said: "Let's go to public hearings. Let's do it right, so we don't have to go back with amendments and correct and so on." This is a massive endeavour. It's a step in the right direction. A few more months and we'll be there, and we'll be there for ever.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The minister has totally failed to answer a very simple question. I'm not satisfied with this answer, and I'm putting him on notice that I'm bringing the late show on this. This is not satisfactory.

The Speaker: I trust the member will file the necessary document at the table.

1450

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Last Thursday, the member for Leeds-Grenville, Mr Runciman, rose in the House on a question of privilege. The member indicated that his privileges had been violated because certain ministers had yet to respond to questions he had placed in the course of oral question period on two separate days in the previous week. The ministers had apparently taken the questions as notice.

In response to the member's concern, let me say that standing order 33(a), which provides that a "minister may take an oral question as notice to be answered orally on a future sessional day," does not require the question to be answered within a specified time, nor does it provide for an enforcement mechanism.

On a separate matter, the member indicated that members' privileges have been violated by virtue of a meeting between the Premier and a senior ministry official. The member went to some effort to research what is often referred to as the convention of responsible government, but I have to say that his submissions do not constitute grounds for intervention by the Speaker.

I say then that no prima facie case of privilege has been established on the matters raised by the member for Leeds-Grenville, but I do thank him sincerely for the way in which he brought this matter to the attention of the House and to the Speaker.

PETITIONS

GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We strongly protest the unfair and differential treatment our community has received at the hands of the Rae government. After extensive review and consultation one year ago, the Rae government confirmed the computer and telecommunications services move of 280 jobs to downtown Brantford. A few weeks ago, the site was purchased and the project sign erected. On April 20, Brantford MPP Brad Ward told the community not to worry, the commitment was still good. Then on April 23, without warning and without explanation, the CTS move was cancelled.

"We protest this deception. Thousands of Brantford area workers lost their jobs when our two main industries closed for good a few years ago. Today, our community still suffers from high unemployment. We do not have a university. No significant federal or provincial department is located here. We were counting on CTS as an important part of a comprehensive strategy for recovery for our community and its downtown. Money has been spent, much work and planning has been done. We call on Premier Rae to end the betrayal and honour the deal.

"We, the undersigned citizens and residents of the Brantford area, urge Premier Rae to honour his personal commitment solemnly made to our community to relocate the computer and telecommunications division of the Ministry of Government Services to Brantford by 1995."

It is signed by just under 2,000 residents of the Brantford area, and I affix my signature to the petition.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in 1923, seven Ontario bands signed the Williams Treaty, which guaranteed that native peoples would fish and hunt according to provincial and federal conservation laws, like everyone else; and

"Whereas the bands were paid the 1993 equivalent of $20 million; and

"Whereas that treaty was upheld by Ontario's highest court last year; and

"Whereas Bob Rae is not enforcing existing laws which prohibit native peoples from hunting and fishing out of season; and

"Whereas this will put at risk an already pressured part of Ontario's natural environment;

"We, the undersigned, adamantly demand that the government honour the principles of fish and wildlife conservation; to respect our native and non-native ancestors and to respect the Williams Treaty."

That's signed by 86 signatures, and I would affix my name to it.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all of the units at Bruce A. Furthermore, we support the expenditure of the required money to rehabilitate the Bruce A units for the following reasons:

"In comparison to other forms of generation, nuclear energy is environmentally safe and cost-effective. Rehabilitating Bruce A units is expected to achieve $2 billion in savings to the corporation over the station's lifetime. This power is needed for the province's future prosperity.

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities."

In addition to labour, business and political groups, this particular petition, which has over 15,000 signatures on it, is supported by the signators here who are from Scarborough, Pickering and other areas in the greater Toronto area. I have affixed my signature to the petition.

GAMBLING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome. Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling); and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

This petition is signed by about 24 names, and I am happy to sign my name and lend support to this petition.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr David Winninger (London South): I have a petition signed by 409 individuals petitioning the government of Ontario to provide funding to allow Victoria Hospital in London to be consolidated into one operation on the Westminster site in the interests of patient care, and I've affixed my signature thereto.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is practised; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos, despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and very questionable initiative."

I affix my signature to this.

1500

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): I have a petition to present on behalf of the residents of Kitchener and Kitchener-Wilmot. In the interests of using time as a dynamic, I'll dispense with the whereases. It states:

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that the appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from people opposed to casino gambling. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally portrayed itself as having a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has claimed to have a historical concern for the poor in society who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

As I'm in agreement, I have signed this petition.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition from my riding of Dufferin-Peel as a result of the number of motor vehicle accidents involving young people in my riding. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the recent death and injury of five youths within the riding of Dufferin-Peel has deeply disturbed the residents; and

"Whereas these deaths might have been prevented if legislation concerning graduated licensing had been in place; and

"Whereas we would like to prevent further deaths and injuries to our new drivers and young people,

"We would like to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to bring forward legislation to introduce graduated licensing within the province of Ontario."

There are 26 signatures on this petition from Grand Valley and the town of Orangeville, and I have affixed my signature to this petition.

SPEED LIMITS

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here:

"That the Ministry of Transportation be advised that the council of the corporation of the town of Uxbridge objects in the strongest of possible terms to the recent increase in allowable speed through the portions of Goodwood which are actively used by residents and requests that the ministry remove the signs and return the speed limit to 50 kilometres."

This petition was passed in the form of a resolution by the council of the corporation of the town of Uxbridge on the date of March 8 this year, 1993. I'm very concerned about this and have signed this petition.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

This is part of a petition of over 15,000 signatures. These particular signatures are from the Cottam, Harrow and Kingsville area. I attach my name.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas credible academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that says:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

This petition is signed by 62 people who primarily live in the city of Woodstock and the village of Princeton.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

This is part of a petition of hundreds of signatures from the good people of Brampton North.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's first report.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'm very happy to make the report on behalf of government agencies and to congratulate the appointments of the people therein.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES INFRACTIONS PROVINCIALES

On motion by Mr Callahan, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 11, An Act to amend the Provincial Offences Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les infractions provinciales.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): You have a brief statement?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): The Provincial Offences Act took us a long way in terms of making it easier for people to deal with matters under the Highway Traffic Act. This gives them a third option. This allows individuals to go in to a justice of the peace, rather than setting a trial date, and seek to have the matter reduced to a lesser charge. If the justice of the peace and the authorities consider it appropriate, it can be done there.

The purpose of doing that is to avoid the present practice of matters being set for trial and at the time of the trial the person coming in and in fact just pleading to something lesser and clogging the trial lists of our courts. I would submit that this will go a long way towards reducing those trial lists and ensuring the trial lists are dealing with just trials and the trials are held on the days they're set for.

WRONGFUL DISMISSAL RIGHTS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES DROITS DES PERSONNES VICTIMES D'UN RENVOI INJUSTIFIÉ

On motion by Mr Callahan, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 12, An Act to protect Persons from Losing their Legal Rights on being Wrongfully Dismissed / Loi visant à empêcher que les personnes victimes d'un renvoi injustifié ne perdent leurs droits reconnus par la loi.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Callahan, would you like to make a brief statement?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): The purpose of this bill is to ensure that anyone who is told that their job has been terminated is not coerced or required to sign any type of document waiving any rights they may have. More often than not, people who have lost their jobs and perhaps have a remedy in terms of being wrongfully dismissed are offered some type of compensation or in fact are told that if they don't sign it they won't get a recommendation for another job. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that no person would be entitled to sign any documents that could be used against them in any claim they might have for being wrongfully dismissed without receiving independent legal advice.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES AUX MUNICIPALITÉS

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management / Loi modifiant certaines lois relatives aux municipalités en ce qui concerne la gestion des déchets.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): It was agreed that we would have a deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management. Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1512 to 1517.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the members please take their seats.

Mr Hayes has moved second reading of Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management.

All those in favour will please rise and remain standing, one at a time.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise, one at a time.

Nays

Arnott, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, McLean, Miclash, Murphy, O'Neil (Quinte), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Stockwell, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 62; the nays are 38. I declare the motion carried. Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed. Which committee?

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Mr Speaker, I'd like to move that Bill 7 be referred to the standing committee on resources development.

PAY EQUITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉQUITÉ SALARIALE

Ms Murdock moved third reading of Bill 102, An Act to amend the Pay Equity Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'équité salariale.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We'll wait just for a moment until members leave the chamber; then we'll proceed.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): It is indeed a pleasure for me to move third reading of Bill 102, the Pay Equity Amendment Act. This is a measure of historic impact for the working women of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.

Ms Murdock: I want to repeat that this is going to be of historic impact for working women of Ontario. By passing this legislation, the honourable members will make pay equity attainable for another 420,000 working women in this province.

The major amendments in Bill 102 provide new tools to achieve pay equity: proportional value and proxy comparisons. These measures, pioneered in Ontario, will strengthen our provisions against wage discrimination.

Members will recall that Bill 102 received first and second reading last fall, and in January it was the subject of public hearings by the standing committee on administration of justice. The committee concluded by reporting it favourably for third reading.

At this point I would like to thank the member for Eglinton and the member for Waterloo North, as well as the member for Wellington, for all the hard work they put into the committee and the cooperative nature that they contributed to the committee work.

During those hearings Labour minister Bob Mackenzie repeated his conviction that history will record the achievement of pay equity legislation in Ontario as a landmark accomplishment of our times. Indeed, much has been accomplished; however, much remains to be done. Recent figures from Statistics Canada show that the average earnings of working men still exceed the average working earnings for women by more than 30%.

Let us consider a few more statistics. As of last September, there were more than 2.1 million working women in this province, just over 45% of the workforce, and at least 600,000 of them have achieved or have begun to achieve pay equity, which very simply means working for wages that represent the real value of their work.

With final passage of Bill 102, the proportional value amendment will make pay equity achievable for at least 340,000 more working women, and the implementation of proportional value comparisons will be retroactive to January 1 of this year. Another 80,000 working women in the broader public sector will be able to benefit from the proxy comparison amendment beginning January 1, 1994.

The original Pay Equity Act of 1987 offered only one method for achieving pay equity, job-to-job comparisons, and that too, in its own right, was landmark legislation. While that measure was welcomed on all sides as a good start for pay equity, there was a consensus that the 1987 act passed in this House would require future modifications, and in time the need for improvements became especially obvious in workplaces that lacked male job classes for comparison purposes. Ironically, workplaces that were all female or predominantly female were the least able to use the job-to-job comparison method that existed in the 1987 Pay Equity Act.

Bill 102 responds very well to those situations and ensures that many working women will benefit from pay equity legislation. As the Minister of Labour announced earlier this year, in addition to Bill 102 the government has undertaken a more immediate measure, the pay equity down payment program.

The members may recall that the $50-million pay equity down payment program was designed to provide immediate help to some of the lowest-paid women in Ontario's broader public sector. These women are, for the most part, the workers who will benefit from the new measures contained in Bill 102. The down payment program has added as much as $2,500 to each person's annual base salary.

Through the down payment program, many thousands of workers have received a meaningful start towards the achievement of pay equity, and I am pleased to report today that less than two months after the minister's announcement, close to $30 million has already been distributed to a range of workers in the broader public sector, including workers in women's shelters, public libraries, immigrant services and community mental health programs.

At lunch-hour today, the member for Lambton was telling me that her community living program people received $250,000, and that's in the city of Sarnia. So it is moving and it's moving very quickly.

In the coming months, the rest of the down payment funds will be paid out for the child care workers and other homemakers. In future years, most of these workers in the broader public sector will be able to use the proxy comparison method that will become law under Bill 102.

Bill 102 also contains ground-breaking administrative provisions. For instance, when a company or a business is sold, transferred or restructured, its pay equity plan remains protected and in place. In this way, women will not see their pay equity rights vanish or diminish because of workplace changes over which they have no control.

I want to point out that during the public hearings in January, presenters asked for specific improvements in Bill 102, and I'm happy to report that several effective measures have been added. For example, there was a request that procedures for enforcement of orders issued by pay equity review officers be improved, and that has been accomplished under the amended Bill 102.

Another provision of Bill 102 encourages parties to settle pay equity disputes without resorting to lengthy and expensive legal proceedings. It does so by introducing the use of pre-hearing conferences and by providing for pre-hearing settlements.

Bill 102 does not increase the current requirement that employers devote 1% of the previous year's payroll to the achievement of pay equity. I can't help but reinforce that, that the proxy provision under Bill 102 does not go to the private sector -- it only applies to the public sector.

In asking the members of this House to pass third reading of Bill 102, I want to recall that there was a spirit of all-party consensus that was present in this House when the Pay Equity Act was passed in 1987.

In closing, let me say that these new measures, pioneered in Ontario, will add strength to Ontario's provisions against the historic and systemic wage discrimination that working women have endured for far too long.

1530

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments? Further debate? The member for Eglinton.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): It gives me great pleasure to rise today in this Legislature and talk about an issue that is very dear to my heart; that is, the equality of women and what a difference pay equity makes to that.

I know there are some people in this Legislature and in the province who question the need for pay equity, and first of all, I'd like to address that particular question. Then I plan to go into a bit of the history of pay equity and how we got where we are today, to talk about Bill 102 and its predecessor, Bill 168, and what Bill 102 does, and then to talk about some of the concerns expressed: the concerns about cost, the concerns of the business community, concerns about proxy, some of the concerns expressed about delay and about the weakening of maintenance. But first, I'd like to talk about whether there is a need for pay equity, and the parliamentary assistant touched on this particular issue.

There are those who believe that women are simply being impatient by not just waiting, that slowly but surely the problem will rectify itself, but I fear the statistics show something very different. If we look at the Statscan statistics for 1989, when they look at the distribution of earnings for working females, they find that 70% of women earn under $30,000 -- 1989, a mere four years ago. Of that, there are almost 34% who earn under $10,000, there are 12.4% who earn between $10,000 and $15,000 and 12.7% who earn between $15,000 and $20,000. You can tell from those particular statistics that as far as women have come in pay and in reaching equality, we still have a long way to go.

There are other statistics I'd like to share with you, and these are even more recent statistics from 1991, and again, from Statistics Canada. It was based on who earns what and it looked at women's incomes both at the higher-paid level, the professional level, and at the bottom-paid workers.

"A big leap in women's incomes was the big story in new data released by Statistics Canada yesterday." This was an article based on April 14, 1993, so you can tell, very recently. "Figures from the 1991 census show women's incomes rose sharply compared to men's in the late 1980s even though there's still a big gap between what both earn. Statscan said the average income for women in 1990 had risen about 14% since 1985 compared to the average income for men which remained almost unchanged. Statscan's data shows, however, that the average salary for men was almost $30,000 in 1990 compared to about $18,000 for women.

"'Women made strong inroads in high-paying occupations,' Statscan said in its report, indicating women represented about 20% of the earners in Canada's top-paying jobs compared to 14% in 1985. And women's increased earning power also helped widen the gap between what single-income families earned compared to families with two wage-earning parents, the agency reported. But Statscan also noted that women still dominate the country's lowest-paid occupations, making up almost 75% of all earners in the 10 poorest-paying occupations."

They gave some examples of the top 10 -- judges and magistrates, physicians and surgeons, dentists, lawyers, senior managers, other managers, air pilots, chiropractors, engineers and university teachers -- and of the top 10, 80% of those occupations were held by men. They gave the bottom 10 -- livestock farm workers, sewing machine and textile workers, general farming and horticultural jobs, crop farm workers, bartenders, cleaners, service station attendants, housekeepers, food and beverage service and child care workers -- and of the bottom 10, 75% were women. So you can see that we have improved, but there is still a long way to go.

The latest statistics have shown that there is a rise in what an average woman earns compared to the average man. In 1987, I believe it was in the vicinity of 67 cents on the dollar. Now women are all the way up to 70 cents on the dollar. Part of that has been through programs that have been aggressively pursued, such as pay equity. But again, I think the statistics clearly show that we haven't achieved the equality we would like.

I'd like to read just a portion of an editorial that was in the Globe and Mail, January 1993, because I think it perpetrated a few myths. I won't quote from the entire thing, but I think it's important for members to hear what's being said:

"The subject is the much-ballyhooed wage gap between men and women, documented annually by Statistics Canada and eagerly lapped up by the nation's newspapers and television news shows. Faint praise is in order this year, however, because three ingredients that are central to understanding the wage difference -- education, hours worked and marriage -- received at least passing mention in some of last week's coverage.

"It was reported that women's wages rose to 69.6% of men's in 1991, from 67.6% the year before. But what does that mean? For starters, it does not mean, despite the" -- let me try to get this word out --

Ms Murdock: Obfuscatory.

Ms Poole: Thank you. The parliamentary assistant said it right, I hope, Hansard. Try again: the "obfuscatory efforts of those" -- I think that means sort of like misleading and not getting us in the right direction; anyway, despite the efforts of those who know better, "that women are being paid nearly one third less to do the same jobs. Crunch the numbers a bit further and other interesting facts pop up. Education, for one thing, matters. Women with a university degree earn more, not less, than men with lower levels of education. When one considers that a majority of those enrolled in Canadian universities are female -- 55.3% of full- and part-time university students are women -- it's hard to imagine a future in which the wage difference will not continue to narrow."

Well, I was just outraged when I read particularly that last paragraph, because they're comparing women with a university degree and saying, "Isn't it wonderful that they're earning more than men who don't have a university degree?" Well, surely that's not where we're at. So I wrote a letter to the editor, which they did publish, and I'd like to read that on the record:

"Your editorial of January 21 concerning the 'much- ballyhooed wage gap' is misleading in its simplistic analysis and selective use of statistics. I agree with you that education, hours worked and experience are important factors in determining wages. But when you are making comparisons, it is important to compare apples to apples. For instance, your editorial stated that 'Women with a university degree earn more, not less, than men with lower levels of education.' I am dismayed that you would find this either surprising or relevant. Of far greater relevance would be a comparison of the wages of university-educated men and university-educated women.

"Consider the following Ontario employment statistics from 1989. Amongst whites, women with a university degree earn 66% -- that's just over $31,000 -- of the income of men with degrees, who earned on average $48,000." That's comparing apples to apples, Mr Speaker. "Women from racial minorities with degrees earned 56% of what men from universities earned.

"You also ask: 'Why is it that many married women work only part-time or adopt less time-consuming and less well-paying full-time careers? Are they forced to by their husbands, by circumstances, by entrenched social attitudes? Do many, for a whole variety of unquantifiable reasons, freely choose this path, thinking it best for their families?'

"One significant answer the editors have ignored is that unfortunately, in all too many cases, women still bear the primary responsibility for child care. They do not 'freely choose this path' necessarily, but are forced to by lack of options. I do believe that education and the recent profusion of women into the professions will have a positive effect on the wage gap in the future.

"However, I fear that without enlightened child care policies, a reasoned pay equity approach significantly closing the wage gap will for ever remain an elusive goal."

1540

I wrote that letter because I think it's very important that we not perpetuate some myths that are out there. While we have made progress, we still must work to ensure that women are paid appropriately. We must also work to ensure that women are not stuck in what I call pink ghettos, where their work is undervalued.

According to a Globe article that was just in the paper this morning --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Considering the importance of this discussion, I think we should have a quorum present.

The Deputy Speaker: Table, would you please check if there is a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Eglinton.

Ms Poole: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the member for Etobicoke West for bringing to the House's attention that pay equity is an important issue and that it is important for as many members as possible to participate in this debate.

As I was saying, it really is encouraging to see more women going into the higher-paid jobs and it's also encouraging to see that attitudes are changing. Last week, I went to a Women's Awareness Week that was held at Sporting Life and I was addressing a group of 9- and 10-year-old school children. I decided to talk to them about stereotypes, about boys and girls and what types of jobs they could go into and what they wanted to do with their lives.

Do you know the interesting thing? For the first three young girls I asked, "What do you want to do when you grow up?" their answers were, one wanted to be a teacher, the second wanted to be an orthodontist and the third wanted to be an engineer. I thought, "That is really, really good." There was also one later on who wanted to be a mother, and I thought that was marvellous as well, because we need women who would like to stay at home, we need fathers who would like to stay at home, and if they have the financial capacity to do that, that's certainly to be encouraged.

But what I found remarkable was that these young girls didn't see the barriers in their way, and I think that's half the battle. So we are gradually making progress, but as the statistics show, the progress is very slow and women's work is still undervalued.

I thought I would let you know what type of women it would be who would benefit from pay equity. Obviously, there are many in the private sector who benefit from pay equity, but there's a specific list of those in the public sector who would benefit from legislation extending pay equity to them.

They're people like the visiting homemakers, home support services, those working in homes for the aged, children's aid societies, shelters for battered women, child care workers, those who are working with the physically handicapped, those working in elderly persons' centres, Indian friendship centres, credit counselling, children's mental health, children and youth services, developmental services, children's boarding homes, nursing homes, community mental health centres, public health units, laundries, community health centres, residential psychiatric services, district health councils, rehabilitation and child treatment centres, labs, small hospitals and libraries.

The women in these occupations are not well paid, and those are ones that are particularly targeted to improve their wages and bring about pay equity.

I had an interesting experience last fall. It was actually before the introduction of Bill 102. It was while we were still on the assumption that Bill 168 was proceeding. I had a women's issue outreach tour across the province, and I went to a number of communities, some larger, some smaller. I went to London, Waterloo, Kitchener, Windsor, Ottawa, Timmins, Oshawa, just to name a few.

One of the questions that I asked the women when I visited these various women's groups -- some of whom worked in battered women's shelters, some of whom were business and professional women's club members, some who worked for the YWCA -- was:

"We have pay equity before the Legislature right now and there seems to be two distinct views on it. One is that now is not the time for pay equity because business is struggling, that it is extremely difficult for business to implement this when they're trying to simply survive, and there are concerns about the bureaucracy involved;" on the other hand, the arguments for pay equity as I advanced them earlier, in terms of improving women's lot in life as far as wages are concerned.

The interesting thing was that when I asked the question, "Should we pass this pay equity legislation?" they would say, "On the one hand, this really is a tough time for business and I'm not sure we should really be putting this onerous burden on them at this time." I said, "So you think we shouldn't pass pay equity?" and they'd say: "Oh no, no. On the other hand, if you don't do it now, when are you going to do it?"

The interesting thing is that a number of these groups such as the YWCA, the children's aid societies, a number of people in the business and professional women's clubs, were in the throes of either implementing pay equity themselves or anticipating doing it under the new legislation.

So I said to them: "Well, yes, I'm the same; I see the concerns from both sides. But I need an answer. If you were the Liberal critic for women's issues and you had to stand up in the House and say how you were going to vote on this, what would you do?" And they said, "We really are reluctant to say 'Stop pay equity,' because we are afraid that if we stop pay equity, it may never start again." So there was that willingness to proceed, even though they recognized that there were problems.

Now, Bill 168 is not the bill we have before us today. It is significantly altered since that time. I haven't been back, because I've been in the Legislature, to ask them how they would change their opinion, or if they would change their opinion, given the changes in Bill 102.

But I thought it very interesting that women themselves are very anxious about pay equity legislation. They really want it, but they, at the bottom line, also are very concerned about their jobs. They would want to ensure that they still have jobs, and if it is going to make it so onerous for their particular business or their particular agency that it can't continue to operate, then obviously they are concerned about what pay equity would do.

So it's not only men who say there are two sides to pay equity and some concerns expressed; women are expressing that same ambivalence, where they think pay equity is a very supportable notion -- and I think many men believe that as well -- but they worry about the timing.

I guess for me this has also created a dilemma. The reason I have supported the extension of pay equity is because how can you say it's the wrong time? Are we saying that there is a right time for equity and a wrong time for equity? Is there a right time for fairness and a wrong time for fairness? In my own examination of where I would stand on this bill, when we were looking at Bill 168 and when we had second reading on Bill 102, I came to the conclusion that there is probably never any perfect time to bring in a program like pay equity. It is somewhat easier in boom times and it is certainly more difficult in depressed times such as we're undergoing right now, but in the bottom line, there is not a wrong and right time for fairness and equity.

1550

But that being said, we still have to examine the legislation that is before us today and determine if this is the right way to do it. Is this the right way to extend pay equity? Is it going to bring fairness and equity? Is it going to do what women want it to do? That's something that I plan to explore with you today.

Just before we do that, I'd like to just refresh with members the history of pay equity in Ontario. I think members will remember the NDP-Liberal accord back in 1985. One of the areas in which the Liberals and NDP reached accord was the fact that we both believed in pay equity, and there was an agreement that the Liberal government would proceed with pay equity in its first term in office.

That's why the Liberals did keep that commitment and they brought forward the Pay Equity Act in 1987. I'm very proud of that legislation. It wasn't perfect, it wasn't without its drawbacks, it wasn't without its growing pains, but as a woman and as a Liberal I am very proud that Ontario is the only jurisdiction in North America which requires the preparation of pay equity plans in both the private and the public sectors, and I'm not ashamed for us to take credit for that achievement.

The Pay Equity Act, 1987, brought pay equity to approximately 1.4 million women out of the approximately 1.7 million women who were working for employers who were covered under the act. Right from the beginning we recognized that there was a deficiency, that there were women not covered. But we felt that it was important to go ahead and take that major first step, and that major first step was to allow job-to-job comparisons. The drawback was that you couldn't have the job-to-job comparisons where there was no male comparator within the establishment. So that is something, as I say, we were aware of at the time and that we made a commitment to redress.

The Pay Equity Commission released a report that had been commissioned in October 1989, in which it recommended two new methods of achieving pay equity. There were two new comparison methods that they recommended. One was proxy and the second was proportional. Now, the Liberal government was very supportive of the proportional method, but we did have a number of concerns with the proxy method.

First of all, we thought it was very problematic to try to compare one establishment with another establishment, for a number of reasons. One is that you're comparing payrolls, for instance, involving extremely sensitive matters and confidential payroll information; the second is the complexity of it; and the third is that it really did not mesh with what the true purpose of pay equity was, as defined. "Pay equity," as it was defined, was to bring equity into the same establishment; that was one of the definitions of pay equity that was used.

So proxy was not something that we looked on favourably, although we did support the proportional value method at that time. The proportional value method, which allowed businesses or agencies to compare themselves with others in a similar situation by way of -- I'm trying to think of a simple way to explain this. It's a comparison method which is used still within the same establishment but it would give values to male jobs and female jobs, and it does not have to compare them directly but can compare them indirectly. I think that was the advantage of the proportional value method.

In February 1990, the Minister of Labour under the Liberal government announced that the Liberal government would be proceeding with the proportional value method, and of the 420,000 women we're talking about today, I think there are approximately 350,000 who would be covered under the proportional announcement made in February 1990. That's the state we were at when the government changed.

Just before we go on to talk about Bill 168 and what got introduced, I will say that there was an alternative to the proxy method that was supported by the Liberal government, and that was the wage enhancement scheme.

One of the advantages of the wage enhancement scheme was that it was a way for the government in a very controlled way to improve women's wages. In fact, there were several areas where the Liberal government had done this, with social service workers and with child care workers, that proved to be enormously successful.

The child care wage improvement was a fantastic success. There's no doubt today that child care workers are still not paid what they're worth and that their value is still not fully recognized, but I can tell you that it has improved enormously since I was first elected in 1987.

The first time I ran in 1985, I think the average wage of a child care worker was something like between $10,000 and $12,000 across the province, and I think we all recognize that that is simply not acceptable. But about a year ago there was a day care pay survey that showed that Ontario day care workers under the wage enhancement plan had significantly improved their fortunes, and I'll read that for you. This was an article in the Toronto Star dated April 24, 1992.

"Ontario day care workers fare much better than counterparts in other provinces, a national survey shows. Day care workers in Ontario earn an average of $11.38 an hour compared to wages below $7 an hour in some provinces.

"Ontario day care workers earn an average of $22,983 a year. In Metro, the average annual wage is $25,000. The figures are for child care workers who are in charge of a group of children and who often have supervisory duties. Workers in municipally run day care centres in Metro do even better, with an average annual salary of $29,000."

I wouldn't want you to believe from this that everything's just fine for child care workers. Many of them are still underpaid and what they're paid varies across the province, but I just wanted to show you what wage enhancements could do to improve the lot of a certain sector.

One of the whole purposes of pay equity was to ensure that women's work was not undervalued. For instance, do members of this House consider it acceptable that a child care worker would be paid less than a zookeeper? What does that say for our values in society if we are willing to tolerate that situation? And it's not that I don't like animals; I like them very much and I think they should be well cared for and well treated. But I certainly value our children more, and it is my belief that child care workers should be valued for what they are doing.

I mentioned that Bill 168 was introduced by the NDP government. It did not come soon and it did not come without a lot of agitation on the part of day care advocates and pay equity advocates who kept pressing the government to introduce legislation. The government had made commitments during the 1990 election, it had made commitments to pursue pay equity in November 1990 in the throne speech, and yet it was a full year later, in November 1991, when Bill 168 was introduced.

The reaction to Bill 168 was quite positive on the part of day care advocates. They were concerned that it had taken so long to get to Bill 168, but month after month for the next year they kept waiting for it to come forward for debate in the Legislature, and they were becoming very, very anxious when the government had made no indication that it was proceeding with Bill 168.

In the fall of 1992, I asked the question of the Minister of Labour whether he was indeed going to proceed with Bill 168. He blustered quite a bit and then he said yes, they intended to proceed with pay equity. Some 10 days later, Bill 102 appeared. Bill 102 was certainly not what was promised in Bill 168, and there are some significant changes.

I want to give you a few quotes, before I discuss the changes, as to the reaction to, first of all, the delay, and Bill 102, because although the government put a brave face on it, there was no doubt that it had waited two and a half years and had delayed for two and a half years before introducing legislation and proceeding with legislation and that it was significantly weakened from what it had originally promised.

1600

I want to refer to an article in the Toronto Star dated November 29, 1992. They tell a story of Nancy Easton, and I'll quote from the article.

"Premier Bob Rae has done more than hit Nancy Easton in the pocketbook. As far as she's concerned, he has insulted her professionalism and set her career back light-years.

"Easton is a Toronto child care worker, one of at least 420,000 Ontario women who will have to wait three years longer for the New Democratic government to fulfil its promise of full pay equity.

"Easton is now questioning the future of day care in Ontario after the decision Wednesday by Queen's Park to hold off extending the principle of pay equity for work of equal value to the broader public sector -- women who weren't covered because they work in facilities that lack direct male counterparts against which their wages can be compared.

"'I've been offered other jobs over the years, but I've stuck to child care because I believe that some day, eventually, its importance to society has to be finally recognized,' said Easton.

"'What the government has been promising us was only a down payment on what we deserve, and now they've dashed even those meagre hopes. Who's going to want to do this job? What sort of quality is that going to ensure?"'

The article also quoted another woman, day care provider Cheryl West. She said that she's not sure how much longer she can continue to pay to have her own child looked after while she works.

"'The insecurity is overwhelming,' said the single mother. 'I've thought of leaving the field in the past, and it's on my mind once again. We're facing more and more responsibilities, and the compensation is shocking.'

"West said her disappointment at the delayed implementation of full equity 'is not just a matter of finances -- there's a principle at stake here too. Our centre was taking a case to the Pay Equity Commission, but we decided to put it aside on the day that the NDP was elected. We trusted their promises. Now we're going to be dusting it off again."'

At the same time, right after the NDP announced Bill 102, which delays pay equity for a large number of women in this province, Kerry McCuaig, who is executive director of the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, which, as members know, represents 14,000 women in non-profit child care centres who would benefit from the extension of pay equity, said that recruiting professionals is going to be more difficult than ever.

"Child care careers are starting to have a lifespan of about five years. A lot of women are going into the field because they love kids, but they can't afford to hang in: you can't eat love. We want highly skilled workers with a college education, but we don't treat them like professionals."

Now, when Kerry McCuaig said this, she was representing the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care at a press conference. This press conference was called by the Equal Pay Coalition, the Coalition of Visible Minority Women and the Union of Child Care Workers of Eastern Ontario. Together, the five organizations called a press conference after the government delayed the implementation of pay equity. They had been waiting for two years. I copied a few of their quotes down at that press conference.

They said, "This government is good for a lot of announced dollars which translate into nothing." These women said they were tired of having announcements made by the government which the government got full credit for, yet the moneys never flowed, the programs never happened. They said the government was petty to delay pay equity for this sector of underpaid workers. Remember I told you about them earlier; 70% of the women in this province earn under $30,000 a year.

What they said was: "Have we delayed pay equity for our sector out of existence?" They talked about the delay and they talked about the fact they were convinced, and this is the Coalition for Better Child Care, that there would not be moneys flowed to their sector for the extension of pay equity till 1995.

I, over the years in this Legislature, have become a little bit cynical, as probably all members have, but when the coalition pointed this out and said 1995, it rang a bell. 1995? Probably the next election year, and that's where moneys start to flow. So the government wouldn't even have to account for those dollars till after the election, and even then odds are very, very good -- and if any of the members of the government look at the recent polls, I think they'll confirm this -- that the NDP will not form the next government. So what they in effect are going to say is, "We get the bang for the buck for announcing the extension of pay equity, but we're going to let some other government pay for it."

I noted at that press conference a high degree of cynicism amongst the women who had been relying on this government to bring in pay equity, and they were saying that the delay was on the backs of those who are the most vulnerable. They said, "These women are the bottom of the pay echelon, they're the ones most in need, but the government has said, 'You can wait."' This government told the doctors two years ago that they couldn't wait; they could get $400 million. This government told the unions that they didn't have to wait; they would get their Bill 40. But for these women, they were told that they have to wait.

I'm going to take a direct quote from something that was said that day: "How can you feel anything but anger? How can you feel but you've been used?" These women feel betrayed, because they believed the promises of the government and they believed Bill 168.

I think what made everything worse was that the Premier had already been claiming that the legislation was passed. In November 1991 he was saying in his householder, and I happen to have the copy right here, "We have already passed the extension of pay equity." I think everybody here in this House today knows that pay equity was not passed. But what did he say? He said, "We've extended pay equity to cover 420,000 women who work in jobs that until now did not qualify for pay equity increases."

That was November 1991, a year and a half ago, and yet that pay equity has not been extended to the women, and not only that, to add insult to injury, the government changed what it originally promised. So they not only delayed bringing pay equity in, even though the Premier himself in his householder, in his newsletter, was claiming in November 1991 they'd already done it, but then they changed it and weakened it considerably.

About a week after I got a copy of the Premier's householder where I heard that, I got a letter from Jill Marzetti, who's the provincial secretary for the New Democratic Party. She said, "I'm proud, as provincial secretary and as a woman, to give just a short list of what the Ontario New Democrats have done in our first year of government for the women in this province," and one on the list was, "extended pay equity to an additional 420,000 women who work in jobs that until now did not qualify for pay equity increases."

I'll tell you, when I saw those two things back to back, I thought, well, maybe I'd been asleep at the switch. Maybe the government had brought in pay equity and extended it and I hadn't noticed. I couldn't believe this was true, but I went to our House leader and I said, "Mr House Leader, can you clarify for me, has the government extended pay equity?" He said: "No, Dianne. No, don't worry about it. You are absolutely right. The government has not passed pay equity. But they say that they're going to pass this legislation soon." This was in the fall of 1991.

Well, we waited. We waited month after month, week after week, day after day, and I, like the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, kept thinking it was going to happen, because I asked a couple of questions in the House, I made a statement or two in the House about it, and we were told, "It's happening, it's happening." In fact the House leader, according to instructions from the government House leader, kept scheduling a debate on pay equity. But we got to November 1992 and that legislation had still not been pursued and debated in the House.

Finally, after two years, the Minister of Labour stood up in this Legislature and he said: "Well, we aren't actually proceeding with Bill 168. We are going to bring in a new piece of legislation called Bill 102." He tried to put a brave face on it, but when the legislation was introduced, he said, "Well, you know, there's going to be a little bit of delay."

1610

But when we examined the legislation, and when we took it to hearings we took a look at it, and what did it do? The first thing that it did was delay the achievement of public sector pay equity for three years. Under the Liberal legislation passed in 1987, pay equity was to have been achieved by the Ontario public service by January 1, 1995. The government reneged on that. They delayed it by a further three years.

There were women who were counting on that. There were women who were waiting for that to happen and they were told, "No, the government has priorities." They can spend millions and millions on advertising and polling and renovating cabinet offices and all sorts of other things, but the women had to wait. I don't really thing it's fair to have women who are waiting for five years for that pay equity to come into place and then, on the eve of it, to say, "No, you're going to have to wait another three years."

What kind of message does that send? Does it send a message to the employers who did comply with the legislation, who did come forward with their pay equity plans, who did implement pay equity? Does it say to them, "You sucker"? Because the employers who didn't implement it now get another three years' grace.

The second thing that Bill 102 did was weaken the maintenance provision. This was something that I didn't even realize was as serious as it was until we got into the public hearings. Presenter after presenter came before us and talked about how the Liberal legislation had guaranteed that once pay equity is achieved it must be maintained. In other words, you can't have an employer who, a year after you've achieved pay equity, goes back and reneges on it and changes the rules. But, lo and behold, when we looked through Bill 102, we found a little provision that allows the government to change the rules and weaken the provisions for maintenance of pay equity.

The third concern that a number of people shared was the proxy method itself. They were concerned with the language of the proxy method. They were concerned with the comparisons of female jobs to female jobs, because that was never the purpose of pay equity; it was comparing female jobs to male jobs. They didn't like the terms of reference that the government had adopted and a number were concerned about the complexity.

The other concern was, who's going to pay for it? That is an extremely important question, because we have to know what it would cost. Will the government pay for the pay equity adjustments in the broader public sector? Because if they don't, what's going to happen is the agencies will only have two alternatives: They will have to cut staff or they will have to cut services. In either eventuality, that's not what we hope to achieve with pay equity legislation.

The interesting thing was that when the government introduced Bill 102 and then said we were going to be debating it the next week, even though it was a new bill that we hadn't really had time to go through and analyse, I sent a message over to the Ministry of Labour and said: "Look, I need some background information. I want you to tell us what impact the delay's going to have. What is this plan going to cost? What would it have cost before the delays were announced and what's it going to cost now?"

I got a very vague answer back from the Ministry of Labour. They said, "In 1992-93 up to $240 million will be spent, but we really can't tell you how much is going to be spent, because we haven't completed the surveys of pay equity costs until they're returned from the transfer payment agencies." It seemed rather strange that the government was proceeding with legislation when it didn't even know what it cost. But I accepted that until the next day, when I was talking to one of the agencies.

They said: "Oh, the cost? We have those data." I said, "How did you get these data?" They said, "We got it from the Ontario Federation of Labour." I said, "How did the Ontario Federation of Labour get it?" "They've got a letter." It's a letter to Carrol Anne Sceviour of the Ontario Federation of Labour, 15 Gervais Drive in Toronto. It was sent from the Ministry of Labour, the policy division, signed by Salina Szechtman. There were copies sent to the deputy, the Minister of Labour, the special assistant of policy and the director for workplace practices policy group.

Anyway, this letter which the Ministry of Labour had sent to the Ontario Federation of Labour said funds for pay equity were allocated as follows: "Dollars in mature costs by 1994-95 fiscal year: Job to job, $175 million; proportional value, $400 million; proxy to equity, $285 million; OPS pay equity, $140 million," with a total of $1 billion.

I have no problem with the Ministry of Labour coming to me and saying, "We can't give you exact figures because we haven't completed our surveys," although I would have thought those surveys should have been completed before they went ahead with legislation. They had a lot of time. They had two years to do this. I wouldn't have had nearly as much of a problem if they'd said, "They're not exact, but we can give you estimates." But the Ministry of Labour didn't want to share that with the critic for women's issues for the Liberal caucus, and I found that rather upsetting, quite frankly.

I'm just going to reach over to Hansard for a moment. This is Hansard from the pay equity committee hearings when in fact we asked the minister and the deputy minister what it was going to cost. What became very obvious was that they really didn't know. It was incredible that they'd be implementing a program, a very costly program, but they didn't know how much it was going to cost.

One of the questions Mr Tilson had asked as a follow-up -- he said he was obviously getting nowhere with his question which had already been referred to by our caucus and Mr Tilson followed up and he wasn't satisfied with the answers or the non-answers -- was: "I'm going to ask the question again. I know it was asked, but it seems logical. You're getting into something. You must have some idea what it will cost. What is it going to cost the taxpayers of this province to implement these pieces of legislation?"

All they could say was that the government remains committed to paying $1 billion, but they had no cost-benefit analysis; they had no analysis as to what the effect of the delay was going to be; they had no analysis of how much was coming out in any fiscal year.

So then Mr Tilson asked a fairly simplistic question, I thought. I thought it was very easy to understand and a very good question: "What's it going to cost next year?" Mr Thomson, who was the Deputy Minister of Labour, said, "I don't know," period, end of his answer. "I don't know."

How can you bring in legislation when you don't know what it's going to cost? And I'll tell you, not only do people want to know what it's going to cost; they want to know who's going to pay for the pay equity because, as I mentioned earlier, agencies are already strapped. The new restraint plan is going to strap them even further, and if they have to pay for pay equity, which they cannot possibly absorb as far as the costs, it is going to be devastating.

I saw just the other day that Ontario hospitals are seeking $160 million. They're asking Queen's Park for more than $160 million to fund pay equity. This government's got to tell us, is it going to pay for pay equity to the broader public service? Are they going to pay for these plans? Are they going to ensure that in fact services are not shut down or that people do not lose jobs? We have to know the answer to that question.

All we know right now is that the government has said that in its restraint package it's saving $340 million by delaying pay equity. We don't know over what period they're talking. We don't know how these figures were arrived at. But I think that's something members of this Legislature deserve to know, and I would have thought that by the time we completed those public hearings those answers would have been forthcoming. But we're at the stage today where we still don't know, and this government doesn't know, what pay equity is going to cost.

1620

One concern that has been raised and that I've touched on briefly has been the impact on business. When we debated this on second reading, one of the members of the opposition raised the problems faced by business. I got the impression that some members of the government really thought very little of the comments, that they really made light of what the opposition was saying. But let's face reality: Right now it's a very difficult time for business. We've seen daily bankruptcies. We've seen people lose jobs.

I think it is important to recognize that if any government is going to impose a system, even if it's a system we agree with in principle, we have to ensure that there's a sensitivity to its impact. The very best thing that can happen is if employers and employees work together in a cooperative approach, because if it's imposed without the cooperative approach, instead of achieving pay equity it could in fact achieve disaster.

Although I'm a supporter of pay equity, I have to say that there are ramifications which have to be addressed. There are concerns in this bill that have to be addressed. We certainly don't want to get bogged down in bureaucracy, and I'll tell you, the proxy method described in here is getting bogged down in bureaucracy. But much of the substance of the bill is going to be in regulations, and we have to ensure that those regulations do not impose restrictions on businesses which make it impossible for them to operate.

Already there is one thing that has really upset people, and that's the retroactivity of the legislation. Do you know the irony? If the government had brought in pay equity when it said it was going to bring it in, there would have been no need for retroactivity. The retroactivity, which is anathema to me and to many people, was brought in because this government delayed, didn't know what to do, didn't know how to do it. They've created their own problem.

I would just like to read from an article in the Globe and Mail of almost a year ago, by Martin Harts, in the small business section. Mr Harts says:

"Ontario is the only province with pay equity laws that directly affect small business. Companies with more than 10 employees -- meaning most businesses in Ontario -- must comply with pay equity. As the only jurisdiction in North America with sweeping pay equity rules for the private sector, Ontario has been praised and damned, depending on who you talk to.

"Larger companies that went through Ontario's pay equity exercise from 1989 to 1991 generally support the process. These organizations, which typically have a human resources department and at least one in-house compensation specialist, often see the pay equity law as an opportunity to review or update their compensation policies.

"Small companies, on the other hand, have reacted negatively to pay equity. Typical comments from chief executive officers and owner-operators include, 'What's the penalty if I don't comply?' 'Let them catch me,' and, 'If government continues to interfere with business, we may as well throw in the towel."'

Mr Harts goes on to say:

"What is it about the pay equity law that evokes such emotional responses from small businesses? A lot of it has to do with the recession: Reduced sales, lower profit and a minimum of administrative staff leave small companies unable to afford the time and costs of undertaking the pay equity exercise. Lack of knowledge of what pay equity means and what it requires of an employer is another problem. The many publications provided free of charge by Ontario's Pay Equity Commission are often of limited value, and no wonder.

"Who but someone in the compensation field can make sense of language such as 'wage gap' or 'gender bias'? How about 'job-to-job comparisons' or 'gender-neutral comparison system'? And those are only a few of the buzzwords.

"Complicated? It sounds worse than it really is. An example of greater government interference in how you run your business? Probably."

What I find very interesting about this article, which was written by a partner in Peat Marwick Stevenson and Kellogg working in their compensation consulting group, when he talks about the difficulty with small business, is his conclusion.

"But as cumbersome and costly as pay equity may be, your daughters and their daughters will probably thank you some day, particularly if they end up working in female-dominated jobs."

So even where there's concern expressed, I think there are people, particularly people with daughters, who are very concerned about pay equity and who are actually very supportive of the principle.

But that being said, we have to look at this particular piece of legislation, Bill 102. I'd like to share with the members, because other than the parliamentary assistant, Ms Murdock, and Mrs Witmer, who's opposition critic for women's issues and critic for Labour for the Conservative Party, most members in the Legislature right now were not at the hearings, so they didn't hear all the things that were said. There were three areas, three problems with the legislation where people focused.

I'd like to, first of all, start by quoting from a summary of the hearings that was contained in an article in the Toronto Star dated February 1, 1993, by Kelly Toughill, and then go to what some of the presenters in the committee hearings actually said.

The Toronto Star article begins: "A parade of angry women trooped through a drab committee room in Queen's Park recently to lambaste Premier Bob Rae's government with the ever more familiar refrain: You've betrayed us, you've sold out.

"New Democrats listened for four days as long-time allies blasted Labour minister Bob Mackenzie's latest plan to extend laws guaranteeing women equal pay for work of equal value.

"Mackenzie says his proposed legislation will extend pay equity to 420,000 more women.

"Critics say it will delay wage hikes for years, leave some women defenceless against discrimination and allow employers to backtrack on pay equity down the road.

"Under the new plan, they say, some of the lowest-paid women in Ontario won't see pay equity for decades while others will never see it at all....

"Even the president of the provincial New Democratic Party has taken aim at the bill. Testifying on behalf of the Ontario Federation of Labour before a government committee, Julie Davis urged her fellow socialists to change Mackenzie's proposal.

"'Some see (the bill) as it now stands as a possible step back from your public commitment to the women of Ontario,' she said.

"Others were less diplomatic.

"The Ontario Nurses' Association called the plan 'insulting and detestable,' 'shocking,' 'flawed' and 'fundamentally misdirected."'

Then there was a summary that was quite good, I felt, in talking about the highlights of the new plan, Bill 102.

"Under the new plan:

"A 1995 deadline set by the Liberals for completing pay equity in publicly funded organizations is killed. Government agencies won't have to finish wage adjustments now until 1998, and both companies and government agencies can delay starting pay equity an extra year.

"Critics say the new law rewards employers for dragging their feet on the issue while penalizing those who did the plans on schedule.

"Employers who use the proxy method have no deadline to complete pay equity, only a requirement that they spend 1% of their payroll on correcting wage discrimination.

"The new law also exempts employers with fewer than 10 workers, arguing that pay equity is too heavy a burden for small business to bear. The exemption means some 230,000 women...have no legal recourse to equal pay."

Now, that was the article which sets the context. There are three areas where I'd like to tell you what presenters at the pay equity hearings said.

One is on the delay of achievement of pay equity in the public sector, and also the delay of extension of pay equity to the 420,000 women -- women who were promised that this would happen much sooner. The second will be the limitations that this government will now allow on maintenance because it has weakened the provision in the original 1987 Liberal legislation which insisted that once pay equity was achieved, the plan had to be maintained. The third was difficulties with the proxy system that the government has chosen.

1630

The first issue is the delay of achievement of pay equity, and I'd like to start by some quotes from the Ontario Nurses' Association:

"ONA is extremely disappointed that many of the government's proposed amendments will effectively erode any possibility of ever achieving pay equity for our members under this legislation.

"The government's shocking proposal to postpone for another three years, to 1998, the deadline to achieve pay equity in the public sector is clearly unacceptable.

"We will not support government initiatives that roll back progress made towards the elimination of gender-based wage discrimination.

"By moving in the direction of Bill 102, this government has blatantly reneged on its promise to right historic wrongs in women's wages. These amendments do not merely delay pay equity, they begin the dismantling of hard-fought gains....

"Public sector employers that we bargain with will be able to save three years of retroactive adjustments by finding a way around job-to-job comparisons and using proportional value effective January 1, 1993, instead of January 1, 1990."

And finally:

"Employers who should have, and could have, completed pay equity using job-to-job will now have a further monetary incentive to postpone and avoid job-to-job comparisons."

That was all by the Ontario Nurses' Association.

I'd like to quote now from the United Food and Commercial Workers, the UFCW, which is a union that acts on behalf of, obviously, the food industry workers:

"UFCW Canada urges the Ontario government to keep its original promise that pay adjustments in the public sector be paid in full by 1995."

The next quotes are from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, CUPE Ontario. This again is relating to the achievement of pay equity and the delay of Bill 102 and to achieving pay equity for public sector workers. CUPE said:

"However, while correcting this injustice, the bill also delivers major takeaways which were never part of the pay equity legislative agenda.

"We also urge your committee to support the deletion of those parts of the bill which take away existing pay equity rights and weaken what we currently have in place."

As far as the delay is concerned, this is what they had to say. This is again from CUPE:

"Section 7 of Bill 102 allows employers in the public sector to take until 1998 to close the wage gap identified in its pay equity plans. This extension is being given as a legislative right and is not related to whether or not the employer can meet the original 1995 deadline.

"Completing pay equity increases is especially important to women who are close to retirement. Now, women who retire before 1995 lose pay equity increases coming into effect after they retire. Not only are they shortchanged by not having all of their pay equity increases, these increases will not be reflected in their pensions."

Finally from CUPE:

"It is distressing that the government chose to add this amendment without consultation with regard to its effect on retiring and laid-off women, and with such a free hand to employers who have not made the effort to complete pay equity adjustments as soon as possible."

The second thing that I'd like to quote to you from, from various presenters on Bill 102, were those who were very distressed about the limitations now placed on maintenance by the government. The government very cleverly inserted a little provision which weakens what was in the Pay Equity Act, 1987, brought in by the Liberals, because under that act, it was required that once pay equity was achieved, it would be maintained.

Now don't forget, there was already a provision in the act to deal with change of circumstances. We're not talking about that. We're talking about weakening the maintenance once pay equity is achieved, so I'd like to give you a few quotes from that.

The Ontario Nurses' Association had this to say about the limitations on maintenance:

"We find it insulting and detestable that the government is proposing that limitations might be prescribed for the current obligation to maintain pay equity."

This is what the United Food and Commercial Workers had to say about the maintenance issue:

"This addition is a step backwards. Section 7 of the current act makes pay equity a legislated requirement. Bill 102 gives the government of the day the right to set limitations through regulation, which is a step towards undermining legislated pay equity."

The Pay Equity Commission itself addressed this issue as far as limitations on maintenance are concerned. The Pay Equity Commission said:

"If this section of the bill is passed, the gains made by addressing pay inequity could be undone; in a few years' time, the Legislature may need to consider another pay equity act in order to recoup the lost ground that this section has the capacity to bring about.

"It is one thing to ask them" -- the women the act benefits -- "to stretch full achievement of their rights for a few years; it is quite another to ask them to give up a portion or all of what they've gained in the exercise of their rights."

Another quote as far as the provision weakening the maintenance provision is concerned is from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, CUPE, the Ontario sector. I'll give you four quotes from CUPE:

"Section 2 of Bill 102 adds a section to the Pay Equity Act which represents a serious takeaway of pay equity rights which have been established under the current law.

"It is unfair and unjust for the government to now decide that it should have the right to delete its direct pay equity responsibilities. This represents a takeaway of existing rights."

They also said: "Bill 102 makes two references to putting limits on the maintenance of pay equity. This is a major takeaway of existing rights."

They say: "Section 6 of Bill 102 would allow cabinet to water down maintenance of pay equity," and it allows it to be retroactive. This again "is a major takeaway of rights."

The last set of quotes I wish to give members of the House that emanate from the pay equity hearings that were held in March relates to proxy and the use of the proxy method as chosen by the government. First of all, the Ontario Nurses' Association:

"We reject the government's amendments regarding proxy comparison methods.

"The proposed initiatives contravene the fundamental principle of comparing the compensation of female job classes to male job classes for pay equity purposes. Comparing female job classes to female job classes is unacceptable."

The United Food and Commercial Workers, UFCW, said about the proxy method:

"The proxy method must allow for the comparison of a female job class to the male proxy job class, and the adjustment should be the male job rate."

They've made a recommendation regarding section 21.15:

"The proposed amendment would allow a proxy organization to select a group of female job classes for comparison purposes. This process is highly subjective, unnecessarily complicated, and would require extensive work by the proxy organization, likely resulting in delays."

One of the other groups that went into the proxy method extensively was the Ontario Nursing Home Association, and they had a devastating message to pass on to members of the committee:

"The implementation of the proxy method of comparison without funding would result in the layoff of over 4,800 employees throughout the province and a reduction in patient care to a level which would place residents at severe risk.

"Any wage increase not matched by a revenue increase will result in a direct reduction in the level of patient care provided by the home.

"These controls on both the revenue and service side of our operations do not allow us any flexibility in implementing programs like pay equity. We cannot adjust our revenue or change the services we provide to our residents to offset the financial impacts of pay equity.

"Nursing homes have been advised that they will receive no economic adjustment for January 1, 1993, irrespective of pending arbitration which will affect a significant number of our employees.

"If no funding is provided and pay equity goes forward as outlined in Bill 102, there will be a major reduction in the level of patient care provided by nursing homes.

1640

"Pay equity implementation must be fully funded by government to ensure that there is no reduction in the quality of care provided to residents. Proxy comparison, as defined in the current act, would put us out of business. Using this system, we would be forced to accept the salary policy outline of another organization which may be funded differently than nursing homes.

"If nursing homes are forced to use proxy comparisons, then we must be able to match percentage increase, not wage rates. Using proxy comparators with the job rate requirement would be devastating for the sector.

"The implementation of proxy comparisons, as outlined in the current act, would result in the following, if full funding of pay equity was not provided: First, the layoff of over 4,800 full-time staff members in our nursing home departments alone, and secondly, the reduction of nursing care to a level that would place nursing home residents at severe risk.

"If full funding was provided by the government and the act remained in its current form, the government would be required to add over $410,000 for every 100-bed home" -- that's for every 100-bed home. "Across the province, this would result in an expenditure of over $123 million annually." That was the Ontario Nursing Home Association.

The final presenter I'd like to quote on proxy is one I haven't quoted in the other sections, because they made extensive comments about the proxy method and I'd like to stick to that particular topic.

The Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, which many of us know as OAITH, said:

"We wonder if the cost of achieving pay equity will prove to be greater than the results. Our ability to implement pay equity by the proxy method on a shelter-by-shelter basis will be severely constrained by our lack of resources; indeed, may not be possible without an injection of funds for this purpose.

"We believe the recognition of this dedication, through the achievement of pay equity, is long overdue. However, we are uneasy about the reality of achieving pay equity by way of the amendments outlined in Bill 102."

They refer to the proxy method in Bill 102 as, and I'll quote, "a time-consuming, unwieldy method, with scarce resources."

And referring to Bill 102's provision that the proxy method will compare female jobs to female jobs, not male jobs, they said, "We see this limitation as a shocking departure from what we consider to be the essential nature of the original Pay Equity Act."

You can tell from the many presentations I've quoted from that there was severe concern expressed at the pay equity hearings about these three areas: delay, limitations on maintenance and proxy. In fact, the Liberal caucus produced extensive amendments regarding these three areas, and those amendments were rejected.

When you listen to the list of the people presenting -- and there were far more than I quoted from here today who had very similar comments to make, but because of time I had to limit myself to picking a few of those who were particularly forceful about their views. The interesting thing is that they were coming from the Ontario Federation of Labour, they were coming from the Coalition for Better Child Care, they were coming from OAITH, the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, they were coming from the unions, they were coming from CUPE, they were coming from the food and commercial workers' union, they came from the Pay Equity Commission, they came from the Ontario Nursing Home Association and they came from the Ontario Nurses' Association.

Many of these groups have been traditional supporters of this government. They were not coming with a vested interest to discredit this government. They were not coming with a vested interest to attack this government for their own purposes. Many of them came as friends of this government who were very distressed with the legislation. They were exceedingly distressed about the delay, about the limitations on maintenance and about how the government finally chose to implement the proxy method.

As I said, we brought forward amendments, and yet, with the exception of a fairly minor amendment which I had raised concerning retribution by employers and to protect employees under the pay equity legislation, other than that one amendment, none of our amendments carried.

I find that the way the government has done this is very underhanded. What they've done is that they said, "We are going to extend pay equity to 420,000 women." They said that and they got the political mileage for saying it; the Premier said it, the secretary of the party said it, over a year before the legislation actually went even into second reading. They said that, but when the people who work with the legislation looked at it, and when Bill 102 was introduced with its changes, what did they say? They said basically, "You've robbed Peter to pay Paul." Or, if we want to keep it in pay equity terms, maybe we'll say that they robbed Pierrette to pay Paula.

What this government has done is it's taken a right which women in this province already had -- that was a right to achieve pay equity in the public service by January 1, 1995 -- and it's delayed that by three years, and it did that as a tradeoff for extending pay equity to an additional 420,000 women.

Many of those 420,000 women, particularly those concerned with and affected by the proxy method, were also very upset with the government because the government did not put a deadline on for the achievement of pay equity under the proxy comparison method. The broader public service, using the proxy method, doesn't have a deadline, so these women were saying, and even those who supported the proxy method were saying, "Without a deadline, it'll be years and decades before we achieve pay equity."

I think this government has played a giant shell game. On the one hand, they've taken away from the public sector so that they could make their announcement about the extension, but they've even taken away from those who were promised the extension of pay equity. So now they're not going to be seeing the realization of pay equity gains until 1995, and in the meantime what the government has done to pacify these women is say: "Well, we're going to give you a down payment on pay equity. We're going to give you something to make you feel like we're doing more than we are."

But women don't want to be pacified. They want equity and they want justice, and we don't believe that this legislation delivers equity or justice. We don't believe that the government has done an effective cost analysis which it can present to us. How can they talk about restraint on the one hand and yet not know how much the pay equity plan is going to cost or who's going to pay for it? I mean, that's the bottom line. With all the cuts and slashes, with the fact that retroactively the government is now saying to municipalities, "Well, yes, we did tell you that you were going to get transfer payments this year of a certain amount, but now you have to bite the bullet and we're going to pay you a lot less," there's a real fear out there in the broader public service that the government will not heed and will not stick to its word to pay for the pay equity, and quite frankly they're afraid they're going to lose their jobs.

To me, this pay equity legislation has pleased nobody. The government's strongest supporters have come forward and been extremely critical, and I actually thought, when we were sitting in the hearings and we were hearing these stories, that the government would listen.

1650

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): And you would do it better?

Ms Poole: We would do it better. First of all, Mr Mammoliti, I wish you had listened during the hearings, because certainly people did not agree with the way your government has handled this, and we would have done it differently. First, we would have done a cost analysis so people would know, and successive governments would know, what it was going to cost.

Mr Mammoliti: You were there for six years. What did you do? Did you make an attempt?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Order.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, thank you for calling the member for Yorkview to order. He said, what did the Liberal government do in six years? What the Liberal government did was introduce the most progressive pay equity legislation --

The Acting Speaker: Order. I'd ask the honourable member to address the House. We're not getting into exchanges across the House. So the honourable member for Eglinton, if you could continue to debate.

Ms Poole: Yes. I certainly appreciate your comment, Mr Speaker. I was addressing many of my comments to you until a person from across the way decided that he would interject, which I believe is contrary to the standing rules as a matter of fact.

But, Mr Speaker, what I'd like to say to you is, what the Liberal government did was, in 1987 the Liberal government introduced the most progressive pay equity legislation in North America, the most progressive in the world.

Mr Mammoliti: You didn't do anything for five years.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Ms Poole: In fact, Mr Speaker, the Liberal government brought pay equity to 1.4 million women. The Liberal government also, in February 1990, announced that it was going to bring pay equity to a further 350,000 women by adopting the proportional method.

We kept our word; the Liberal government kept its word. Members of the government may forget this, but unlike the Conservatives, who stood up on second reading, which is a vote in principle, stood up and voted against pay equity, the Liberal caucus supported pay equity because we believe in the principle. What we are debating today is whether this legislation actually fulfils that principle, whether it brings pay equity to --

Mr Mammoliti: It's still better than yours. Much better than yours.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, I really do wish that the member for Yorkview would curtail his comments. It is contrary to the standing rules that he interjects and it is extremely distracting.

The Acting Speaker: I agree. The honourable member for Yorkview is interjecting, and that's strictly out of order. I would ask the honourable member to please forget the interjections and allow the honourable member for Eglinton to continue.

Ms Poole: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I appreciate your support in that because, quite frankly, I can say that this legislation is not better than the Liberal legislation. It erodes two very basic rights that women had under the Liberal legislation. One was that in the public service, women were going to achieve pay equity by January 1, 1995, and this legislation erodes that.

The second way in which this legislation erodes the Liberal legislation is by weakening the provision regarding maintenance. Surely members of this Legislature can see that once pay equity is achieved, it is imperative that it be maintained. Otherwise you can have an employer who accedes to the law, who says, "Yes, I've given the pay equity plan, I've posted the plan, I've implemented the plan," and then a year later says, "Yes, but I'm now arbitrarily going to change it."

So maintenance of the pay equity plans was very, very important. As I pointed out, many presenters to our committee said that the maintenance provisions would be weakened by this act.

Those are two ways in which this legislation is a step backward, and the number of times that the words "step back" and "erode" were used in committee was quite astounding, because despite what some members from the government will say, we do not view this legislation as a step forward. We support the principle, but we do not believe that the way you have chosen to do it will effectively bring pay equity to the women of this province.

The final comment I'd like to make has to do with cost, because surely in 1993 one of the things that we are talking about is what programs cost, how to deliver those programs cost-effectively and how to ensure that our social safety net is preserved.

Mr Mammoliti: Criticize, criticize, nothing but criticize.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Doesn't he have two minutes, Mr Speaker, to respond?

Ms Poole: Yes. Mr Speaker, I think the member for Kenora has quite rightly pointed out that the member for Yorkview will have an opportunity to speak in this Legislature. This debate has just begun. So while I understand his anxiety about speaking on pay equity, I do urge him to listen instead of criticising.

Mr Miclash: And learn something.

Ms Poole: And learn something.

Mr Miclash: Right. As a former school teacher, he should listen. He's got two minutes to respond later.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Ms Poole: As I was saying before some of the rabble got restless over there, it is very important that we look at costs, and either one of two things is true: Either the government does not know what the costs are, which means they haven't done their homework, or, secondly, they know what the costs are but they're not telling anybody because, first of all, some successive government is going to end up paying the tab and, secondly, they want to sneak this particular legislation through before people find out what it costs.

What the Liberal caucus had proposed as an alternative to the proxy method was a wage enhancement scheme, and there are some who do not believe that the wage enhancement scheme is a way to go because they say, "This is a justice issue, this is an equity issue and it should be through pay equity legislation."

But I reject that particular approach, because I think what's important is the bottom line. The bottom line is, I read out to the Legislature earlier, much earlier in fact, a list of those women who were going to benefit from pay equity legislation, and isn't the bottom line that we want to ensure that those women have reasonable wages? Those are the women who are among the 70% of women in Ontario who are paid less than $30,000 a year, and we're talking full-time employment here. We aren't talking part-time statistics. Shouldn't that be our focus?

So the bottom line is, if you can achieve the same thing but you can achieve it with the government being able to control its expenditures, you can achieve it without the complexity and the bureaucracy engendered by the proxy method, if you can do it without that bureaucracy, then why do we say, "No, we won't do it by wage enhancement, it has to be proxy," a cumbersome method, and in fact the method chosen by this government has not been supported by women's groups.

Women's groups have said that, first of all, they don't like the language, and secondly, the proxy method chosen by the government, what they didn't like -- and these are people who would have supported a proxy method, but they don't like the fact that they were female-to-female job comparisons. They said this went against the spirit of pay equity, which is that female jobs were to be compared with male jobs.

Mr Speaker, the parliamentary assistant is shaking her head, but I'll tell you, I quoted from the actual presenters who came forward and said they didn't like the way the government was going about the proxy method, and these were supporters of proxy as a concept but they felt that the plan wasn't what they wanted.

Then you have a whole range of people who don't believe that proxy is the answer, and I happen to be one of them. One of the reasons that our government said in 1990 that we would extend the proportional method of comparison was because we believed it could work. We believed it could work without going to compare with another establishment. It can certainly work without the great complexity that the proxy method engenders.

So what we have here is legislation that honestly there was not one group that came and said, "This is what we want," even friends of the government. They asked and they pleaded for amendments, and those amendments weren't forthcoming.

1700

I am a person who very much believes in pay equity. If the government had amended this legislation, if it had done as the groups asked, if it had done as our caucus asked, then I would have urged our caucus, notwithstanding the criticism from those who say that now is not the time for pay equity, to stand on third reading and support the legislation.

But it is not good legislation, and it is underhanded legislation, and it is a shell game. I can't see how members in this Legislature can stand and in good conscience support a piece of pay equity legislation which takes away existing rights. It's not a piece of legislation which says: "Well, we are in economic constraint right now. Therefore, we will phase in and we will extend pay equity to women who don't have it right now, but we'll phase it in." That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about areas in which it actually takes away existing rights. It's a step backward; it's an erosion of those rights.

It is not too late for this government to say that it will amend its legislation. It is not too late for this government to admit that it hadn't done its homework and it hadn't analysed the costs. It's not too late for them to come to this Legislature and say that they will change it.

So all I will say in conclusion is that I cannot support Bill 102. I think it is a betrayal of the women of this province. I think it is underhanded and that it takes away gains which we, as women, had been assured that we had in the 1987 legislation. I will not be supporting Bill 102 on third reading.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Hamilton West.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister without Portfolio in Economic Development and Trade): I've listened very carefully to the member for Eglinton and her remarks. I appreciated the fact that she certainly called attention to the fundamental issue this piece of legislation addresses, namely the inequity that exists in compensation for women, notwithstanding existing legislation, and the need to extend further equity provisions in order to assure the women in a number of sectors untouched by existing legislation that they will in fact have pay of equal measure for work of equal value. That is the fundamental principle of this bill.

I certainly remember well when we initiated this whole debate back in 1985, when we entered into the contract with the Liberal government to move in the direction of pay equity, but I also remember, and we appreciated the fact, that the government of that time accepted that proposition. But I remember the battle that we had to move the then Liberal government from an application of pay equity purely and simply in the public sector and to get them to move it into the private sector. There was a great reluctance to incorporate a whole range of women's employment into pay equity in the first instance. So the speaker, from time to time in her remarks, has perhaps moved a little bit too grandly in appropriating all of that territory for her own government at that time.

I would just say, because it would take me 90 minutes to respond to a 90-minute address in all of its particulars, for example, I think the member is confusing wage enhancement with a proper solution to the proxy issue. The wage enhancement matter is pretty much met by our down payment approach to the issue. She's certainly mistaken in saying that child care workers don't start pay equity until 1995; I think I noted correctly. That is incorrect. The latest they will start is January 1, 1994, with proxy, and it is true that there will be no deadline on proxy. It is a complicated application, and it will be in place as time passes.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member's time has elapsed. Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I just rise to commend the member for Eglinton on a fine presentation on a very, very difficult issue. She has canvassed succinctly the variety of opinions that came before the committee. In my experience with the member for Eglinton, she always does her homework. I think anyone who has spent the 90 minutes listening to Ms Poole's characterization of the bill would know that this is a member that has done an excellent job in looking out for the interests of the people of Ontario.

I would suggest, though, that as we look at this issue, which is essentially a compensation issue, we have to look at it in the relevance of our times, in the relevance of a social contract that is being discussed. I want to talk about what that social contract is likely to do; I know it's doing it in my riding right this moment.

We are having the effect that many women are losing their jobs. It doesn't have anything to do with this bill, but this government is laying off more women that any government ever could consider. So in the context of our times, when we're talking about fair methods of compensation, we also have to consider that this government has chosen, as a matter of course, to put women out of work, and I find that very, very distressing.

I also want to just quickly bring to the attention of the House again the fact that this government has chosen, in my constituency, to close down a school for RNAs, the majority of whom are women. They will not be able to get a job in a community where unemployment is at 60% or 70%, and this government has refused to retrain them.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member. Further questions and/or comments.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I would like to say that I listened carefully, as others in the House did, and I found the presentation by the member for Eglinton rather confusing. On the one hand she was talking about the private sector having great difficulty in meeting our pay equity requirements, and then on the other hand she condemned the government for not moving aggressively enough. It's one thing or the other. I'm really confused by it being both at the same time.

Another thing I'd like to mention is that in 1987 the then Liberal government did indeed bring in legislation, but that legislation only talked about job-to-job comparisons, and it simply did not reach enough of the women in our society who are very often among the lowest paid. That kind of comparison didn't work for them. So when we became the government, we launched into extensive consultation processes in order to bring in more women. That's why we introduced the proportional value methodology, which brought in 340,000 additional women, and then the proxy method, which brought in an additional 80,000 women, for a total of 420,000 more women benefiting from pay equity.

The member opposite is also in significant error regarding what has been requested by women's groups and coalitions. They wanted legislation and a method with rights to achieve equal pay. The Equal Pay Coalition specifically asked for clear comparisons with female jobs classes that had already been compared to male job rates, so that there wouldn't be this onerous and cumbersome process of going outside and finding more data. Thank you, Mr Speaker; I appreciated this opportunity.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Eglinton. I think she has raised very well many of the concerns that were raised during the presentations to the committee concerning this particular bill.

However, I would take exception to one fact. She pointed out the fact that the PC Party did not support, on second reading, this bill. It was because, although we support in principle pay equity, we were already very aware of many of the concerns that people in this province had concerning pay equity, particularly the proxy issue, and I would just like to correct that for the record. We do support the principle.

1710

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Eglinton has two minutes to respond.

Ms Poole: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the four members for their comments.

I'll start with the member for Hamilton West, who said that in fact I was in error when I said that the payments for pay equity for the proxy sector would not start being paid out till 1995. I was quoting from the Coalition for Better Child Care. It was the Coalition for Better Child Care that said this to me. They said it in public. They said that child care workers would not see the benefits of pay equity from Bill 102 till 1995. If the minister thinks he knows better than the coalition for better child care, that's fine, but that was its comment.

I would like to thank the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, although I think some might debate his words that I succinctly canvassed opinions on the committee, after a 90-minute speech, but I do thank him for his words.

The member for Middlesex admitted to being very confused, but I think the Liberal stand is extremely easy to comprehend. First of all, we do not like the fact that rights that were given under the Pay Equity Act, 1987, are eroded. Second, we do not support the proxy method but instead would support a series of wage enhancements. Third, when she says that women's groups were not critical of the proxy method, I would suggest she go back to Hansard and look, because they were very critical of the way in which this government went about the proxy method.

As for the member for Waterloo North, I am glad to hear that the Conservatives do support pay equity. I do not believe that's what I heard her leader say. It was certainly not what their speeches indicated on second reading, but I'm glad to hear that they do support pay equity.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for her participation in the debate. Further debate?

Mrs Witmer: I am pleased to participate today in the discussion regarding third reading of Bill 102, the Pay Equity Amendment Act, 1992.

Today we are dealing with the subject of the wage gap as we debate this bill and attempt to discuss the issue of reimbursing women with equal pay for work of equal value. I would just like to indicate again that the PC Party does support the principle of pay equity, but we have had some various, serious concerns about this legislation and we really do question whether indeed this bill does support that principle. I will make further comments regarding that in the future.

We have here before us, then, this Bill 102, which replaced Bill 168, which received first reading on December 18, 1991. The new bill, Bill 102, introduces all the same amendments as the previous bill, with a few additions and a few changes.

We now hear that because of the fiscal situation in the province, the province has decided that the deadline for achieving pay equity in the public sector has been moved from 1995 to 1998. We also learn in this bill that pay equity plans may be reopened to extend payouts over the new time frame. In addition, the effective date for proportional value adjustments was delayed one year, until January 1, 1993, and the proxy approach was delayed one year, until January 1, 1994.

Like the previous Bill 168, the amendments in Bill 102 will expand pay equity to cover an additional 420,000 Ontario women, again because of adding two new methods of comparison: the proportional value for employees in the public and private sectors and the proxy comparison for employees in the public sector only. That seems to be the method of comparison that has created a tremendous amount of concern for women throughout this province. We've certainly heard from the member for Eglinton about the many groups that have expressed that concern. I will be referring to some of those concerns myself later.

The one difference in this Bill 168 is the fact that the new bill explains the proxy comparison method in greater detail than it did in Bill 168.

However, I'd like to just now take a look at the debate over pay equity and the time and the costs, because there's certainly been some misleading information released by the government throughout the debate. I'd like to go back just to 1990.

In 1990, of course, we had our election campaign and all of us in this House, except for two, were involved in that. During the 1990 provincial election campaign, the NDP released its document entitled An Agenda for People, and we've often made reference to that Agenda for People, and the fact that so many parts of that document have been totally disregarded by the NDP government once it assumed office and decided to put that aside. We've discovered that the promises they made to people in this province have certainly not been followed through upon.

Anyway, within that document was a section dealing with pay equity and it said that the bill passed in 1987 excluded "hundreds of thousands of women." Of course, some of the people who were excluded, as we know, were the garment workers, and these are primarily individuals who work in the industry in the city of Toronto, and another large group that was excluded was the child care workers. Of course, these two groups are among the lowest-paid workers in this province today; they were in the past and they continue to be.

The NDP promised in the Agenda for People in 1990 that if elected it would pass legislation that covered all women. Now they say that the cost of eliminating the current exemptions is going to be $60 million.

They also said that the pay equity adjustments could be made without any cuts in services or an added burden on the local taxpayer. We have certainly learned that was erroneous information because there has been a very significant impact. There have been cuts in the services that are provided to people in our communities, and there has been an added burden placed on the local taxpayer throughout the province. I know that from my own community because many of the pay equity costs that have been introduced, whether it be at the school board level or at the municipal level, have been passed on to the local taxpayer.

Unfortunately, because of cuts in services, women who might have benefited from pay equity have instead lost their jobs, so there's no net gain whatsoever. It's unfortunate that since 1990 this government has not focused more of a priority upon job creation; not the government creating jobs but it should be creating an environment for job creation within this province, because we all know that it's the private sector and the small-business person who are going to create the jobs, and we just have not seen that happening at all.

Although we might see some gains being made within the pay equity sector, we've seen so many cutbacks and so much downloading to the municipalities and the universities and the school boards and the hospitals that, as a result, we've seen jobs cut, and unfortunately it's often women who are losing these jobs. The government is doing what it accused the federal government of doing. They've downloaded, and as a result, they've certainly contributed to the loss of jobs and particularly the loss of jobs for women.

As well this week, we learned that as the government grapples with reducing billions from its ballooning deficit, the hospitals have asked the province for more than $160 million to fund pay equity programs and other costs. The hospitals indicated this week that they need $53 million for retroactive payments to workers under pay equity, pay equity which is going to provide equal pay for work of equal value and augment the wages of jobs traditionally held by women.

They're going to need additional money, another $105 million, for the implementation of health and safety regulations. It's obvious they don't have the money. It's obvious that if they don't receive the money, there are going to be some further cuts within the hospital sector, and again, it's often the people who are earning the least whose jobs are eliminated. So certainly we've seen some losses for women in this province.

1720

I think the government also has to be very careful about promoting its pay equity bill, because it has backed down and the time line for implementation has been changed. As well, they have refused to recognize pay equity in the child care field. They were willing to recognize the need for pay equity within the non-profit sector, but there was absolutely no consideration for the child care worker who worked in the commercial centres.

At the same time, when I talk about equity and the need to promote women, the need for fairness, the need for equality to support women, we have a government which at the present time is doing everything possible to drive the private sector out of providing commercial day care. I want the government to know that it's primarily women who are the small business entrepreneurs who are losing their business. They are losing their livelihood, they are being driven out of business. I think the government needs to recognize that there's certainly no equity as they drive these women totally out of business in an attempt to put child care into the hands of the non-profit sector.

Let's go back now to the cost of pay equity. As I indicated before, during the 1990 provincial election campaign, the Agenda for People said the cost of eliminating current exemptions was probably going to be about $60 million. We know how very wrong that total was. Early in the week of October 15, 1990, the Pay Equity Commissioner said that the new government's election campaign promise to extend pay equity to all women would cost at least three times the $60 million that the NDP had estimated it would. It was reported that the former Liberal government had estimated that it would cost $90 million to $100 million for pay equity raises for day care workers and nursing home assistants alone.

In response to the above statement, the Premier said the government would go ahead with its plans for pay equity and that it had five years to meet its goal. We know that this is not happening: They are not proceeding; they have moved the goal to eight years instead of five years. We also know now that in the 1991 budget, the government announced that it would be contributing $1 billion annually towards pay equity adjustments in the broader public sector when pay equity is fully implemented. How far we have come from the original $60 million, which was touted as the cost in the Agenda for People, to a cost now of $1 billion annually when fully implemented.

Let's take a look at the two new methods that have been introduced in the area of comparison. First is the proportional value comparison. It's estimated that approximately 340,000 women are going to benefit. Proportional value is a way of indirectly comparing the female and the male job classes in the same organization. It looks at the relationship between the value of the work performed and the compensation received by the male job classes, and it applies the same principles and practices to compensating female job classes. There are several ways to make proportional value comparisons, and the wage line is the most common. All of the methods allow comparison, even when there are only a few male job classes.

The act is going to require that all female job classes in an establishment be compared with male job classes in the same establishment, using the present job-to-job comparison, the new proportional value approach or a combination of the two. There is a provision that existing pay equity plans which have been negotiated or developed, posted, and deemed approved under the act will not need to be reopened except to identify pay equity adjustments for any female job class for which no male comparator could be found using the job-to-job method.

There is very little concern, I should add, regarding the proportional value comparison, but let's take a look at the proxy comparison. There are fewer women who will benefit from this type of comparison; it's estimated that about 80,000 women will. While proportional value is a generally accepted compensation practice, proxy comparison is a new approach.

Where comparisons cannot be made in the public sector using job-to-job or proportional value comparison methods, proxy comparison can be used, and proxy comparison is going to allow an organization to find male comparators for its female jobs in outside organizations. Only organizations that are in the broader public sector will be able to use the proxy approach, and this is going to include the female-dominated sectors such as home care, nursing homes, corrections, child care and other female-dominated sectors, and these are the sectors which are expressing their concern about the proxy comparison method.

Under proxy comparison, one public sector organization, the seeking organization, borrows job content and adjustment information from another public sector organization, the proxy organization, where similar work is performed in order to determine the appropriate pay equity adjustments for its female job classes. The female job classes in the seeking organization will receive pay equity adjustments to the comparable male job rates in the proxy organization.

I'm going to explain a little later about some of the concerns that the public sector has concerning the proxy comparison and the impact it's going to have on its ability to provide services and to continue to operate in the manner in which it presently is able to do, given the very, very difficult economic situation that we find ourselves in in this province.

In addition, this bill, this Bill 102, is going to do a few other things. The circumstances in which the crown is considered to be the employer of an individual for purposes of the act: That provision is made effective December 18, 1991. It will also provide that when an employer sells the business, the purchaser assumes the employer's obligations under the act. It will also provide a mechanism for amending a pay equity plan at an establishment when circumstances change. It will enable review officers to issue compliance orders for failure to comply with the act. It will require employers in the private sector who employ more than nine and less than 100 employees or any employer who is directed to do so by the pay equity office to post in the employer's workplace a notice which sets out (1) the employer's obligation to establish and maintain compensation practices that provide for pay equity and (2) the manner in which an employee may file a complaint or objection under the act. Finally, the bill will also provide that the administrative and procedural changes are made to the powers of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal. The amendments will confirm the practice of holding pre-hearing conferences before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to encourage settlements.

1730

Ms Poole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): On a point of order -- the honourable member for Eglinton is not in her seat.

Ms Poole: The member for Waterloo North is giving a very comprehensive speech and there doesn't seem to be a quorum here to hear it. I think members of the House should be here to hear this speech.

The Acting Speaker: I want to remind the honourable member that she should be in her seat when she calls for a point of order.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, I am. This is my new seat.

The Acting Speaker: The Speaker apologizes. You have moved well up in the world.

Is there a quorum? A quorum is not present. Please call in the members.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Waterloo North can resume her participation in the debate.

Mrs Witmer: I had been reviewing the content of the legislation, Bill 102, the Pay Equity Amendment Act, which had replaced Bill 168, and I was mentioning the fact that this bill introduces all the same amendments as the previous bill and that there are a few changes and a few additions. I had reviewed the proportional value comparison and the proxy comparison, the additions that I talk about in this bill that are going to be provided, and the last change I want to mention is the fact that the administrative and procedural changes are made to the powers of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The amendments will confirm the practice of holding pre-hearing conferences before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to encourage settlements. The tribunal is also going to be able to enforce a written settlement that the parties have negotiated.

That then summarizes the content of Bill 102, and I'd like to now deal with the bill, some of the concerns that our party has regarding this legislation and certainly some of the concerns that have been expressed by people who made presentations, people who have written letters, because certainly not all of the people who had concerns about this legislation did have an opportunity to appear before the committee, for different reasons.

We're very concerned about the double standard that has been created. The double standard, of course, is the different time line for the private sector as opposed to the public sector. As a result, the PC caucus introduced an amendment for the small business community, wanting within the amendment to push back the first pay equity adjustment date for companies with 99 or fewer employees to the 1st day of January 1998. Currently, it is January 1, 1993.

In introducing this amendment, our caucus wanted to correct the double standard, since the bill extends the time lines for the government and its payment schedule in the area of pay equity but it doesn't take into consideration that the same economic hardships that have been created for the government have also been created for the business sector in this province, particularly the small business sector, which is struggling to keep on its feet and out of bankruptcy.

Unfortunately, our amendment to help the small business community and push back the first pay equity adjustment date for companies with 99 or fewer employees to the 1st day of January 1998, which currently is January 1, 1993, was defeated, and it was unfortunate, but the Liberals voted with the NDP against our amendment.

We're certainly concerned that the government continues to place demands on the private sector, demands that it refuses to place upon itself. It doesn't realize that certainly in doing what it's done there is a double standard.

We all know that the economic situation in this province has created a tremendous amount of hardship, hardship for people no matter whether they're in the country or they're in the city, whether they're non-profit or they're a member of the private sector. We know that bankruptcies continue to be much too common, and as a result we still continue to learn about workers who are losing their jobs.

Unfortunately, pay equity legislation has added another cost of doing business in this province, and unfortunately for some people it is the final blow, it is something they simply can't afford. They don't have the expertise, they don't have the dollars to hire the consultants, and it's just the final straw. The government recognized that it had to postpone the pay equity payments but it certainly didn't give that same consideration for the people who create the jobs in this province. So there is a double standard.

Also, one of our members, the member for Wellington, tabled a motion to get additional information on the costs associated with the implementation of pay equity because certainly the numbers have been in dispute. The motion, unfortunately, was defeated and again the NDP and the Liberals voted against our motion.

Certainly, the member for Wellington asked some very good questions, questions to which I believe the public is entitled to know the answers, and the questions were as follows:

"Would the Minister of Labour provide the committee members with the following information: The annual pay equity adjustment cost for the Ontario public service for the years 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993; the projected annual pay equity adjustment cost for the Ontario public service for the years 1994 to 1998?"

He also asked for the company name and total amount paid for any consulting services that the government acquired to assist with the development of pay equity plans for the Ontario public service.

Furthermore, he looked for the annual pay equity adjustment costs for the broader public sector, with a breakdown for school boards, for hospitals, for municipalities and for colleges and universities for the years 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993.

Certainly, having been the chairperson of a board of education that was involved in providing pay equity adjustment costs for the employees, I can tell you that those costs are quite substantial and it's certainly something that we need to get a handle on.

He asked for the exact dollar amount transferred from the government to school boards, hospitals, municipalities and colleges and universities to assist the broader public sector with pay equity adjustments.

He asked for the projected annual pay equity adjustment costs for the broader public sector with a breakdown for school boards, hospitals, municipalities and colleges and universities for the years 1994 to 1998; the estimated pay equity adjustment costs for private sector employers with 500 or more employees for 1991, 1992 and 1993; and, finally, the eighth question that was asked concerning the costs associated with the implementation of pay equity was the estimated pay equity adjustment costs for private sector employers with 100 to 499 employees for 1992 and 1993.

1740

Well, this is the answer that the member for Wellington received: Elaine Campbell, the research officer for the legislative research service, indicated that Ms Sulzenko is unaware of any actual total of the costs incurred in either the private or the public sectors. Totally unbelievable. In response to those eight questions associated with the costs in the implementation of pay equity, the government has absolutely no idea, nor does it seem interested in determining what the cost has been or what the cost will be. I find this totally irresponsible, that the government would not have any knowledge of the costs incurred so far with the implementation of pay equity, and it's certainly something that we would hope the government would continue to pursue, although the information doesn't appear to be available at the present time.

This bill also does not increase the current obligation of a private sector employer to devote at least 1% of the previous year's payroll to pay equity adjustment. There appears that there's no legislated completion date for achieving pay equity in the private sector. This certainly does create some uncertainty and a feeling of unease among those people who would be impacted.

We know that this new bill is going to allow the government three more years to achieve pay equity. It's not going to be achieved within the five years that the Premier promised in 1990. All of the existing requirements to implement the pay equity plans in the public sector by 1995, as outlined in the Pay Equity Act 1987, are extended to 1998. We're certainly aware of the fact that this broken promise by the Premier to extend the bill for three more years, from 1995 to 1998, has certainly created concern for the women in this province in the areas where they receive very low wages, wages in the figure of $15,000 to $25,000, and they certainly do believe strongly that the government has broken its commitment to women in this province in their attempts to achieve pay equity.

Let's get back to the cost. I've indicated to you that the government is unwilling or unable to provide any costs associated with the implementation of pay equity. I also mentioned previously that the 1991 budget announced that the government is going to contribute $1 billion annually towards pay equity adjustments in the broader public sector when it is fully implemented. Obviously, that was a figure that was put forward by this present government -- 1991.

When the government talks about the $1 billion that it's going to need to contribute annually towards pay equity adjustments, that $1 billion includes the following. There was going to be $120 million in annualized funding, starting in 1990 and 1991, that was spent on job-to-job comparison. There's $175 million which still remains to be spent on job-to-job comparison. There is $400 million that's going to be spent on proportional value at maturity and there's going to be $285 million that's going to be spent on proxy comparison at maturity. That then is how the government has added up the numbers, to reach a total of $1 billion, which is going to be necessary for it to contribute annually towards pay equity adjustments in the broader public sector when it is fully implemented.

Let's now take a look at the cost of Bill 102, Bill 102 being the pay equity bill that we're presently dealing with.

It has been anticipated it's going to cost $685 million. Included in the 1992 budget was a commitment to spend $285 million in 1992 and 1993 to implement pay equity in the broader public sector. Since Bill 102 postpones the introduction of the two methods of job comparison, the government has now revised that estimate to $240 million from $285 million.

As we know, this past year, in the spring on March 18, 1993, the Minister of Labour announced that he was going to be giving $50 million as a down payment to the women in the lowest-paid jobs in the broader public sector. He was going to give approximately 40,000 women up to $2,500 apiece.

This was done because when the government had indicated last fall that it was delaying pay equity to the more than 480,000 women who worked in the government-funded agencies and had primarily female staff, there had been tremendous concern and critics had complained long and hard that the government was fighting the recession on the backs of the women working in the vital services and really the women who were most in need.

Mr Mackenzie, the Labour minister, has promised to spend $50 million in a form of down payment, and the women who are going to be receiving that money are going to be women in 10 types of agencies. They are the women in women's shelters, in home support for seniors, homemaking programs, community health programs, drug treatment programs, public libraries, community information centres, corrections programs, immigrant services and native friendship centres. These are the women who typically earn between $15,000 to $25,000 a year, and it's only the women who work full-time who are going to get the full $2,500 raise; the part-time workers are going to get a fraction of that amount, depending on how many hours they put in.

But I have to tell you, you have to question the minister's priorities in making that announcement on March 18, because we now have the government entering into social contract talks in an attempt to pare down the broad public sector payroll. Although some of these women I have just mentioned may indeed receive $2,500 more per year, or less if they're part-time workers, many of the people, because of the social contract talks, because of the downloading on the municipalities, the universities, the hospitals and the school boards who might have benefited from pay equity, will find themselves without a job. That's the impact of this government's actions and certainly they, in the long term, are not going to benefit the women at the low end of the scale.

I'd like to go back to the discussion regarding the double standard, because that's an issue that certainly is of tremendous concern for us. As I indicated before, this bill doesn't affect the time line for the private sector implementation of pay equity, and private sector companies are required to begin making pay equity adjustments according to the following schedule: If your company was 500 or more, you had to make your first pay equity adjustment on January 1, 1991; if you had a company with 100 to 499 employees, you made your first payment January 1, 1992; if you had 50 to 99 employees, you made your first payment January 1, 1993, and if you have 10 to 49 employees, you will make your first payment January 1, 1994.

1750

Again I remind the government, you have postponed the implementation of pay equity for the public sector because of the recession and the economic factors. You should also remember that the business community, industry, everyone in this province has been devastated by the recession. In fact they've been hard hit as well by your government as you continue to increase taxes, and we have the promise of $2 billion more when the budget is released next week. Even so, you have not made any changes to the pay equity obligations for the private sector. So indeed there certainly is a double standard.

The expenditure control plan which this government released on April 23, 1993, indicated that the extension of the time frame for the implementation of pay equity was going to save the government $340 million in fiscal 1993 and 1994. The proportional value amendments will require employers to reopen their plans. Hence, you're going to do even more damage to the private sector because you're going to be increasing their costs this year, 1993. You've totally ignored the impact of the recession for the private sector.

Bill 169 introduces amendments to ensure that the government can keep control of its payroll costs by preventing a tribunal or court from finding that employees are public or crown employees unless they have been expressly appointed by the crown, yet Bill 102 is going to expand private sector payroll costs.

Your 1991 budget stated that the government will contribute $1 billion annually towards pay equity adjustments in the broader public sector when it is fully implemented. The NDP cannot currently afford this program -- it's obvious -- but the assumption it is making is that the next government -- and it becomes apparent that there will be a change in the next election -- will have the resources to implement the changes.

The government began making pay equity adjustments for government employees in 1990 and yet today the women who are among the lowest paid in the labour force, the women in the day care centres who look after the children in this province, the women who work in the youth hostels, in the mental health centres and the battered women's shelters are going to have their initial pay equity adjustments moved forward another year. Yes, we certainly do have within this government a double standard.

I'd like to now draw the attention of the Speaker to the reaction that we've had in the committee and in the form of letters and verbal communications regarding Bill 102. There has been a tremendous amount of concern expressed.

The first letter that I would like to read is from the YWCA of Kitchener-Waterloo. This was dated February 15, 1993. It was addressed to the Honourable Bob Mackenzie, Minister of Labour, re the pay equity amendment bill.

"The Kitchener-Waterloo YWCA read with interest about the new bill which you introduced to amend the Pay Equity Act of 1987. As a member of one of the oldest and largest women's organizations in Canada, and indeed in the world, full recognition of women's contributions to society has been one of our major issues for advocacy and change.

"Pay equity for work of equal value is an important vehicle to bring about the larger goal of equality in law, education, economy and the sociopolitical leadership. This very laudable goal has unfortunately" -- and this I would ask the government to listen to -- "led to conditions in the charitable service sector which work against the very same women it was designed to help. Already struggling hard to deal with the economic recession and government cutbacks, the additional financial burden of pay equity proves to be too heavy to bear for many service agencies, resulting in layoffs and service cuts." I referred to those layoffs and those service cuts before.

"In our case, the cost of pay equity and other employment-related legislation is creating an unacceptably high deficit which is threatening safe and secure emergency housing to the most vulnerable women and children, at a time when the need and the demand for service is higher than ever."

I can assure the Speaker that the YWCA of Kitchener-Waterloo does an outstanding job of providing a very safe and secure environment for the most vulnerable in our community, the women and the children who need emergency housing. I can assure the Speaker that the need and the demand for that service, as a result of the economic recession, is higher than ever before. Yet they are struggling, and one of the factors that is providing an additional financial burden for the YWCA is the cost of pay equity and the fact that it's going to result in layoffs and service cuts.

The writer goes on to say, "For these reasons, we strongly support your government's proposal to extend the implementation period of pay equity to 1998," in order that they don't have to reduce their service, in order that they don't have to lay off staff.

Now, the final paragraph says:

"Before implementing pay equity by proxy comparison, we also urge you to examine the effect of pay equity upon the internal equity within a place of employment. For example, by adjusting one or more female-dominated positions to a male-dominated comparator position that may be compensated at an inflated wage or salary, the equity among many or all positions may be disturbed significantly, thus bringing about conditions which are contrary to the intention of the act."

It was brought to our attention by the member for Eglinton that other sectors have very similar concerns about proxy comparison. The nurses have a concern. The Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses: "There's a concern that the cost might be greater than the benefit and that if you bring about these conditions it could be contrary to the intention of the act."

This is a letter that I received from the YWCA of Kitchener-Waterloo, a letter that was sent to the Minister of Labour, a letter that was sent to my colleague the Honourable Marion Boyd, minister responsible for women's issues, and also to some other of my colleagues here in this House. Certainly they have expressed very well the concerns that have been expressed by hundreds of people throughout this province about the implementation of pay equity: the fact that it can lead to layoffs, it can lead to service cuts and indeed the very people we're trying to help are the ones that are going to be laid off and suffer from the service cuts.

The next interest group reaction that I would like to deal with at this time is from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and obviously they have some concerns which, although not similar to the YWCA of Kitchener-Waterloo, are extremely important and need to be expressed.

The Acting Speaker: It now being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning, Thursday, May 13, at 10 o'clock in the morning.

The House adjourned at 1800.

May 12, 1993

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

PORTUGUESE IMMIGRATION

RYERSON POLYTECHNICAL INSTITUTE

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN

CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND

VOLUNTEER AWARDS

PRESERVE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBOURHOODS SOCIETY

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

VISITOR

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

LABOUR RELATIONS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

GAMBLING

TOURISM INDUSTRY

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

NORTHERN ONTARIO HEALTH SERVICES

DRIVERS' LICENCES

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

PETITIONS

GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

GAMBLING

HOSPITAL FINANCING

GAMBLING

DRIVERS' LICENCES

SPEED LIMITS

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES INFRACTIONS PROVINCIALES

WRONGFUL DISMISSAL RIGHTS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES DROITS DES PERSONNES VICTIMES D'UN RENVOI INJUSTIFIÉ

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES AUX MUNICIPALITÉS

PAY EQUITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉQUITÉ SALARIALE