PAY EQUITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉQUITÉ SALARIALE
Report continued from volume A.
1740
MEETINGS OF THE HOUSE
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Further debate, the member for Oakville South.
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Is that questions or comments or full debate?
The Deputy Speaker: No, it's not questions or comments. It's debate.
Mr Carr: Okay, good. Settle back, folks, I have a few things I'd like to say.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): No questions or comments?
Mr Carr: You can go to dinner now, Chris.
I think most of the members of this Legislature would probably be willing to sit had we really come up with some initiatives over the last little while, but since I've been here there really have been no new initiatives.
I think all of us in this Legislature have come in here wanting to do a good job for our constituents. I was one of those people who ran in September 1990. Because I was so upset and discouraged with what was happening, I decided to get involved. I think many of the members would be prepared to sit around 24 hours a day, seven days a week, if they really felt they were making an impact on what was happening, but as I sit here day after day and look at the legislation, I'm afraid I am somewhat discouraged, because I don't believe we are making very much of an impact.
When I look at the legislation that's going to be coming forward over the next little while that we'll be debating when we extend the hours, there isn't anything in there that is relevant to the people of my riding.
We are in an economic crisis. We are now getting, myself personally, about 80 calls a day from people who are upset with what is happening in the province of Ontario. That's just my constituency office; I get a few more here at Queen's Park. I want to tell you how depressing it is, Mr Speaker, because we've got people who are saying that they're going to leave the province. I had three calls last week from people who are so upset, they called, "Mr Carr, we just wanted to let you know we're leaving because of the high taxation and the many problems."
I think many people would feel it would be worthwhile extending -- and I will say right off the bat to all the members I'm in favour of extending the amount of time, notwithstanding the fact that what we're doing here really isn't affecting the average person out in my constituency. Those people would say that you should be staying and dealing with the legislation, and I think a lot of them probably would postpone their plans to move to other jurisdictions, whether it's Quebec or Manitoba or the United States, if they honestly, truly thought there was going to be something done and there was some hope and some opportunity.
I must say, with this government there is not. People are counting down the days till this government can be defeated. I personally think, with some of the initiatives that are on the order paper now -- good speech, I say to the member for St Catharines. I had planned to get up and say that. I thought it was actually two minutes when I got up, and I appreciate his input, as he's speaking with the people at Hansard and trying to organize. I thought he brought some very excellent points.
But most of these people, if they honestly, truly believed that we were going to be effecting some change, I think would see some hope and opportunity. But as I look at the order paper and what we're going to be dealing with, very little is going to change and bring hope and opportunity to the people who are out there.
I want to talk a little bit about some of the issues that I wish we were addressing. Had we been dealing with bills such as crime and community safety, I think I probably would have been more willing to stay and debate, but there's nothing on that issue. It's gone so far that our caucus, the PC caucus, has had to initiate our own task force. Since I've been here, in the two and a half years there's been very little talk about crime -- and I'll get into some of the statistics in a minute -- even though that's a number one problem. My friend from Don Mills -- I campaigned with him -- will know very well from the last by-election, one of the major issues is the issue of crime and community safety, and that's not being addressed.
We had to go so far as to set up our own task force on crime and community safety. It's our intention to hold a series of public hearings to deal with this issue. I wish we could as part of the debates be dealing with it here. We are not. It's our intention to hold some public hearings over the next little while to consult with the people of this province, the people who are feeling frustrated with the statistics on what's happening. There's public concern. That isn't being dealt with, I say to the members opposite, and I honestly, truly believe if we were sitting here debating on what to do on some of these important critical issues, people would feel better about what we're doing.
So on the one hand I say that we all are interested in working hard and spending the amount of time that needs to be done here, but this House is not dealing with issues that are important to the people out there, like the people who are concerned about crime.
We aren't dealing with a lot of the issues like pornography: the Ontario Film Review Board audit and video stores. My friend the member for Mississauga South has brought this up continually, day after day, in question period. I guess by extending the sittings we're going to get a good chance to deal with the government and put more pressure on it as we sit here, but there's no legislation coming in that's dealing with that, no bills that are going to assist the people who are concerned about that.
There's no bill on the victims' bill of rights. My friend and colleague the member for Burlington South has a bill before the justice committee. This is his third go-round for the issue of a victims' bills of rights. Most people would say we should be here in the Legislature dealing with that very fundamental bill, but we are not, and hopefully over the next little while, if we extend the sittings as a result of this motion, we will deal with that very important issue.
This weekend, for example, I'm going to be going to a rally in the Burlington portion of my riding that will be attended by people like Mrs de Villiers, who had the tragedy of losing her daughter, who has spoken out a great deal on the victims' bill of rights and what should be done, and I say to the members opposite, we are not dealing with any of the issues that are going to really create a better Ontario when you look at the bills that will be coming up.
On the same issue, the same thing of law and order, I introduced a petition with about 720 names. I think it's probably the biggest petition that I have introduced into this Legislature: 720 names. It was dealing with Bill 114, which I guess now will be changed, introduced by my colleague from York Mills. That will give the people -- and they've spoken loud and clear in my riding about that issue. These people want legislation passed to require persons convicted of sexual offences involving a child under the age of 14 to make a report to police upon release and to grant the public the power to disseminate this information in the register. I think that's a very important piece of legislation that should be pushed forward. I think, as we debate this motion to extend, most people would say that we are doing something worthwhile if we were debating that.
I had the opportunity in my past Solicitor General's critic position to spend some time down at police headquarters in Metro. I was down in the sexual assault unit and when I went in there, they have high technology where they show you a computer and they said to me, "Pick out a street," and I picked out a street in Metro Toronto, and they can pull up where there are known sex offenders in the city of Toronto. In a lot of cases they know that those people are going to be repeat offenders and it's just a case of sitting and waiting till they catch them. Most people out there are saying that we cannot afford any longer to have a justice system which is failing the people of this province. So I would hope, as we debate this motion to extend the sittings, to look at bills like 114, which now I guess has been changed -- that was the original one before we took time off -- so that we can get some legislation in here that people will say is going to improve their standard of living and their quality of life. As I look at the notices in the order paper, there is nothing in there that's going to do that.
I'm interested in dealing with some of the other concerns. My friend from Leeds-Grenville was pleased that his anti-drug bill was passed in this Legislature in the private member's hour, even though I guess there were some members of the NDP, about 25 of them, who voted against it. This bill would provide two methods by which drug sellers could be kicked out of their rental units, and quite frankly, I can't see why anybody would object to that.
In my former critic's position I also had an opportunity to go out with the Halton undercover drug squad and the Metro police up in 31 Division, and I was astonished by the incidence of drug abuse and drug dealing. In one of the units we went up to, we pulled up in the police car and the sergeant said, "Watch this," and the people were dealing drugs and they waited till we came up and they were so blatant they wouldn't even go in the apartment till we got up very close. So I think most people would say that if we were dealing with some of the legislation like Mr Runciman's bill it would be worthwhile sitting. As I look at the Orders and Notices, there isn't anything that's going to deal with the drug problem here in this province.
Some of the other issues, which I guess are being addressed by the deputy ministers now, that I've had calls on, that aren't going to be dealt with are things like the situation with the people getting HIV because of tainted blood. Since almost my election I presented a petition which called on the government to share the responsibility with those haemophiliacs who have contracted AIDS through the contaminated blood. The system works very, very slowly. It's been two and a half years and I guess even as we speak they're in Ottawa dealing with this issue.
Some of the other provinces, the province of Nova Scotia and Quebec, have just recently agreed to compensate victims, but there's nothing in the province of Ontario. So it's been a very frustrating two and a half years. Some of the people have died and because of their disease some of them are unable to get insurance for their families. So there are some things that we do here that I think could affect people that are not happening, and quite frankly, when I look at what is going on with this Legislature, we aren't dealing with some of those real issues.
1750
The same with the chronic fatigue and immune deficiency syndrome. I have some friends who asked me to introduce a petition on that. I've had some discussions with the minister, but there has been no action in that regard. Of course, for those who don't know, this is a chronic and debilitating disease currently affecting, I guess, about two million adults and children in North America. The diagnosis is difficult and the direct costs to our health care system are enormous because these people are flooding our beds in the entire health care system.
There's a drain on social services and the tax revenue is severely being affected because people cannot work. That question isn't being addressed. Had that come before the Legislature, and if we were debating some of those issues, I think people would say it's worthwhile debating around the clock and sitting longer, but quite frankly we're are not.
We need to establish a task force, I believe, on this problem of chronic fatigue and immune deficiency syndrome. That task force would be able to study the most appropriate methods of providing information and care to patients with the disease in their families. I say to the Minister of Health, we will be continuing to push on that particular vein.
There's a little girl in my riding, eight years old, similar in age to my family, who's affected with this disease. She has great difficulty coping with school, friends and physical activities, all things children of that age should be doing, and many of the teachers don't fully understand the problems that are being created and what is being created by this disease.
Since I have been here, we've been unable to effect any change in that area as well.
I'm interested in some of the other things we do here. As members will know, we had a committee on NAFTA. We didn't spend a great deal of time on things like chronic fatigue syndrome, but we spent a lot of time on NAFTA. We had a committee that went around and spent, I guess, about $300,000. I kiddingly called it a day care for second-rate cabinet ministers.
I hope some of the cabinet ministers won't be offended, but quite frankly when I look and see all the problems we have here, and none of the important issues getting debated, none of the reported bills brought forward that are going to protect people in this province -- to watch what went on with that particular committee, which was nothing more than a political sham of spending about $300,000 at a time when we're laying off nurses and doctors and teachers.
The Premier already said what their position is: They're opposed to NAFTA. On the one hand, he says, as he said today, he wants to open up trade to the United States and we have provincial trade barriers that aren't being attacked by this government, something it can do something about.
When I look and see the limited resources we have for legislative committees and the limited resources and debating time here, having spent $300,000 to go around the province and debate something where the Premier had already told us beforehand, quite frankly, was a complete waste.
I would like to get a great deal of debate on the budget in here. I think that's become the most important issue and I'll get into some more of the details later, but if we were extending the sittings to take a look at that budget -- one of the things that continually amaze me is how long we spend debating bills previously put before this Legislature. We're still just getting past the previous budget and I guess people wonder why we're a little cynical when we see the debates on bills where supposedly in this House the debaters try to change the government's position. In most cases, the taxes are not only being collected; they've been spent and spent again by the time we get around to debating it.
If we were looking at the budget bills that I think all members would like to have a debate on, then I think most people would be saying we are doing something that is constructive and helpful. We are not and I say to the House leader, who's not here, that I hope at some point in time, as part of the extended sittings, we will all get a chance to take a look at the budget because there is a tremendous amount of fear and anxiety out there with what's happening with the tax increases and with the spending. As a part of all this, I hope we will get an opportunity to do that.
I will support any motion that will allow us to stay longer, if in fact we are going to get a chance. As we all know, we're being -- I don't want to use the word "blackmailed" because that probably wouldn't be appropriate, but we are being -- I don't even know the words to describe it -- encouraged that if we cut off debate in other areas we can have our budget debate.
Unfortunately, there are so many areas so critical to this problem. There are so many problems. There are many of us who were elected last time who believe that if we really truly give you some good input, we may improve some of the bills. Number one, I don't believe a lot of the bills that we are talking about here are relevant, are going to really affect the average person who's feeling cynical, discouraged and left out, but number two, I'm also concerned that our voice isn't being heard.
I'm concerned we aren't dealing with some of the issues. I've had a great deal of calls and concerns over day care and home care workers who are being driven out of business, over the private sector day care workers. A lot of people believe that in this province if you do something for a profit it's a crime. Quite frankly, the ironic thing is that whether it's non-profit housing or day care, in most cases the private sector is able to do the job faster, better, cheaper and at no expense to the taxpayers.
One of the disconcerting things to us is that some of the pieces of legislation that is so important, like the legislation which basically, for want of a better word, is driving the private sector out of day care, was done with no debate in here. As we all know, the people were on the front lawns of the Legislature, yelling and screaming about that particular piece of legislation. We never had an opportunity in here to discuss it, to debate it and to deal with it because it was done outside.
I believe those people are suffering, and their families, and most of them are working women. I believe they can contribute and they're being pushed out without any debate in here, and that's one of the frustrating parts that I've got with our whole system.
I'm also concerned about the anti-business climate here in Ontario. I took our critic's position as the critic for Industry, Trade and Technology and now the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade for two reasons: one, because of my background in business, and two, because I believed it used be a sort of good-time ministry where you got a chance to go around and meet people and discuss issues.
I enjoy talking about the issues that are out there -- a big reader of management and the different management practices -- but I have never been so discouraged as going out and meeting with the chambers of commerce and businesses, with the feeling that is out there right now on what's happening in this province.
I think it's even worse than average people realize. The discouraged people out there are saying, if they were to look at these Orders and Notices, and small businesses are saying, "If you extend the sittings and you're going to be here, what are you going to produce?" Most of the things we're going to produce will inhibit business in this province. I honestly, truly believe that with a lot of the initiatives, if we did nothing, if we took the next two years off till the next election, it would be better for the province. I'm discouraged that there isn't legislation that's going to help, and I'm discouraged about some of the legislation that's going to hurt.
There's a tremendous feeling of anxiety out there among our youth who are now looking for jobs, even as we speak. Many people are finding it a difficult time to find a job. They're trying to be able to compete, to be able to afford their education. Their fees are going up dramatically, and yet they're finding a difficult time finding a job.
At the same time, we're saying to people that the only way to get jobs long term is to have an education, and I'll speak on education in a little more detail in a minute, because I see the education role, and I know the minister is here. We have many concerns, so many problems, and essentially what this government has done is said, "We'll put it off to the now famous royal commission and it'll report by the time the next election rolls around." A lot of people are saying we need help now.
There are many areas and many concerns in housing. We have a situation where waiting lists are now getting longer in non-profit housing and yet there are no initiatives. The only good thing about extending the sittings, as part of this motion, is that we're going to be able to continually hammer the Minister of Housing on that issue.
I have, looking in front of me here now, the auditor's report, which looked at non-profit housing. It has to be one of the most overwhelming condemnations of non-profit housing ever given. I highlighted some of the points and I want to read a couple of the points out here because I guess one of the good things about this motion is that we'll get an opportunity to continue to stay on the Minister of Housing on this very important issue.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Probably another month.
Mr Carr: Probably another month, the member says.
The total capital cost of the 46,000 provincial units is projected to be $5 billion. Annual operating subsidies will work out to be well over $1 billion. I think I should say that this is not me speaking; it's the auditor in his report. The annual report says that the subsidies will approach $1 billion by 1995, when all 81,600 units are to be completed and operating. In addition, the most recent budget announced a further 20,000 units, at an estimated annual operating subsidy of $200 million upon completion.
1800
I want to read the very critical part of what they said, because of course none of this came through in any bills, any legislation. If we were here to be able to stand up to the minister and debate a bill on this, it would be one thing, but none of this came through any bills. It was simply done by a government that initiated it. I want to read parts of that report.
It said, "The review and approval of over 70,000 assisted housing units in five years was a significant and costly undertaking." That, I think, is a bit of an understatement. "The task was made even more costly by pressures to meet inflexible annual deadlines." The sad part about that is the inflexible deadlines were set by politicians who were screaming as a result of political pressure; not doing what's right, not doing what is in the best interests of, first of all, the people on the waiting lists, or the taxpayers, but they were driven by political deadlines.
This is very important. At a time when we're talking about laying off nurses, doctors, teachers, rolling back salaries, I want to read something very important. It says, "Consequently, the controls in place to ensure projects were built only where needed and at a competitive cost were less than satisfactory."
I want to read that again: "Consequently, the controls in place to ensure projects were built only where needed and at a competitive cost were less than satisfactory."
Basically what that says -- and it's not me saying it; it's the auditor -- is there are no controls in place. They're rubber-stamping them. The maximum unit price, which was supposed to be the maximum unit price, became the average unit price, and the payment to the taxpayer is, quite frankly, going to be outrageous.
"Need and demand studies were not thorough, so a number of projects were allotted to communities with high vacancy rates and little demand for market rent units. Filling vacant market rent units with rent-geared-to-income tenants raised future subsidies over projections and may have jeopardized the program's income integration objectives." That's what the auditor is saying about this housing program that is costing us not millions but billions.
"Despite a significant decline in land prices," and we all know that in the province of Ontario there's been a significant decline in prices and construction costs after 1989, "the costs of projects approved for going ahead between 1990-91 continue to increase, particularly in the central region." That's very important, because when I talk to the people at Halton non-profit housing about this report, they say, "Yes, that's bad, and there are many problems, but not in our area." All the non-profit housing in this province say it's all somebody else's fault. They're doing okay; it's all somebody else's fault.
They go on to say, "In the absence of competitive procurement practices, the allowable maximum unit price became a target for developers rather than a ceiling, adding to development costs." It's ironic that this government spent, I think, the --
Interjection.
Mr Carr: "I love Guelph." Yes, we all do, particularly during the hockey season when we go up there to play them. For the folks back home who are wondering what is happening, the member for Guelph just walked by with a bag that said, "I love Guelph," and we all do. I'll be up there again, probably, next winter with the hockey team.
So what happened is, this government, in the last little while, spent a great deal of time dealing with developers under the previous government and saying it was a terrible piece of work, what was happening with developers, and yet their own auditor's report is overwhelmingly condemning this government and its non-profit housing.
It says, "The ministry controls were less than satisfactory to ensure the completed non-profit housing projects were managed in a cost-effective manner and were in compliance with the program's objectives and guidelines." That's very serious. When you read it, basically they're saying the housing projects were not managed in a cost-effective manner and were not in compliance with the program's objectives and guidelines. This is coming from an auditor who looked at it and said, "We are doing a terrible job in terms of the actual operations."
Most of these non-profit housing units were started by the previous government, but I think even now, because of the continual pressure we put on this government, even the Liberals now admit that the program has been a failure. I think yesterday, and I don't want to put words in her mouth, the leader of the Liberal Party in fact even said that she's not in favour of non-profit housing in the province of Ontario until they get some of the controls in place. She may mean long-term. I don't want to put words in her mouth, but she said we should take a look at it, and I fully concur. We've been seeing this for two years. At a time when we're in a financial crisis, we need to take a look at it.
"Over 25% of the projects we reviewed lacked approved operating budgets, either because budgets and audited financial statement information had been filed late or because the ministry had not yet reviewed them. Several still had not been filed."
Here we are at a time when we say resources are scarce, we're laying off nurses, doctors, teachers, rolling back salaries, in a real financial crisis, and they're saying that the ministry hasn't even filed some of the controls that should be put in place. Over 25% of the projects lack the approved operating budgets. That's a very serious allegation in these tough economic times.
"Multiple waiting lists and inconsistent placement criteria and referral practices make it unlikely that those in need of affordable housing will be treated consistently, equitably and efficiently."
Again, that's the auditor speaking. I want to just briefly read that again.
"However, multiple waiting lists and inconsistent placement criteria and referral practices make it unlikely that those in need of affordable housing will be treated consistently, equitably and efficiently."
What that means is we're spending two, three and a half times what the private sector could to build this non-profit housing. It wouldn't be so bad if we were actually helping those in need. For those who want to take a look at it, because I know the members have the auditor's report, it's on page 126 of the auditor's report. Basically, they're saying the people in need aren't being serviced, and that's the worst part about this whole thing. The ones who need it, the ones who are on waiting lists, are not being serviced.
Rent supplements cost significantly less in government subsidies and address the affordability problems. They said that we should take a look at some of the rental subsidies. On page 127:
"In total, the average monthly carrying cost per rental unit is substantially greater than the rent received from both market rent and rent-geared-to-income tenants, resulting in an average annual subsidy per unit of about $12,500."
That works out to be $15,000 in Metro Toronto. By 1995, with over 81,000 units, the subsidies will approach $1 billion, and this doesn't include the cost of Ontario Housing operations, which totalled about $500 million in 1991.
It goes on to say that one result of the pressures on the ministry staff is that the needs analyses were not done. They basically put in place rental units, non-profit housing units, where there was a group that was prepared to do it, rather than looking at where there were waiting lists. Again, and I won't belabour the point, but this isn't me saying this, this is the auditor. An independent, objective look at non-profit housing.
It goes on to say:
"In fact, since 1988, the ministry did not require any need and demand studies for projects in communities with vacancy rates below 1%.
"Consequently, project selection often depended more on other selection criteria such as the availability of suitable land and the readiness of the sponsoring group to proceed."
What this means is that we are not building non-profit housing based on where the need is; we're building it based on what's easiest for the Ministry of Housing and for the consultants who are pushing it through.
"This was particularly evident in Metropolitan Toronto where, according to a ministry study, an 800-square-foot, two-bedroom apartment that cost $156,000 in 1989 could be built for less than $106,000 in 1991, including a 20% profit for the developer."
In other words, to say the least, we were blowing a tremendous amount of money in the province of Ontario; this at a time when we're facing many, many economic crises.
1810
I will just refer the members to the New Zealand report that was on W5. I have a copy of what was in that report. At a time when we have resource allocations, for us to be continuing with non-profit housing I think is a disgrace. I want to talk a little about what happened in New Zealand, because the same thing may potentially happen here. They basically reached a point where they couldn't borrow any more. I want to read a bit of that text, because at a time when we've got the auditor saying we are wasting money, I want to tell you the deep financial crisis we were in.
As to this motion to extend the sittings, I think most people would say, "If you're going to deal with these pressing problems, yes, maybe we should be going around the clock all summer." All members would be prepared to do that if they were actually contributing to the betterment of this province. They are not.
I want to read something out of that report. This is Eric Malling talking:
"Economists are predicting that some time in the next two years" -- he's talking about Canada -- "the Deputy Minister of Finance is going to walk into the cabinet, it doesn't matter whose cabinet, and announce that Canada's credit has run out. Now, in all that matters, our lives will change. Scaremongering? Well, Canada now has more foreign debt than any other developed country." We're getting down there with Mexico, Brazil, and their credit rating ran out just like ours.
It got so bad in New Zealand, in their particular case, that they couldn't even afford to keep the animals in the zoo. They actually, in the famous case that was shown on the TV show, had to shoot the baby hippo that was born because they couldn't afford to keep it.
I think it's important to remember that the Prime Minister of the day wasn't a Conservative Prime Minister, he was a Labour Prime Minister. I want to have the members opposite visualize this. They had a tradition of spending a great deal of money, and what happened is that a chap by the name of Richard Prebble, who was the assistant Finance minister -- I will read a brief excerpt: In came the Secretary of the Treasury and the governor of the Reserve Bank, and you start by saying, "Well, why have you stopped all foreign exchange dealings?" and they say, "Very simple, Minister. We have no foreign exchange," and the man says, "What?" That's exactly what happened. They were unable to borrow. The lenders were spooked and firms like, it says here, Merrill Lynch and the Salomon Brothers, reported that New Zealand bonds weren't selling; as simple as that.
That's why this whole question of what we are doing for our finances is so important, because apparently it was that TV show that spooked the Premier. But when you see it compared to what we are doing in Ontario, there is very grave concern out there. Basically, because they could no longer borrow, they called their embassies around the world and said: "Can you go to the banks in Canada, the Royal Banks and the CIBCs and so on, and attempt to borrow money on behalf of the government? Use your line of credit and send it back, because we're broke and the cheques are about to bounce."
The scary part is that they go on to say New Zealand's foreign debt was 40% of the gross national product. Canada's foreign debt today is about 44% of our gross domestic product, almost as bad; it's money from the rest of the world that we borrowed to keep up our standard of living. The total government debt of 62% of the gross national product pushed New Zealand over the edge, and that's why we are in the situation we are in today.
I'm going to talk a little about the finances in a moment, but I want to get back to the non-profit housing, because at a time when we're facing probably the most severe financial crisis in this province and indeed this country in many areas, we've got this notice of motion to debate. We don't have anything in there that's going to deal with the fundamental problems. We are having very little debate on how we're going to get out of non-profit housing, how we're going to get back to some fiscal responsibility.
I think most people would say that if we are going to continue down the road and be spending our time, we should at least be spending it wisely on things that are important; we are not. There is nothing in here that is going to deal with the fiscal crisis, unless we do get a chance to debate the budget, if the government honours us with the opportunity to debate the budget, which I see as a fundamental right and one of the things I was elected to do. Most of the things that people care about, the debt and the taxation issue, will not be dealt with.
I want to be very clear, and make no mistake about it: Ontario is in trouble. Our economy now is being battered by high taxation, high government spending, high unemployment and low productivity. Our social costs are soaring because of the soaring costs for health, education. Some of the issues of crime and poverty seem to be growing faster than we can respond to them. The problem, and I say this in a non-partisan way, is that we're overtaxing, we're overspending, we're overgoverning, we're overregulating, we're overlegislating, and this motion to extend doesn't talk about any of those things. There isn't one bill in here that's going to deal with any of those fundamental problems of overtaxation, overregulating, the overlegislating. As a matter of fact, I think, if anything, some of the legislation is going to increase it.
I sit here as a practical person asking: What should we be doing? How are we going to properly analyse the situation? How are we going to take corrective action? How can we implement solutions? How are we going to be able to sustain them? The problem is that in this notice of motion, the bills we are dealing with are not going to address any of the problems that are facing this province.
To put it in perspective, our taxation now is driving businesses out. Since 1985, people will know we've had three elections. We've now had three Premiers, four governments, and we're up to over 60 tax increases in the province of Ontario. Going way back to 1985, we had about a 10% tax advantage over Quebec and rated very competitive versus West Germany and Japan. Today we are one of the highest-taxed jurisdictions in all of North America. I met with some German bankers a while ago who said, "We have plenty of customers all over the world coming to take a look at moving into Ontario," but they take a look at the competitive tax structure, see a 20% tax disadvantage for Ontario versus Ohio and some of the surrounding states, and say, "Why would we put a plant or a facility or a manufacturing operation somewhere where our taxation is out of control and extremely high?"
This isn't just me saying this. I want to read a comment from Pat Palmer, who came before the finance and economic affairs committee. He's the president of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. He said, which I think summed it up better than anybody else:
"Never in the past half-century have business conditions in Ontario been as bad: record numbers of bankruptcies, chilling numbers of plant closures and layoffs.
"See our blood? No more taxes. Tax increases will only make the deficit position worse and subsequently put even more pressures on our social programs."
We spent about three weeks hearing from the people right across this province. Liz Barkley was in, OSSTF, Sid Ryan, all the unions were in, the business community was in, talking about our problems. One of the things they said we should not be doing is increasing taxes, and I think Mr Palmer said it better than anybody else during those hearings.
Yet what happened in this last budget, a budget which I hope is a part of the motion to extend the sittings so we'll be allowed to debate it? They imposed $2 billion in new tax increases.
The problem is that it isn't just the tax on corporations. I know the other side says, "We didn't increase the corporations tax." They said in opposition, as all NDP governments do, that they'd tax the rich and tax corporations. But as they found out when they got in, as you can see when you read the budget, the simple fact is that we only get 7% of our revenue from corporation taxes; you can increase them all you want, but you're not going to get any more revenue. But the problem is that when you increase taxes by $2 billion, as they did in the last budget, that takes it out of the hands of consumers, people who are afraid for their jobs right now, afraid of overtaxation or afraid to spend money; $2 billion more is going to scare them off even more at a time when we need more jobs.
We were very critical of that. I believe we need a government able to create a business and economic environment that will create jobs, and to do that we need to cut spending, we need to reduce the deficit and we need to cut taxes. As part of that solution, I prepared, along with my colleague the member for Carleton, who is our critic of Finance, about a 30-page report of some of the things we would like to see done. As we debate this motion to extend, I think that if we were here today debating some of the fundamental issues that are in here, people would feel that at least we're accomplishing something in getting the government on an agenda that's going to affect them. The number one issue is the economy, yet when you look at the bills that we're going to be debating with these extended sittings, there isn't anything in here that is going to improve people's standard of living or quality of life quickly.
Long-term they will, and I'll get into some of the OTAB debate -- that's a piece of legislation in the long term -- and I think education's very important. I spent a great deal of time, a lot of nights, putting together some of my conclusions about what should be done. I put 15 of my recommendations together.
1820
If we were debating bills dealing with some of these issues, most people out there would say: "Yes, we've got some constructive pieces of work before the Legislature, and it's going to affect me. Stay there, debate the bills, pass the bills, amend the bills, get them out to committee if you have to." But as I look at what's on the order paper and the bills this government wants, there isn't anything there that's going to improve their economic life.
I've put together some of the things I would like to see. First of all, I called for no tax increases, because I honestly, truly believe that the economy is fragile now. If we do increase taxes, we're only going to scare more people. This was tabled with the Premier and the Minister of Finance; they didn't listen. I don't think most people even realize how hard they're going to get hit until the middle of July when they open up that cheque and, boy, they're going to really know with the massive tax increases, and it's going to further scare off people who would be producing jobs. Whether it's buying a new fridge or stove or the kids a new pair of shoes, they're going to be scared off. There is very little economic activity and consumer spending because the tax increases are driving people away from spending.
In my report, I did call for the commercial concentration tax to be repealed. That was successful, so I tip my hat to the government, because that was penalizing businesses in Metro Toronto.
To prevent the flight of capital from Ontario, to maintain a positive investment environment and to encourage a return to profitability, I believe the government should have included in its 1993 budget a clear and definite statement that it will not, during its term of office, impose a wealth or estate tax or a corporate minimum tax. Even though they said, "We're going to tax the rich and we're going to tax corporations," the fact is that the bulk of our revenue in terms of taxes comes from the middle class. That's why they increased the massive surtax on the middle class, not because all of a sudden as socialists they believe the middle class should be taxed, but because that's the only area where they can get revenue. At the high end of the scale, if you increase the taxes on some of the rich people, they just move their term deposits to Japan or the United States; we lose the investment and there's no way of getting that revenue back.
It was going way back to February that I said we need to cut back on spending. I said we should freeze the budget at the 1992 level for this year. We should integrate a multi-year program, a spending freeze with the objective of balancing the operating account in three years, because I support the initiatives of cutting back. The government's too big, too large and it's grown too often.
As part of the strategy, the province should adopt a balanced-budget law, which would require a government to balance the budget at least once during its term of office. The scary part is that when this government came in, the first $10-billion deficit was considered to be such an outrage, and now it's ingrained. It's going to be $10 billion: We're struggling, fighting, talking about rolling back salaries, talking about laying off teachers, nurses, and that's only to keep the deficit to $10 billion.
I talked about the reduction in the civil service. I have been saying this since the 1990 election. I believe we could get back to the 1985 levels. It should be done through attrition, because what happens with immediate cuts is that departments one day have 20 people and all of a sudden have 15. The way I would like to see it done is to reduce the number of civil servants through attrition, so that if somebody is leaving, as they will over the next little while, they would have time to plan for those reductions, to get more efficient.
Anybody who believes it can't be done in the public sector is foolish, because it can. I've seen that in my own area in automotive, because Oakville has the Ford plant. They are now producing in Ontario -- not just Ford but all of the auto makers -- more cars with fewer people. We are more efficient --
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe, with this very important issue that's being debated, the government is maintaining a quorum.
The Deputy Speaker: 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 Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is now present. The member for Oakville South.
Mr Carr: I guess some of the members have just slipped out to grab a bite to eat and are certainly going to come back. They're probably watching on the TV, anyway.
I believe we can get back to 1985 levels very easily. I've talked a great deal about social assistance reform, because we will never, ever be able to tackle the problem of the deficit unless we deal with the incidence of social assistance, because we're now spending about $6.2 billion on social assistance; that's $6.2 billion, "b" as in "billion." We used to spend, in 1990, about $2 billion, so it's tripled since this government was elected, and there will never be any opportunity to control the deficit or control spending until we get a handle on social assistance.
So as part of my recommendations I put some things that I think should be done. I believe we should act on a lot of the things that were in the SARC report. That's the frustrating part about this. For so many of these issues you don't need to go out and invent new solutions; they're out there. The SARC report, which spent time and money going across this province, had many solutions we could implement that we are not. Some of it's the fault of governments changing and one government comes in and --
Mr Callahan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm really amazed that within a minute of the government being required to have a quorum in here, there is no longer a quorum.
The Deputy Speaker: Would you please verify if there is a quorum.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is now present. The member for Oakville South, you have the floor.
Mr Carr: We may have a few members having to whip in with indigestion. I understand they're having a little chicken, and they have to keep running in for the quorum calls; that's unfortunate. I hope they won't get sick. I think there's a little bit of chicken on your tie.
Anyway, getting back to the serious problem of the SARC report, here we are debating the motion to extend the sittings to look at some of the major problems, yet the SARC report dealt with this issue and hasn't been implemented, and most people out there I think would feel a lot better had some of those been implemented.
I say to the Minister of Community and Social Services that there are some things we should do:
We could link social assistance to using welfare dollars for wage subsidies to employers hiring social assistance recipients. I think that would be helpful.
We need to determine why, in outstanding welfare repayments, the recovery rate -- again, it is the auditor saying so -- is only 3% versus 10% recovery rate reported for the collection of the other government. All this was summarized in our recommendations on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, but it was in more detail in the report that was done for the standing committee on public accounts from the member for Burlington South, who goes into a great detail. I know the Minister of Community and Social Services will have read that report.
We're talking about a system to take a look at the income replacement scheme with the federal government to recover interim welfare moneys from those waiting to collect unemployment insurance. The auditor says we could probably save $50 million there.
I believe we should adopt a law similar to Quebec's to beef up the authority of the welfare review officers to conduct welfare fraud inquiries. In Quebec they have about a 75% success rate. I have a newspaper clipping from my own area which says, "Fraud Buster Saves Halton $72,000." He was a welfare investigator. That's $72,000 only for one area in Halton, because they only put 20% of it in. He has saved the Halton region about $485,000, getting close to half a million dollars, and it says here that 17 charges that were laid.
1830
I believe we should do what was done in Quebec: adopt a law similar to theirs which would beef up the authority of welfare review officers to conduct welfare fraud inquiries. In Quebec, officials have said they have a 75% success rate in recovering welfare fraud in the 5,000 cases they've looked at. I gave you the example of my own Halton region, where we have saved $485,000 by one individual checking for fraud and waste.
At a time when we're scaling back the public service, laying off nurses and teachers, cutting back their salaries, whatever comes about through the social contract, we need to take a look at where the money is going. We need to have confidence that money isn't being wasted in the area of social assistance.
We said, as we did when it first came in, that you shouldn't get rid of the home visits as a means of determining eligibility. They used to go out and take a look at homes and assess the eligibility requirements, but they don't do that now. We said you shouldn't extend it to 16- and 17-year-old students who simply declare that they are no longer comfortable living at home and get social assistance. The ironic part is that 30% of the people on social assistance can't work, through no fault of their own, whether it's disability or whatever, and they don't have the amount of money they need to survive. But 70% can work. We need to have the means to get them off social assistance so we have money to provide for the truly needy, because there will never be enough money if we continue to go from $2 billion to $6.2 billion. To put it in perspective, it's now one in nine people in this province. That's an outrageous figure, but it's true: One in nine people are now on some form of social assistance in the province of Ontario.
I also said in that report that we should consider establishing a summer employment program to increase staff available to conduct eligibility reviews and to help reduce seasonal welfare fraud. It does heat up over the summer, some of the fraud and abuse, because of the number of people coming into it. It can be stopped, and at a time when we're looking at savings, we need to do that.
We should ensure that any proposed changes to social assistance eligibility requirements are properly and fully implemented.
Those were some of the things we said, and that's just a very small portion of our minority report that we put together for the public accounts committee.
We said you should impose a moratorium on the non-profit housing program and complete only those projects currently under way. Instead of subsidizing bricks and mortar, the government should revamp its housing policy to help individuals and families meet their housing needs through direct shelter allowances. It has been estimated that you could provide housing for 250,000 people at a cost of about $400 million annually versus what we're doing now, providing 100,000 non-profit units at a cost of $1.2 billion. We will continue to work on that.
In this report, we said the government should establish a program on the expenditure side similar to the Fair Tax Commission. It could be done with no expense, through volunteers. See, in this province, we don't look at how we're going to control spending. We think, how are we going to find new ways to increase taxes? That's what the Fair Tax Commission is all about. Quite frankly, it was set up because the government said when it came in, "All the money in the world for all the programs." They were going to tax the rich and the corporations, but when they got in, they found out that only 7% of our revenue came from there and they couldn't increase it on the rich people because there wasn't enough to get any revenue. So they lowered it and put surtaxes on anybody making $53,000. Most people making $53,000 didn't realize that they were "the rich" this government meant.
So we said we should set up a program similar to the Fair Tax Commission. A further recommendation of a couple of people who came in was an effective expenditure commission. It would be made up of individuals from outside government and be structured like the Fair Tax Commission to look at different issues. The commission would be given a mandate to examine the ways in which public funds are spent in Ontario and to recommend ways to save money as well as the associated cost, if any, to the quality of the services provided.
The commission would create a number of working groups to focus on specific categories of expenditures for a fixed period of time, similar to what the Fair Tax Commission does. People would have confidence if we had them review social assistance or non-profit housing. The commission should be responsible for the development of a new government value assessment process which would evaluate programs on the basis of how well they work as opposed to how they sell politically.
I said that any new tax or regulatory policy affecting business should be subject to assessment of its effect on competitiveness. As we found out and as this government has found out, all of the things we are care about, whether good roads, the health care system, the education system, don't depend upon the compassion of government; they depend on having a healthy and prosperous economy to support them. There's one fundamental principle that I think is clearer now than it has ever been: If we can't compete, we're going to lose markets, and when we lose markets, people are going to end up losing jobs.
In that report I put together, I said any new proposed tax policy or regulations affecting business be subject to an assessment of its effect on the competitiveness of Ontario firms, on the cost of doing business in the province, and its impact on employment. The assessment mechanism and the process should be developed in consultation with the affected sectors.
I also said we would repeal Bill 40.
We talked about the WCB in some detail. We went further: The member for Waterloo North had a resolution in this House a couple of weeks ago in which we laid out some of our ideas. It failed, but at least we were offering some constructive solutions in that area.
We talked about the small business sector being exempt from the employer health payroll tax. That is a job-killing tax. When some of the bills came forward and this government was spending about $250 million to help small business, it said, small businesses said, "If you're going to spend $250 million, it would be better to eliminate the employer health tax." It should be phased out: Take whatever amount of businesses would be affected, starting with the smallest first. Eliminate the employer health payroll tax rather than spending $250 million in the so-called capital investment fund they put together, supposedly to help small business.
We also talk about the accounting system. We've gone into great detail about where some of the problems are in our accounting system in this province.
But regardless of how we add up the numbers, our deficit position, as I outlined, is horrendous. I want to very briefly talk about some of the figures and facts, because this motion to extend will not deal with any of these issues.
In this motion, if we were doing bills to deal with fundamental problems of the deficit -- I guess in some regards Bill 48 will, but that probably will be passed in short order. I suspect there will probably be some agreement signed anyway. But if we were dealing with something to eliminate the deficit, most people would say it would be a great idea to extend the sittings. None of the things we're going to be talking about as a result of this motion will deal with the deficit and the problems of job creation and taxation. I think that, more than anything else, is a shame.
I want to tell you what the accumulated deficit is now. It's about $80 billion. In 1985 it was about $35 billion. We've heard the Premier say it was heading towards $120 billion if they didn't take some of the expenditure control measures that were announced April 23.
To put that in perspective, at $80 billion of accumulated deficit -- if we do succeed in keeping it to $10 billion this year, which is a big, big if -- that will work out to $8,000 for every man, woman and child in this province. When you look around, the members in here provincially owe $8,000. That doesn't include federally, which is about $15,000, by the way. When you add the two together, the debt that's owed by every man, woman and child in this province, federally and provincially, is well over $23,000. In my case, married with three kids, that's about $115,000. That's more than most people's mortgages, and that is in terms of deficits owed to the governments.
1840
Somebody said to me, "Well, I didn't create that." No, you didn't, but you owe it, because we all owe it together. I might add that it doesn't include the $13 billion in unfunded liability that's in WCB, which is going up $100 million a month and discouraging investment. That doesn't include the $35 billion at Ontario Hydro. If you include all those things in, it gets even worse. Interest payments alone now are going to be costing this province about $15,000 a minute. That isn't to pay for good roads or the health care system. When you break it down, that's what it costs: $15,000 a minute just to pay the interest on the provincial deficit. Just like the clock on the wall that's keeping track of the time, that clock keeps ticking 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, and it keeps adding up and adding up.
So the only solution is to cut spending. There are some areas in which I think we should be doing it. When you look back over the last little while and see where we've come from, if we were spending at 1983 levels adjusted for inflation, we should be spending this year about $39 billion, because in the early 1980s, we were at about $25 billion. In 10 years, we have spent double, triple the rate of inflation during a lot of those years, and we were ending up with a total spending of about $55 billion; that's where we were heading. In other words, we're spending more and more money, yet in this province we've got more people on welfare. Our hospitals have longer waiting lists, to the point now where there's a company that will sell you waiting list insurance. There's a waiting list now for hips, knees, various medical procedures. So we're spending all this money, and things get worse.
The same with the education system. We're now spending probably more per capita than any other industrialized country, yet 25% of the kids in high school are dropping out; it's probably closer to 27%. Of those who are graduating, 25% are either functionally illiterate or can't do basic math skills; a third of them lack an acceptable level of literacy skills. Some of the tests that have been done in universities over the last little while said first-year students don't have a lot of the skills necessary.
I was out with my friend the member for Oxford at the opening of a training centre in my riding: sophisticated, with all the high-tech machines. We realized we've got to prepare for the future. We've got all these machines in place. The people who are teaching said the problem is that these machines are so high- tech, they need computer skills that the kids coming out of high school don't have. So here we are spending all this money on high-tech equipment, but the kids coming out of high school don't have the skills that are necessary to get the advanced training.
I think we all realize that we must provide excellence in our education system, but none of the bills we're dealing with is going to fundamentally change the education system. This government's answer was to set up a commission, so we'll have a commission going around and debating the issue.
We put together a little while ago A Blueprint for Learning in Ontario. Rather than waiting for the government, we attempted to be proactive. We put together some of the things we would like to see and, similar to my minority report, we put in it the things we believe are necessary. We talk about some of the things that need to be done to make our education and training systems accountable to the people they serve, both financially and in terms of curriculum and standards. Accountability will give us the financial resources to provide excellence in education, and excellence will open up the doors of opportunity for our children. I firmly believe the standard of living of the next generation will be in direct proportion to the skills and training we give them through the education system. That's why we put it together, to be proactive, yet the things we're talking about in this Legislature won't do anything to improve the education system.
We have three principles that we put together: opportunity, excellence and accountability. That was the core of our education system in the blueprint. By outlining the proposals in a document, we wanted to let everyone know where we stood, rather than being like a lot of our opposition politicians in the past, who just complained.
We put together the first New Directions series on the economy. Had some of the things we talked about been implemented, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in today in the province of Ontario.
That being said, we put together our new minority report on some of the ideas; you didn't like the first one. We talked about some of the wage caps we were going to put on, going way back to November 1991; had that been done, we would not be facing the financial crisis we're in today.
We put together some other ideas in our New Directions, our Blueprint for Learning in Ontario. More than anything else, what we hope to do is to stimulate some widespread exchange of ideas. Hopefully, some of these things will be implemented. I guess they'll go to the commission.
The frustrating part is that this government was elected, we've got major problems in the education system and nothing will be done for at least two years. So I say to the members opposite, if they take a look at that, we believe the skills and the knowledge training will be the key to the prosperity in Ontario. Rather than siting back and criticizing and saying, "We disagree with this program," we decided to be proactive and put it together, because education, I believe, is really planning for the future, and the things we do in this Legislature and some of the issues we tackle will be fundamental.
We said that if some of the things are implemented, they will give our education system clear goals and measurable results. That's one of the things we want to be very clear about. In this Legislature, one of the things I've been frustrated at, as somebody who has a background in business, is that they never put anything in place that's measurable; it's all this fuzzy, nice warm talk. No one wants to have any standards that can be measurable because, quite frankly, I think a lot of politicians are afraid that the results won't be there. So we've put some standards in place, some goals that are measurable, because I believe our schools must not only teach children the basic skills such as reading and writing and arithmetic but also some of the other things that are necessary over the next little while as we compete in the next century.
Schools are going to face more pressure as a result of what's happening in the social contract talks, so we've offered some ideas to make it more efficient. We think if those ideas were implemented we'd be in a much better position in the province. I want to share some of the ideas, none of which are being addressed with the motion here, because there are no bills that will address these problems. But we've laid them out anyway in hopes that they will be acted upon by the government.
We talk about developing a core curriculum for elementary and secondary schools; we talked about this long before the government implemented anything. We talk about establishing testing at regular intervals to ensure an attainment of those standards, one of the things I think we might get this government to move on. We talk about combining grades on report cards, along with the current descriptive information. We talk about expanding the apprenticeship program at the secondary school level to facilitate the school-to-work transition. We talk about increasing the number of instructional days; I think that needs to be done. We're talking about giving teachers, parents, business and labour more input into educational decisions through the school-based management system. We go into some detail about how that would be done; these are just the major highlights.
We talk about elimination of some of some of the duplication of the school board systems in this province. We talk about the mandate for regular external financial audits of all school boards, colleges and universities and to make those results public. We would establish and implement guidelines and policies for dealing with violence in schools at the board level. One of the things I'm amazed about as a parent is that with the procedures in place now for dealing with violence in school, you pretty much have to go up to the board before any real tough discipline takes place. Consequently, I don't believe there is a heck of a lot of discipline, and that's affecting our schooling in the province of Ontario.
We talk about introducing an income-contingent loan program for post-secondary education; we go into detail of how that would operate. We talk about the establishment of centres of specialization at our colleges and universities; again, there's a great deal of detail of how that would be done. We talk about establishing a training bank that will allow individuals to contribute to a maximum of $3,000 annually for future investment in training and education programs and encouraging employers to match those programs. If we don't, I believe skills and training will be lacking. We talk about increasing the effectiveness of the apprenticeship system through streamlining, and increasing the cooperation between business, labour and schools.
1850
So this document we put together was an attempt to take a look at where we're at in terms of education, because our schools are facing a tremendous problem and we have a lot of homework to do. But as we debate this motion, there won't be anything in here that will deal with those issues.
I want to talk briefly about the budget. The opportunity to speak in this Legislature on the budget is something that I think is fundamental. I believe, contrary to what the House leader says, that we should not be forced to give in on other pieces of legislation, so I'm prepared to sit and stay here as long as possible so that the other members who were not able to speak on this will get an opportunity, because as we went out on the time off, when we had constituency week and met with people right across this province, they were saying that we are in one heck of a financial predicament and they don't believe this government has the right ideas and policies to be able to solve those problems.
When you look at the spending that has gone on over the last little while, the tax increases -- and this isn't me speaking; this is the Treasurer's budget. At the 1984 level, we were spending about $23 billion. We're now skyrocketing up into the 50s. Our operating deficit is going up. People are fearful, and they don't believe this government has the skills and the ability to deal with that question. On economic matters, there will be no bills we're going to be debating.
They talked about issues of crime. According to some of the findings, 85% of Ontarians, including 88% of all women and 69% of visible minorities, believe that crime has increased in Ontario. When asked whether crime in their own neighbourhood has increased over the last two years, 63% said yes. On the other hand, 73% believed that respect for the law has decreased. Those attitudes were even more prevalent in Metro Toronto. As a result of some of our hearings on crime and safety in our communities, Ontarians feels laws are too lenient, that enforcement should be stringent and punishment should be tougher. None of that will be debated here.
I'm looking now at a list of the issues I've been asked to address in terms of petitions and what I've had calls about, and as I look at what we're going to be debating over the next little while in this Legislature as a result of this motion to extend the sittings, none of them is going to be addressed.
Alphabetically, I have been called by people about access to children, people who have not had access through some of the laws, particularly by fathers who don't have an opportunity to see their children. None of that is going to be discussed as a result of this motion.
I had a lot of calls regarding the issue of Sunday shopping, going way back, and that's where we're a little frustrated. I spent four weeks a summer ago dealing with that whole issue, only to have the government change its mind. They say they don't have enough time in the Legislature to deal with the issues, yet we spent time debating it the year before last. We spent all summer on hearings on it and then they turned around a year later and changed it. At least now that whole issue has been passed and is behind us.
We also had a great deal of concern on the same issue, as I look down the list here, on crime and sexual offences and Bill 114, which I hope will be introduced.
We had a great deal of concern over the taxation issue and what's happening in this province. We're being overtaxed and people are fed up.
There's a lot of concern about what's going to be happening now as a result of the social contract with commercial labs.
This government isn't trusted by the private sector because of what's happening in day care. They've attempted to drive the private sector out, and have done that in some of the other areas.
Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Show a little enthusiasm there.
Mr Carr: I say to my friend from Durham about enthusiasm, I remember him on those Sunday shopping hearings so enthusiastically, day after day, standing up and saying we should not have Sunday shopping.
Mr Callahan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think this is a very important issue. The government has felt it's necessary to bring this motion forward to extend the sitting of the Legislature, yet the government can't maintain a quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is there a quorum present?
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The member for Durham East on a point of order.
Mr Mills: Mr Speaker, I have great difficulty in keeping my cool in here when, for reasons that are absolutely time-wasting and are costing the taxpayers money, he keeps calling a quorum, when he comes in and out like a jackrabbit.
The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order. It's a requirement to have 20 members present in order to have a quorum, and any member can get up on a point of order and ask for a quorum call. We've had it.
The honourable member for Oakville South had the floor and he may resume his participation in the debate.
Mr Carr: I'm glad to see that the members have come in and are now present and will be listening to the remainder of it. I'm also pleased that the member from Durham is taking fiscal responsibilities with a great deal of enthusiasm. I wish, though, two years ago, when we fought this first budget, he had been there standing with us and fighting for fiscal responsibility, when he was going to "fight the recession and not the deficit" and we did everything we could to stop the budget. Now, as a result of that budget, we're facing the tough economic problems we are facing today.
But I'm glad to see that even though it has taken a while, we now have some of the members opposite talking about the fundamental economic questions. But there isn't anything we're going to be dealing with that is going to help some of the concerns we've got.
The same with the environment and the circumstances we're facing in our own riding, a couple of problems at the Petro-Canada facility out near the Queen Elizabeth Park school that are causing problems there. There is no legislation we're going to be dealing with here that's going to solve the problem for the many people, I think close to 600, who have sent in petitions on that. In fact, when we asked the minister during the estimates committee, an official actually stood up and said that having a smell in your community is, if you can believe this, a good thing; a member of the Ministry of Environment saying it's a good thing because it means you're prosperous. There are many people who are discouraged with what's happening; there's been no action on that area. This motion to extend the sittings will do nothing to assist the people who are concerned about the environment.
Also, people are concerned about the cutbacks; the Friends of Schizophrenics are concerned about what's happening in the area of hospitals. There's nothing being addressed. Cuts to the services are being made not based on long-term plans and with any fiscal responsibility; they're being cut because of ad hoc problems, financial crises, so they go out and slash. I wish we were debating a motion to extend to deal with some of the positive matters we've put forward to save money to provide for services.
There will be no debate on gambling, which has become a big problem here, particularly for the government members. These motions to extend will do nothing to deal with the issue of gambling. I know there are many people concerned, by the petitions coming in.
There will be nothing for the people who have sent me petitions concerned with haemophiliacs who have contracted HIV. There will be nothing debated, as a result of an extension of this Legislature, that is going to deal with those problems.
1900
There's nothing in there on the concerns out there for seniors, particularly the financial aspect. I got some calls last week from people who are so concerned about their tax level right now. Many seniors, at a time when some of the services are being cut back, are concerned about the financial condition of this province. There's nothing in any of the debates, any of the bills put forward by this government, that will assist those people.
They are concerned about the issues of crime, because it's on the rise. Between 1985 and 1989, violent crimes in this province increased by 37%. Sexual assaults in 1991 had increased by 33% over the previous year. The problem is that many people don't feel safe. It's not just a city problem; it's also a problem that we're facing in many small towns and communities. Our courts are overburdened and cumbersome to the point where, as a legislator and involved in making the laws, I can say our system, even the criminal justice system, doesn't work properly. All you need to do is look at what happened with the Askov decision. We definitely are facing some major problems in that area. Nothing's going to be addressed there.
Nothing's going to be addressed by this government in this Legislature as a direct result of any bills that are coming through, and that is going to be one of the sad parts of this extension of the sittings. There isn't going to be anything here where anybody is going to be able to say: "Stay. Get that passed. It's going to help." There is nothing in it.
This government, which came in after 20 years of being in opposition, never having an opportunity to form a government, now that it has got power took a great deal of time. They didn't even know what they wanted to do. The time we took off at the break last time, after Christmas, was more than we should have, and then they come in here and say the opposition should be passing the bills quickly. They had no idea what they wanted to do. There was no vision, no plan, no bills ready.
You come into the Legislature and you don't know what bills are going to be debated on any given day. I swear they pick the names, throw them in a hat and pull them out. There's absolutely no long-term plan. No wonder this government is being compared to the Beverly Hillbillies. They have no idea where they're heading, and with some of the areas they do head in, quite frankly, they change their tune a year later because they're heading in the wrong direction.
But we're going to continue to be here. Our function is not only to criticize -- and that's very easy to do. As my friend from Etobicoke West has often said, criticizing this government is sort of like being the best hockey player in Somalia. It doesn't take too much. But unlike other opposition parties, what we're going to do is to present some alternatives. That's why we put together some programs in a minority report that goes on for 30 pages about what needs to be done with the economy in the province. It tackles all of the issues out there.
That's why we put together our Blueprint for Learning in Ontario, so we could tackle the issues of education at a time when we hear no answers from the government.
That's why we put together our first New Directions paper over a year ago in which we outlined some of the things that should be done to get the economic climate that will produce jobs, that will allow investment, that will allow businesses to prosper instead of being strangled as they are through many of the programs out there, whether it's overtaxation, whether it's WCB, or whether it's the whole process of how long it takes to get anything approved.
That's why we've been attempting to be pretty constructive over the last little while on what we've put forward, everything from taxation to deficit reduction to spending.
The only good thing about the motion to extend is that we are going to get, day after day, another opportunity to hit this government on what it should be doing. Our function isn't only to criticize. We're going to offer constructive, commonsense solutions that have been well thought out. I say to the members opposite, I hope at the end of the day they will take a look at some of these proposals and act upon them, because I say if they do, this province will be much better off.
Over the next little while, we are going to, I suspect, have some debates on the government bills they are now bringing forward. There are some that I believe we should be debating, and I am pleased that we are debating this motion to extend because there is some opportunity to have some of these bills that will be going out to public hearings. We need to do that so that we can spend the summer taking a look at them. I hope they won't be bills like we had a couple of years ago with Sunday shopping, where we spent all the time debating in the Legislature, spent four weeks out on committee and then turned around and spent more time debating in here to reverse decisions.
We need to have a long-term plan. That's why all of the things we've put together here for you are offered in the spirit of cooperation. I don't necessarily believe all of them will be acted upon, but some of them certainly should be, because there is a tremendous sense of frustration out there, indeed anger, that governments are not listening, are not doing the right thing, have no comprehensive plan of what to do on the economy, on health care, on education, on the environment.
It's been often said about this government, and I think it's true, that it's managed by headlines. They head in one direction, get a little bit of flak from a particular special interest, then head in another direction. I suspect that's why we've had so many flip-flops. They know that if they put enough pressure on this government, they can change its mind and persuade it.
Some of the things we've talked about, if they are implemented, will make this province indeed much better. We talk about the deficit and the debt and what needs to be done with specific programs. We all realize we're in a problem area when it comes to the deficit. We all know our debt now represents 22% of our gross domestic product, and that's compared to about 15.3% in 1991. We now spend $1.22 for every dollar we take in, and we've outlined some areas where savings can be made. Hopefully, the government will take a look at them.
We talk about the debt growing and what needs to be done to be able to keep the services that are important to the people of this province, because if we do not take action now, two years from now, a year from now the cuts will need to be deeper, harder and we're going to be in worse shape.
That's why we're so concerned that over the last little while the government never listened. Over the last two years we have presented proposals. We have said that the big concern of the province of Ontario isn't that we need to find more tax revenue under every rock by increasing taxes and fees. The spending in the province of Ontario is the problem. You're not going to be able to get out of the circumstances you're in unless you scale back the spending. We offer constructive solutions and we will continue to do so.
We also believe the only way to get out of this predicament is to be able to create jobs. It's ironic that when this government came in, the unemployment rate in this province was about 6%. The economists who came before the finance and economics committee came in and said -- and they were different; seven or eight of them came in and said unemployment's going to range anywhere from 10.6% to 11.8%. So in some cases, they're even predicting we're going to almost double what it was when this government came in.
Quite frankly, we told you in the last election you can't continue to tax, spend and borrow like there's no tomorrow. You didn't listen, and as a result, the people who are suffering are the people who are out of jobs.
I want to quote one of the chaps who came before the finance committee, as my time almost runs down, because I believe that one of the ways to create jobs is through upscaling the private sector. We supported you in downscaling the public sector; it's too big, it's too large, and we need to scale it back. But we need to have the programs to upscale the private sector.
One of the people who came through said, and he probably said it better than I could: "The only sustainable jobs you're going to get in the long term are from the private sector. Primarily, you've got to have a proper business environment to create jobs and a stable, believable future of taxes that are not going to continue to go through the roof."
That's why we've outlined the proposals we have, because when this government came into power, unemployment was 6%. We're now going to be hitting close to 11% in the province of Ontario. Eighty per cent of the jobs that have been lost have been in Ontario for the entire country. We will average in this province 572,000 people over the last year unemployed versus the 331,000 in 1991 when they took office. Quite frankly, unless we do something in terms of allowing the private sector to prosper, we're never going to get the jobs.
1910
The sad part is that, as I go out and speak to business people, they are saying right now that the kids are coming up but not too many people want to get into business any more. Small entrepreneurs are not doing it, because they say that with all the regulations and taxation, first of all it's very difficult to make money, but even if you do, the government's just going to tax it all away anyway.
One of the business people I met in Belleville said that. He said: "My kids don't want to get into business. One of them wants to be a nurse; one wants to be a teacher." Great professions and admirable, although today there aren't too many secure jobs there. But they said to their father: "The reason is that we see how hard you work, the hours you spend, how little money, the holidays that you work. And at the end of the day you end up with less than some people who are in the public sector."
Until we reward initiative and entrepreneurship and get this province and the people of this province creating jobs, two years from now when this government comes up for its mandate -- and hopefully it will be sooner -- we're going to be in one heck of a mess.
We're going to continue to pressure this government. We're going to continue to stay on this government over the next little while to implement some of our policies. We're going to be offering constructive solutions day in, day out. Hopefully they will come up in bills that will make the public better off at the end of the day.
There isn't anything here that we're going to be debating, but I say to this government, you're going to have a summer to put together a program and a plan. We're going to be there to advise you and assist you. If we do it, we're going to be in good shape. If we do not, unfortunately, I believe this province is going to be worse off.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I'm probably going to surprise you today, because I'm going to speak specifically to the motion before the House and I am not going to go on long, for my full time. Once I have said what I have to say, that should be the end of it and we shouldn't go on unnecessarily. Part of that is because I thought when we came to this place that we were going to actually be doing constructive things, so I'm hoping that perhaps by example I will lead.
However, I want to disabuse the member for Oakville South of the idea that we're over and done with Sunday shopping, because the reality, based on the experience that we've had in the past two and a half years, is that we will probably be debating again for third reading because, guess what? Just for your information, we've averaged, since we became the government, about 171 minutes on third reading debate, when in previous governments the average was as low as 47 seconds and as high as 15 minutes, maximum. But somehow or other, since we became the government, the opposition has raised this up to 171 minutes on average. So the member for Oakville South should get used to the idea that we will probably be debating this again for at least third reading debate, unless you follow the pattern of the past and, at third reading, vote for or against it.
I would also, just as a point of interest, explain why we think we have to go on into July. I mean, I'm not a glutton for punishment. I don't want to sit in July either, if I don't have to. However, when you have examples such as this, this is why we have to sit in July.
I'm going to go as far back as the fall of 1981, when the Conservatives were in government, 44 bills were passed in that session. In the fall of 1987, under the Liberal government, 15 bills were passed that session, because they had come in late in the fall, if you recall. In the fall of 1990, again because we were only in here from November 19 to December 20, we got nine bills passed that session, but even so, from 15 to nine is a tremendous difference.
Spring of 1982 under the Conservatives, 43 bills passed. Spring of 1988 under the Liberals, 40 bills passed. Spring of 1991 under our government, 14 bills. You can use examples like this. The next one: 1982 in the fall with the Tories, 19 bills; 1988 in the fall with the Liberals, 38 bills; 1991 with us, we get 21 bills. And 1983: 50 bills passed under the Conservative government in the spring of 1983. Some 26 bills in the spring of 1989 under the Liberals. Now, 13 bills. Why? Thirteen bills. We're bringing in the same number of bills, yet only 13 bills get passed.
In the fall of 1983, 39 bills under the Tories. It was 45 bills under the Liberals in 1989. How many did we get passed in the fall of 1992? Seven bills. That's unacceptable. In the spring of 1984, 42 bills under the Conservative government. In the spring of 1990 -- and that was when the election got called, you may recall, even though they called an election far, far too early, to their chagrin -- 19 bills they still got passed. How many bills have we got passed this spring so far? Six bills.
I'm just going to point out that in these orders we get every day in the House, Orders and Notices, for the benefit of those people who are out there and don't understand what happens here, it lists all the bills that are coming up for third reading, either private members' bills, government bills or private bills that are before the House.
I just want to point out that instead of talking about this and spending time in this debate, we could be talking about Bill 61, an act respecting Algonquin and Ward's islands, in other words, the Toronto Islands bill.
We could be debating third reading on Bill 102, which I'm waiting for. As soon as we're finished, hopefully I'll be able to finish pay equity for women in this province of Ontario.
Bill 164, the Insurance Statute Law Amendment Act: We're waiting for that because more people will be eligible for benefits if we do that.
And I'm not reading them all; I'm just reading some of them.
Bill 169, the Public Service Statute Law Amendment Act: Every public servant in this province would have political rights if this bill ever gets through debate, but we're still waiting.
The budgetary policy of the government is on the agenda as well.
Bill 96, and this one is dear to my heart, is An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board; as soon as it's finished committee of the whole, we can move on into the province of Ontario, but instead we're sitting here on this.
But the one that I think is reprehensible that we haven't even gotten into debate on yet, and we should if we weren't lallygagging around here, is Bill 124, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, Mrs D. Cunningham.
Mr Speaker, you no doubt have heard from your colleagues, as we have heard as I have sat in the committee and went through the possible bicycle helmet legislation will make history when this bill is passed, because all three parties unanimously favour this; all three parties worked together to get this legislation together. We're sitting here, and we could be debating that if people were being cooperative and working together, but instead that bill will sit and wait again and it won't get passed. It will save lives, so we should be doing this.
I'm just saying that when we have opportunities like this to amend and eliminate the commercial concentration tax, I can remember all the Toronto members in this place cheering when that went up because every hotel in this city wanted it out of the way. Every parking lot in this city wanted it out of the way. We're still waiting for second reading.
It is mind-boggling to me that supposedly logical, thinking people would forgo the opportunity to get this legislation passed. As a consequence of the delaying that is going on in this place and has been going on, unfortunately, for the last two and a half years, I, who am pretty reasonable, I think, have come to the conclusion that if we have to be draconian, so be it. If it means we have to change the rules, so be it, because this is nonsense.
I've got better things to do for my constituents than sit in this House and listen to the kind of debacle that goes on here. I think the time has come that we start looking at, what are we really doing here? Are we serving a purpose? Let's get on with it. We are now going to sit to the end of July, and let us get on with it and get something done in this place. Then at the end of this session, we can honestly say we have accomplished something. The sooner we go, the better.
1920
Mr Callahan: That was a stirring speech. In fact, it was so stirring that I'm at a loss for words.
Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Why don't you sit down and not give a speech at all?
Mr Callahan: The Minister of Transportation, who has just arrived, says I should sit down and not give a speech at all. I would do that, but -- Gilles Pouliot is a good friend and has been in the House probably longer than I have, and I'm going to address, through you, Mr Speaker, my comments to Mr Pouliot. Mr Pouliot knows that this place, like anything else, only works if you have rules and order that make the place work.
Over the last years of the Liberal government, there was an attempt through the House leaders -- a successful attempt, I might add -- to reform the rules. The reason we had to reform the rules was that the New Democratic Party, when it was in opposition, had the benefit of being able to read petitions until the cows came home. They had the ability to be able to keep us here all night. I have to say that Mr Cooke, the member for Windsor-Riverside, was a master at delaying this place, a master. Mr Charlton was also there -- he's probably conferring with him -- the present House leader of the New Democratic Party.
So please don't. I would be most offended if the Minister of Transportation, the then Gilles Pouliot, were to shake his head and say they didn't play games. They played the ultimate in games. Suddenly, you're transformed into the government and that, for some reason, gets you beatified. You suddenly become sanctified and sanctimonious and all the rest of it.
For the people who have watched this Legislature -- and fortunately, we've had television since about 1985. It was brought in by the Liberals because we felt it was a democratic right for people to be able to view what their elected representatives did. I don't know about the rest of you, but I find in my riding that I have a lot of people who say, "Yes, we were watching the Legislature on television, but, Mr Callahan, I want you to tell us about how it operates, because every time a motion or a bill is introduced in the Legislature for third reading or second reading, the cameras pan over to the government, the New Democratic Party government, and they all vote for it." These people say to me: "Mr Callahan, how can that be? How can you have that number of people ever agree on a single bill? How can that happen?"
I say to them, "First of all, I want to thank you for watching the legislative process because of the democracy that the Liberal government opened up in terms of television." Remember in the days before television? It must have been incredible in here. Unless the press hung around for more than 20 minutes to report what was going on in here, nobody every heard about it, but today they've got the magic eye on us. I say that every time I get a chance to speak. Those of you in the government who want to come back, you'd better start serving your constituents. Get the hipbone cut off at the waist so you don't vote for every measure your government brings in. Don't let that suave gentleman from Sudbury who is the Minister of Finance cajole you, because what happens in this place -- and I think it's time to open up Pandora's box to the people of Ontario, as I have on many occasions, and tell them how this place works. You pay for 130 members of the Legislature. You pay, on the average, about $75,000 per member, and these people vote like they're joined at the hip.
If that's the case, what we need is a change in this whole system, because if the people over on that other side, and I can speak, because I was on that other side -- the minister of colleges and universities is now leaving with a bad look on this face. I want to tell you, he's one of the superministers.
Mr Mills: Why didn't you tell David Peterson all this?
Mr Callahan: I did, believe me; you ask my colleagues and they'll tell you I did.
The minister of colleges and universities has just left, and he is one of the superministers. My good friend from Sudbury is the second superminister, the minister of technology, trade, da da da da -- whatever it is. Frances Lankin is the third superminister. The Premier is the fourth minister. That's the inner cabinet. Nobody else matters.
Hon Mr Pouliot: What about the Premier's office?
Mr Callahan: Well, that's true. Yes. The Minister of Transportation reminds me that there are six unelected spin doctors down there on the second floor who are paid for by the taxpayers as well, along with the four big ministers who make --
Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): There's more money for value out of them than there is out of you.
Mr Callahan: What was it you said? Repeat it, please.
In any event, for the people who are watching, who are avid watchers, they're going to understand that although they pay for 130 members of the Legislature at about $75,000 a crack and, for members of the government who have PA jobs where they make an extra $10,000, they pay $85,000, they are only getting the benefit of a very select group, a private group.
I have often said in this House -- I've said it when I was in government and I will say it now -- this is not democracy; this is oligarchy. This is precisely what the people of the province of Ontario and, for that matter, the people of Canada, are so upset with their politicians about: the fact that they pay big bucks to have people whom they've elected in their ridings to represent them, and they don't represent them. They follow the lead of the four superministers and the six unelected members --
Interjections.
Mr Callahan: Something's happening, because the bears are getting teased. They must realize that what I'm saying is true --
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Mississauga South --
Mr Callahan: Brampton South, Mr Speaker. I want at least my constituents to know I'm here.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Brampton South has the floor. Interjections are out of order. Many members are not in their assigned seats and they're still interjecting, so please leave the honourable member the opportunity.
Mr Callahan: It's a good thing we've got the Speaker here, because the Speaker is the only impartial person in this entire place. The rest of you people have all got your own agenda.
Hon Mr Pouliot: How about yourself?
Mr Callahan: Look, you can accuse me of a lot of things, but I have to say that I will match my speeches in the House against anybody's speeches in the House. I have always spoken what I believe in and not this gobbledegook you see going on in politics. I may get elected or defeated on the basis of that, but so be it. But the fact is that unless this place is changed --
Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): You are too sanctimonious.
Mr Callahan: The Minister of Finance says I'm too sanctimonious; maybe I am. Maybe I shouldn't be judging myself. Maybe I should leave the judgement to the people in my community. But equally, Minister of Finance, the judgement of your community is the judgement that each and every one of us, as members of the Legislature, have to go through every three or four or five years, and we almost went through it today; if the Tories had not deserted us, we were two votes away from getting rid of your government. If the people out there in Ontario realized that, they would know that the Conservative Party today assisted in buttressing the New Democratic Party so they could have you for another two years. That should be the headline of the day. If there are people out there who are fed up with your government, the Conservatives today gave you the opportunity to do two more years of damage to this province, and they are the people who will regret that.
In any event, going back to the issue again, we're talking tonight about a motion by the House leader -- who is not here, by the way; somebody's sitting in his chair, I don't know who it is -- to extend the times for sitting of the House. Well, let me tell the people who are watching this program tonight --
Hon Mr Cooke: They flipped off about 15 minutes ago.
Mr Callahan: The minister of colleges and universities says they flipped off an hour ago. Let me tell you, the young people of this province have probably flipped off, because there are no jobs available, and the opportunities of getting into university have been diminished because of the fact that there have been cutbacks by the present minister in terms of providing spaces for those good young people. So the minister of colleges and universities perhaps should take this whole discussion a little more seriously.
1930
However, to get back to the question of why the House leader has to extend the sitting hours, let's look at that. According to the standing orders that were negotiated by all parties, we have a fixed calendar for sitting. That fixed calendar was put in place because of a number of reasons. Number one, there are people in this House who have young children and families that they are deprived because they live in far-off communities in Ontario; it was to allow them to order their lives so they could have a valued family life. The second point was, they represent constituents in their own ridings. It was to give them an opportunity to go home and to look after their constituencies.
So what happens? The House leader and the Premier decide: "We won't recess the House. We will prorogue the House." That's a nice big word, prorogue. But I have to explain to the people who are watching that what happens when you prorogue is that under the standing orders the Premier can call the House back as late as he wants. As I think the member for St Catharines was saying, it's to the advantage of the government to call the House back as late as possible because it doesn't want to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, of having to answer questions in the House or having the press gallery sit there for an hour; that's about all they sit there for, and once they've got their quick hit they're gone.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Brampton South has the floor.
Mr Callahan: By proroguing, the Premier can delay that sitting. That's what he did: He delayed the sitting for something like four or five weeks. We were supposed to come back right after the March break, and I'm sure the people out there watching know when the March break was. We came back April 4 or April 10 or something like that, far beyond when we should have come back. They say, "We're so anxious to get our agenda going that we're going to come back late." I find that incredible. I can't see how reasonable people watching this telecast can possibly accept that the government is anxious to get its legislative agenda going. If they were, they'd have been back when we should have been back.
Instead, they didn't want to face the public, so they set their own agenda. By proroguing they could do that; if they had recessed, the standing orders would not have allowed them to do that. These are the rules we operate by. These are the rules they're now employing in order to extend the hours. They play by the rules when they want to play by the rules. When the rules are not convenient, they play by their own rules.
I have to say that any government that does that, first of all, is suspect, because it says, "Here are the rules, but we're going to play our own game." That's what happens with House leaders too; people out there watching television don't realize that this place wouldn't operate unless the House leaders got together and agreed on certain legislation being moved forward. If they didn't do that, it wouldn't work.
Unfortunately, the House leader of the government seems to have this big list he brings to my House leader and the House leader for the Conservatives, and he says: "We have to have that before you leave. You're not getting out of here till we do it."
He's expecting that the Conservatives and the Liberals are going to capitulate and are going to give him readings on those bills like that -- in two weeks. I'll tell you something, I'm prepared to stay here, if I have to, until the snow falls, and so is my party. You're not getting those bills with just a snap of the fingers, and I'll tell you why.
The people of Ontario are fed up with the legislation they've brought forward thus far. The legislation they've brought forward thus far has destroyed this province. They want to bring in bills like Bill 34, I think it is.
Hon Mr Laughren: Be specific.
Mr Callahan: I'll be specific. The Minister of Finance says "Be specific." I will be. In Bill 34, which used to be Bill 40, you're going to eliminate the hard-to-serve purposes in the Education Act for learning-disabled kids. Do you think the people of Ontario want me, as their representative, to just fall over and agree to the extension of hours so that kids with learning disabilities who are hard to serve cannot be given that option? You'd better cut it out.
I've talked to the former Minister of Education, who's now the Minister of Community and Social Services, and what he said to me was, "We don't want to have that, because it gives the school boards the out to put the cost on us of sending some kid who can't be served in the schools to some private school." I put to him a positive statement. I said: "If you have a concern about that, why don't you bring in an amendment to the bill to provide that the trustees have to pay half and the province pays half? That way, they're not going to be so quick to put this kid out to some school."
But in the final analysis, that kid who can't be served in the schools, if he has no outlet, you have ruined him, you've doomed him to unsuccess, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. That's the type of legislation you want to extend the hours for, to bring that in. Draconian, absolutely draconian. I just find it incredible. I know a lot about the New Democratic Party and I never expected that you people would ever, ever succumb to the attitude that power is more important than serving the needs of the people of this province. You've done that.
Hon Mr Laughren: That from a Liberal?
Mr Callahan: The Minister of Finance has just spoken up. The Minister of Finance has succeeded in bringing in taxes that have brought small business to its knees, to the point where there are no jobs for university students or community college students this summer, nor were there last year.
Interjection.
Mr Callahan: There's somebody speaking from a seat he shouldn't be sitting in.
The Acting Speaker: Yes. I want to remind all members that interjections are absolutely out of order, particularly when members are not in their assigned seats. This is a political place, and yes, there is provocation. Other members will have the opportunity to participate. The member for Brampton South has the floor.
Mr Callahan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Again I have to say it's a good thing in this place that there is at least one person who is impartial and will prevent the government and its large numbers from preventing debate in this House.
I have to speak about something the member for St Catharines spoke about: the rules in this House. The rules in this House were changed in a draconian fashion, they were changed in a way that limited debate, and now what we've got is an enlargement of the sitting period. As I said, I and I'm sure many of my caucus colleagues are prepared to sit here till hell freezes over. We're not about to let you guys off the hook. We're not about to let you push legislation through without full debate in this House, without the democratic process.
But I want to tell you something. The purpose of the calendar and the purpose of the rules that were negotiated through the three parties was to allow matters to go out to committee, and the reason they go out to committee is because this august chamber we're all honoured to be in can't be invaded by the common citizen. They can sit in the gallery. They can't come on the floor; they can't talk to us. They can talk to us in committee.
So what this government is doing by delaying or extending the session is that they're delaying the time in which you get the really important stuff, the input from the people of this province, the people who elected you, the people who pay our salaries, the people who hold us accountable politically or through our conscience. We have delayed that. We will delay that right through the summer so no one will have an opportunity to speak out about the elimination of service for young kids with learning disabilities, taking away the rights of the hard to serve.
I think the whip is playing that light. I've got to tell you, buster, I've got to tell you --
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please.
Mr Callahan: I'm sorry. I take back the "buster."
The Acting Speaker: Please, yes. Let's keep it on a high plane.
Mr Callahan: I'll try to be on a high plane. But when you talk about young children who've got to get a start in this world, and you're going to take away from them the opportunity to have the benefits of everybody else, I have to say to you that that is the worst possible thing you could do.
We have now debated and voted on Bill 48. As I said before, we were within two votes of perhaps changing the perspective of what's happening in this province before it's too late. We weren't supported by the third party in terms of doing that, but Bill 48 is going to create a disaster, as I said before. It will create a disaster that will supersede your government, and that's why I think you don't worry about it. You figure, "Let the Liberals or the Conservatives, if they happen to be the government, pick up the pieces of this province and run with it."
1940
You're going to find that this bill has so many holes in it that the transfer partners -- and forget the municipalities. I care about the municipalities; I think you should. School boards: important. Children's aid societies are more important. Children's aid societies are required by statute to provide protection for children who can't protect themselves. You have invaded their transfer payments. How are they supposed to look after these young kids?
The Conservative Party talks about wage freezes and attrition. I found that the leader of the third party's position today was a little more advanced. He said, "In terms of police or fire, we'll allow you to hire some people," and I think that was partially because I spoke last night and others spoke last night about the fact that if you have attrition and a wage freeze, how do you cover the police officers who have left and the firemen who've left? Do you just simply do without them? So it was a position that was untenable, but they've changed it so they're going to have new amendments that are going to be brought in.
But you're missing the point. By delaying the sitting, you are eliminating two great possibilities. One of them is to get back to your ridings, to be able to meet with the real people of this world. Down here, it's like being in a big club. You're in your caucus, the caucus says, "Well, do this, do that." "Oh, yeah, I think that's great." Get out into your ridings; talk to the real people. Find out what makes them tick. Find out why they're upset, like in my community where, because of what the -- I have to say "my good friend" because he is my good friend, the Minister of Finance. But you've done the wrong thing, Minister. You've interfered with Canada Day in my riding in terms of fireworks. That doesn't sound very important, but fireworks is one of the few things in my community on Canada Day that people who are of lesser means or perhaps out of work can take their family and their children to for free.
You know why my community did that? Because they don't know what the heck's going on with the social contract. They have no idea what the costs are going to be to them here or down the line. So they're cutting back services now. They're denying -- and I've been at Canada Day for the last eight years. That's one of the real treats of having the privilege of being elected as a member of this Legislature: You get invited to all these marvellous events and they introduce you as somebody special. I always say to them: "I'm not special. You people are special. I just got lucky. You elected me." But to look out on the people from the stadium and see them all waiting out there with the families on the blankets -- they're going to have a little bit of a picnic, waiting for the fireworks and the music. They're being denied that. I think you have to think very hard about that. If you have a family of your --
Hon Mr Laughren: It's their choice.
Mr Callahan: The Minister of Finance says it's their choice. Minister of Finance, that doesn't befit what I know about you -- you're a caring guy -- to make that statement. You're talking about people who in the real world are out of work, perhaps losing their homes. The only enjoyment they're going to have with their family is to get together on that blanket, out there as the dusk comes in and the fireworks go off and the band plays --
Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister without Portfolio in Municipal Affairs): Other municipalities are carrying on with that program. Why couldn't yours?
Mr Callahan: The Solicitor General, I believe it is, says that other municipalities are carrying on with that program. But I'll tell you what: The problem you've got is that with the social contract -- and I've gone to my municipal council. They've said to me, "Bob, what's it all about?" They don't know.
Let me address it specifically. In essential services, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, your bill requires that they take off a total of 36 days during the three-year period, and they have to take them off during their paid vacation or their paid holidays.
Hon Mr Laughren: Not necessarily.
Mr Callahan: That's what the bill says, Minister. Read the bill, please. That's what it says.
Hon Mr Laughren: -- must.
Mr Callahan: It says "shall."
That means that they're going to be compensated at the end of the three-year period with 36 days, and if they're compensated with 36 days, it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that if they're essential services -- fire department, police department, nurses, whatever -- you're going to have to pay other people to take their place. And what is that doing? That's like Guy Fawkes throwing a bomb into the Legislature with a long fuse on it. That will blow up on the taxpayers of my community and every community throughout Ontario, because they're going to have to pay the bill. So what in fact you're doing is you're delaying the bill.
Let me take it one step further. Let's say that Bill 48 is litigated, and you can bet your sweet bippy that someone is going to take that to court, and when they take it to court the good Attorney General and her civil staff are going to have to defend it if you get a decision at the lower court that says it's unconstitutional because it breaches the fair-hearing provisions of the charter. You then get a decision at the Court of Appeal for Ontario that says, "No, I'm sorry, you were wrong, General Division, that's not right." You then get a decision at the Supreme Court of Canada whatever way, if the Supreme Court of Canada says that it's unconstitutional or if it says it's not unconstitutional.
In the meantime, you've got three years that have passed. That's about the time span it takes, and you have caused utter chaos for this community, for this province, in terms of how does a school board, how does a municipality, how does a children's aid society, how does the whole host of other people who are listed in the schedules to this act plan? How do they budget? Do they underbudget? Do they overbudget? How do they do it? Do they cut services? Do they increase services?
So you have absolutely just thrown them right into a turmoil, and I understand that, because I understand that you people don't believe that you will be around to have to pick up the pieces. But for God's sake, you're Ontarians. You're people who are good enough to run for politics, to get the trust of your constituents. You have to go back to your constituencies. You have to talk to these people whether you're re-elected or not, and you have to tell them why in 1996 this province is in total disarray: Our schools are a disaster. Our learning-disabled kids have no place to go. Our children's aid societies have not been able to serve the neglected children. Our homemakers have not been able to provide the services for those who need it. Our elderly have not been looked after in the retirement homes. There's not enough money to do this or that, all those good things. Surely to God, the preservation of power and the retention of the integrity of this government are not important enough that you would sacrifice that particular principle.
I believe every member is an honourable member. They all believe in the political system. They all believe in caring for their constituents, and surely to God they would not let that happen. I'm prepared to sit here until hell freezes over; I've told you that, as is my caucus. You are not going to jam bills through this Legislature as far as I'm concerned. We will sit here as long as we have to, but you will have denied the democratic rights to all those people.
But finally what I want to say to you is, and I leave you with this one final message, if you've got a conscience at all, you'd better --
Hon Mr Cooke: And you're the only one with a conscience.
Mr Callahan: The minister of colleges and universities says I'm the only one with a conscience. That's not true. I'm urging you to join me. If you have a conscience at all, you're going to think twice about every time the government brings forward a measure in the next four or five months that we have to sit that you're joined at the hip. Have some conscience and principle. The member for Victoria-Haliburton, the member for Perth, for Hamilton whatever, they at least have the guts to stand up and say --
The Acting Speaker: Thank you.
Mr Callahan: -- "God damn it, I'm not going to vote with the government simply because they think they're right."
Interjection: Come on. Withdraw.
Mr Callahan: I apologize for the "God damn."
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate. The honourable member for Simcoe East.
1950
Mr McLean: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to comment briefly on the resolution tonight. This resolution is to extend the sitting of the Legislature, commencing Monday 28 June, 1993.
This should never have come before us. If the government was doing its job properly in the first place, we would never have seen this bill.
I would suggest that the people watching these proceedings on television must be thinking this is a summer rerun of a program they saw last year. They watched it last year, because the same thing happened. At this time, the government went through the same charade about how hard it was working to press on with its legislative agenda. Last year we debated extending the sittings until midnight and extended the sittings well past the scheduled adjournment.
I would respectfully submit that if the government was really serious about proceeding with its legislative agenda it would have come back on March 22, when it was supposed to, as the parliamentary calendar stated, rather than hiding and delaying proceedings for three weeks until April 13. The Minister of Finance maybe wasn't hiding all of the time but just part of the time.
In the throne speech of 1990 Bob Rae said: "My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario. My government's integrity will be measured by the way this government is run. Our task is to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power." That's what Bob Rae said in 1990.
I would suggest that Bob Rae and his government colleagues got it all wrong. Their real challenge has been to constantly make excuses for the incompetence of the government, to make excuses for a failure to implement the campaign promises and policies contained in the Agenda for People, to make excuses for systematic dismantling of Ontario's economy and to make excuses for the growing number of unemployed in the province of Ontario.
I would suggest that the root of the problem is the government's agenda itself. It's an agenda that includes an NDP government's budgetary deficit that has been rising too fast, from about $3 billion in 1990 to more than $10 billion in 1993. The government's revenue grew during that period by approximately 3.5% or $1.5 billion. That's their revenues. The government's operating expenditures jumped by 18% or $7.7 billion during that same period. It's their expenditures that have jumped $7.7 billion in that short operating time.
It's an agenda that saw this government grab on to the average person's pocketbook again on May 19 and steal more than $2 billion, the single largest tax grab in Ontario history.
The budget means everybody -- people in Orillia or Penetanguishene or Elmvale or Coldwater -- will have less money to spend, and that's going to kill jobs and reverse the already fragile economy and the recovery in the major city of Orillia.
It's an agenda that forces Ontario's 839 municipalities to pay for Bob Rae's mistakes by having a total of $275 million slashed from the transfer payments to the municipal sector. The government wants the people of Ontario to believe that everyone -- the government, employers, bargaining agents -- is committed to ensuring that the impact of the fiscal reductions is distributed fairly. I would suggest that it's not fair to those municipalities that have already cut their budgets and worked out deals with their employees to take days off work without pay.
I would also suggest that employers, workers, bargaining agents, municipalities and the Ontario PC caucus have taken up the cause of debt reduction and spending controls. It appears that the only group not committed to the cause is the government itself in some of the actions that we see, which is creating chaos long after the municipalities have brought down their budgets and have already made financial commitments to important local charity groups and community programs.
If the government really had a job to do and an agenda to accomplish, we should have been back here on March 22. Instead, for the second year in a row, this government chose to delay the return of the House. Instead, they've chosen to extend the hours of sittings and to extend the sittings of the House to make up for lost time.
I really think it's time for Bob Rae to get his act together and get on with accomplishing something really positive in this Legislature with regard to legislation. The government claims to have an agenda to accomplish. That agenda appears to include such important pieces of legislation as resolutions to extend the hours of sitting and extend the sittings of the House. We're spending hours and hours debating the extending of sittings. The simple solution to the whole problem would have been to have been here on March 22.
We're not even going to get the chance to look at Bill 105, the Farm Organizations Funding Act; private member's Bill 2, the Heritage Day Act; Bill 162, the Game and Fish Amendment Act, and my private member's bill, Bill 41, the Motor Boat Operators Certification Act. I don't see these or any other pieces of important legislation on the government's agenda. As a matter of fact, there is no agenda. This is a rudderless government that is drifting aimlessly in Ontario waterways without a certificate.
In the 1990 Agenda for People, Bob Rae promised that if elected, they would take a different approach to governing. That's about the only promise that has been kept. Over the past three years, Bob Rae's different approach to governing has resulted in Ontario's economy being battered by high taxation, high unemployment and low productivity. It has resulted in a social structure that is stretched to the limit by soaring costs for health care, education and welfare.
Ontario's economic and social problems are far too pressing and real to allow the socialists the luxury of playing games with resolutions like this one we're currently debating tonight.
Bob Rae and his colleagues claim they're attempting to fine-tune the Ontario political economy, but Canadian humorist and political economist Stephen Leacock said once, "The subject is called political economy because it has nothing to do with politics and nothing to do with the economy." I agree with Mr Leacock. I would suggest that the resolution has nothing to do with the job we were elected to do nor the agenda the NDP government claims it wants to accomplish.
We have had no debate on the budget. The County of Simcoe Act has not been brought through for second reading. The night sittings on previous legislation, when the agenda said we should have them, were right and proper.
There are new rules that were brought into this Legislature and I submit that those new rules were brought in to make sure Mr Kormos was under control. The agenda of this Legislature has been changed. It's this government that shortened the agenda. There are fewer sitting days. There are provisions made to sit in the evenings. This government cannot contain its agenda.
The member for Sudbury, Ms Murdock, indicated that the passage of bills when we were in government was 44 in some sessions. They have claimed that they have passed 14. I can tell you where the difference is. When we brought in legislation, we brought in legislation that was good. It didn't need a whole bunch of amendments. The legislation that I have seen your administration bringing in here has had the need for amendments, amendments and amendments. Bill 48, which got second reading today, will have some amendments or it will never get to third reading. We have made that quite clear. We want those amendments because they're needed.
I remember when the third party wouldn't let the government, at that time the Liberals, bring in its budget in this Legislature. Could you just surmise what would happen if they were still in government and you were in opposition and they brought in a bill such as the social contract? What would have happened? I can tell you that the House would never have been sitting again. They would have brought it to a complete halt.
When we look at the items of bills that are yet to be debated, I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that this order of the debate on times remaining on bills, I've never seen until this week. This is the last week the House is sitting. I want to know where the list of priorities of the government was a month ago, six weeks ago. Where were they?
2000
I can tell you that my House leader is telling me that they couldn't even get a meeting with the government House leader. He didn't want to meet to talk about what legislation they have. That's what I'm getting from my House leader. It's unfortunate that maybe your House leader is telling you something different. That may be. But I'm telling you that we've never seen the agenda. Our House leader could not get an agenda, so we didn't know exactly what was going on.
I'm here to tell you that there's a problem, and I can tell you where the problem is. It's the problem that some people have no idea how to negotiate. I know the members, the House leaders for our party and for the Liberal Party, have been involved in negotiations in this Legislature for many years. They know how to give; they know how to take. They want to play it both ways, and you've got to when you're dealing with House leaders.
Unfortunately, the House leaders that you have been used to having have wanted it one way. I'll tell you, Mr Speaker, that just does not work here, having it one way. There's got to be some communication, some sawoff of what could happen. I could tell you that you could do all the legislation and business here in three days if the House leader of the government wanted to sit down and negotiate and deal with the other House leaders in this Legislature.
There's been a lot of communication with regard to Bill 48, which is the social contract. I want to relate to some of that, because I've got 18 minutes left and I don't want to use all of that. But I want to put some things on the record, because on Monday, June 14, the government introduced two bills for first reading, the Social Contract Act and the Ministry of Health Expenditure Control Plan Statute Law Amendment Act.
This second act, introduced almost at the end of the sitting by the Minister of Health, received little attention but has such far-reaching implications for doctors and the public that I felt it urgent you understand the views of the medical profession.
The legislation's not cutting back 5% on expenditures on doctors for the next three years, as that is. There is a much larger, more sinister agenda at play here, a plan by the Ministry of Health to override almost all of the OMA's agreements with government and impose massive cuts on medical services and patient care.
We challenge members of the provincial Parliament to take note of what the government is doing and to decide whether or not it is appropriate for government to have the very great powers it is now claiming as its own. I would like to concentrate on two broad implications of the legislation: the effect on patients and the public, and the effect on the relationship between doctors and the government, and, ultimately, how this will impact on patients and the public.
As you know, the government has decided to reduce expenditures in health care by a staggering $1.6 billion. One of the ways it intends to do this is by giving itself the power under the Expenditure Control Plan Statute Law Amendment Act to cut the number of services that it will pay for patients. Specifically, that act would give the Minister of Health the power at any time to say that if a patient has received a service on one or more occasions, the patient would not have further access to the service, or if a physician has rendered the service before, the physician would not be paid for providing the service on another occasion.
This gives the government the power to say, for example, that if your child had an ear infection and needs more than the government-dictated number of visits, those medical services might not be covered by OHIP or, worse, they might not be available at all.
There are no limits on what services can be restricted by government under this legislation. The legislation is not specific to physiotherapy or eye examinations, as originally proposed in the expenditure control plan for physician services. The power to ration insured and medically necessary services applies to everyone and everything, and the number of medical services deemed appropriate can be decided unilaterally by some bureaucrat whose mandate extends no further than saving money.
Those are some of the comments that I have received from the medical profession with regard to some of what the Premier had to say. The Premier came to speak at the OMA's board of directors, and he said at the time:
"There is no fairness in a system that allows the government to dictate unilaterally your level of pay in which one insurer has all the political cards, can't work without checks and balances, profession's fees to speak out on the quality of care, a partnership in which planning decisions about the system emerge from a genuine dialogue and not from the cabinet room alone. Above all, a sense of fairness comes through the management of the system.
"These are all essential if the health care system is to maintain the confidence of everyone working in it, as well as the public it serves. Fair arbitration between the professions and the government is a critical element in creating a more open health care system. You have a right to it under the international law and under every standard of natural justice."
Compare what Mr Rae said then to what he is saying now. He is giving himself the power to dictate unilaterally what services patients will receive and what doctors are paid. He is eliminating the checks and balances.
Mr Speaker, there's a lot to the agreement that is being proposed and I can tell you that the medical profession has certainly raised many issues and important issues, because it wants to join in the opposition of many people with regard to the legislation which promises to have a profound negative impact on our ability to provide high quality medical services.
"The doctors of this province are not a valuable and necessary element of the effective management of health care services. The people of this province know this and they deserve less." I indicated they are a valuable, necessary element.
The pharmacists' association has raised some issues with regard to the context of Bills 29 and 48 and the Premier who said: "We also urge government to create a system of fair and binding arbitration that was acceptable to doctors and other health professions. There's no fairness in a system that allows government to dictate unilaterally your level of pay." Exactly what is the Premier doing now if he's not dictating the level of pay?
To wrap up, I'm pleased to see the House leader of the government here. It's about time that he took some notes from this debate. As I had indicated before, there has been a problem in the Legislature with a lack of communications. In my opinion, the House leaders have not been able to make agreements as they have done in the past. This Legislature has run on a program whereby the three House leaders would make agreements and that's the way this Legislature operated. The information that I have and what I've seen going on here is that there appears to be a one-way dialogue, where the two opposition House leaders do not appear to be part of the system.
I remember, when this Legislature came back on April 13, instead of March 22, it took almost three weeks for the House leaders to get together to make some progress in this Legislature. There's no need for this debate tonight. There's no need for this Legislature to prolong the sittings of this House. There's no need of this Legislature dealing with what this House leader is proposing because I can tell you, Mr Speaker, we brought in an agenda, we have a calendar, and my goodness, if they can't even go by a calendar, what have we got to go by?
The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate? Minister?
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I guess the interesting comments of the last speaker --
The Deputy Speaker: Pardon me, are you speaking on the motion?
Hon Mr Charlton: Yes, Mr Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: You already have spoken on the motion.
Hon Mr Charlton: Mr Speaker, I'm simply rising to move that the previous question now be put.
2010
The Deputy Speaker: Minister?
Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, I'll speak very briefly. I do want to point out that this debate is the type of debate in this place that used to be considered to be a routine debate, a motion that was dealt with without much debate at all. We've now been debating this since 4 o'clock this afternoon, four hours --
Mr Charles Beer (York North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You had recognized the government House leader. I would think in the rotation that it would then come to our side. I wonder if you could help us with that.
The Deputy Speaker: I understand that.
Mr Beer: I distinctly heard the government House leader speaking. His lips were moving.
The Deputy Speaker: Please, if you want to take your chair, I'll explain. I made a mistake. I should not have recognized him; therefore, it's the turn of the member for Windsor-Riverside and then after that, when he's through, I will recognize as normal to rotation.
Hon Mr Cooke: As I was saying, this is very much a routine matter that should be treated as a routine motion. The only substance to the motion at all is that we have asked that the House be allowed to sit past its regular sitting time to complete the government's work, which is fully within the right of the government to ask the Legislature.
In fact, if I consider some of the debates that have taken place in this place before -- last year we were moving a motion at one point to adjourn the House, to allow the House to adjourn for the summer, and we had a lengthy debate in this place because the opposition was saying, "No, no, the Legislature should remain in session."
Tonight we're trying to put a motion forward so that the House can be extended, and what's the reaction of the opposition parties? "No, the House can't sit." I wish they could get their act together, but I guess they take the traditional role of opposition parties: No matter what the government proposes, no matter what the circumstances are, the opposition parties decide to oppose it.
I think it's important that we understand that this debate has now been going on for over four hours. It's clearly a routine motion put forward to extend the Legislature. There is work that has to be completed by this Legislature before the House can adjourn for the summer.
The debate that has taken place for the last four hours has hardly been on topic. There has been very little discussion about the substance of the motion itself. In fact, if members of the Legislature want to debate the topics that have been debated this afternoon in this four hours, we will have ample opportunity to do that as long as this motion carries and is dealt with. So I think the most appropriate thing to do is to vote on the motion and get on with the business of the Legislature in a productive way by having substantive debates.
If we take a look at some of the precedents that have taken place in this Legislature on routine motions, on motions dealing with items like this, it is not unusual and has happened on several occasions that four to four and a half hours after the debate has begun, closure has been moved and the Speaker has ruled that closure has been in order. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I hope that when I move this motion, you will rule in favour of it based on the precedents of this Parliament and the sittings of this Legislature.
Having listened to lengthy debate this afternoon on a routine motion, I would move that the question now be put.
Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This whole thing is totally out of order. As I understand it, the member for Simcoe East made his remarks. There are supposed to be two-minutes comments from various members --
Hon Mr Cooke: No, not on this, not on the motion. There hasn't been all afternoon.
Mr Eves: Not on this? So you're telling me that you're going to move closure after two rotations. Is that what you're trying to tell me? We may as well go to Yugoslavia. We'll set parliamentary tradition back here 5,000 years. That's the first time in history that's ever been done.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for Bruce on a point of order.
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): As you know, Mr Speaker, we have been operating in this Legislative Assembly now for some time under the new rules that have been brought in by the members of the New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party has indicated that members cannot speak for very long periods of time.
Hon Mr Cooke: Is this debate or is this a point of order?
Mr Elston: It's a point of order. Listen up.
Hon Mr Cooke: Let's hear the point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. No, no, please.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Order. Order.
Mr Elston: As I was saying before I was interrupted by the member for Windsor-Riverside, who brought in the draconian rules that now we operate under, we were allowed before these rules to speak for a considerable length of time as individual members. A member could go on for a good amount of time.
Now the rules are such that a member, the leadoff speaker for each party, can take only 90 minutes. That's okay, 90 minutes for that person, I think, is ample time for putting the case for the party in the view of the critic or the leadoff speaker. But each member is allowed under the rules to speak for 30 minutes in total after that, each one in turn.
Now what we have had is two members speaking on behalf of our party, two members, and we have been required to stay by the rules, to speak by the rules, and that is what we have done. The Conservative Party has likewise had two people only speak on this item, one member for an hour and a half, as he is allowed to do under the rules, the restrictive rules that have been brought in by this draconian government.
They have had a second member who spoke for 30 minutes, as is allowed under the rules. The other party in turn set up its member, the member for Sudbury, for 10 minutes --
Ms Murdock: Eight minutes.
Mr Elston: Eight minutes. Actually, it just seemed like 10. I can tell you that they now have assumed their position to try --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot listen with all these interruptions. Please respect the order of the Chair to prevent interjections. The member for Bruce, you have the floor.
Mr Elston: Now, in turn, the New Democratic Party has put up another member. He has now used up -- the clock is still moving, but he used up to about four minutes of a 30-minute time allocation for that member.
There are 130 members -- actually 129 members -- now elected to this assembly, and I can tell you that the rules are designed to allow as many members as is possible to speak on any particular issue. The rules have said that we can only speak for certain amounts of time, and to indicate that the speaking on this item by seven people out of 129 is enough expression of opinion about the merit of this particular motion is of very little or no --
The Deputy Speaker: I just want --
Mr Elston: If we cannot have more than seven people speaking in this chamber on any item, it would be a travesty, it would be a prevention, it would be an overruling of democracy. In fact what has occurred already is that the New Democratic Party has had three members --
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Thank you, I've heard enough. Order, please. I have to decide if the rights of the minorities have been infringed upon. In my opinion, there was ample time for both the opposition and the third party to debate the issue. Therefore, I am concluding that the question be now put is in order.
Mr Cooke has moved that the question be now put.
All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
This will be a 30-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 2019 to 2049.
The Deputy Speaker: Mr Cooke has moved that the question be now put.
All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.
Ayes
Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Farnan, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time.
Nays
Beer, Brown, Callahan, Cleary, Drainville, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Jackson, Marland, McLean, Miclash, Murdoch (Grey), O'Neil (Quinte), Runciman, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 62, the nays are 19. I declare the motion carried.
Mr Charlton has moved government notice of motion number 5. Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
This will be a 30-minute bell.
Is it the same vote? A 30-minute bell.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Please allow me to make my proper comments. This, in my opinion --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. This, in my opinion, is uncalled-for behaviour. It really is.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I certainly agree. If the government whip does not know that no member is allowed on these steps, then it is pretty awful.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I will take five minutes just to think of what I should do next. Please, ring the bell. Five minutes.
The House recessed at 2054 and resumed at 2059.
The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seats. I have received a request from the member for Leeds-Grenville and a request from the member for Frontenac-Addington, and the vote on government notice of motion number 5 will be deferred to 5:45 on June 24, tomorrow.
Let me please remind the House that this is our House. There's a decorum. There are traditions. There are procedures. We must respect them, please. We must respect them. We must respect the Chair. The Chair represents you.
Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I expect that, as there are new and interesting rulings here, you will get the type of activity that just occurred as people rushed to the Chair. My concern, sir, when I rose on the point of order, was that two problems existed with the filing of the notices: one, that there were two people who tried to do it at the same time; second, that they both had delivered the notices to you prior to the beginning of the bells. Under the rules, you accept the deferral notices at the time the bells start to ring to call the members in.
I was only asking, sir, that the ringing of the bells occur to perfect a delivery and so that we could acknowledge that the rules of the House require delivery of the deferrals inside the time the bells are ringing to call the members in.
Thirdly, I would ask, in light of what has just occurred, if it is the ruling that you accept Mr Runciman's notice, which I agree with, I would like some understanding, sir, to prevent any of these races in the future, that there be a ruling delivered that indicates quite clearly that a delivery of a notice of deferral under, I guess it's 28(g), would actually indicate that you would accept the deferral to the latest time that is being requested, and that each of the whips of the parties could deliver a notice of deferral inside the time that the members are being called for the vote.
That was my only reason for standing, but I can tell you, sir, that as long as things remain relatively unstable here, you will find that we will all have to do foot races to your chair to try to gain some paramountcy, but I want you to provide us with a ruling.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order.
The member for Bruce, you're totally right. The bells were asked to be rung, and then I think you had ample time to bring me the deferred vote. You didn't have to rush that way, please. I hope this will never happen again.
Hon Fred Wilson (Minister without Portfolio and Chief Government Whip): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to apologize, sir, for my unparliamentary action. It was unconscionable and I do apologize. I assure you, sir, it won't happen again.
Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I will also extend my apologies to the House. I think it was inappropriate activity on the part of both members, and I do indeed apologize.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much. This is our House and we should be proud of our House.
PAY EQUITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉQUITÉ SALARIALE
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for 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): Mr Mahoney, I believe, was the last one to debate on that third reading. Mr Mahoney is not here; therefore, I will recognize the --
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): For obvious reasons.
The Deputy Speaker: Pardon?
Mr Elston: For obvious reasons.
The Deputy Speaker: I will recognize the member for Willowdale.
Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I'm very pleased to be able to take part in this debate, which that is a debate that was unexpected at this time, and I note that my friend from Mississauga, Mr Mahoney, who had the floor, will now be denied the opportunity to complete the speech that he wishes to make.
I know there are people who have to prepare for this debate, because the government brought in closure on what we were debating previously, so accordingly, Mr Speaker, I move to adjourn the debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Willowdale has moved the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour of the motion will please "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.
The division bells ran from 2107 to 2137.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Mr Harnick has moved adjournment of the debate. All those in favour of the motion, please rise and remain standing. Thank you. Please be seated.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. All those opposed to the motion, please rise and remain standing.
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 20, the nays are 59.
The Acting Speaker: The ayes being 20 and the nays being 59, I declare the motion lost. I believe the member for Willowdale has the floor.
Mr Harnick: This is a bill that is of some significance to the province of Ontario and it's a shame that the government sits there plotting to bring its next closure motion so that it can ram another one through and get on with the next piece of business, so that they can go on their two months' summer vacation.
Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Blah, blah, blah.
Mr Harnick: The Treasurer says, "Blah, blah, blah," but this truly is an important piece of legislation and it's a piece of legislation that demands serious debate --
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please.
Mr Harnick: -- and I am going to say something about this bill that's serious.
Hon Mr Laughren: Good. We're waiting for this.
Mr Harnick: In spite of the Treasurer taunting me, I'm going to try and say something about this bill that's significant and serious. This bill provides two additional comparison methods for determining pay equity. It deals with concepts known as proportional value and proxy comparison, but implements them one year later than was originally scheduled because the Treasurer, I suppose, has recognized that we're in a deep recession, he's broke and many businesses are on the verge of being broke.
But at any rate, these two new comparison methods are intended for use when the standard method of job-to-job comparison of male and female job classes in the same establishment is inappropriate. So we now are looking at two new concepts. The first is proportional value comparison. This is a method of indirectly comparing female and male job classes in the same establishment based on the value of the work performed, and it will now take effect January 1, 1993. It will not be retroactive to January 1992, as it was originally intended. This postponement recognizes that retroactivity is not realistic in the workplace because the workplace is facing tough economic times. This was a very, very astute observation by the Minister of Labour, that those who run businesses are having economic difficulties.
I can tell that very few people are interested in what I'm saying. People are moving around and making a lot of noise and, accordingly, because of that I am going to move adjournment of the House.
The Acting Speaker: Mr Harnick has moved adjournment of the House.
All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."
All those opposed to the motion, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
Call in the members; a 30-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 2142 to 2213.
The Acting Speaker: Mr Harnick has moved adjournment of the House. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 10 and the nays 56; I declare the motion lost. The member for Willowdale has the floor.
Mr Harnick: As I was saying before the 30-minute bell ringing, there are two new comparison methods that are intended for use when the standard method of job-to-job comparison of male and female job classes in the same establishment is inappropriate. The proportional value comparison I started to explain, but no one wanted to listen and that's when we decided to adjourn the House. So I'm going to try again.
Proportional value comparison is a method of indirectly comparing female and male job classes in the same establishment based on the value of the work performed, and we're now going to use January of 1993 and not the retroactive January 1992 time to implement this particular comparison method.
As I said before, the postponement -- and this is very significant -- recognizes that the Treasurer and even the Minister of Labour recognize that retroactivity to January 1, 1992, is not realistic because of the difficulties that the workplace faces in terms of the difficult economic times.
The second method of comparison is proxy comparison. Now, that is to be used only in the broader public sector after all other methods have been attempted. It's designed to allow comparisons between female-predominant organizations, such as home care, nursing homes, child care, with another comparable organization in the public sector. This method is expected to benefit an estimated 80,000 women and is now scheduled to take effect on January 1, 1994.
What is very significant is a recognition of the economic times. I think that is something that everybody has to understand, because in the economic climate that we are now in -- and I'm quoting an article by Donna Laframbroise in the Toronto Star on December 7, 1992, page A15. She makes some very, very astute observations. She says that in such an economic climate -- and that's the economic climate that I just referred to. She says that because of such a difficult economic climate, we have difficult questions that have to be asked: "For example, is it wise to enforce a pay equity timetable that would end up hurting some of the most vulnerable working people in the province?"
The writer goes on to state: "What should our government's first priority be? Increasing the salaries of people who are lucky enough to have jobs or creating new jobs for those who are unemployed?"
We have to say to ourselves, when someone is fortunate enough to have a job, are they prepared to have their salary increased because of pay equity and then end up having their job lost and having nothing? That's the very important question that this writer asks.
Then she goes on to say: "To be sure, it's difficult not to have sympathy with the hundreds of thousands of women who will now have to wait up to three more years for pay equity, but it's worth noting that it's against the law for an employer to reduce anyone else's salary in order to achieve pay equity within a particular establishment."
So what the writer is saying is that the alternative to losing jobs would maybe be adjusting everyone's salary and lowering the salaries so that the amount of money that's available would ensure everyone a job.
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): The Tories are always looking for the lowest common denominator.
Mr Harnick: The writer goes on to say: "But it's worth noting that it's against the law for an employer to reduce anyone else's salary in order to achieve pay equity within a particular establishment. Therefore, with limited dollars available, there's a good chance that organizations compelled to institute pay equity at this time will have to lay off some employees."
The member from Scarborough shouts across at me that we're prepared to accept the lowest common denominator. The fact of the matter is, Mr Speaker -- and I'm going to speak to you rather than try and debate with them as they shout across the floor and have no idea what they're talking about -- that if their own legislation dealing with the social contract, where their own Premier is trying to create a scheme where people don't lose their jobs, where people aren't massively laid off, if that hasn't come home to roost to the people who are now shouting at me on the government side, like the member for Scarborough.
Mr Owens: Scarborough where?
Mr Harnick: Is it Agincourt? No. Give me a hint. Scarborough Centre.
If they haven't understood what it is that their Premier's trying to accomplish, and when they shout out at me that we're looking at the lowest common denominator, what I say to you is that we are looking for legislation today that creates jobs. We're not looking for legislation that's going to lay more people off.
Interjections.
2220
Mr Harnick: This writer, I might add, has very sympathetic ties to the socialist movement, but that's something they don't want to recognize, as they shout across at me. But this writer has those leanings, and she recognizes that it's important just to have a job. At any rate, the writer goes on to say:
"This is a disturbing prospect for at least three reasons. First, many of these laid-off workers would be forced to apply for unemployment insurance, a social program already under severe strain.
"Second, since those with the least seniority tend to be laid off first, there's a good chance that visible minorities would be overrepresented among the casualties." In other words, in the name of enforcing pay equity, we might be undermining much of the progress that has recently been achieved through affirmative action programs.
"Third, young people, some of whom have large student loans looming over their future, would also be extremely vulnerable to layoffs. Since there are already grave concerns about the high level of unemployment among our youth and the despair this is engendering within that generation, do we really want to contribute further to this problem?"
Interjection.
Mr Harnick: The member for Scarborough Centre persists in shouting across the floor, and I tell you, this is a debate that was provoked by his own House leader, who closed down the debate we were dealing with before. They don't want to debate; they just want to shout at me. Accordingly, I am moving adjournment of the debate, and you can blame the member for Scarborough Centre.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I would like to say to the honourable member for Willowdale that he has moved two dilatory motions at this point in time; accordingly, in terms of looking at Beauchesne, there has to be some reasonable intervening procedure.
Mr Harnick: That was reasonable. It was substantive.
The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry, no. I cannot entertain another dilatory motion at this time. Let us proceed with the debate.
The honourable member for Parry Sound on a point of order.
Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Perhaps the Chair would like to give some direction to the members of the Legislature as to what substantive business is. I take it from your ruling just now that nine minutes of substantive debate on a particular bill is not substantive, that there's not enough interval of time. What is it? Is 90 seconds enough? Do you need 90 hours? Do you need nine minutes? You might give us some direction. I always thought you couldn't move closure after two rotations either, but I learned something new tonight.
The Acting Speaker: I will give a response to the honourable House leader. Essentially, the honourable member for Willowdale moved --
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I'm trying to explain the ruling of the Chair. The honourable member for Willowdale asked for the House to adjourn debate. That was refused by the House. The honourable member then moved the adjournment of the House. That was refused by the House. The honourable member has not, in my view, used adequate time, in that there's not enough of a procedure that has been gone through at this point in time. I would say that the honourable member needs to continue his remarks and, at an appropriate moment, a dilatory motion may be moved again.
Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If 10 minutes is not enough, what is enough? You must give us instruction and guidance on what is substantive. You can't just keep on going and going like this. How much is it? I ask for your ruling.
The Acting Speaker: It is not a matter of time; it is a matter of the procedure that's being done. The honourable member has not used his time at this point in time. The House has said no to two dilatory motions that he quite properly put in terms of the procedure.
Mr Elston: And now you're not going to allow him to move a third.
The Acting Speaker: That is correct.
Mr Elston: Ever? During this time period?
The Acting Speaker: In the period of time that this member has to finish his remarks.
Mr Elston: You will not allow him --
The Acting Speaker: As far as those dilatory motions are concerned, no. He may offer other motions.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm looking through the standing orders and I can't find a definition of substantive debate. If there is a ruling declining to place this motion before the house because there has not been substantive debate, then I need to have a definition of substantive debate. Otherwise, depending on who is in the Chair, we are going to have individual interpretations of substantive debate.
The Acting Speaker: I have indicated to the honourable member that I will not entertain a dilatory motion at this point.
Mr Elston: When will you?
The Acting Speaker: I've said the honourable member must continue his discussion. He has time on the clock. He must continue. There will not be a dilatory motion accepted at this point in time.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Considering the fact that you've taken up at least five minutes of the member's time, I would ask that --
Interjections.
Mr Stockwell: If you will allow me to finish my point of order.
The Acting Speaker: I'm listening.
Mr Stockwell: I'm trying to put it across, but I'm raising hackles here. Considering the fact that there have been more than five minutes taken off the member's time while you were in the midst of ruling and hearing points of order, through no fault of the member's, could I ask that you put the five minutes back on the clock and not penalize him for the five minutes when it was through no fault of his own, Mr Speaker?
The Acting Speaker: I hear what the honourable member is saying. This was brought about because of the motion that was put by the honourable member; therefore, I ask the honourable member for Willowdale to please continue with his remarks.
Mr Harnick: Mr Speaker, it will be extremely ironic when I finish, when the government stands up and moves closure on this bill as well. That's the irony of the position that this Legislature's now being put in.
It's interesting that you can stand here and talk about substantive measures, measures substantive enough to get the member for Scarborough Centre to start shouting at you, but when I move the motion I moved, I'm told I haven't said anything of substance.
I might tell you, without intending to give you the impression that I'm challenging the Chair, that what I was saying was substantive. In the sense that it was substantive, and I can repeat it all again if you'd like to hear it, the intervening business was significant enough, in my estimation, and what you've told me is that I have not been (a) speaking for long enough or (b) saying anything of substance. Without challenging your ruling and with respect, I take issue with you on that matter.
Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I apologize to my colleague, but on page 38, standing order 45(b), I would refer you to that standing order and ask you if it applies to the motion for adjournment placed before you by the member for Willowdale.
2230
The Acting Speaker: Let me repeat again what I said to the honourable members: There needs to be an intermediate proceeding. It is the tradition in terms of Parliament that an intermediate proceeding is not reckoned to be a speech or a part thereof. The only precedent that is set under this is the 17 hours that Mr Kormos was engaged in in the last Parliament.
In terms of that 17 hours, there are two factors that need to be considered: The first was that that was a period of time when there was unlimited debate; secondly, the Speaker ruled on a very similar situation to this and indicated to the honourable member that he would not accept another dilatory motion unless there was an intermediate proceeding. In this case, it meant Mr Kormos being engaged in a very long period of debate in the House before another dilatory motion was made.
So my ruling stands. I will not accept any more dilatory motions from this member and I would ask the honourable member to please take the floor and to continue.
Mr Harnick: Mr Speaker, we certainly have rewritten the rule book tonight, I think. Let me begin the next intermediate proceeding -- or let me continue my intermediate proceeding, no matter what you say, Speaker. I notice that in all the deliberations between the Chair and the Clerk and the decision-making, I've now lost probably 10 minutes. If those weren't intermediate proceedings -- there were deliberations going on, points of order, portions of a substantive speech -- I don't know what an intermediate proceeding is.
At any rate, the writer goes on to say, "There aren't any easy answers, of course, and to be fair, women performing low-wage jobs such as child care, which appear to have been historically undervalued precisely because they're done by women, are entitled to ask how long they're expected to subsidize the rest of society."
"However," the writer goes on to say, "we all need to start coming to terms with the fact that there isn't an unending supply of money." I know there are still people on that side of the House who believe that there's an unending supply of money for anything, people who never have had to meet a payroll, people who give 5% raises to their non-profit housing corporation when the province is bankrupt. They've never had to meet a payroll, and they understand that there's a never-ending supply of money. They sit and they laugh and they giggle and all of these things are just meaningless to them. You know why? Because they've never had to meet a payroll. They've never in their lives had to worry about an employee. They've never had to worry about somebody and whether they had a job or kept a job.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Harnick: That was just as an aside, Mr Speaker.
Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Aside from what?
Mr Harnick: The writer goes on to say, "However, we all need to start coming to terms with the fact that there isn't an unending supply of money." In other words, when the province is going broke and freezing salaries and people are worried about layoffs, the non-profit housing corporation can't give its directors 5% raises and have the minister approve it.
At any rate: "For every large corporation whose obscene profits make headlines, there are thousands of smaller businesses that are barely getting by these days. Furthermore, we have to begin to appreciate the fact that in addition to providing jobs to significant numbers of people, many of these business are owned and operated by ordinary, conscientious men and women, not black-hatted capitalists intent on ripping off their employees."
I tell you, the person who wrote this article is hardly a capitalist, probably a dyed-in-the-wool socialist like the Minister of Housing, but she recognizes that there isn't money to go around to do all these things and that pay equity is going to cause people to lose jobs.
If you want to take a practical look at pay equity -- in my office, my humble office in Queen's Park where I have a staff, I was told I had to implement a pay equity plan. I hired staff. They were all being paid the same amount of money but, because of gender, I had to give one of my assistants a raise according to a pay equity plan whereas the other employees didn't get a raise.
Now, quite apart from the fact that they were being paid the same amount of money, the pay equity plan arbitrarily, because of gender, gave someone in my office a raise when someone else didn't get a raise. They both started working at the same time. They both started at the same level. One got a raise; one did not get a raise.
You know, one has to start taking a practical look at what employment pay equity is all about in the workplace, how employment is affected by pay equity.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Harnick: Quite frankly, as this place tends to lose control again and again, we can see that this plan is not being approached in a practical, commonsense way. People are going to lose jobs. The money isn't there.
In the last couple of minutes that I have remaining I'd like to refer to a Globe and Mail article published in January 1993 where reference was made to a Statistics Canada report. In that report it indicated that women's wages rose to 69.9% of men's wages, from 67.6% the year before, a 2% increase. But what does this 2% increase really mean? It doesn't mean women are being paid nearly one third less to do the same job, even though there are some within the government who suggest that men are being paid one third more to do precisely the same job as a woman within the same company.
What we would expect is that since society's attitudes towards women's work and education have changed only relatively recently, the difference in average wages would be least among the young.
We find that while full-time working women over age 55 earn 63.6% of the income of their male counterparts in the same age bracket, the same woman who is younger and aged 15 to 24 earned an average of 86.4% as much as a man in the same age group. That is 23% more between women over age 55 and women between the ages of 15 and 24. So you can see that age is making a difference as far as the payment for women in jobs is concerned.
So by artificially trying to take pay equity and impose it on a fragile economy, what we are effectively doing is taking people out of the employment market. We're taking jobs away from people who, because of their age, because of their education, have reached a situation of parity without having to pay any money into plans.
Now what we're going to do is we are going to implement a plan that is going to, by necessity, have people lose jobs. I know that the Premier has worked hard to try, with the social contract, to ensure that people don't lose jobs. This act is a contradiction in the sense that people are going to lose their opportunities.
I've been very pleased to be able to take part in this debate. I believe pay equity is a very worthwhile goal. Pay equity and parity were being reached without artificial implementation of certain schemes.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, ho, ho, ho.
Mr Harnick: And I hear the Minister of Housing, who didn't hear a word I said in terms of the statistical approach. At any rate, my time is completed and I thank you for the opportunity.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): A point of order, the member for Parry Sound.
Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, I'm confused, I guess, at the best of times, but I would like a few explanations, please. There have been a couple of different Speakers in the chair this evening and I have seen a couple of unique things, I believe, in my time at Queen's Park, happen here this evening and I'd like an explanation from the Speaker, if you don't mind.
2240
I have seen closure moved after two rotations of a very substantial motion which extends the sitting time of the Legislature when the government that's moving the motion has for two consecutive years shortened the parliamentary calendar by three weeks and resumed the House three weeks after the parliamentary calendar said it should.
Six weeks a year they're on vacation or doing whatever the hell it is they do when they're supposed to be here. They've shortened the legislative agenda by 12 weeks over two years and now they're concerned that they're running out of time. Oh, I'm so sorry. Do they have a calendar? Do they know when March 22 is and when April 13 is? I'm getting a little ticked off.
Then I see a Speaker sit in the chair who makes a ruling that after two rotations closure can be invoked on that motion. I'm at a loss for that. I don't think I've ever seen in my time at Queen's Park a Speaker ever rule, any Speaker rule, that closure after two rotations was proper, especially on a substantive motion such as this one. That's point number one I'd like clarified. Is that the new rule now set in the province of Ontario, that closure is in vogue any time after two rotations, yes or no? I'd like that explained.
The second thing I'd like explained, please, is that the member for Willowdale was about three or four minutes into his remarks with respect to Bill 102. He then moved an adjournment of the debate, and quite properly in my opinion. I may not be the most unbiased here, but I would think that any reasonable person would have thought that in the first motion called, government notice of motion number 5, debate would have gone on for at least the rest of this evening under normal parliamentary practice, and I'm choosing my words very carefully.
It's not unusual, then, that our critic and that Mr Mahoney, who had the floor, were not here to participate in the debate. The member for Willowdale moved adjournment of the debate on that basis. The debate then resumed and he spoke for some eight or nine minutes. He then moved adjournment of the House. Sorry; pardon me. He came back and the debate resumed for a few minutes. He moved adjournment of the House. That vote was taken; that vote was lost. We came back and he debated Bill 102 for about eight or nine minutes and then moved adjournment of the debate.
Standing order 45 talks about such motions. It talks about motions to adjourn the House and it talks about motions to adjourn the debate. Standing order 45(b) says, "When a motion for the immediate adjournment of the House has been defeated, no other such motion" -- I take it that means another motion to adjourn the House -- "shall be made unless some intermediate proceeding has taken place."
The Speaker who was then in the chair -- who was a different Speaker, I might add -- then ruled that a further motion to adjourn the debate as a dilatory motion was no longer in order because no substantive -- I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I believe the rationale was that no substantive intermediate proceeding had taken place.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Substantive.
Mr Eves: Substantive, then, M. Bisson. I wish we were all as perfect as you are.
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): That's uncalled for. Be nice.
Mr Eves: That was uncalled for. Yes, you're quite correct. I've just straightened that out. Would you let me proceed now? Thank you very much.
I believe that "intermediate proceeding" only refers, in standing order 45(b), to a motion to adjourn the House, not a motion to adjourn the debate.
I understand that there are precedents here that have been set in this place. The second question I'd like to ask of you, sir, Mr Speaker, is, has there ever been a time in the history of the 126 years of the Ontario Legislature where a member of the Legislature, during the same debate, has been permitted to move and was granted more than two dilatory motions?
Because if that is the case, Mr Speaker -- and I will do my homework -- I'd suggest to you the second Speaker was also in error. We have seen two rather novel, unusual precedents set here this evening.
The Speaker: To the member for Parry Sound: First, he will know that regardless of who the occupant of the chair is, the same decisions will be made.
I will address his second point first. The member will know that although the member --
Interjections.
The Speaker: If the members would show some respect for the chamber and for the Speaker, then indeed I will be pleased to address the points that have been raised. If not, we will continue.
I'd say to the member for Parry Sound, on the second point that he raised, that indeed in other parliaments when a member indicates that he no longer wishes to debate, when that motion is lost his place is lost in the debate and it goes on to another party. However, in this Parliament we have allowed a subsequent motion to be placed, ie, to move that the House adjourn. The member, then, by moving such a motion, is indicating that the House should rise. That having been defeated, the House has determined that it does not wish to rise; it wishes to continue with the debate. The member then has lost on two motions: one, to adjourn his remarks, and secondly, to adjourn the House for the balance of the sitting.
Having lost on both of those motions, it stands to reason that the member then, if he wishes or she wishes, should continue, with whatever balance of time remains, to make his or her points on the debate. The House should not be entertaining another motion from that particular member to either adjourn the debate or adjourn the House. That's not to say that another member, given the floor, could not move either of those motions. There's no particular difficulty with that.
On the first point that the member raises, indeed the Chair would have recognized that it was a motion to extend the sitting time, not the extended hours, a different debate that this House entertained earlier on to extend the hours to midnight for certain days; that indeed in the view of the Chair sufficient argument had been placed as to why we should or should not sit beyond the prescribed date in the parliamentary calendar of June 24. There is not a particular yardstick with respect to the number of hours, nor the number of speakers who have spoken to the motion, but instead, whether or not in the view of the Chair sufficient time has been allowed for the arguments to be placed either for or against whatever the motion is. In the view of the Chair, there had been sufficient time allotted, and therefore the motion of closure was in order.
I hope that I have answered the member's questions. I understand his concerns full well, but there is certainly nothing out of order, and indeed the chair occupants have done their best, as they will, to try to preserve order and decorum in the chamber and allow orderly debate.
Mr Elston: Under the standing orders, we have permitted a member on any piece of business a prescribed amount of time. We have prescribed in the standing orders that the first speaker or critic of any of the three parties will have 90 minutes, and it's within the rules for that person to take 90 minutes.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): We never have.
Mr Elston: Oh, you haven't ever? Okay, never do it. We have taken 90 minutes and you guys have taken over an hour in some cases. I agree, you have never gone 90 minutes; you're perfect. But, Mr Speaker, we are allowed to take 90 minutes. They are allowed to take 90 minutes on leadoff. That's the standing order.
Now, whenever the Speaker is in the chair, every successive member can take 30 minutes to speak on business. But when is it that every member of this House is going to be allowed to speak? Because after three days, as you know, under the new rules the New Democratic Party put in here they can move time allocation after three days of debate. That could be in extended hours or in regular hours, which would really mean that at something around six hours of debate they can move time allocation.
2250
Six hours, if everybody uses their allotted time, they cannot go longer, the rules don't permit it, but at what time and under what circumstances is it that you might intervene or one of the others might intervene to ensure that people have at least a portion of their 30-minute time allocation to speak?
Under the current situation, with 129 members now elected here, and excluding yourself who was never able to speak on an issue, 128 people should be allowed to speak on each issue if this place allowed it. There is no time for that to occur, and in fact in the ruling that was just made earlier this evening by your second in charge, two people used their prescribed time from this party, two people used their prescribed time from that party under the standing orders, and there are others of us who wish to speak.
I don't understand why the rules say that the members, excluding the leadoff, can have 30 minutes if we can never get past the second speaker for each party in opposition. There were three speakers for the New Democrats. The third speaker moved closure and that was substantial enough for the Chair to make a decision that two people from each party in opposition was enough to debate while three people could speak for the other party.
Secondly, I was standing and I'd understood that it was within the ambit of members of the opposition to stand on a point of order and advise or make an argument with respect to why the motion being placed at that time was not in order. I was not allowed to make my case. I was told to sit down, and then the Speaker of the time made his decision that enough time had passed without my being able to even get much past my opening remarks.
Mr Speaker, can you tell me why it is that the standing orders don't prescribe that we can only have two speakers on items like that if that's all you're going to allow us to have? Can you tell us why it is, if we are to have more than two speakers, that we are allowed to have an hour and a half for the first speaker and 30 minutes for each subsequent speaker? That's in order, but it is also in order then to preclude the following 32 members of our caucus to be excluded.
What would occur if the independent members had wanted to speak? I wasn't told that they wished to speak, but I'm advised, in discussions with the other House leaders and yourself, that they are allowed to have a place in rotation when they indicate that they wish to speak on matters. That would mean that we would have two speakers, the Progressive Conservatives would have two speakers and each of the independents, if they chose or if they elected, would have half an hour to speak to an item.
I don't find that to be rational or reasonable. It seems that the standing orders contemplate that more than two people should be able to speak on any particular item. It seems that they provide us with time to speak, and in fact, as long as we work within the rules, it seems to me that you, or whoever is in the Chair at the time, should make sure that more than two people can speak on each item. Otherwise, the 90-minute and 30-minute subsequent allocations for members to speak are absolutely meaningless.
If it really is being said that two hours' debate from this caucus and two hours from the opposition is sufficient, we would have to divide our two-hour time among 34 people, 35 people, whatever it is, it doesn't matter. It doesn't divide evenly anyway, so it's going to be a tough exercise. How is it then that we are to realize how to order our business if but two people can speak and they speak inside the standing orders allocation?
That's my concern. I would like to hear some direction on that.
The Speaker: The member for Bruce, first I wish to address this point and there were two parts. Number one, a motion for closure is not debatable and the member will know that.
Mr Elston: No. but you can tell us if it's in order.
The Speaker: At a time when Parliament had no restrictions with respect to the length of individual members' speeches, there was never a guarantee that all members would have an opportunity to participate. At the same time, on the other end of the scale, neither is there a prescribed minimum number of speakers, nor a maximum.
Mr Elston: No, there is a maximum.
The Speaker: What has to be judged by the --
Mr Elston: There is a maximum. You can only have 129 people.
The Speaker: Well, the maximum would be 129 people. But the balance for the Chair is to determine whether or not the motion which is on the floor has had sufficient debate before allowing the motion for closure, and if the Chair determines that indeed there has been sufficient debate, then the motion for closure is in order. If there hasn't been sufficient time, in the view of the Chair, the motion for closure is not in order. But the motion having been placed is not debatable and must immediately be voted upon.
Mr Elston: I didn't say it was debatable. I just asked whether it's in order.
The Speaker: In closing, I understand full well the member for Bruce's point, and indeed in the best of all worlds one would want to have every member of the assembly debating every issue. Parliament has never allowed that. Although the possibility is there, rarely is there ever that kind of opportunity that is permitted, nor has it been.
A new point of order?
Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Mr Speaker, I hope that the table officers, the Clerk and yourself and your predecessors in the Chair appreciate the frustration experienced by members of the opposition. You are there in accordance with parliamentary tradition and in accordance with our standing orders, to protect minority rights in this Legislature. We are the minority.
I have for the last two weeks been prepared to speak on a number of pieces of government business, which I must add it's been very difficult to prepare because the order of government business keeps changing and we don't get a lot of warning, as was the case with the pay equity bill tonight that Mr Harnick had to speak on. But the fact of the matter is, I've not had the opportunity to speak.
I thought, Mr Speaker, and I would appreciate your comments on this, that when the government sold the bill of goods to the public and put a gun to our heads and brought us into this era of time allocation, half-hour speeches only for members except the first speaker of each party, who gets 90 minutes on any bill, the intent there was to allow all members an opportunity to speak.
Now, you say there are no minimums, there are no maximums, but, Mr Speaker, I think that the table officers and yourself are in the old mindset. You're in the mindset when we weren't time-allocated in terms of our length of speeches.
Tonight the member for Willowdale was not allowed to introduce a third dilatory motion because only nine minutes had elapsed since the vote on the second dilatory motion. Well, when you only have a half-hour in total to make your remarks, nine minutes should be considered substantive. Nine minutes is all he could squeeze in between dilatory motions.
We've seen, I think, two unprecedented rulings tonight, first on the closure motion and second on not allowing the third dilatory motion by the member for Willowdale. Mr Speaker, I just wonder if the mindset of your rulings and your predecessors' rulings in the chair tonight has adjusted to accommodate the fact that we have a gun to our heads all the time in this Legislature.
This isn't the good old days of Peter Kormos and 17 hours' debate that put that party on the map. His 17 hours of debate put the NDP on the map and entrenched in the minds of Ontarians the fact that they really believed in something, because they got to get up and debate it for 17 hours straight.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to represent our constituents. I've waited two weeks to speak in this chamber. I've not been allowed to do it. We've got a gun to our head by the House leader. We've got table officers who are in cahoots with the Speaker and the government.
I only ask that the new era of limited debates be considered in rulings, because I don't think you're respecting tradition even when there is unlimited debate, and I certainly don't think that the precedents that are being set reflect the reality that we, as members of the opposition, the minority in this Parliament, have an opportunity to speak, given that we have a gun to our heads all the time. Mr Speaker, you know it's almost impossible to get your constituents' concerns on the record in a half-hour debate. You get four or five constituency letters written out if you're lucky.
I only ask that in future rulings, and when you're reviewing these rulings -- because I hope you stay up all night, and your predecessors do, because I think they were frankly immoral rulings; I don't think they were constant with tradition of this House -- I only ask that you consider our concerns, our very real concerns, and give consideration to future rulings in light of the fact that we have a gun to our heads all the time and we're not allowed to participate in our parliamentary democracy as I was elected to do on behalf of my constituents.
2300
The Speaker: The government House leader, on the same point.
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'd like to address both the point that the last member has raised and the points that were raised by the two House leaders opposite, because I think they're extremely important points that have been raised, and it's important for us to understand exactly why they've been raised.
The House leader for the third party raised the question of this two-rotation issue and only four people speaking on a routine motion. We should point out that the standing orders in this House very clearly set out our feeling about routine motions. The standing orders set out two hours for debate on the motion to sit late hours for the last two weeks of the session. We also set out in the standing orders that the debate on a time allocation motion, for example, which is another routine motion, is to take one sessional day, or roughly two and a half hours, Mr Speaker, as you're aware, in terms of a normal sessional day. We were debating a routine motion this afternoon, and I think the Chair, who was asked to make the ruling at the time, made a very appropriate ruling.
The other complaint that's being raised here by both the House leader for the opposition party -- and I think he demonstrated a very clear dislike for the standing orders in his comments, but I don't think there was really a point of order in his comments; he was expressing a dislike for the current standing orders, which do allow some things and don't allow some other things -- but the major complaint that seems to be being put to you, Mr Speaker, is about a lack of time for members opposite to debate substantive matters here in the House, and I should point out to you, Mr Speaker, that this evening, through actions of the opposition, we've wasted precisely one and a half hours of time that could have been used to debate substantive matters.
The Speaker: On the same point, and I hope not repetitive, the member for Willowdale.
Mr Harnick: First, let me say in response to what the government House leader said, there was nothing routine about the motion that was brought.
The motion that was brought was to sit in the summer. We have a calendar here that says what's routine, and the routine is that we have a fixed period to sit. If the government can't get its act together and operate on that calendar and start in March when it's supposed to start and ends up missing six weeks of the calendar, to bring a motion now and force closure is anything but routine. That's the first thing.
The second thing, Mr Speaker, and I do hope you'll grant me the indulgence of listening to -- may I have your indulgence, Mr Speaker? It's very difficult, with respect, for me to make points on a point of order when you're talking to someone else and trying to give me the impression that you're listening to the submissions I'm making, with respect.
The other thing that has happened here tonight, and I don't know if the Speaker has realized the precedent that has been set here, but tonight a time allocation motion became a thing of the past. It's obsolete. The government will never have to bring a time allocation motion in this place again. The reason they don't have to do that is, why bring a time allocation motion where you have to have a debate when you can bring a closure motion after two rotations and that's the end of it? Why do you have to bring a motion and have three days of debate when you can have two rotations from the Liberal Party and two rotations from the Conservative Party and then you can bring the closure motion?
I don't know if that point has gone right over everyone's head, but quite honestly, this is a very significant event that's gone on here. I think that if the Speaker does not rule on this issue, that is the precedent that will be created. We don't need time allocation any more; we don't need three days of debate; all we need are two rotations and we bring in closure and that's the end.
Mr Jim Wilson: Next they won't even bother calling Parliament.
Mrs Marland: There is no honour.
Mr Harnick: The honour and respect that members have for this place diminish by the moment as a result of those kinds of precedents.
The Speaker: To the member for Simcoe West, I understand full well what he has expressed. Indeed, not just the members of the opposition but often backbench government members wish an opportunity to participate in every item that's brought before the House. I fully understand that and appreciate it.
To the government House leader, indeed I understand his point about the amount of time that is normally utilized with respect to a time allocation motion or the motion to extend the sitting hours.
To the member for Willowdale, there isn't any particular point in revisiting the decision which was made. But suffice it to say, as I did earlier on, that it is not the amount of time, nor is it the number of people who have spoken to the motion, but rather if, in the view of the Chair, sufficient debate has been allowed for that particular motion. A different motion brought forward may involve a different amount of time if, in the view of the Chair, a different amount of time is required, either more or less than the one previous. There is not a particular rule that describes the number of speakers or the amount of time that should elapse before closure can properly be placed. It doesn't work that way.
Where we are at right now is that the member for Willowdale has completed his remarks, and we will entertain questions and/or comments.
Mrs Marland: On a point of order.
The Speaker: A brand-new point of order? The member for Mississauga South.
Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I have only been in this House for eight years. I realize there are a few members, very few in this House tonight who have been in this House more than eight years. It so happens --
Interjections.
Mrs Marland: You see what I mean, Mr Speaker? I cannot even rise in my place and make a serious statement without the government members sneering and catcalling across the floor. It's a very immature response.
The Speaker: If the member for Mississauga South has a point of order, could she place it through the Chair, please.
Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I wish to speak to you, and I speak to you as someone who has been a member of this assembly for eight years. I will tell you with some emotion that I hope I never spend another sitting in this House the way we have experienced the actions and the events of this evening. I say that with the deepest respect for this chamber and I say it with the deepest respect for the Chair and the table officers.
What we have had tonight, starting with a rush up the steps to the top step where the Chair presides, albeit an apology succeeding, albeit by more than one whip of one party, but what I witnessed tonight was an absolute physical charge on the Speaker in front of his chair, to the point that he teetered back and almost lost his balance. I honestly, sitting here watching it, could not believe what was taking place. I was upset because of the fact that I realized what I was witnessing was a breakdown in the total respect for this chamber.
2310
If this place is going to be reduced to something hardly better than a zoo, I feel that I do not wish to be part of it. I say with all sincerity that if we are going to continue with the business of this province, and I think all of us as elected representatives in this province have an obligation to deal with the business in this House, there is a procedure by which to proceed with that business, and as far as I know it is still the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly.
I realize now, especially when I see standing order 45(b), which says, "When a motion for the immediate adjournment of the House has been defeated, no other such motion shall be made unless some intermediate proceeding has taken place," it's very clear that we need an interpretation from you as to what 45(b) will mean from this day forward. Our whole operation in this House pivots around the interpretation of these rules. We have a precedent in a motion tonight that clearly supersedes these rules, and if we have a precedent that is interpreted by the Chair, by the Speaker, then we have to know whether that will stand or whether it was a fluke of an event that took place this evening among some heated feelings on both sides of the House.
Mr Speaker, I respectfully ask you tomorrow to come back, when you have considered what took place here tonight, with some kind of ruling that will help us to restore the professionalism and the demeanour of this House which this chamber is due.
The Speaker: To the honourable member for Mississauga South, I know her deep feelings about the decorum in this chamber and I appreciate the way she has expressed her concern. She is absolutely right that if the members do not respect the Chair, then we cannot conduct business properly. It's as simple as that.
I'm not sure of how much help I can be to the member, but I will try. The members must remember that if a member has moved to adjourn the debate, the member is indicating that he or she no longer wishes to debate. The House then will decide whether or not that is something the House will accept. When the member then decides to adjourn the House, the message is that this House should no longer sit for the balance of this day. The House then will decide whether or not that is what the House wishes to do.
The question then comes about the intervening proceeding, and, in the view of the Chair then, if that proceeding is something substantive, sufficient to warrant another motion. That's very difficult to determine. As with the former episode I described, there is not a set rule that says you need X number of people to speak or a certain amount of time to have elapsed. That's not the way in which you can judge these matters, and the same will be with respect to what had occurred on the previous ruling.
However, rather than occupy the balance of the time of the House on this matter, I take what the member has said very seriously and I will endeavour to see if there is some way in which I can be of assistance to the member and indeed to the House. But at this time I would suggest that we have exhausted the topic and we should be on to questions and/or comments.
Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: A point of order, and I trust this is a brand-new point of order.
Mr Harnick: Well, no, it's a point of order to correct a misstatement of the standing orders. When you say that you are going to look into whether there is something intervening or whether there's something substantive, that clearly is not what the rule says. The words of import are "intermediate proceeding," whether an "intermediate proceeding has taken place." It doesn't say "intervening," it doesn't say "substantive;" it says "intermediate proceeding."
I submit to you that "intermediate" is some point in time where some event takes place; it's not the beginning and it's not the end; it's intermediate, it's in the middle. If something happens in the middle, if there's a proceeding in the middle, I submit to you that that is what the substance of this rule says. It doesn't say "substantive" and it doesn't say --
The Speaker: I realize that the honourable member for Willowdale was simply trying to be instructive and not trying to be seen as debating the Speaker's ruling. Questions and/or comments? The member for Scarborough Centre, with up to two minutes.
Mr Owens: It gives me great pleasure to respond to the member for Willowdale. Two things are very clear from his debate. First of all, he's not interested in dealing with Bill 102, as he has tried consistently to adjourn this House. I think as you pointed out just seconds ago, Mr Speaker, a person who is moving adjournment of the debate clearly is not interested in speaking on the debate. If the member for Willowdale was interested in knowing anything about this bill he would know that over 420,000 women will be affected in a positive manner with respect to this legislation.
The thing that truly concerns me about the comments that came from the preserve of Jurassic Park across the way was the backlash argument that was articulated by the member for Willowdale, quoting from a journalist indicating that pay equity will cause job loss. If this member knew absolutely anything about how pay equity plans were negotiated, who was involved in the negotiation and how pay equity plans were implemented, he would know the kinds of steps that would be taken to eliminate any kind of job loss.
In terms of the lowering of wages, again, it's a Tory argument, and it's clear what they support: a free trade agreement, the North American free trade agreement; that they're only interested in the lowest common denominator. They're not interested in bringing people up to a place of equality.
For 42 years this party governed the province of Ontario, during times that they are constantly reminding us were times of prosperity. So where were they with their pay equity legislation? Where were they in terms of their interest in fairness? They were nowhere. They were still trying to cast the movie Jurassic Park.
Mr Elston: The material which was read into the record by the member for Willowdale was just a portion of the material that he would have presented had he been able to do his full statement. I think that it's important for us to understand that during his remarks he lost between 10 and 15 minutes, and basically the Speaker in the chair was saying, "We don't care, because you made the motion, and as a result of your motion we're going to penalize you the time."
I just want to note for the record that I think the remarks of the member could have been much more fully expressed in a more meaningful manner if it had not been for the fact that this item was somewhat of a surprise for us this evening and if it had not been for the fact that he was being baited and interrupted on several occasions during the course of his comments.
Whether or not, Mr Speaker, as you have decided, he was indicating he wanted to give up the floor by moving adjournment of the debate or of the House I think is pretty debatable, because his moves to do both of those were to indicate, firstly, that he was taking over from a previous speaker who was inadvertently away from the House when this motion was called, and secondly, he wanted to adjourn when he was being baited by members of the opposition. That, it seems to me, was a clear indication that the member was not willingly giving any sense that he was going to give way his right to speak on the floor, but it was something of an expression of frustration that the government was not willing to listen to his quotations of the material which he was presenting.
I merely state that to explain more fully to the audience that the two motions which he made were not any indication that he didn't wish to speak, and I thought it should be necessary to clarify in relation to my reading of his motions.
It is also quite interesting to note that the articles which he read would have been of much greater interest had he been able to read them without being baited by several people in this chamber. It would have been a much more complete debate had there been an allocation of his 30 minutes. It looked like the previous Speaker in the chair was indicating that a punishment was being exacted on him for even making a motion which he felt at the time was in order.
2320
Hon Ms Gigantes: It gives me great pleasure to be able to comment on the speech by --
Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I thought it was in rotation.
The Speaker: There's nothing out of order. If the member for Etobicoke West would just take his seat and calm down. There are four people who are permitted to have up to two minutes and the Chair will try to find a balance. It doesn't matter particularly in which order you go, provided we have four people and we have a balance.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Just relax. I think the honourable member for Simcoe West knows that he will be recognized.
Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: There is nothing out of order. The member must take his seat. The member for Ottawa Centre with up to two minutes.
Mr Stockwell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Point of order. Point of order.
The Speaker: If the member for Etobicoke West refuses to come to order he will be named.
Mr Stockwell: Point of privilege, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: No, the member will take his seat. I had recognized the member for Ottawa Centre. She has two minutes for her reply and then we will move on to another person.
Mr Stockwell: What if a Liberal stands up? Will you go there?
The Speaker: Just relax. We will have a balance of opportunity.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I consider it a great privilege to be allowed to speak for two minutes in response to the comments by the member for Willowdale on Bill 102, which extends pay equity in this province. This bill is the culmination of years of work.
Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: She is not speaking to the bill, she speaks and asks questions or makes comments to the speech by the member for Willowdale. She cannot speak on her own.
Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: How did he get a point of order?
Interjections.
The Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre with her questions and/or comments.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, do you think it's possible that the clock might be set back so that I might have two minutes?
I wish to say it is my great pleasure, having participated in the first debates on pay equity in this Legislature, to be able to respond to the member for Willowdale, whose party never introduced pay equity, did not support pay equity when it was introduced first under the accord in 1986 when the Liberals were the government and the NDP asked that that government, in order to have our support, move forward with pay equity. This bill marks the extension of a regime, an approach to the place of women working in Ontario which has never been supported by the Conservative Party.
That is why the member for Willowdale in 1993 will use such phrases as "artificial mechanisms to achieve pay equity." Does he think that without some very carefully constructed mechanism we would ever see fair pay for women in this province?
The Speaker: The member for Simcoe West.
Mr Stockwell: On a point of order.
The Speaker: What is the point of order?
Mr Stockwell: If we were in rotation, as it's supposed to be in this place, where we go from the government to the official opposition to the third party, you were then supposed to have called the third party in order. You went to the government side, Mr Speaker, by mistake, and now you're obligated, in rotation, to go to the official opposition. Can't you see the error, Mr Speaker?
The Speaker: To the member for Etobicoke West, there is nothing out of order. There is no prescribed rotation within the standing orders. The member will know that what the Chair always tries to do is to provide a balance. The person who was speaking, who had the floor for the debate, was a member from the third party; two members from the government side have had an opportunity and one member from the official opposition, and I have just recognized the member for Simcoe West, who is from the third party, and then the member who originally spoke will have two minutes to wrap up. That is balance. The member for Simcoe West.
Mr Jim Wilson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the problem here is that we're rather confused as to what is contained in the standing orders. You say there's nothing prescribed in the standing orders with respect to rotation but, with respect to tradition, rotation at one time was adhered to.
I do want to talk about the pay equity bill, though, and I want to say to the member for Scarborough Centre that I think it's rather hypocritical of the government to talk about fairness, talk about equity, when we know that the onus of implementing pay equity and the costs involved are primarily thrust upon the private sector, and when Bill 169 -- we had union demonstrators in the galleries not too long ago opposed to that legislation -- allows the government to exempt large blocks of public sector employees from pay equity itself, yet they thrust their social engineering on to the private sector, no holds barred.
Pay equity would be good if women in this province had equal pay for work of equal value or equal work, but that's not exactly what pay equity is, and I find that my constituents get confused. "Pay equity" was a term actually made up by a journalist some years ago and it stuck to a social theory that really has very little to do with equity. I want to give an example in the 40 seconds.
I have two constituency assistants in my office, one male, one female. Pay equity was brought in and the female got a $1,500-per-annum raise and the male got nothing. You tell me what is equal or where the equity is in that: doing the same job, the same job description, started at approximately the same time in my office, but one is a male and one is a female. I want to say to Jeff Nathin, my constituency assistant, that I have no explanation why he was discriminated against by this government and its social theory engineering. I have no explanation for my constituency assistant.
The Speaker: The member for Willowdale has up to two minutes for his reply.
Mr Harnick: Let me tell the member for Ottawa Centre that the first pay equity plan that came to this place was introduced by the Progressive Conservative Party to ensure equal pay among women and men in the boards of education across this province. I know that the member for Ottawa Centre thinks she's the only person who can do anything good for any person in this province. But let me tell you, her party was not the first to do anything about pay equity in this province. That's the first thing.
The second thing: The member for Ottawa Centre takes great pride in talking about all her accomplishments while she's been in government. Well, I remind the member for Ottawa Centre that in the most recent by-elections, her party had trouble getting 8% of the vote, and if she had to run in an election today on the abysmal record of this government, she wouldn't win 10 seats in this province today, and she knows it. On her record, the only thing she would get is people throwing stones at her.
The other thing I wanted to say very briefly is that you on the other side just don't understand. Right now, women between the ages of 15 and 24 are making 83% in income of that of a man, and that's without any pay equity plan at all. When this pay equity plan is introduced and those young people lose their jobs, when they lose their jobs because pay equity is introduced and employers can't afford it, those average numbers are going to end up going down, not going up, because you're trying to do this in the height of a recession, a recession that this government is doing nothing positive to bring us out of.
2330
The Speaker: I thank the member for Willowdale for his participation in the debate.
Mr Jim Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Throughout the comments of the member for Willowdale, the Treasurer was heckling me. I simply say to him that if he has a problem with my comments on pay equity, call an election. I'll go to the polls on this issue or any other issue you've adopted.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. All members, including the member for Nickel Belt, realize that interjections are out of order. Is there further debate on this bill?
Mr David Winninger (London South): I'm pleased to join in this debate on Bill 102, even as we approach the midnight hour. I'm especially pleased because back in 1988 when the pay equity legislation was passed and was being implemented -- that pay equity legislation, I might remind the House, was initiated pursuant to the Liberal-NDP accord in 1985. In any event, in 1988, when that pay equity legislation was being implemented, there was a series of conferences to educate the public right across Ontario. We had a conference in London, attended by at least 300 people. I chaired a workshop at that conference on pay equity.
At that time there were many people who came forward: people who worked in women's shelters, for example, people who worked in child care facilities, women who were homemakers, women who were community mental health workers, women who worked for immigrant services, women who worked in native friendship centres, women who worked in libraries, women who worked in community corrections programs, women who worked in Alzheimer's programs, just for example. There were many women who were excluded from the ambit of the pay equity legislation simply for lack of appropriate comparators.
I'm very pleased that the questions of the women who came forward back in 1988 and since that time have been answered in Bill 102, which reflects this government's commitment to pay equity and extending pay equity to recognize that women's work, in whatever sector, must be paid for fairly. This basic right of women to fair, equitable and non-discriminatory rates of pay is reflected in Bill 102, which redresses wage discrimination for many women who are among the lowest level of wage earners.
Quite frankly, at the committee hearings on Bill 102, many of these groups again came forward to say how pleased they were with the introduction of Bill 102 and urged its speedy passing.
For example, the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, that with all other female-predominant sectors has waited anxiously for an opportunity to achieve equitable wages for the dedicated women they represent, had this to say: "We believe that the continued existence of shelters for abused women and their children has been made possible by our members' willingness to work for low wages, as they put their belief in women's rights to a life free of violence and persecution ahead of their own rights to equitable pay. We believe that the recognition of this dedication through the achievement of pay equity is long overdue."
The Union of Child Care Workers of Eastern Ontario drew a similar conclusion, and what it said was this:
"We want to thank you for providing us the opportunity of presenting our recommendations because Bill 102 is very important to the child care community. It finally allows us to feel that we are included in the right to fair and decent wages that are not based on our gender. This is an equally important recognition for our profession.
"But the direct operating grant and the wage enhancement grant were two important steps by the government to increase the salaries and benefits of people working in the child care field. The wage gap still remains. The importance of public funding continues to play a critical role in striving to achieve equity.
"Escalating parent fees alone cannot pay for better salaries and benefits. For us, as front-line workers," they say, "pay equity is complementary and integral to other initiatives such as child care reform and employment equity."
Earlier this year, as down payments on pay equity for a variety of these sectors, for over 50,000 workers, cheques were sent out, as a down payment towards pay equity to show this government's commitment towards extending pay equity to these low-paid, predominantly female sectors of the workforce. I think this speaks to this government's commitment to seeing through the extension of pay equity to the over 420,000 women who were left out in 1988.
We've heard at some length discussion with respect to the proxy method of achieving pay equity, with respect to the proportional value approach to achieving pay equity, and now, after seven hours of debate on third reading of this bill -- I might add that aside from the introduction of the member for Sudbury, which lasted some 10 minutes or so, and my own remarks tonight, other than time intervals allowed for questions and comments, seven hours of debate has unfolded upon third reading of the bill, and pursuant to standing order 47, I would ask that the question now be put.
Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We leave it in your hands. You've already told us you've got to consider the fact whether or not sufficient debate has occurred on whatever reading. We can't debate on first reading, obviously. We have no longer, it appears, any time to debate on second reading, except that it's time-allocated. In fact, if you examine the record, there was virtually no second reading debate on this particular bill. It went into committee. This is third reading.
Mr Speaker, we are obviously in your hands. This is the second time tonight, within three hours, that these birds have moved closure on items in this House. What can we do?
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Mr Speaker, I believe that in terms of moving closure during this period of our Legislature, I think it's quite inappropriate. For instance, I have not had the opportunity to hear much of the debate on this bill, because we are sitting in the evenings and I was required to go back to my riding this evening to celebrate the award of a citizenship of the year for Phil Downey for the township of West Carleton.
Mr Speaker, I don't think that you should accept a short debate on any bill, because the government has extended the hours and members have to go back to their ridings. If it's seven hours as they claim during regular debate, during normal sittings of the House --
Hon Mr Laughren: Third reading.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Sterling: -- you should require twice as much debate at this time.
We know now we're going to sit next week and the week thereafter. It was the government's option to put us into these late hours. Members of this Legislature do not have the opportunity to spend the time in this Legislature they would normally do, and therefore I don't think the normal rules or the normal traditions of this House in terms of moving closure should hold, not during this period of time.
Therefore, I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to indulge the House and allow more speakers to speak on this particular bill.
2340
Mr Charles Beer (York North): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak on that point of order. I've sat here somewhat quietly through the debate this evening. I would think that at the very least, a sense of the order of this House would not have led the honourable member to move the motion that he did, given what has happened. As the Treasurer says, third reading, but I say to the Treasurer, go back to the Hansard. There was no debate on second reading worth the name of a debate, and that was done in December through agreement. Go back to December 9 and 10. Ask the former House leader. By agreement, there was a limited debate.
We came in tonight. My colleague from Mississauga, who was not here, who had been speaking on the debate and who would have continued, was not allowed to speak, not because he didn't want to speak but simply because you moved closure. After all that has happened this evening, to then invoke closure is ridiculous, and I would suggest it is undemocratic, because you are cutting off the debate on this issue. No one has spoken because of what has gone on, when we go back to the beginning of all the mess that started when you moved closure.
Mr Speaker, I suggest that you look at what has happened tonight, that you look at the actual debate that has taken place on this bill and that you say we cannot have closure on this bill.
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): The members opposite have just very clearly made the case for what is happening tonight.
This is a bill around which there was a very short and orderly debate on second reading, without closure, without time allocation, without anything. It was also a very short and orderly set of hearings and clause-by-clause in committee that lasted for two weeks.
The third reading debate on this bill started some three weeks ago, not tonight, to speak to the point that was raised by the member for Ottawa-Carleton. This bill has been debated on two afternoons in this House during the regular session. We called it tonight, as you're well aware, Mr Speaker, fairly early in the evening and have been here at it all evening. There hasn't been a lot of debate on the bill, though, tonight, because the opposition has decided that they intend to use this bill as an additional delaying tactic to slow progress in this House.
This is a bill that on third reading should have passed, and passed without virtual comment.
Mr Beer: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: He is impugning motive and that is not allowable. I ask the honourable member to withdraw those comments.
Hon Mr Charlton: This is a bill that should have found its way through the process.
Mr Beer: You're impugning the motives of the members of the opposition. I ask the government House leader to take his seat and then to apologize.
The Speaker: The member for York North is normally quite in control. I understand why you are concerned. I would ask the government House leader, in placing his points, not to impute motives at all but simply to provide whatever facts he feels will guide the Chair.
Hon Mr Charlton: Precisely right, Mr Speaker, seven hours of debate on second reading, two weeks in committee --
Mr Beer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe that under the rules of this House, the honourable member should withdraw the comment.
Hon Mr Charlton: You haven't been recognized.
The Speaker: It would appear that the government House leader's comments are the cause of disorder in the House and I would ask the member then to --
Interjections.
The Speaker: It obviously has caused a stir on this side, and I would ask the member if he would just withdraw that particular remark.
Hon Mr Charlton: I certainly withdraw whatever remark it was that has upset the member opposite.
The point, Mr Speaker, is that we had seven hours of debate on second reading on this bill --
Mr Elston: On second?
Hon Mr Charlton: On second reading we had seven hours of debate. You may check the record.
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): On third; none on second.
Interjections.
Hon Mr Charlton: We had seven hours of debate on two days in this House on second reading. Check the record. We also had two weeks of hearings and clause-by-clause and we've had an additional --
Interjections.
Mr Beer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The debate on second reading was on two bills. It was not on one bill and it was on two bills through all-party agreement.
Mr Jim Wilson: Which was the crux of my remarks.
Mr Beer: I have here the Hansard if somebody wants to look at it.
Mr Jim Wilson: Hey, Floyd, listen to this, you might learn something.
The Speaker: The member for Simcoe West, please come to order.
Interjections.
The Speaker: I can only hear one point of order at a time. The member for York North, could he be succinct?
Mr Beer: Mr Speaker, I'll be very succinct and very brief, but I just want to inform the government House leader that by all-party agreement, December 9 and 10, two bills were debated. I don't question that it may have been seven hours, but there were two bills. So there has not been seven hours of debate on Bill 102. I note the parliamentary assistant nodding her head and I appreciate that.
Hon Mr Charlton: The point I've been trying to make -- that's precisely the point the government House leader has been trying to make, Mr Speaker, that the opposition in its view of this bill dealt with second reading and committee in a very orderly fashion. I'll leave it to your judgement but we've had seven hours of debate on third reading of this bill --
Interjections.
Hon Mr Charlton: On this bill we have had seven hours of debate on third reading. The opposition has made it clear here this evening, from a number of initiatives they've taken, that they don't wish to debate the bill any further, so we've asked that the question be put.
Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I think what is continuing to happen in this House is truly deplorable. We have had two closure motions -- I have been here all evening -- we've had two closure --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Mrs Marland: For the benefit of the government members, the reason I'm confirming that I have been in this House all evening is not -- I am not complaining about being in this House all evening, I'm simply saying that I have been in this House all evening and I am fully aware of the motions that have been made in this House this evening.
We have had two closure motions tonight. In one evening we've had two closure motions and, Mr Speaker, what I would like to suggest to you is that the member for London South moved a closure motion after he had spoken for approximately seven minutes and 15 seconds.
What I would like to know, because I think this is going to be very significant, is whether we now have an example of some intermediate proceeding. If you accept his closure motion after seven minutes and 15 seconds of debate, then is that now the benchmark for intermediate proceedings?
2350
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. First of all, I appreciate the points raised by a number of members, including the member for Carleton, the member for Bruce, the government House leader, the member for York North and the member for Mississauga South.
Indeed, as members will know, it is not the precise amount of time that has been utilized. But I can tell members that on various occasions, before closure was moved, we have utilized in one case 10 hours; on another five hours; another two hours and 29 minutes; three hours and three minutes; 49 hours and 35 minutes; eight hours and 15 minutes.
The point is that it is not in particular the amount of time that has been utilized but whether or not under the circumstances there has been sufficient debate on the motion before the House to allow closure. It is my belief and my decision that in this particular instance we have not utilized a sufficient amount of time and I will not allow the motion for closure to be placed. I would ask the honourable member for London South to continue with his remarks.
Mr Winninger: I think we've come a long way with Bill 102 and I think that the members of the opposition are treading on very dangerous ground here if they choose to look again at some of the comments that have been made by some of the deputants before our committee. As I said, there were a number of groups that came before us, each making a submission calling for expedition of this legislation, for example, the Nurses Coalition for Pay Equity. That coalition came before the standing committee on administration of justice and had this to say:
"As nurses we embody all which is typical of women's work. We carry enormous responsibility for outcomes that we cannot ensure. We work long hours in often dangerous circumstances, and our work is only noticed when it is done badly, or not done at all. Our work is underrecognized, our contribution to the health of the public is unseen and we are undervalued."
What the opposition is doing tonight is prolonging that feeling of the nurses of being undervalued in failing to allow Bill 102 to pass in a timely and expeditious fashion.
The Nurses Coalition for Pay Equity went on to say:
"These amendments set a new legislative precedent and go far beyond what previous governments in the province were prepared to achieve. We have observed the progress made by this government on other issues of social justice and believe that it is committed to ensuring the rights of women and other underserved groups. We are pleased that the government is making the necessary changes to the Pay Equity Act in order to provide for the thousands of women who are not covered by current legislation."
We've heard from women who work in the child care sector. We've heard from women who work for shelters for abused women. We've heard from the nurses. Here are some other comments, made by the Metro Toronto Coalition for Better Child Care. I know there are some members from the Toronto area in the House tonight sitting opposite who may want to reflect on the comments of the Metro coalition. The Metro coalition represents child care staff whose members earn, and they are among the higher-paid workers in the non-profit child care sector, an average salary of $25,000.
They say, "We recognize that our wages are better than most child care staff in Ontario, who earn an average of only $22,000 a year." However, even at $25,000, these women recognize that: "We cannot survive on these wages. As a predominantly female sector, we earn 70% of the wages that men earn."
They go on to say:
"We want to applaud the provincial government for making amendments to the Pay Equity Act, which will extend pay equity to most workers in predominantly female workplaces like child care programs. The amendments will begin to address the wage inequities women face in the workforce."
The Metro Toronto Coalition for Better Child Care goes on to say:
"Wages and working conditions of staff working in the municipal sector have served as a benchmark for wages in non-profit community programs. The work performed in both settings is identical. Child care staff in both groups strive to provide a holistic and balanced social and educational program to young children. The only difference between the two groups is municipal staff have better wages and better benefits. Consequently, staff in municipally operated programs remain in the child care field for longer periods of time and are able to provide consistent care for children. In the non-profit sector," they say, "we face a higher turnover as experienced child care staff move to other careers which pay a living wage."
Finally, the coalition concludes:
"We believe strongly that the implementation of pay equity for child care staff in the non-profit sector will improve the quality of care the children receive, because better wages for staff is a major indicator of quality in child care. Staff which earn a decent wage are more likely to remain in the field of child care."
Not only is the opposition tonight holding back, in a very deliberate way, the extension of pay equity to women in the lower-paid sectors; this will also impact on child care. I hope that their constituents remain cognizant of that.
Our government undertook a major initiative with regard to reform of the child care system. Under our former Minister of Community and Social Services, the Honourable Marion Boyd, we have sought to make that child care system more accessible, more affordable and to ensure quality of child care for people across Ontario.
Unfortunately, if we're going to deliver that kind of quality child care, we need to assure ourselves that our child care workers in the non-profit sector are receiving appropriate wages for the very important work they do with the children of this province. It frightens me that the opposition tonight would choose to prolong debate on this bill after a very adequate, in my submission, period of time, and not only set back our initiative with regard to pay equity for over 420,000 women who, I trust, will remember this night, but also set back the initiatives with regard to child care.
The Speaker: Point of order, the member for St Catharines.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My point of order is this, Mr Speaker: Would the honourable member tell us where the money is to implement this bill?
The Speaker: No. That's questions and comments. The member for London South.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Downsview allow his own colleague to speak.
Mr Winninger: I can't imagine why the member would ask that question, because if he had listened earlier, he would have heard the fact that down payments on pay equity have already been made in substantial numbers. I said over 50,000 workers in these sectors that I've referred to have benefited from our down payment on pay equity, a substantial payment of $2,500. I know that the child care workers and women who work in shelters for the abused in my community are quite thankful and quite grateful that these down payment cheques have been sent out, because that speaks to a more meaningful commitment to pay equity for these women than the Liberal government was prepared to afford them, and certainly far more substantial than what the Conservative government ever dreamed up.
The Speaker: This may come as a great disappointment to all, but, it being 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 of the clock tomorrow morning.
The House adjourned at 2402.