Journal des débats 1987-juin-10 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: On behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), my colleagues and the government of Ontario, I rise for the purpose of recognizing an important event that dates back 407 years and has been celebrated as Portugal National Day since 1880.

I would like to recognize in the Legislature today distinguished leaders of the Portuguese-Canadian community, accompanied by Tanger Corrã, the consul general of Portugal.

The celebration of the National Day of Portugal is special and unique in the pages of history. Unlike some dates that commemorate an important political event, such as a declaration of independence, on this historic occasion we ask the people of Ontario to join our Canadians of Portuguese heritage in the remembrance of a great, world-renowned poet and writer, Luis de Camões. Although he passed away over 400 years ago, Camões left a living legacy of meaningful poetry of immortal beauty that has not withered with age.

We are, of course, all cognizant and appreciative of the tremendous contribution our Portuguese friends have made to the development and growth of our province and country, both in economic and cultural fields. Yet, as important as the economic contributions are, the attention of Canadian-Portuguese children today is focused not on the prosperity and wealth that opportunities in Canada create but on our democratic system of government that allows the people in our multicultural society to celebrate a national literary hero of their forefathers' original homeland as a right. Indeed, Luis de Camões is an intellectual giant whose footsteps have crossed centuries of time and the Atlantic Ocean to implant in Canada a great heritage of love for literature, poetry and education.

May this Portugal National Day inspire us to pause more often to study and admire our writers and poets. Perhaps we might recognize that a new Luis de Camões could be inspired as a result of paying tribute to the eternal Camões whose remembrance we are honouring today. Therefore, on behalf of the government of Ontario, I invite all members of the Legislature to observe June 10, 1987, as National Day of Portugal.

Mr. Shymko: I rise to join in the comments of the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) on this very special day, Portugal National Day, which is celebrated by the Portuguese community not only in our province but also throughout Canada. On an occasion such as this, in some ridings of our honourable colleagues, there has been a declaration of Portugal Week. I know that last week in the riding of Mississauga East, my honourable colleague attended celebrations that will continue throughout the week until the end of this week on Saturday.

I would like to point out that the contribution of Canadians of Portuguese origin is an example to be emulated by other minorities. They have successfully epitomized the best in terms of integration in our Canadian society. The success and free-enterprise spirit of the Portuguese community in business and various commercial endeavours is certainly to be emulated.

I understand that the first telephone directory of any nonofficial minority in Canada was that of the Portuguese community. The success of Terra Nova, the centre for the elderly, the home for the aged, is another example of their success here in Toronto. I understand there are now plans for a nursing home. I hope the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) will give due consideration to this endeavour.

Also, I would like to comment on the efforts made not only by colleagues of the government side but also by the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow), who was involved with myself and others in trying to assist in the establishment of a centre or chair of Portuguese studies at York University. I appeal to both the government and the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) to make sure that the funding requested will be made available so that students can enrol starting in September of this year.

We are proud of the contribution historically of the Portuguese community. They were among the first explorers who discovered Canada. There were Portuguese explorers and Portuguese fishermen. Today once again offers us an opportunity for reflection on some of the accomplishments and on some of the assistance and room for help that the Portuguese community so urgently requires.

We urge the government to co-operate jointly with the federal government in alleviating the plight of the children of illegal immigrants, many of whom are afraid to attend school because of the fear associated with their status. I know the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) will continue her endeavours to try to alleviate some of these problems for many of these children who are susceptible to a lot of social problems because of that situation. It has to be rectified quite urgently.

We certainly welcome the consul general of Portugal, who is so well aware of the accomplishments of Canadians of Portuguese origin, and thank him for the assistance he has provided to the Portuguese community in Ontario over the years. We hope that it will continue and that this relationship will be here. Not every community has enjoyed that type of assistance from its homeland, unfortunately, because of other political circumstances, but thanks to the destiny and the faith of the Portuguese community, that help and co-operation exist. It certainly is a blessing to everyone.

Once again, on behalf of Her Majesty's official opposition, I welcome all the representatives from the Portuguese community. They can count on our assistance and co-operation with the government to alleviate some of the social, economic and cultural concerns they may have.

1340

Mr. McClellan: I am very pleased to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to congratulate the Portuguese community of Ontario on the occasion of the celebration of its national holiday. Portuguese National Day is a celebration of Portugal and of Camões, the national poet, and also of the Portuguese community which has moved overseas and lives abroad in so many parts of the world, including here in Canada. We join with the community in expressing our best wishes and our congratulations.

Portugal has had an association with Canada for almost 500 years. For as long as there has been a fishing fleet on the Grand Banks, there have been Portuguese people in and around Canada; but it was not until 1953, surprisingly, that the Portuguese community began to settle in Ontario in a significant way, particularly here in Toronto. The community of 1953 is referred to as the pioneers. Those were the first of many tens of thousands of people from Portugal who have settled first in Toronto and later in virtually all the cities of southern and indeed northern Ontario. The Portuguese community has made a tremendous contribution in a very short period of time to the social, economic and cultural life of Ontario.

I have the opportunity, as do both of my colleagues who spoke this afternoon, of representing a constituency that has a large Luso-Canadian community. We all three know first hand of the success and of the struggle of people of Portuguese-Canadian heritage for recognition and for social justice. A number of issues that affect the Portuguese-Canadian community come before this Legislature quite regularly. I think, for example, of the struggle for social justice of the people who work in the cleaning industry and of the struggle of construction workers and others in heavy-duty, dangerous occupations for justice from the Workers' Compensation Board. These are all issues that members of all three parties are committed to trying to resolve.

As part of the struggle for recognition, obviously, the Portuguese community will, I hope in the very near future, begin to take its rightful share in the Legislature of Ontario and in our municipal councils. I know, for example, that a number of leaders of the Portuguese community have run in provincial elections in previous years. For example, our party has nominated an outstanding candidate in the great riding of Parkdale, and I have a great deal of confidence that when the dust settles after the next provincial election, a Luso-Canadian will be able to take his or her place -- we hope more than one --here in this august chamber. I suspect one of those may indeed be the new member for Parkdale.

May the Portuguese of Ontario continue to enlighten our collective hopes. As Canadians we are all proud of our multicultural heritage and of our diversities.

[Remarks in Portuguese]

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Pierce: Today I wish to address a problem that all northern Ontario residents are faced with, and that is the lack of transportation funding to maintain our present road system.

Last year the Minister of Northern Development and Mines cut $16 million from his northern transportation budget. This year the government expects us to be grateful because the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has decided to increase the northern transportation budget by $26 million. It is very easy to give back what one has taken from the previous year.

Northern Ontario has received approximately $10 million in new money to maintain and improve 9,800 kilometres of roads. Highway 621 is just one example of how last year's budget cuts are adversely affecting residents of northern Ontario. This highway is the only highway for the residents and tourists to access the south end of Lake of the Woods in my riding. The only industries in this region are farming and tourism.

I, along with the township of Morson, the communities of Bergland and Sleeman and the Big Island Ojibway band have been told that due to the budgetary constraints, Highway 621 will not be repaired again this summer, or completed. Lack of funding is the reason Highway 621 cannot be completely restored this summer. Lack of funding is the reason the work is being done only on the MTC's day labour program.

Is this the Liberals' commitment to the road systems in northern Ontario and to the residents of northern Ontario?

Mr. Morin-Strom: Late last week, the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay) said the government was beginning studies on a 10-year plan to upgrade Highway 69 and Highway 11 to four lanes, connecting Toronto with Sudbury and North Bay. This is a highly desirable initiative that is attracting considerable attention in northern Ontario. However, it was interesting to find that the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) knew nothing about it in the standing committee on resources development on Monday.

The people of the north would like to know what is the commitment of this government to highways in northern Ontario. They hope it is not just to the spokes of a wheel centred on Toronto.

The recent budget committed an additional $26 million this year for highways within the north, the equivalent of 10 miles of highway. At that rate, it will take more than 100 years to four-lane the Trans-Canada Highway through the north. Surely the Ontario government recognizes the Trans-Canada Highway is ageing and its design no longer reflects its national importance.

I urge the Premier, along with the Minister of Transportation and Communications, to make a sincere commitment to a staged upgrading of the Trans-Canada Highway. Immediate priorities must be the twinning of the sections between Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie and between Nipigon and Thunder Bay. The planning negotiations, the procrastination on these sections, have gone on for far too many years.

Transportation and tourism, indeed the whole economy of the north, require that the Trans-Canada Highway in our region become the first-class highway it should be.

RONDEAU BAY

Mr. McGuigan: According to a report released recently by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), erosion-caused water quality problems in Rondeau Bay continue to improve and fish numbers are improving.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Anything further?

Mr. McGuigan: Can I start over again?

Mr. Speaker: You have 53 seconds.

Mr. McGuigan: Thirty seconds are not of any use to me, Mr. Speaker. My time was taken by other members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There has been a request. Is there unanimous agreement to allow the member -- no, there is not; the member has up to 29 seconds.

Mr. McGuigan: Before I was interrupted, I wanted to congratulate the members of the Rondeau Bay farmers' group who have cleaned up the erosion and therefore cleaned up the habitat for fish in Rondeau Bay. Now sport anglers from all across North America are flocking back to the area, to the benefit of the tourist operators and the outfitters, and I just want to say it is a great improvement to that area.

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mr. Stevenson: There have been several attempts over the last four years to upgrade the equipment at the Aluminum Dross Recycling company near Keswick, yet the citizens in the township of Georgina are still very unhappy with the emissions from that company and with the results obtained by the Ministry of the Environment.

Control orders have been placed on the company by the ministry several times with limited results. A smoke opacity meter was required. After the first control order was placed, the meter was never plugged in. The second control order did not include directions for setting the meter and what the limit should be on emissions. Then it was determined that the smoke opacity meter did not work in the first place. The ministry granted permission to operate the furnace without the opacity meter for two weeks after the receipt of the certificate of approval for the replacement of the dust collector system. That deadline has since expired.

There is continuing concern among the residents about phytotoxicology results on farm land nearby. In the latest frustration, the township of Georgina has authorized in resolution that David Estrin, Barristers and Solicitors, take all necessary legal action to restrain and otherwise prohibit the Aluminum Dross Recycling company from further contravening the laws of the province.

1350

PATIENTS' RIGHTS

Mr. Reville: It is gratifying that yesterday the New Democratic Party was able to convince the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) to withdraw support for his government's proposed legislation that would have denied many psychiatric patients the right to refuse medical treatment.

Members of the House might be interested to know that a significant number of amendments that I moved, which clarify and strengthen rights under the Mental Health Act, were also accepted by the committee. Among them was an amendment that rebutted the presumption that a patient under 16 is incompetent. Any members who have teen-age children would know how offensive they would find it to be assumed to be automatically incompetent under the law. Clearly, that change is an important and useful one.

Amendments also added the official guardian to the list of substitute decision-makers, so that in those cases where a person did not have a family, he would not automatically be taken to a review board without representation.

In the end, I think because of the work of the New Democratic Party and a broad coalition of people who care about rights in mental health, we will now approach having the very best mental health legislation in the western world. If we could get community mental health programs to go along with it, we would be fine, indeed.

BRAMPTON BOARD OF TRADE

Mr. Callahan: I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the board of trade in Brampton, which will be celebrating its centennial this year. Quite obviously, boards of trade assist communities in terms of looking after the business interests. Through its many committees, the board of trade has served Brampton well over the years.

We will be having a number of activities taking place in Brampton to recognize the significant impact and contribution that the Brampton Board of Trade and its members have had on the city of Brampton over the years. I wanted to take this opportunity to congratulate them for a job well done, recognizing that they are of great assistance to both small business and large business in our community and, therefore, contribute not only to Brampton but also to the wellbeing of Ontario.

RIDING OF PARRY SOUND

Mr. Eves: For the umpteenth time, I would like to bring to the attention of the government the issue of bringing the riding of Parry Sound, in its entirety, into northern Ontario.

It was some two years ago that I first raised this issue with the then Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine). Since then, I have pursued it by way of a member's statement and questions in the House. I have asked the current Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Peterson) in estimates as recently as February of this year. The minister admitted that it was a very valid point and could see no logical reason the district of Parry Sound should not be included in northern Ontario. To quote him, he was going to go back and pursue his colleagues with renewed vigour to see whether he could not persuade his relevant cabinet ministers to adopt this line of thinking.

He has missed a perfect opportunity in the recent budget of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) to bring Parry Sound into northern Ontario. Meanwhile, people in the district of Parry Sound do not get the benefit of northern help, travel grants or full educational funding.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Given the colour of the honourable member's tie, we will pursue it with renewed vigour.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ECONOMIC SUMMIT

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am very pleased to rise in the House today and inform members that at the conclusion this morning of the economic summit in Venice, it was announced that next year's summit will be held in Toronto between June 12 and 26. In addition to bringing together the leaders of the seven major industrialized countries, the summit will allow our capital city to be the focus of the world, as we welcome thousands of representatives from around the globe.

The selection of Toronto recognizes the growing awareness of the importance of Toronto as an international business centre. It acknowledges the central role that Canada and Toronto will play in mapping out the economic future of the western industrialized world. It will put the spotlight on the outstanding nature of our cultural facilities and provide us with a major opportunity to show the world that Toronto and Ontario are good places to do business.

As a Canadian, I take great pride in the selection of Toronto as the site for the next summit in June and the growing recognition of the importance of Canada. I want to extend my thanks to the federal officials. I know that all Canadians will welcome representatives from around the globe with open arms.

LENNOX GENERATING STATION

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Today I would like to inform the House of Ontario Hydro's decision to reopen the oil-fired Lennox generating station near Kingston.

Mr. Hennessy: Only one supporter has applauded.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That is a start.

Hydro will be restarting two 550-megawatt units on December 1, 1987. This will help ensure that the electricity needs of Ontario are met during the winter months, when demand is at its highest.

As members may know, the Lennox generating station was completed in 1977 but the high cost of oil prohibited the continued operation of the station.

One of the ways Ontario Hydro met peak winter demand last year was by purchasing electricity from Hydro-Québec. The utility will continue this practice as purchases are required. However, increasing demand for electricity and the fact that we have the generating capacity already in place make the Lennox option of electricity supply attractive to Ontario Hydro at this time.

Recommissioning the Lennox station will have a number of positive benefits for the province of Ontario and for the people of the Kingston area.

Compared to coal-fired plants used to meet peak demand elsewhere in our electrical system, the Lennox plant will produce lower amounts of sulphur dioxide emissions.

One of the most significant benefits of bringing the Lennox station on line is the employment it will create in the Kingston area. Ontario Hydro estimates that 70 full-time employees will be required to operate the power plant, and that another 80 jobs will be created during the recommissioning period this fall. In addition, local suppliers and contractors will be involved in making the station ready for operation.

From a provincial perspective, recommissioning the Lennox station will accomplish two important objectives: it will take advantage of a facility that we already have and it will add to the diversity of the energy sources we use.

NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS

Hon. Ms. Munro: I would like to bring the House up to date on the core funding program for provincial native umbrella organizations.

The program was established in 1980 to give umbrella organizations the financial stability required to do their job. The recipients have been the Ontario Native Women's Association, the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres and the Chiefs of Ontario office.

In the past seven years, the three organizations have grown and their responsibilities increased. For example, the Ontario Native Women's Association, which started with only a few members, now represents aboriginal women from 48 affiliated locals. The groups are located throughout Ontario, from Moosonee to Shoal Lake and from Cornwall to Windsor.

About six months ago, my ministry, the three native organizations and the Ontario native affairs directorate sat down to fine-tune the program's purpose and objectives. In the process, my ministry cemented an excellent working relationship with the three umbrella groups representing so many native people.

I am pleased to announce that we are reinforcing the job that the Ontario Native Women's Association, the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres and the Chiefs of Ontario office will be doing with an additional $400,000 per year. That brings the aboriginal organizations core funding program's total annual budget to $1 million.

The money will enable the provincial organizations to consult with their members who are located throughout Ontario and to provide this government with considered advice on important issues. The program will operate on a five-year cycle starting this year. We will be reviewing the program before the cycle ends.

1400

RESPONSES

LENNOX GENERATING STATION

Mr. Andrewes: I want to respond to the statement of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) with respect to the Lennox generating plant. I cannot resist this response because this statement is almost laughable coming from this minister, who made such a bluster about options when he was the Energy critic for the Liberal Party.

What this minister has done is to sanction Ontario Hydro's choosing the option that produces acid rain. He has ignored the opportunity to buy electricity from Quebec. He has given us no evidence that the option he has chosen is less expensive. He has simply ignored that option and proceeded to choose an option that produces acid rain. He does not even present us with any evidence that coal-fired generation will be reduced and acid rain production reduced that way.

As his Premier (Mr. Peterson) builds this nation of distinct societies through his activities of the past couple of weeks, this minister has decided to produce acid rain in Ontario. Rather than buy hydroelectric power from Quebec, he has chosen to produce acid rain in Ontario. I would only ask the minister: is this a sign that the Premier has now begun to treat Quebec as another nation?

Of more concern is that the Minister of Energy has not risen in his place and announced to us that Ontario Hydro will pursue other options, options such as conservation and rate structures that will reduce those winter peaks. The minister has failed miserably in his job, as he usually does.

NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Grossman: Might I simply respond to the statement, which we support of course, of the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro). But I might say, as someone who has met with aboriginal groups on many occasions and who has some of these organizations headquartered in his riding, that it would have been so much more important to these groups, in backing up this modest initiative, had her Premier (Mr. Peterson) thought a bit about the aboriginal groups and their constitutional claims and concerns when he was so eager to strike an accord, any agreement, at Meech Lake and the Langevin Block.

This is the kind of thing that leads the aboriginal groups to believe the minister and her Premier believe that dropping some dollars off the edge of a table over five years will buy them off instead of having the courage to stand up and calmly, carefully and in a measured way make sure that at the very least they get out of the constitutional process what they thought they got out of the 1982 constitutional process. They indeed feel they did not come out of the 1982 process with a lot or with enough, but certainly there was a procedure and some assurance there would be movement towards their inclusion too.

But the Premier was too eager to reach any agreement last week. He forgot about the aboriginal groups last week and joined with others to tag them in at the end. That would have been so much more important than throwing them some dollars off the edge of a table.

ECONOMIC SUMMIT

Mr. Gillies: In the few remaining seconds, we on this side of the House want to associate ourselves, with some pride, with the statement of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) that the leaders of the seven industrialized nations of the west will be meeting here in Toronto for their next economic summit.

We also want to note, again with pride, the very fine way that the Right Honourable Prime Minister Brian Mulroney represented our country at the economic summit in Venice. We are very proud indeed that it was the Prime Minister of this country who put South Africa and the question of apartheid on the agenda at Venice.

We look forward to that summit with a great deal of anticipation.

LENNOX GENERATING STATION

Mr. Charlton: I would like to take a moment to respond to the statement of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio).

I agree with my colleague from the official opposition that this announcement about the restart of the Lennox plant points very clearly to the very ad hoc way Ontario Hydro has approached the provision of electrical power in Ontario over the last number of years. It points to the fact, as was pointed out in the report of the select committee on energy last year, that we need serious change in the way Hydro does its planning and that there are very serious options which are being ignored in Ontario for the sake of covering up past blunders by reopening a plant that was built and completed in 1977 and never operated.

However, on this day, we consider this statement a rather frivolous one, because it reflects frivolous operation. We have people in the city of Kanata waiting with very serious concerns for the minister to respond to them about his construction freeze in that city on the eastern Ontario power corridor and about health concerns around that high-transmission corridor that they have raised with him.

For two weeks in a row now, the cabinet has dealt with this question and for two weeks in a row we have heard no comment whatsoever. The minister needs to spend more time considering the serious questions of energy in this province and to stop wasting time making nonstatements on the future.

NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Pouliot: I rise in response to the welcome statement of the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro). I am somewhat delighted that the minister has earmarked some $400,000 additional funds to allow the people who need it the most, our first Canadians, to better articulate their problems so that each and every member of this House can better understand the legitimate grievances that are directed at every one of us.

When we look at what has been done in the past in terms of helping the less fortunate in our society, who have been our first Canadians, the minister's courage is great. For the last seven years, her ministry has stood at the forefront of providing people with the opportunity to present us -- because we are talking here about community leaders -- with legitimate grievances that deal with a way of life that anyone in this House would find, to say the least, intolerable. It is a substantial increase, indeed. We are now looking at $1 million.

With all the sincerity at my command, I cannot find a better way to allocate public funds than to give people, at long last, a chance to become involved in the economic mainstream of Ontario. I congratulate the minister. It is a cause today for mild and reserved celebrations.

ECONOMIC SUMMIT

Mr. McClellan: As a representative from the great city of Toronto, I would like to respond briefly to the statement of the Premier (Mr. Peterson). There is a certain amount of peer pressure here in the Legislature that inhibits members from the city of Toronto from expressing themselves with too much pride about their city. On this occasion, I think we can forgo that modesty and acknowledge that Toronto is indeed one of the great cities of the world. Those of us who have the privilege to represent constituencies in this great city have a great deal to be proud about.

1410

I am disappointed that the Premier failed to say that Toronto was a world-class city. I would have expected as much from him.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I knew you would say that.

Ms. Gigantes: A centre of excellence.

Mr. McClellan: But it is a centre of excellence.

This year's summit conference, I think, was something of an exercise in futility, dominated as it was by Mrs. Thatcher and Thatcherism and by Chancellor Kohl's repudiation of our Prime Minister's initiative. But by this time next year there will have been a number of elections, and I think we will be proud in Toronto to welcome Prime Minister Neil Kinnock, Chancellor Johannes Rau and Prime Minister Ed Broadbent.

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: Now that is scaremongering. I hope the ministers do not hear about this in Venice.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I could have the attention of the members, I will call for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LENNOX GENERATING STATION

Mr. Grossman: I have a question pursuant to the statement just made by the Minister of Energy. I wonder if the minister could outline what the cost differential is between in fact reopening the acid-rain-producing Lennox generating station in Ontario versus buying hydraulic energy from Quebec?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The cost will be about five cents a kilowatt-hour and the cost from Quebec, depending on when we buy it and in what volumes, will be from four cents a kilowatt-hour to eight cents a kilowatt-hour.

I must remind the Leader of the Opposition that in fact there is quite a difference in the emissions and that the emissions that are going to be generated at that station are taken into account in the overall emission reduction across this province. The restriction on the emissions from Ontario Hydro is an undertaking like no other in North America. I thought he would like to know that.

Mr. Grossman: The minister acknowledged the possibility that if he negotiates well with Quebec he might be able to obtain cheaper energy without producing any negative impact on acid rain in Ontario. Could he acknowledge for us then this afternoon, at the very least that the result of his choosing the Lennox option instead of purchasing hydraulic power from Quebec will be an increase in acid rain emissions in Ontario? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes or no what? How can I give a yes or no answer to a question that has four sections to it? The member should not be ridiculous.

The fact of the matter is that the four to eight cents is not a negotiable price. It depends on when it is generated and how it is delivered at what time. I explained that early on in my first answer. It is obvious the member did not understand it is not a negotiated price, but rather a price that is going to take place because of circumstance.

I think the other situation is well answered by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), who is doing something about the control of acid rain in Ontario that is second to none in the continent -- indeed, in all the world.

Mr. Grossman: In the minister's statement it says, "The Lennox plant will produce lower amounts of sulphur dioxide emissions" -- that is, lower than coal-fired plants. Would the minister agree this afternoon, however, that the Lennox plant will produce more sulphur dioxide emissions than will the hydraulic plants in Quebec, which produce none?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am not as interested in hydraulic power from Quebec as I am in the initiative this minister is taking. He just opened three new small hydraulic plants in northern Ontario.

Mr. Grossman: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am answering the question, if the member would just be quiet enough to hear it. I am suggesting to him that when we are bringing hydraulic power into the grid in Ontario, it is providing job opportunities; it is providing job opportunities in northern Ontario. It is providing an opportunity to the private sector to bring hydraulic power on without any investment by the users in Ontario. That is the direction this government is going in, and we are going to see a lot of hydraulic megawatts come on stream that were never brought into the system in Ontario in the last number of years.

Mr. Grossman: Of course he still will not answer the question because he knows what the answer is.

Interjections.

Mr. Andrewes: Sixty jobs; is it 60 jobs?

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question and to which minister?

Mr. Andrewes: What about those 3,600 extra jobs at Hydro?

Mr. Speaker: Did the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) want to ask the question?

Mr. Andrewes: No.

Mr. Speaker: No. Thank you.

UNIVERSITY ENROLMENT

Mr. Grossman: My question is to the Premier. I wonder if the Premier can give an unequivocal assurance that every academically qualified student who wants to attend university in Ontario this year will be allowed to do so.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is yes.

Mr. Grossman: Why then, for the first time, are students enrolling in Ontario universities facing an enrolment cap of three per cent? This year the universities are facing a seven per cent increase in applications. This government has capped the increase at three per cent. Why has it done that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The facts are right. We are looking at possibly a 6.5 per cent increase in enrolment. We are welcoming it and the minister is working out the arrangements with the universities to so accommodate it.

Mr. Grossman: The fact is the universities have so far received a seven per cent increase in applications. His minister, in announcing the new funding formula in March, instituted a three per cent corridor, which in essence tells the universities they cannot increase enrolment, and I quote from the minister's letter to the Ontario Council on University Affairs, "without having the approval of the Minister of Colleges and Universities."

Mr. Wiseman: What's the answer, Bob? Quick.

Mr. Grossman: I will wait until the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is able to finish briefing him.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Grossman: Given the fact that the result of the cap this government has put on could mean that as many as 2,000 university students who are academically qualified do not get into universities this year, would he explain why he put the cap on?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is nonsense. My honourable friend continues to say things that are factually inaccurate in this House. Let me tell him the admissions are left up to the universities. We are anticipating a major increase in enrolment this year. We welcome that with open arms. After years of starvation of the system we have opened up the doors, not only to better quality but to more quantity as well. I think there is a great sense of relief in that community because it has confidence in the emphasis we are putting on education, which was sorely denied by the previous government.

The answer to his question is that they will not be restricted; anyone who is qualified will not be restricted. We are looking forward to major increases in enrolment. All the fears that the member tries to persuade people exist do not exist. Will he stand up and deny those facts, yes or no?

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. On a point of privilege?

Mr. Grossman: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: What is your point?

Mr. Grossman: The point is this. The Premier has just suggested that I was factually inaccurate in the information I laid before the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: I should like the opportunity to read into the record the minister's letter, which shows unequivocally that --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member take his seat. It is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, what are we to do?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are many other opportunities such as asking another question or, according to the standing orders, you have the right to debate it at a later time following a session.

1420

COMFORT ALLOWANCES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is also of the Premier, to follow up on yesterday's question. At Providence Villa in my riding senior citizens are given a discretionary allowance of $112 a month, while disabled people are given an allowance of $77 a month. At the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital there is no allowance except the $22 per ward per month which is distributed by the nurses. Inmates in the Huronia institution in Orillia receive $10 every two months.

This government has been in power for two years. Why is it the policy of his government to perpetuate this discrimination between people of various kinds who are on fixed incomes in our long-term care institutions?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I believe the honourable member asked me this question yesterday, and he is quite entitled to ask it of me again. He is aware of the discriminatory system we inherited. As I indicated to him yesterday, our attempts, and indeed our determination, to get rid of that discrimination will be announced within the very near future.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I presume the Premier is aware that within the last couple of years we have afforded a number of civic rights to people in institutions. For instance, in the last election approximately 2,000 people in our institutions for the psychiatrically ill or the developmentally handicapped voted pretty much along the lines that everybody else voted in our province.

Does the Premier not think it is a bit strange that those people have the right to determine who should represent them in the Legislature but are not allowed to decide how they will spend a small allowance to make their lives more comfortable in those institutions? Why has it taken the Premier two years to announce that he is thinking about changing that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think I told the honourable member we would have an announcement, which was discussed today and has been worked on for some time by the minister, in the very near future.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I hope the Premier realizes there are many people in the various institutions who cross various definitional lines. For instance, in the Rideau institution there are many people who have cerebral palsy -- about 20 people, as a matter of fact. He may remember Justin Clark, who was considered to be basically unable to manage his own affairs, who was then released and is now living in the community and does get a comfort allowance. There is Ark Eden where people kept in cribs, baby-sized cribs, who seemed to be incapable of doing anything, are now living in North York and getting allowances so they can participate in the community.

Does the Premier not think that his policy runs counter to his own deinstitutionalization policy in that he is supposedly preparing people to come into the community, and yet our developmentally handicapped and our psychiatrically ill do not have the same rights as the elderly in our institutions?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sure the honourable member will be charitable enough to acknowledge that under this government there has been a major thrust put forward in terms of deinstitutionalization. It has been announced that many initiatives have been undertaken. We still have a major job to do, but he will be familiar with the recent announcements of the minister in that regard. It is something we believe in very strongly and are determined to proceed with over the long term. I am not suggesting for a moment that we have solved all the problems; we have not.

With respect to the comfort allowance that the member asked about a little earlier and the discrimination therein, we are aware of that. We may have differences of opinion about how to solve some of those differences, as we have in the past over certain Canada pension plan allowances and others, but I think the member will see a minister who is one of the most compassionate people in this province and who is really doing significant things. I think my honourable friend would have to admit that.

LANDFILL SITE

Mrs. Grier: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. It concerns the H. C. Lewis landfill site near Lucan, a landfill site that has been operating for many years in violation of all the regulations. The issue was raised in this House many times by the members opposite when they were in opposition.

In January 1986, when I raised the issue in this House, the minister said he would give the operator until September 1986 to clean up. He went on to say, "If it is not in compliance at that time, that is it." Can the minister explain why a year and a half later, with continuing violations, he has not yet closed down this landfill operation?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As I recall it, the issue at the time was the capacity they were permitted at this particular landfill. I indicated that it must be brought into line in terms of that capacity by the date the member has described and that there would be no continuation of it at any capacity beyond that.

As a result of complaints that have been forthcoming, it is my understanding that the investigations and enforcement branch of the Ministry of the Environment is investigating that situation at the present time. I anticipate that if they have noted the violations, they will take the action they deem appropriate.

Mrs. Grier: The investigations and enforcement branch of the ministry, I can tell the minister, has been investigating that site for many, many months. In February of this year, on behalf of a neighbouring land owner, the Canadian Environmental Law Association brought to the attention of ministry officials a list of violations and asked the ministry officials to launch prosecution and to do so by the end of March 1987.

Can the minister explain why they have not answered those letters and have not prosecuted this landfill operator? If they have been investigating, given that the violations had been drawn to their attention many months ago, why have they not laid charges?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member will know that when we conduct these investigations, they are often of a more complex nature than perhaps we would anticipate at the beginning. If we want to have a thorough investigation where there is an opportunity to be successful in a particular court case, we want to ensure that all the necessary evidence has been gathered and that when the information is provided in court, it is provided in such a way and in such a comprehensive manner that the case has been strengthened to the point where a prosecution would be successful.

l know the member would be critical of me and the Ministry of the Environment, and I think justifiably so, if we were to go into court with a case that was not a strong one; in other words, with partial evidence rather than complete evidence. For that reason, we want to ensure that we have all the evidence necessary whenever we are contemplating such an action so that we can be successful in that action.

Mrs. Grier: It has taken them two years to put together evidence that they consider sufficient to go to court on. I would like the minister to know that the Canadian Environmental Law Association laid charges on behalf of the neighbours. Those charges were to be dealt with in court in London in April of this year. A ministry official was subpoenaed to attend the trial in London on April 24 and he failed to even show up. Can the minister explain what on earth his ministry is doing?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is inviting a very long response when she says that, but I know she wants to confine it to this specific incident. I can simply reiterate to her that the investigations branch has been looking at this very carefully --

Mr. McClellan: How long?

Mrs. Grier: They were subpoenaed and they did not show up.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: -- gathering any evidence that is necessary and is attempting to provide a strong case for going into court, should that be necessary. It is my hope that --

lnterjections.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I do not know if the opposition wants an answer to this. I think they do. The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) has an interest in this as well and I know would want to hear an answer --

Mr. McClellan: Why don't you answer then?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: -- instead of just shouting at me.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pouliot: Even the minister can't run the clock down for 40 minutes.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In answer to the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot), I am certainly not attempting to do that. I am rather trying to explain the complexity of dealing with these kinds of issues in order to get what we consider to be an excellent court case. I know the member herself would be very critical if we did not have a very good case to go into court, so that if there is a necessity for court action we can be successful.

1430

ACID RAIN

Mr. Gillies: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. The minister will recall that after the Ontario Hydro banking provision loophole was closed, I asked him which of the four options identified by Ontario Hydro he was going to employ to maintain needed electrical production without increasing acid rain pollution. The minister will recall those four options.

My question today is, is this the answer, that the minister is using none of the options put forward to the select committee by Ontario Hydro, but rather is choosing to increase the use of fossil fuel and increase the incidence of acid rain pollution in our jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, not at all. That is not what the Minister of Energy is going to proceed with as we take into account the report on Hydro from the committee. We are very much bound to go forward with initiatives that are going to see more hydraulic brought on stream. I am very pleased to stand in my place and tell the member we are going to improve on the energy efficiency of hydraulic power at Niagara Falls in the not-too-distant future. The member will see Little Jackfish River come on. He will see many initiatives we now have to proceed with in co-operation with Ontario Hydro. He is certainly going to see the small private sector involved, as I have explained to his leader, who is not here now.

We are moving forward with the kind of initiatives that are going to augur well for producing power in Ontario. The member should remember we have a very important responsibility here, to maintain the kind of power to the manufacturing base of Canada that not only provides opportunities for our people here but also provides a tremendous amount of money to the central government to share with other parts of Canada. We have quite a responsibility. We are living up to it and we are getting the co-operation of Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Gillies: All we have before us is the minister's statement today. After pressure from the opposition parties, he closed the banking provision. Ontario Hydro told the select committee: "In that event, we will look at bringing in hydroelectric power from other provinces. We will look at the increased use of low-sulphur coal from western Canada. We will look at scrubbers." The honourable member and his colleagues talked about this all the time in opposition. Through this statement, the minister has done none of those things.

Why is the minister abandoning those four very viable options that were put before the committee by Hydro and going instead for increased burning of fossil fuel and increased environmental damage to our province?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I suppose the honourable member would like to print 15,000 or 20,000 copies of Hansard to suggest that he is taking some kind of leadership role and that we are abandoning certain areas we should be going in. Such is not the case. The fact of the matter is the member is probably quite envious of what has happened in the past two years, such as generating power in Ontario like never before when those people were in charge.

I know the former minister is quite incensed with the fact that he did not have a government that backed his initiatives when he wanted to go over and talk to Ontario Hydro. I know it grates on his nerves but the fact of the matter is this is a new era in Ontario. We are seeing things opening up and we are going to see a better province for it.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with regard to encouraging secondary manufacturing industry to locate in northern Ontario. As long ago as last October, the minister had a new assistant deputy minister appointed for northern industry, who was to be there for the purpose of developing new industry and industrial opportunities in the north.

I would like to ask the minister what progress has been made, in particular related to the steel industry and the opportunities for secondary manufacturing of steel products. What new initiatives have come forward? Can we expect secondary industry to locate in northern Ontario related to steel products?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I thank the member for the question because it is a matter that we in this government also consider very important. I was very proud that we were able to appoint an assistant deputy minister for the north who is located in Sault Ste. Marie. I can assure the member that he is travelling not only in the Sault but throughout the north to look at where there could be a possibility to locate secondary industry.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I think we need more specifics than that. In February, the Premier (Mr. Peterson), in response to a similar question on secondary manufacturing relating to steel in northern Ontario, responded: "There are some discussions going on at the moment with respect to specific projects. I cannot honestly stand in my place and guarantee him that they will be successful....We are working on the projects."

Can the minister tell us whether these projects are in fact going forward and when we will hear specific results on initiatives that will bring some jobs to northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I can tell the member there is not a day goes by that there is not some discussion and work in trying to locate secondary industry in the north. There is not an easy solution to this; it will take a lot of hard work and we are working at it very hard.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

Mr. Gillies: I have a question for the Premier about conflict of interest. After the government introduced Bill 23, we thought that perhaps he was finally starting to take the question of conflict of interest seriously and that the kind of noncompliance we had experienced in the past with his members was going to cease.

Would the Premier explain to the House why, after he appointed parliamentary assistants on January 5 and the guidelines clearly state they were to file their tablings with the Clerk of the House within one month of their appointment, as of yesterday six of his parliamentary assistants had not filed their conflict-of-interest holdings with the Clerk of the House; and indeed, why one of them has still failed to put those filings before public scrutiny?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This question was asked yesterday, and my understanding is the following. They were indeed filed with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) at the appropriate time. The member is referring to six particular members. They were all filed by the appropriate time, and then there were some details to be worked out on one particular trust agreement, so there was correspondence with the lawyers. As I said, it has been filed with the Attorney General.

Mr. Gillies: The problem is this. The requirement is that these filings be put before public scrutiny by filing with the Clerk so that they are available to the members of this House and, indeed, the public. Does the Premier consider it appropriate that, in the case of the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine), the filing has still not been made? In fact, he has been in violation of the conflict-of-interest guidelines for some five months now.

Does the Premier not realize that these are the rules of the game and that he has to make a decision as leader of the government? Is the Premier going to ask his member to comply, even though he is now five months in arrears with that compliance, or is he going to do the appropriate thing and ask him to be relieved of his responsibilities as a parliamentary assistant?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I explained to the member before that they were filed with the Attorney General at the appropriate time. The member is trying to put this under a broad brush. After the legal details are worked out, it goes from there to the Clerk. I am very happy to share all this information with the member, the Clerk or the general public at any time. I know of the member's great interest in this matter.

ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Hayes: My question is to the Minister of Health. Anne Bolton, who is a 17-year-old woman from my riding, suffered cardiac arrest which caused severe brain damage. Between November 4, 1983, and March 10, 1984, Anne was admitted six times to different hospitals in Ontario. I have sent that list over to the minister ahead of time so that he could look at all the dates and the hospitals she has been admitted to. After visiting all these different hospitals in Ontario, she did not receive or could not receive the care which is needed.

On June 8, 1984, Anne was transferred to Bethany Care Centre in Alberta, where she is getting needed treatment and is now showing progress. Can the minister tell us why they can supply facilities for people like Anne Bolton in Alberta and we cannot have those services for brain-injured people in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable member did in fact send this over a very short time, I think he would admit, before this question was raised. I do not want to say I am not happy that he has supplied me with this information, but it is very difficult to provide an answer on a particular case when I have not been made aware of all the circumstances.

1440

I think his general question, at least the specific example that leads to the general question about services for brain-injured people, is an appropriate one. We have been looking at ways in which we might enhance our abilities to provide services for the people in Ontario.

I really do not know that much about Mrs. Bolton or the care that is being given to her in Alberta. With respect to those people who go out of the jurisdiction to receive care, we are looking at the advantages and the benefits they receive under a particular style of care that may be appropriate for introduction into the Ontario sector. Until I have a chance to take a look at this particular situation, I cannot say that the style of care delivered at Bethany Care Centre would be appropriate for introduction into the Ontario jurisdiction.

Mr. Hayes: The minister is correct that I just sent that information over to him, but I can tell this House that his ministry is well aware of this particular case because Mrs. Bolton has been corresponding back and forth for the last couple of years with the Ministry of Health.

Anne Bolton is not alone, and I think the minister and the rest of us are well aware of that. In my own riding alone, we know many cases of people in the same situation as Anne Bolton.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Hayes: Can the minister tell us when Anne and others like her will be able to receive the proper care in Ontario and be reunited with their families in Ontario, rather than families having to travel such long distances to visit their children or members of their family who are brain-injured?

Hon. Mr. Elston: As I indicated in my previous answer, we are looking at the type of care, the style of care and the benefits of the styles of care that are being provided in various areas. I am not sure we have done an assessment on the care at Bethany Care Centre, but we are looking at the treatment that is being provided at a number of locations in North America and we will be assessing what opportunities are there for us.

When we get the information background upon which we can make some reasonable decisions and we receive advice from health councils in this province with respect to what may be an appropriate response to this particular problem, we will be in a position to make announcements about any program changes.

Until then, until we know exactly what the benefits are, until we know what is appropriate, until we know what style of service is required by people with acquired brain damage, we will not introduce a program. I require very thorough analysis and planning so that we can make sure we have the most appropriate services for the province of Ontario's needs.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

Mr. Gillies: Again I have a question to the Premier. I would like to quote from the conflict-of-interest guidelines under which his government is supposed to operate.

The conflict-of-interest guidelines indicate parliamentary assistants will be given a reasonable time to make their disclosure, which will be within a month of their appointment. The guidelines go on to say that such disclosures will be filed with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly where they will be available for public scrutiny.

Now that I have explained those guidelines to the Premier, will he now concede to the House that as of yesterday the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy), the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine), the member for York East (Ms. Hart), the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Knight), the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay) and the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South) were all in violation of the guidelines? Will he further undertake to check with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and confirm that as of this moment the member for Cochrane North continues to be in violation of those guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My understanding is that the member's facts are incorrect. The guidelines refer to the filing being made by April 30 and that was done in all cases. There is no particular time frame within which the Attorney General refers that over to the Clerk, and he was working on some legal niceties. In fact, they have met the legality of that particular document.

Mr. Gillies: I believe the Premier is inadvertently misreading the guidelines. I think it is worthy to note that if the new conflict-of-interest legislation proposed by this government were in fact in place right now, these members would be in very serious trouble.

Will the Premier undertake to order his Attorney General to bring this member into compliance and do what the guidelines under which this government is supposed to be operating tell it to do, which is to file with the Clerk within one month of the appointment of a parliamentary assistant? He has had six months and the member for Cochrane North is not in compliance. Will he now undertake to ensure that he is brought so?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is being done at the moment, as I have said, and the honourable member is not happy to accept that. We brought forward the new Members' Conflict of Interest Act and we are very comfortable with it.

My honourable friend would like to form judgements about who is in violation and who is not in violation, and that is why we think it is important to have an independent assessment. I recognize that my honourable friend would like to stand up every day and make charges whether in fact they are valid or not.

As I said, if he would read the thing, it was passed on to the Attorney General --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There are certain details being worked out, and he will have an opportunity to scrutinize that to his heart's delight, then he can go back and make whatever other charges he wants to make, real or imagined.

Mr. Andrewes: Remember a year ago when he stood up and resigned? He was not in violation then either.

Mr. Speaker: There are members I did not recognize who are speaking when they shouldn't be.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he is aware that it is a widespread practice across Ontario that when an individual needs a knee replacement or a hip replacement, because those replacements are paid for out of global budgets for hospitals, hospitals are imposing quotas on a monthly basis and on a yearly basis and, therefore, people who need the surgery are put off for several months or may in fact not be able to get the surgery in a particular year because of budget constraints that his ministry has imposed on hospitals in this province.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman will realize that we have substantially increased the global budgets of hospitals over the last two years and in fact it remains inside the hospital facility to determine the allocation of resources as between the various departments and undertakings that are carried on there. We leave it to the authority of the independent boards and to the people who do the budgeting to make the determinations. I think we have found that to be in most cases a very satisfactory way of dealing with the funding of the operation of those facilities.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The minister will realize that in years past these items were in fact not covered in the global budget but were separately funded.

I would like to ask the minister how he would respond to a woman in my riding who last worked on February 15 of this year and has not got her surgery planned until September of this year. She got 15 weeks of unemployment insurance, sickness and accident, and then no income whatsoever. Both the Ontario Hospital Association and Dr. Yovanovich in Salvation Army Grace Hospital in my community say this is a widespread problem.

Would the minister not reconsider the funding for these devices and, instead of having them funded in the global budget, fund them individually so that people like this lady are not waiting for months, on absolutely no income, and being unproductive?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The situation the honourable member has brought to my attention is a real and very difficult one. As members know, we announced just recently -- in fact when we announced the increased funding for hospitals -- a willingness to examine and re-examine the method of funding hospital budgets so we could come up with a very effective and efficient method of reimbursing the efficient operations in the province.

I can take the honourable gentleman's suggestion into account when I receive the input which is coming directly from them. In fact, I invited the participation of the various members of the boards of trustees of the hospitals to tell me some of the problems that are in the funding mechanism currently. That may be a very good suggestion. I am sure other hospitals will make similar suggestions to us when we consider what is appropriate for modifying our current method of funding hospitals.

1450

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. McFadden: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. As the minister is undoubtedly aware, the United States Congress today is considering omnibus trade legislation which will undoubtedly have an impact on most, if not all, of Canada's trade with the United States. Does the minister believe that this trade legislation will open up markets for Canada in the United States and does the minister believe that this legislation will create jobs here in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Again, I would thank the member. Is he talking about the omnibus trade bill? Is that the one he is talking about?

Mr. McFadden: Yes.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Of course, we are viewing that very carefully. There are a lot of things that could possibly be the results of that bill. As the member learned when he went to Washington with the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, there are many ramifications that could be very harmful to Ontario's trade, so we are monitoring it very carefully and will continue to do so.

Mr. McFadden: I wonder whether the minister would share with the House any information he might have in terms of the jobs or industries that potentially could be in jeopardy. As the minister has confirmed and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said a couple of weeks ago, there is some detailed study about what is going on in Washington. Would the minister share with the House and the people of Ontario those industries and jobs that could be in danger as a result of this omnibus trade legislation?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: First of all, I would say that we are monitoring the trade negotiations in Washington and the two different bills, one before the Senate and one before the House of Representatives. We are monitoring that very closely with the firm of lawyers we have there.

A study that was leaked to the press confirmed some of the different Canadian job areas that are at risk. Some of the areas mentioned were tires, many food products, wine, beer, many wood products, some electrical products, household appliances, construction machinery, toys, games, toiletries, glass and buses. Those are some of the areas we are monitoring very closely, keeping a close watch on, because we feel those re areas where there could be job losses.

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

Mr. Grande: My question is for the Minister of Education. As the minister knows, on Thursday of this week the standing committee on social development will begin hearings on Bill 80. Very simply, will the minister be attending those hearings on Bill 80, since, of course, he does want to know what people in this province, community groups, teachers and boards of education, think about Bill 80 and his own proposals?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member for Oakwood has been a distinguished member of this Legislature for 12 years. He knows precisely how the standing committees of this assembly operate. Of course, I, as a member of the executive council, will be pleased to respond to a specific invitation, but I can tell the member for Oakwood I have no intention of telling our good friend the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) how to run his committee.

Mr. Grande: The minister misinterprets. Nobody said to the minister that he should tell us or the member for Scarborough West how to run the committee. I was asking whether the minister would be so kind as to go before the committee so that he would have an education in terms of what the people in this province feel and believe about Bill 80. Since the minister will not be there, will he at the very least --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought you had asked the question, will the minister attend the committee?

Mr. Grande: Will the minister at the very least --

Mr. Speaker: Was that not your question?

Mr. Grande: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Put your question.

Mr. Grande: If these people wish to come before the committee, will the minister, at the very least, allow people such as the Deputy Minister of Education, Bernard Shapiro, and Jack Berryman, education officer within his ministry, who are in favour of the heritage languages program during the school day, to come before the committee to give us their expertise?

Hon. Mr. Conway: If I were to go, I might take along a recent article in Ontario Education in which the honourable leader of the Ontario New Democratic Party, the member for York South (Mr. Rae), said, among other things: "I think it is fair to say that it is not going to be a universal type of program. We want to make sure that the program has some flexibility." He went on to say: "We should move away from the notion that a majority ought to be able to deprive a minority of access to some education in their own language."

I want to say to my colleagues that if I were to go, I might take the NDP leader's very, very sensible and moderate interview with Ontario Education, which seems to strongly suggest that he and most of his colleagues would agree with the very sensible, sensitive and reasonable position that this side is offering to the Ontario multicultural and educational community.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Point of order, and under which standing order?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: As chairman of the standing committee on social development, I want to assure the minister that he can say whatever he wants when he comes before a committee.

CARABRAM

Mr. Callahan: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. Last year, the minister kindly attended the opening of Carabram in my community and attended a number of the pavilions. She also was kind enough to provide for what I would suggest is very much along the lines of education and is something that should be supported, that is certain funds to assist these groups in regard to expanding the pavilions they have.

Since I have been communicating with the minister over a rather lengthy period of time in an effort to secure additional funding for them, I would like to inquire whether my submissions on behalf of Carabram are going to be successful.

Hon. Ms. Munro: Through the Speaker to my honourable colleague, I was most impressed by the submission from Carabram. That submission reflects the ongoing nature and the expansion of festivals in Ontario. I can tell the member that I am looking favourably at the application and will, of course, be delighted to accompany him to Carabram.

APPORTIONMENT OF EDUCATION TAXES

Mr. Mitchell: I regret that because the Minister of Education has not given the answers to the questions I have been asking with regard to the city of Nepean and Goulbourn, I must ask the question again.

The minister is well aware of Nepean's particular argument with the ministry about its share of education costs. He is well aware because they provided him with a full brief many, many months ago. He is well aware of the whole situation. Yet he involved himself after the fact in an Ontario Municipal Board hearing and asked for a rehearing, which has successfully fouled up the whole mess again.

I have asked repeatedly in this House for the minister to provide for me, because he has talked about equality, the list of all the municipalities in Ontario that he has referred to that are suffering the same financial impact as the city of Nepean. Will the minister indeed provide to me and to the city of Nepean that list?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Yes.

Mr. Mitchell: Well, I am very pleased to hear that the minister has responded in the affirmative.

Mr. Speaker: And supplementary?

Mr. Mitchell: I have been asking for it for several weeks. I am surprised that he has not given it before now.

Mr. Speaker: And supplementary?

Mr. Mitchell: Since the minister is in such an affable mood today, can he tell me and this House when he intends to change the legislation to indeed make everything equal?

Hon. Mr. Conway: As the member for Carleton knows only too well, I am a supremely reasonable fellow. I want to say to my friend from Nepean that I listen very carefully to what he says but I listen with equal attentiveness to what our friend from Manotick advises. I do not want to sow any more dissension in the Ontario Conservative Party, particularly in the national capital region, because the flying wedge might fly apart before the election.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) has a question.

Mr. Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Under which standing order?

Mr. Mitchell: I believe it is 38. I am not satisfied with the answer and I wish to deal with this matter later.

Mr. Speaker: The member knows the procedure to follow, to give written notice.

The member for Nickel Belt has a new question.

1500

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. He will know that last week his parliamentary assistant grabbed headlines in northern Ontario with an announcement that Highway 11 was going to be four-laned to North Bay and Highway 69 to Sudbury. Will the minister assure us that is indeed government policy and not simply an announcement of funding to conduct a study?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not aware of any headline grabbing. I can understand my honourable friend's concern when his own name is not mentioned in that regard, but I am not aware of the announcement he is talking about. Obviously, it is a matter that is under very active consideration by the government. He has seen a major new commitment to northern transportation.

Mr. Laughren: My name being mentioned has nothing to do with it. The question has to do with an announcement by his parliamentary assistant that the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) appears to know nothing about and that the minister has just said he knows nothing about, namely, that Highway 11 was going to be four-laned to North Bay and that Highway 69 would be completed with four lanes all the way to Sudbury. I am asking the minister, is that government policy or is it just the ramblings of the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay)?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Lots of us are accused of ramblings from time to time in this House and outside this House. I am sure the member intends it in that spirit.

With respect to our northern transportation policy, the member can see a major commitment, the largest commitment in history to northern transportation. Those are two very active proposals under consideration on Highway 11 and Highway 69. The question is which and at which times. There are lots of other requests, as the member knows, for roads in northern Ontario. We are prioritizing those things. The member knows of this government's very strong commitment to making sure that we have first-class facilities in northern Ontario. I thank him for bringing up the question.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Rowe: I have a question for the Premier. Is the Premier aware of the terrible shortage of affordable housing in the city of Barrie? If he is, what does he intend to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not in a position to give the member the specific numbers with respect to Barrie but I do know of the problems we have across the province, particularly in a number of the urban areas. This is why I will point my honourable friend back to the initiatives in the throne speech that we think are going to make a major impact.

There has been an enormous amount of activity, as the member knows, in single family dwellings. That in some sense takes some of the pressure off the market but there are many other pressures developing as well, particularly in the rental market, particularly for people of modest means. This is why our policy is determined to hit those areas. We will be happy to discuss it with the member or the officials in Barrie with respect to meeting the needs of that community as well as the other communities across the province.

Mr. Rowe: Perhaps I can refresh the Premier's memory. According to Ministry of Housing statistics this morning, there are 271 families on a waiting list for subsidized housing in Barrie. Of these, 133 families, 50 per cent, are considered to be in a desperate situation by Ministry of Housing standards, the 90-point standard.

What steps does the Premier plan to take to help people such as William Alford, his wife Elaine and their two-year-old daughter Kimmy, who are living in a tent trailer near a swamp in Crown Hill now that his assured housing policy is totally in a shambles in the city of Barrie?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not know Mr. Alford. I ask the member what he has done to help Mr. Alford because I do not know the status with Ontario Housing units in that community. I can tell him that we are prepared to undertake that responsibility to help people such as Mr. Alford. If he would like to give us the details, we would be happy to work with his situation. I think he will find a government that is sensitive to these problems. We are also sensitive to the need for supply. This is not a new problem. We have made a major commitment to it. I think we are going to help people such as him and others as well.

VARITY CORP.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Premier. I think all of us are very happy to learn today that the government is supporting the shareholder's resolution at Varity Corp.'s annual meeting in favour of the South African divestment. We are very pleased to see he has taken that action as a shareholder in Varity on behalf of the people of Ontario.

Can the Premier tell me whether or not he has taken any action -- in opposition, one presumes --with Varity, which is the parent corporation for Perkins Engines, as he knows, which is going to be producing the engines for the Midgetman missile which is being produced in England?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer to the member's question is no. We have not had any specific correspondence or any particular directions on that particular issue.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Does the Premier not see that this puts us in an invidious position as a Legislature which has voted for our being a nuclear-weapons-free zone and yet has us as shareholders in a corporation which is actually producing engines for a missile whose only purpose is the delivery of a nuclear warhead?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand the question the honourable member raises. I understand his commitment. Indeed, I think he understands our commitment as well.

We are not sitting at the management desk in that regard. To the best of my knowledge, that question has not been forwarded to us, as shareholders, to vote upon. There is no resolution that I am aware of before the board of directors. I could be wrong about that. If I am wrong, my honourable friend will inform me. When we are asked to vote our shares, our minority interest in that particular enterprise, we will vote them in accordance with our principles.

RIGHT TO FARM

Mr. Andrewes: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food so that he does not feel neglected. Can he report to us on the status of his discussions with agricultural groups about right-to-farm legislation?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As the honourable member knows, we have received a number of submissions as a result of a task force which was set up to look into this whole matter of food land preservation and also right-to-farm legislation. There were something like 460 submissions received from the municipalities alone. My staff is busy looking at all those recommendations. We hope we will be able to introduce both the food land preservation policy and right-to-farm legislation this fall.

Mr. Andrewes: The minister will know of the resolution of my colleague the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil). He will also know of the harassment that a greenhouse grower in the Niagara Peninsula was subjected to by the Ministry of the Environment, because there is a plethora of correspondence with him on that issue.

He may not know that tomorrow morning at nine o'clock in provincial court in St. Catharines, Mr. and Mrs. Warren Saunders, fruit growers in the Beamsville area, will be before a judge on charges laid by the Ministry of the Environment that they operated a device in violation of sound guidelines that the ministry had in place. This is a bird-scaring device, which is necessary for the production of food in the Niagara Peninsula and in other parts of the province.

Is the minister prepared to stand up and be counted on this issue?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: If the honourable gentleman is asking for me to comment on that specific case, I will tell him that I will not. He knows it is presently under investigation and it will be going through the court system.

If the honourable gentleman is asking whether I am taking into consideration normal farming practices when we draft the farmers' right-to-farm legislation, the answer is yes. We definitely hope to have a piece of legislation that will protect the farmers and give them the opportunity to farm using normal farming practices.

LEAD LEVELS

Mr. Reville: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I have just sent him a copy of a letter dated May 15, from Maureen McDonnell, whom he knows well as the president of the South Riverdale Community Health Centre. In the letter Ms. McDonnell makes three clear recommendations about the lead situation in south Riverdale.

Next week the minister will be opening the office of the lead co-ordinator in south Riverdale. Will he make an announcement today that he will implement each of the recommendations in Ms. McDonnell's letter?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member for Riverdale would be aware, because I have tried to keep him informed in these matters related to his riding, I appreciate his raising this issue, because it has been a matter of public concern for some time in his area.

I can assure him that I am evaluating the report that has been presented to me by the joint committee, that is a committee which consisted of government officials, representatives of the company and representatives from the neighbourhood.

1510

In addition to that, I have received further recommendations from the people who reside in the neighbourhood. Those recommendations are not precisely the same; they are quite close but they are not precisely the same. I want to assure the member, because I think he believes as I do, that there is a need for some rapidity in getting this information out. I will be making an announcement in the near future.

I have assured them some time ago, and I know the member took this position some time ago as well, that we will be removing soil which is contaminated with lead from that particular area. I expect to make the announcement as to the precise amounts and the precise work to be done.

I have also been consulting with the city of Toronto and the member would probably know I have met with the mayor of Toronto and other representatives from Toronto to ensure sufficient information is available. The answer is yes.

PETITIONS

CAMPING LIMIT

Mr. Guindon: I have a petition from over 1,100 people in my riding. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads:

"We, the undersigned, object to the decision taken by the St. Lawrence Parks Commission to enforce a regulation prohibiting campers from using any individual site for more than 23 days."

LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Rowe: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads:

"We, the undersigned, residents of the township of Innisfil, want the Innisfil sanitary landfill site, known as the Innisfil Landfill Corp., closed immediately and totally cleaned up for the following reasons." They are listed below.

That was signed by some 150 residents.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Callahan from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr68, An Act respecting the Windsor Youth Marching and Concert Band.

The committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of punting, be remitted on Bill Pr68, An Act respecting the Windsor Youth Marching and Concert Band.

Mr. Speaker: Did all members hear that report?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: You did not hear a word? Order. There are many private conversations still continuing. Is that necessary? Shall the report be received and adopted?

I will request that the report be read again.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. R. F. Johnston from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 190, An Act to amend the Mental Health Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if I could ask the indulgence of the House just before we go to committee. I have received notice that the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell) was dissatisfied with the answer to the question given by the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway). This matter will be debated at 6 p.m. tomorrow.

House in committee of the whole.

PAY EQUITY ACT / LOI DE 1987 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ SALARIALE (CONTINUED / CONTINUÉE)

Consideration of Bill 154, An Act to provide for Pay Equity.

Etude du projet de loi 154, Loi portant établissement de l'équité salariale.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, before you call the sections of the bill I would like to ask for agreement that any divisions on the sections be held to the completion of the debate or 5:45 p.m., whichever is earlier.

Mr. Chairman: Do we have unanimous consent to stack the divisions to 5:45 p.m. or the end of the bill, whichever shall come earlier? Agreed? Agreed. Thank you.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: Order.

To prove a point, I would say --

Mr. McClellan: I still cannot hear a word.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Would members please discontinue their conversations. Everyone in the chamber is having tremendous difficulty hearing.

All right. Yes, the member for Bellwoods?

Mr. McClellan: There was something said about the time of the stacking. We have an agreement for 5:45 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Members did not agree with the "whichever is earlier," and because they did not agree it has been suggested we abide by our earlier agreement and call the vote at 5:45 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: That is the agreement, yes.

Ms. Gigantes: We agreed.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Excuse me. I thought we clearly put it. Some people could hear. Will the other people who are carrying on conversations please desist and carry them on outside. Now, I know a lot of members did not hear. We did ask for unanimous consent, and there were no negatives in stacking the bill to 5:45 p.m. tonight. It is not the fault of those who did not hear. It is the fault of those who are carrying on private conversations.

We do have unanimous consent, correct, to vote at 5:45 p.m. or at the end of the bill, whichever comes sooner?

Mr. McClellan: No.

Mr. Chairman: At 5:45 p.m. only? It is now changed.

Fine. Thank you.

On section 9:

Mr. Chairman: We now have before us subsection 9(1) of the bill, which is an amendment of the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes). We were in the midst of debate on that when we broke yesterday. Perhaps for the sake of the members I will read it:

"Ms. Gigantes moves that subsection 9(1) of the bill be amended by inserting, after `reduce' in the first line and in the second line, `or restrain.'"

Ms. Gigantes: I had asked a series of questions of the parliamentary assistant on this amendment yesterday, to which we did not receive answers in the real sense. What we received was a statement by the parliamentary assistant that he had listened to this debate earlier and that he essentially had nothing further to say on the matter.

I am wondering if he would do us the courtesy today to take a different tack and present us with his views about why this is an unacceptable motion, if he considers it unacceptable.

1520

Mr. Ward: I think the member for Ottawa Centre is aware that before we adjourned yesterday I had responded to the questions she raised, but I would be more than delighted to repeat for everyone's benefit the response I gave to that member yesterday, and previously in committee.

Bill 154, as it is written, does not permit the reduction in any employee's wages as a result of pay equity adjustments. The member seems to have some concern that because the bill does not explicitly state that wages cannot be restrained, that in fact restraining the wages of male employees is the only method by which pay equity adjustments will be made. Frankly, I do not accept or agree with her argument or necessarily her logic on that basis.

I will concede to the member, I suppose, that the potential is there, but the fact remains that in order to close the wage gap, wage increases for female employees will have to be moved ahead at a rate higher than those of the male employees. All of us recognize that; otherwise, the gap is never going to close. It would seem to me that by including in the legislation a clause that restraint will not be permitted, any male employee can, on the basis of a female employee getting a wage increase at a rate higher than a male employee, make a case that his wages are being restrained. For the life of me, I do not see how anyone would be able to prove or disprove that.

Ms. Gigantes: We may be getting somewhere now. I think the parliamentary assistant begins to understand the question. At least it is indicated by his response that he does.

I would like to make sure he understands that this motion is not addressed to the question of male wages exclusively; nor is it addressed to the question of how the gap is closed. Obviously, if one has a gap and one has legislation addressed to closing that gap, then the people for whom the gap exists and has been determined under the legislation to exist are going to have their wages increased by pay equity adjustments on an annual basis. That is the whole mechanism of the bill. No one is objecting to that.

What I am asking the parliamentary assistant to do by approving this amendment is to remove the possibility that the women for whom this legislation is created are going to be asked to pay through wage restraint for their own pay equity adjustments. I wonder if he understands that concept.

Mr. Ward: I understand the concept the member is putting forward. The bill explicitly states that each employer within the province will have to set aside a total of one per cent of total payroll cost each year in order to make pay equity wage adjustments. I do not accept her premise that wages will automatically be restrained in an effort to achieve pay equity and to close the gap.

Ms. Gigantes: I remind the parliamentary assistant that the minister through whom he holds his office, the minister responsible for women's issues and Attorney General (Mr. Scott), has in fact encouraged employers to look upon how they will make their pay equity adjustments by precisely this method, that he has publicly encouraged them to restrain wage increases and to provide the one per cent of payroll devoted to pay equity adjustments out of that restraint. Does he remember that?

Further, if he does now understand this concept -- and I remind him it is not a concept that affects the behaviour of employers only in the private sector, though the minister responsible for women's issues was addressing employers in the private sector when he offered them advice about how to make this legislation work and how to make it work without any extraordinary cost to them; this also applies to the public sector -- can I ask him: would it not be reasonable to employ the same kind of possibility of appeal that was recognized by the Conservative government of this province and supported by the Liberals when they were in opposition in terms of the wage restraint legislation under which we operated in these past years, so that workers who felt they could establish in an appeal to the pay equity tribunal that they were being asked to pay for their own pay equity adjustments, could go before that tribunal and make the case.

It would not be an easy case to make. The parliamentary assistant is correct. It would take a very extreme case, well-documented, for a tribunal to be willing to say, "Yes, we can establish that in this case the employer is unfairly restraining wages and should not be doing so in order to provide pay equity adjustments, and should not be doing that to the very employees whose wages are supposed to be raised by this legislation."

Mr. Ward: Nothing in this legislation restrains the wages of any worker and I would like to reiterate that with emphasis as the first point. Second, the member alludes to comments being made by the Attorney General, supposedly on the basis of encouraging the restraint of wages in order to achieve pay equity adjustments, and frankly, if employers wish to accelerate pay equity adjustments to female workers within their work force at an accelerated rate above and beyond the one per cent in an effort to achieve pay equity adjustments in a shorter time line, I for one do not accept that is a bad thing.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion of Ms. Gigantes?

There being none, all those in favour of Ms. Gigantes's amendment to section 9(1) will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Five members having stood, this vote will be stacked until 5:45 p.m. Again, I would remind all members if they intend to say "aye" or "nay" that they say so when it is called. Otherwise, another mistake will be made and something will be carried that is not intended to be carried.

Vote stacked.

On section 10:

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Gigantes moves that clauses 10(b), (c) and (d) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor: "(b) the third anniversary of the effective date in respect of all other employers to whom this part applies."

Ms. Gigantes: In the mechanism provided by this legislation for the achievement of the formula called "pay equity", there is a section of the working population who are women in Ontario who will, as the bill currently stands, have the right to have a pay equity plan determined for their work place.

In those work places where women are members of a union, they will have the right to have their union involved in the creation of that plan. In work places where the women are not members of a union, the employer will create the pay equity plan.

1530

The bill sets out a staging of the posting of those plans that depends upon the size of the establishment in the private sector. For the public sector, the bill says that the plan shall be posted within two years so that all women working in the public sector in Ontario will be able to see what the pay equity plan addressing their work place looks like within two years.

The bill says that for women who work in the private sector in firms that have more than 500 employees, the plan shall be posted by the end of the third year after this legislation is passed. We feel very strongly that three years should be the limit on the time in which plans should be posted. There can be no conceivable reason why in any work place where a plan is to be posted it should take longer than three years to have it posted after we pass this legislation.

I remind members that no payments will be made to women until the plans are posted, so three years after the passage of this legislation certainly allows plenty of time for every employer in Ontario who has a work place that will be affected by this legislation to devise or consult about the creation of plans to provide pay equity for the women in the work place. It is with this motive that we put forward this amendment which would have the effect of saying public sector plans as agreed on in the bill would be provided within two years, and for all other work places where plans will be created they shall be created within three years.

Mr. Ward: In response to my friend, I will reiterate some of the discussion we had when this was before the standing committee on administration of justice for clause-by-clause consideration. I believe the amendment put here today is similar, if not identical, to an amendment the member for Ottawa Centre put at that time.

From the outset, when the government set about formulating its legislation in an effort to address the long-standing problem of occupational segregation and discriminatory wage practices in the private sector, we embarked on a very extensive process of consulting with business and labour groups. Two task forces were struck and they went throughout the province and held public hearings. We had input from private sector representatives of business groups, women's groups and labour groups.

From the outset, we tried to achieve a balance that recognized the realities of small business in Ontario, the realities of the work place and the marketplace and the very real needs of women employees as they relate to finding a mechanism to redress this problem. As a result of the input that we received and careful consideration, it was determined that not all private sector businesses in Ontario were the same, that not all of them had the same resources in terms of formalized job evaluation plans, the ability to put in place objective job evaluation criteria in an effort to make comparisons and ultimately to make adjustments.

From that determination, it was felt prudent to recognize that in the public sector, the ability existed to make the evaluations and the adjustments and that in the private sector, most large private sector firms did have formalized procedures and plans. As a result, the legislation contemplated a phased-in approach dependent upon the size of the firm, on the understanding that as each sector in the legislation came on stream the smaller corporations and companies would have the benefit of seeing what transpired with those that came on stream previously, to learn from that experience and to formulate their approach to the necessity to comply with this legislation on the basis of the experience of those that went before.

Consequently, the bill before us today has a series of anniversary dates dictated by the size of the firm. We believe this is a balanced and prudent approach and therefore we do not agree with the amendment put forward by the member for Ottawa Centre.

Ms. Gigantes: Let me simply express our view that it is an unbalanced approach. It is a kind of domino theory of justice. It is a domino theory of how pay equity should apply in Ontario. If we sit with the bill as it is before us now and say, "Fine, fine, fine; it is balanced and prudent," women who are working in firms of the size of 100 to 500 employees will have to wait four years before they see a plan posted. Then they will have to wait another year, according to the bill, before they get a first instalment of a pay equity plan, which instalment will be a limited portion of the pay gap determined to have been created by discrimination and undervaluing of the work women are doing.

Can it appear to anyone that this is fair? Why should 240,000 women who work in firms of the size of 100 to 500 employees have to wait four years to see a plan? How long does it take to get a plan together? Let me suggest to the parliamentary assistant that the smaller the firm the easier it may be to create a plan. He talks of the existence of job classification systems in large firms: some have them; some do not. Some will have to revise their job classification systems if they are to do fairness to their employees under this legislation.

Why is three years too short a time for any employer to figure out how this bill should apply in his or her work place? Why should women, having waited this long, now be told to wait another four years if they work in a certain size of firm before they even get a look at a plan, let alone a cent of recompense?

Mr. Charlton: I would like to pick up on a number of the comments of my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre and carry a little further the discussion on this question of job evaluation classification systems and the ability of employers to do the comparisons that will be required by this legislation.

The comments the parliamentary assistant made just a few moments ago point very clearly to the lack of understanding that exists over there even in terms of what the process means. The parliamentary assistant is correct that there are some large employers that already have very sophisticated systems in place. Some changes may be necessary in those systems as a result of this legislation. There are also a lot of large employers in this province that have no system in place. If the parliamentary assistant were to take the time to look at the years that were spent developing those systems in our largest employers, where you have the broadest range of different job categories that you have to start comparing, he might begin to understand that if anything they have the process in reverse in this bill and that the smaller the employer and the fewer the number of employees and different job categories that are involved, the easier the job becomes.

What we see in this piece of legislation is not only a lack of understanding of that but also a complete rejection of it. We see no plans being developed in those firms of less than 100 employees, where as you go down from 100 the job will become easier and easier with each employee that disappears, and we see the exclusion of firms with employees of less than 10 because somehow for them, where the job will be absolutely the easiest, the government is saying they will not be able to do it at all.

1540

If we are going to have a system that provides any of the benefits the government has espoused during the course of this debate, we have first to get an understanding of what the process is, what the plans are all about and what it means to develop those plans. As long as we are proceeding into this with the kinds of misconceptions that are being demonstrated by the government party on this issue, we are not going to accomplish anything of what we have talked about.

Mr. Ward: I have listened very carefully once again to the arguments put forward by both my colleagues, the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) and the member for Ottawa Centre, and I reiterate that the reality is that most large sector firms have the ability to put in place job evaluation systems, because whether or not they have those systems in place now virtually all of them have personnel departments and expertise available and at their disposal.

I do not think or expect for one minute that the members of the third party will ever understand the realities of the entrepreneurial system in Ontario. There is no question, and I for one will not deny, that this legislation does represent a very direct intervention within the workings of that entrepreneurial system in Ontario. It is unfortunate but it is necessary that it must be so.

Consistently, the member for Ottawa Centre has put forward arguments against the phasing-in of pay equity adjustments, against the phasing-in periods for the development of the pay equity plans and the way in which this legislation kicks in. She is absolutely determined to ignore the facts. Although I would be the first to concede that it would be desirable if those wage adjustments could take place in one year and that it would be desirable if all the processes within this legislation could be completed in a much shorter period of time, the reality of such legislation would be such a displacement within the work place that there would unquestionably be layoffs and reduced employment within this province. I do not believe for a minute that this kind of justice is what the people in this province want if they have to sacrifice gainful employment to achieve some accelerated form of compensation without any regard whatsoever to the realities of the work place.

Mr. Barlow: Our party certainly will not be supporting this amendment. I think the parliamentary assistant tried to explain the facts of life that in a small business -- the members have heard this time and time again -- where people do all sorts of jobs, there is no job description in many businesses of 50 employees and less.

Also, I think the parliamentary assistant does not understand the entrepreneurial system, nor does his party, or it would not have addressed this in the private sector at all at this time. This sort of amendment would just strangle any business of under 50 employees, because regardless of whether they are male or female, they do all sorts of jobs.

Ms. Gigantes: They do not have plans. We are not talking about 50 employees.

Mr. Barlow: The member's colleague was talking about all employees and all employers. The amendment is not supportable by this party. It is something that would strangle all business in the smaller business sector.

Mr. McClellan: That was a curious contribution by the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow); he seemed to be speaking about some other amendment. Leaving that aside, I want to intervene because the parliamentary assistant has resorted to the blackmail argument, which is that there will be massive layoffs and shutdowns.

Mr. Ward: I think the member is imputing motives.

Mr. McClellan: If I am not mistaken, he said a moment ago that if this amendment were accepted it would lead to layoffs. What exactly did he say? We can call up the transcript of instant Hansard to see exactly what he said but I heard him say that there would be economic consequences if this amendment was passed, or was he simply carried away with his rhetoric in line with the kind of petulance we saw yesterday when dealing with restraint of wages? Now that we are dealing with timing, has his petulance just carried him into this kind of argument or does he want to retract his statements?

Mr. Ward: I will do my best to respond to the petulance of the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) by reiterating that during my comments, relative to those made by the member for Ottawa Centre in support of her amendment, I think I enunciated at some length the process that was undertaken in the formulation of the legislation. I was merely pointing out to the members of the third party that while I would be the first to concede it would be desirable if it could be realistically achieved that within one year a 36 per cent shift in wage adjustments could be attained, there indeed would be a consequence to those kinds of requirements and those kinds of interventions.

I suggest to the member for Bellwoods that it would be desirable if it could be done even more quickly than the member for Ottawa Centre proposes it be done, but there is a consequence to that and the member for Bellwoods and the member for Ottawa Centre do not appear willing to accept that. They put that forward as being some sort of blackmail or whatever. Nobody is suggesting anything of the sort. All I am saying is that there is a reality out there that appears to be missed by members of the third party.

Mr. McClellan: We understand exactly the kind of argument the parliamentary assistant is trying to engage in. I have been in this House for 12 years and I have heard that kind of sleazy rhetoric more times than I care to remember. The amendment before us -

Mr. Chairman: That word is not parliamentary.

Mr. McClellan: Rhetoric?

Mr. Chairman: No, sleazy.

Mr. McClellan: I withdraw anything that is unparliamentary.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. McClellan: The parliamentary assistant has before him an amendment that would speed up the process of payout by approximately 12 months for a group of women employees estimated to be about 250,000 people. That is what this amendment does. It is all very cute for the parliamentary assistant to try to distort the arguments of my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre and talk about one year and layoffs and consequences and lack of realism, but I say to the parliamentary assistant that kind of unscrupulous rhetoric is --

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. McClellan: I withdraw the remark. Those kinds of debating --

Mr. Chairman: The member is going too far with the terms "unscrupulous rhetoric" and "try to distort." Those are not parliamentary. They are abusive and insulting. Will you please withdraw those terms?

Mr. McClellan: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will not dispute your ruling. I will withdraw those remarks but I say to the parliamentary assistant and I do not intend to be diverted, that those kinds of debating tactics are unworthy of him and they are unworthy of this discussion. He has an amendment before him that speeds up by 12 months the process of paying 250,000 people, so let us not talk about one-year implementation. We are talking about the difference between a five-year implementation and a four-year implementation, a five-year implementation period, which would take us to 1992, and an amendment that would bring a process of implementation and payout for 250,000 people up to 1991.

1550

For the life of me, I cannot understand how the parliamentary assistant can stand in his place and argue that this is a target that cannot be achieved, that there would be economic difficulties with a four-year implementation timetable, that there would be layoffs or other adverse economic impacts, as he tried to suggest with his little debating trick in response to the member for Ottawa Centre.

Why does he not just stand up in his place and tell us why it is impossible for the government to contemplate the advance of the implementation schedule from five years to four years?

Mr. Ward: I say to my friend the member for Bellwoods that in my initial response to the member for Ottawa Centre I indicated to her the process that the government went through in terms of establishing the anniversary dates and an effective implementation program for this pay equity legislation. In fact, I believe I was crediting the member for Ottawa Centre for what I know to be a very sincere and genuinely held view that, in fact, this process should be accelerated. It is something I know she and her colleagues believe in quite sincerely.

I have done my best to point out to the member for Bellwoods that all of this was contemplated, all of this was considered very carefully in terms of how the bill would be implemented. What the government arrived at in formulating its legislation was what it deemed to be the best, most reasonable approach that not only fits the need to redress the problem as it relates to female employees but also takes into account the realities of the work place and our system of free enterprise within this province.

It is a delicate balance, and I do not think for a minute that the member for Bellwoods will ever agree there is a balance that should or should not be maintained. I do want to conclude by thanking the member for Bellwoods for the lesson in petulance.

Ms. Gigantes: The subject at hand is the timing of the creation of an equal pay plan for a group of women -- 240,000 of them -- who work in firms between the sizes of 100 employees and 500 employees. What we are suggesting is that they should have a pay equity plan within three years of the time we pass this legislation.

The parliamentary assistant talks about the delicate balance. Let me suggest that somewhere between tomorrow and infinity, in terms of time, there is, indeed, a balance on this question. What we are proposing is that the balance be three years.

It seems a most reasonable proposal to me and I am sure that it seems a reasonable proposal to the parliamentary assistant. The parliamentary assistant has been given a piece of legislation to carry which he might prefer not to have to carry in the form it is in.

He denies it. He shakes his head, but I think better of him than what he says to us here today in this House. I really do. I have more respect for him than to think he truly objects to the notion that three years is a reasonable amount of time for employers to create a pay equity plan for their employees.

It is clear that we have not won him over on this subject. I doubt that it is possible for him to be won over on this subject. Perhaps he is not in the position he is in of his own volition, but I have said my say on this subject.

I point out to the parliamentary assistant that while he talks about the realities and the practical nature of the problem that is confronted, we are here to change realities which have created discrimination against women. Somewhere between tomorrow and infinity would be a good time to do it. We are suggesting that the plans be created within three years for everyone, that this be the outside limit on the period employers will enjoy to create plans.

Mr. Ward: The member for Ottawa Centre alluded to the fact that I may have some regret or lack of volition in proceeding with the carriage of this bill. I just want to reassure her that I have none whatsoever. The only regret I have had in this process has been my inability to convince her of the wisdom and reasonableness of the legislation as it is before her today.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Ms. Gigantes's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: In fairness to all members --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Shame.

Mr. Chairman: I beg your pardon?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My reference is to the notion of fairness to all members.

Mr. Chairman: In fairness to all members, I would like to point out that we have had a number of amendments received at the table. Normally, this would have come in at the beginning of the bill and would have been listed at the beginning of the bill. Would the parliamentary assistant indicate for the record that he is putting in a motion to clause 25(1)(b)?

Mr. Ward: Yes. I would extend my apologies to members of the opposition for not noting this earlier and tabling it, but in fact there was an error in the numbering when the bill came back from committee in relation to a section. I will be moving an amendment to correct this error in the numbering under section 23.

Mr. McClellan: I do not believe what I am hearing. Is the parliamentary assistant telling us, after all the intransigent refusal to have the bill recommitted to committee of the whole House, after his insistence that we could not possibly have hearings in the committee of the whole except by going through the onerous, laborious and essentially foolish and unprecedented step of having to debate a motion for recommittal and have a vote, etc., that there was a major error in drafting the bill and that the government really needed the bill sent to committee of the whole in the first place? Is that what the parliamentary assistant is telling us here this afternoon?

Mr. Ward: I guess what I am telling the member for Bellwoods is that we just lucked out. There was a typographical error in the bill. If worse had come to worse, I suppose we would have had this legislation sooner and the typographical error would have been reprinted from now until infinity or until the Pay Equity Amendment Act, whatever the process is around here.

There was a mistake in a subsection being numbered as subsection 23(3) when, indeed, it should have been subsection 23(4).

1600

Mr. Chairman: If the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) does not mind, for simplicity, I will read this. The member has tabled and will be introducing amendments to section 1 -- and we will deal with that later -- sections 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, clause 37(g), and then section 37 in its entirety. Is that correct? Do you intent to introduce amendments on those sections?

Mr. Baetz: That is correct.

Perhaps I could be given a moment to explain why this rather lengthy list of amendments is to be introduced here today. It really deals with only one subject; namely, the replacement of the Pay Equity Commission of Ontario by the employment standards branch of the Ministry of Labour. When we get into debate on these amendments, I think we can deal with it rather expeditiously. I do not want to frighten every member of this committee out of many years of growth.

I should also say the reason we introduced these amendments yesterday in a somewhat different form was to be tremendously accommodating, as we basically are, to all parties concerned here. We were told by legal counsel that it was not quite the proper procedure, and we had to follow the pattern that has just been spelled out. It should not take for ever, I am sure.

Ms. Gigantes: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I understood you to list the Conservative amendments, starting with an amendment to section 1 --

Mr. Chairman: Which I then said we will deal with later, after I had gone through the amendments. Correct. Carry on with your point of order.

Ms. Gigantes: I believe we have dealt with the Conservative amendment to section 1 and defeated it.

Mr. Chairman: You are correct.

Ms. Gigantes: Then why was it listed? l am sorry, this is the source of my confusion.

Mr. Chairman: Because it was tabled; because the member for Ottawa West has tabled it with the chair, that is why. I advised the committee he had tabled that, and we will be dealing -- fine, we can deal with it now on a point of order.

I was going to ask for unanimous consent, which would be given or otherwise, on reverting to section 1, but you are bringing it up through a point of order.

Mr. McClellan: I am reluctant to reopen the whole bill and go back to section 1.

Mr. Chairman: Then I ask a simple question: is there unanimous consent to revert to section 1?

Mr. Baetz: I simply stress and emphasize that this deals really with only one subject; namely, the replacement of the Pay Equity Commission by the employment standards branch. It is all one subject.

Opening up section 1 is not going to extend the debate in any way, shape or form, and probably is not going to change and alter the outcome of the debate. However, I would simply ask your indulgence. I do hope we can have unanimous consent to at least allow us to bring to the attention of the committee what we think is a very important subject.

Mr. McClellan: The first motion I have is to section 14, which replaces "the commission'' with "the director" -- that means the Pay Equity Commission -- with the director of the employment standards branch. Why does the member for Ottawa West not move the amendment to section 14 and we will have a good debate on the principle of replacing the commission with the employment standards branch? If that carries, we will go back to earlier sections of the bill, open them up, and amend them accordingly. If it is defeated, we can proceed through from section 14 to the end.

Mr. Ward: I think the member for Bellwoods has made a reasonable proposal, and I will give my friend the member for Ottawa West an undertaking that if that section does carry, we will support reopening the previous sections consistent with that.

Mr. Baetz: I appreciate the co-operation. I simply want to say that is the way we, in our layman's approach to this question, had thought we might be going, but we were told by the people who are the experts that you cannot go that way, you have to go back and --

Mr. McClellan: Experts are always wrong.

Mr. Baetz: That is fine. Thanks very much for the co-operation.

On section 11:

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Gigantes moves that subsection 11(1) of the bill be amended by inserting after "employees" in the third line "or employ any employees who are represented by a bargaining agent."

Ms. Gigantes: The legislation we have before us is legislation which contemplates the creation of pay equity plans only for public sector employers or for employers who employ more than 100 employees. All other employees, from a firm size of 10 employees to 99 employees, do not have the right to have a pay equity plan. Employers may choose to create a pay equity plan for those employees, but they do not have to; this bill does not require them to.

What we are suggesting in this very minor amendment to the legislation is that, at least for those private sector firms where unions represent workers, there should be pay equity plans no matter what the size of the firm over 10 employees. We have reluctantly accepted the fact that we are going to be dealing with legislation that provides no protection for people working in firms with fewer than 10 employees. We are not satisfied with the notion that there should not be a requirement for pay equity plans. There is no requirement in this legislation for pay equity plans for women who are employed in firms with 10 to 100 employees.

We are saying that, at the very least, the government might consider on this subject that where women have been and are represented through collective agreement by a union, that union should not be shut out of the process of implementing pay equity, and the women who work in those firms and are members of a union should not have to rely only on the complaint mechanism.

In those firms, we believe the union representing the women should be involved with the employers in the creation of pay equity plans. In firms of that size, depending on whether the previous amendment passes, women will wait four or five years for the creation of pay equity plans. We feel that provides lots of time for employers to discuss with unions in firms of that size what would be a reasonable pay equity plan.

We are saying, do not shut out the representatives of working women from the process of implementing this legislation simply because those women are working in firms with fewer than 100 employees.

1610

Mr. Ward: As I indicated in my response earlier, there was a very extensive process in arriving at this legislation. The determination was made that the legislation would be proactive. In fact, there would be a requirement in terms of large employers to post plans and formalize the methodology to achieve pay equity. For smaller firms in this province, those with less than 100 employees, the pay equity plan's achievement would be a complaint-based mechanism, similar to the mechanisms that exist in other jurisdictions such as Manitoba and other provinces and jurisdictions that have some form of pay equity legislation.

We believe that approach is prudent and, frankly, I have not been convinced by the member for Ottawa Centre of the need to endorse this amendment.

Ms. Gigantes: I would just point out to the parliamentary assistant that we are talking here about terms where the employer has, over a period of time, negotiated with unions about pay scales and has negotiated with union representatives of women employed in that firm about job classifications, hours of work and benefits.

Why is it that when we get to the question of pay equity, women do not have the right to be represented by their union on this question in relationship to the employer? Does it not make sense that in a situation where a collective bargaining system has been in place, the representatives of those women should sit down with the employer and say, "Okay, what is our best plan for addressing the problem under this legislation?"

Why shut them out? Why, in fact, disrupt? This is disruptive. Why disrupt a pattern that is in place in a particular work place by saying, "On this one subject we are not going to have the union representing those female workers involved in something that is an essential change in the work place under this legislation"?

Mr. Ward: There is nothing in the legislation that precludes those bargaining agents from negotiating pay equity plans under this bill, and I believe the member for Ottawa Centre is aware of that.

Mr. Chairman: Shall Ms. Gigantes's amendment to subsection 11(1) carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Section 12 agreed to.

On section 13:

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Gigantes moves that subclauses 13(2)(e)(ii) to (v) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(ii) the third anniversary of the effective date, in respect of all employers in the private sector to whom this part applies."

Ms. Gigantes: The amendment that is before us now is one in which we attempt to change the prolonged phase-in period for the first instalment on pay equity adjustments.

When we look at the legislation as it sits now and the part in which we are discussing the development of pay equity plans and the requirements of those plans in providing payments to women, what is suggested in the bill is that the first instalment on pay equity adjustments in the public sector would come at the two-year point after the legislation.

For firms with 500 and more employees in the private sector, the first instalment would happen at three years. For firms with 100 to 500 employees, the first instalment would happen at four years. For firms with 50 to 99 employees, women would wait five years before they could lay a complaint because they would not have a plan as the bill now sits.

Women who are working in firms with 10 to 49 employees -- remember, nobody in a firm with 10 employees or fewer will have any rights under this legislation -- would have to wait a full six years after the passage of this legislation to be able to lay a complaint or, if their employer had voluntarily created a pay equity plan, to be able to receive their first instalment.

What this amendment says very simply is that we would like to see all payments begin under the legislation within at least three years of the passage of this legislation, so that three years after this legislation is passed, women who had a right to receive equal pay adjustments would begin getting a first instalment on those equal pay adjustments.

We think it is unfair that women working in firms of, say 25 employees, should not have a plan; and we think it very unfair that they should be waiting up to six years, if there is a plan put forward by the employer, for the beginning of a first instalment on a pay equity adjustment.

Mr. Ward: Again, I believe the member's amendment is consistent with ones previously put under section 10 relative to the anniversary dates of the formulation of the plan. I would just point out, rather than reiterating the arguments that were put forward previously, that as it now stands, the member's proposal would put into effect a requirement that the pay equity payouts would take place prior to the formulation of the pay equity plan. Frankly, I do not think that is workable. I believe this amendment goes hand in glove with those that have previously been put in relation to the phase-in and I would stand by the comments made at that time.

Ms. Gigantes: What response will the parliamentary assistant give to a woman who works in a firm with 30 employees when she says to him: "When can I make a complaint under this legislation that my pay is discriminatory pay? In fact, I am doing work of equal value in terms of skill, effort and responsibility and working conditions to those positions filled by men in this firm." Is he going to be happy to say to her, "Six years after we pass the legislation, you can make a complaint"? Does he think that will be happily greeted?

Mr. Ward: It may well not be happily greeted; but by the same token, I want to point out that at least there will be a response and there will be a recourse, because in this province there will be legislation that applies to the private sector in a proactive fashion, unlike any other jurisdiction in North America. Frankly, I believe they could take some comfort in that.

1620

Ms. Gigantes: For roughly 500,000 of the two million women who are at work in Ontario, what the parliamentary assistant is saying is, "You can wait five or six years" -- not for a proactive piece of legislation, because there is no proactivity if you work in a firm with fewer than 100 employees -- "it could be five or six years under this legislation, if you work in a firm with fewer than 100 employees, to lay a complaint." That is not a proactive, wonderful kind of legislation. Can he tell us what he is going to say to women who ask, "Why should I have to wait five or six years to make a complaint under your wonderful legislation?"

Mr. Ward: Unlike other jurisdictions such as Manitoba, which we have heard so much about recently, the fact remains that working women employed in the private sector in this province will have a recourse, albeit a phased-in one. Frankly, I do not have any difficulty in indicating to the member for Ottawa Centre that I will have no difficulty whatsoever in responding to that individual as to when she can take action under the complaint-based mechanisms that are in this legislation.

Ms. Gigantes: There will be women who will retire after long years in the Ontario work force without ever being able to use this legislation.

Mr. Baetz: I just want to respond briefly by saying that I would oppose the amendment, because quite frankly, the amendment once again suggests a sense of unreality, a sense of a lack of time perspective and a lack of recognition that we are pioneering or blazing new trails here.

It is true that there will be women in this province who will have to wait a number of years before they will receive the benefits of this legislation, but surely the mover of the amendment should recognize that Ontario is aeons ahead of most jurisdictions in the whole wide world on this thing and that if it takes us a few years to cover everyone in the labour force, so be it. I do not think we should regard this as terrible, as a failure or anything else.

I think we also again have to think in terms of the pressures that will be placed on the Pay Equity Commission or on whatever administration is going to administer this program. We have to consider the employers who are going to be involved in all this. Really, I cannot help but sense that there is a great wave of unreality that keeps sweeping through this committee and is generated by the member for Ottawa Centre, so I shall be opposing the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Ms. Gigantes's amendment to subclauses 13(2)(e)(ii) to (v) will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Gigantes moves that subsection 13(7) of the bill be amended by adding at the end thereof: "and pay equity plans in the private sector shall provide for adjustments in compensation such that the plan will be fully implemented not later than the eighth anniversary of the effective date."

Ms. Gigantes: This is very similar to an amendment, which we passed, affecting the implementation of public-sector pay equity adjustments. In the standing committee on administration of justice, the NDP proposed -- and we had support from the Conservative Party -- that the achievement of pay equity, once instalments had begun, would be completed within five years. That means that from the date on which we pass this legislation to the date when the bill's definition of pay equity would be achieved under this legislation would be a total of seven years.

We are proposing in this amendment that in the private sector the total time from the passage of this legislation to the achievement of the bills formula for pay equity should be no longer than eight years.

We had some examples brought to our attention in the committee where, in fact, given the phase-in contemplated in this bill for the establishment of plans, for the beginning of first instalments on pay equity plans and the minimal requirement that an employer contribute one per cent of total payroll per year to the achievement of pay equity, this whole process in certain work places could stretch out well into the next century.

In other words, from the time we pass this legislation -- hopefully, within the next few days -- to the point where a woman affected by the legislation and receiving benefits under the legislation was able to say, "Well, at least I got pay equity, for what it is worth, that was provided through this legislation," she might have to wait 13, 14, 15 years, depending on the size of firm she worked in and how wide the wage gap established under this legislation was.

It is also the case that as the bill sits now, as it affects the private sector, the more wage discrimination a woman suffers, the longer she is going to have to wait to have the discriminatory pay gap closed under this legislation. If there is a pay gap of 20 per cent established -- and we certainly know of examples at the federal level and in Quebec where such findings have not been unusual -- and if the contribution to closing that pay gap is set at a minimal rate of one per cent of total payroll per year, it is quite possible for this process of implementing of pay equity, as defined in the bill, to carry on well into the next century.

We think that is really foolish and unfair, and we think it should not be the case that the more a woman has suffered in terms of pay discrimination, the longer she should have to wait to see at least the achievement of pay equity as defined by this legislation.

Mr. Ward: Again, I believe this is similar to an amendment that was put in the justice committee and the subject of extensive debate. I would just point out again to the member for Ottawa Centre that the legislation does provide for a minimum level of pay equity adjustments that have to be put forward to female employees. That is not to say that those adjustments cannot be accelerated through either the process of collective bargaining or adjustments at a much more rapid pace, should that transpire.

Frankly, we cannot support the amendment, which puts a cap on the amount of time in which pay equity has to be achieved, because of the substantial impacts that may occur by such mandated, accelerated adjustments.

1630

Ms. Gigantes: The parliamentary assistant has to be dreaming in Technicolor if he thinks employers who up to now have not rushed forward to volunteer to get rid of discriminatory pay practices as they affect women are going to contribute more than one per cent a year to the adjustments. One per cent of total payroll is required under the legislation, and that is what will happen in most cases.

He talks about the possibility of negotiation of a quicker accomplishment of the goal of achieving pay equity in a work place, but in the private sector -- and he knows it -- of the roughly 1.6 million women who are working in the private sector, only about 60,000 have the benefit of union representation. There would be mighty few for whom this dream of speedier accomplishment of pay equity could come true through the collective bargaining process. It ain't gonna happen.

l think it is quite reasonable that we suggest to all employers in the private sector that once the level of their total contribution to the pay equity adjustment is determined, they should get that contribution into the hands of women within five years. Is it outlandish to propose that when we bring in legislation that is supposed to get rid of pay discrimination and that calls upon employers to contribute to ending pay discrimination, we should ask that the job get done, even as it is narrowly defined in this legislation, within a period of eight years from the time of passage of the legislation? Is that an outlandish proposal?

Mr. Ward: If I could respond further to my friend the member for Ottawa Centre, I think all of us would agree that it would be far better if it were not necessary even to legislate pay equity adjustments in the private sector. But the reality is, as she is well aware, that the wage gap has dropped something like four per cent in the last 17 years and something like 15 per cent since 1911, when records were first kept.

This government has borne some criticism over the very fact that it is indeed legislating in the private sector. We have tried to do so in a way that is balanced and reasonable, recognizing the impacts that significant, large adjustments could have in each individual work place and the consequences such large adjustments could result in if the legislation was not prudent and was not designed in such a way to mitigate those impacts. Frankly, we stand behind the legislation as we have put it forward.

I will say that I am encouraged that even since we began this process, examples are coming to our attention where private sector employers and indeed public sector employers are moving ahead with pay equity adjustments, not just in anticipation of the bill but also in some instances at a rate that is actually more accelerated than the bill contemplates.

From some of the conversations l have had and from opportunities of being exposed to private sector employers, I think it is encouraging that movement is taking place as we sit here today in terms of pay equity adjustments. I think all of what takes place as each phase of this bill kicks in will produce adjustments at a rate that I am sure will eventually please the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Ms. Gigantes's amendment to subsection 13(7) will please say "aye."

All those opposed will be please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

On section 14:

Mr. Chairman: We have an amendment to section 14; it does not say who the author is. In fact, we have two of them that appear to be very similar; not identical but very similar. The second is a Progressive Conservative motion. I suspect the first, dated June 9, 1987, at the top, is also a PC motion.

Mr. Baetz: Yes, it is.

Mr. Chairman: Which one do you wish to pursue?

Mr. Baetz: The one that was presented today.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Baetz moves that section 14 of the bill be amended by striking out "commission" wherever that word appears and inserting in lieu thereof in each instance "director."

Mr. Baetz: As I indicated earlier, this amendment and the many amendments that follow that were tabled here today all deal with the same subject, namely, replacing the proposed Pay Equity Commission in the legislation with the employment standards branch. As I think we all recognized earlier, if this amendment fails, the rest would in all likelihood be redundant. l would therefore appreciate it if I could address this issue of the employment standards branch being the administrative agency to implement pay equity.

In doing so, I would first like to place on the record my own very sincere thanks to Mr. Revell and his legal staff for having helped us within the last 24 hours to regularize this introduction of all these amendments. As I said earlier, we tried to take the layman's route, the shortcut, and we were told that was not proper. We certainly very much appreciate the fact that he has kept us on the straight and narrow, or maybe the winding and narrow.

1640

I will first say that since I do not believe in the tooth fairy and similar myths, I have no thoughts about the success of this amendment. I know we went through the debate in the standing committee on administration of justice on this one, but since coming out of the justice committee and into committee of the whole, we in our party have given this whole matter additional thought and careful study.

We have talked to a great many employers about this, and we are more convinced than ever that the logical vehicle to be implementing and administering the pay equity program is the employment standards branch and not this Pay Equity Commission that is proposed to be established; this independent, freestanding, free-wheeling Pay Equity Commission.

We realize this government has a great desire to expand the bureaucracy. It has made some very substantial steps in that direction -- expanding the bureaucracy, expanding the public expenditures --and this fits very nicely into that particular philosophy.

Especially with a new government and especially when times are good and the money is rolling into the provincial coffers, there is this natural inclination on the part of an ambitious Premier and the members of his cabinet -- the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) being one of them --to spend the people's money on government. It looks so good: set up this commission one day, set up another one the next day and then maybe in one, two or three years' time when the money begins not to flow as much as it does today, there is the big scream, "We have to cut back."

There are many things about this freestanding Pay Equity Commission that frankly very much concern us. We are told the employees of this commission are going to be hired through the Civil Service Commission and it will be far removed from any kind of political intervention. Yet when we examine a little more closely just exactly who is going to be staffing or perhaps appointed to this Pay Equity Commission, lo and behold, we find it is all through orders in council. It is only the lower staff who are going to be employed through the Civil Service Commission. The really big jobs -- the commissioner, the chief commissioner, all the other commissioners and the big shots in the hearings tribunal and in the Pay Equity Office -- are all order-in-council appointments. I would ask the members to guess how those order-in-council appointments are made.

We just heard in the last few days that they come up through Heather's list. That is where they come from. Heather Peterson provides cabinet with a list of appointments. When this bill passes, it is going to be a fantastic day for Heather Peterson and her group, because she can go over that long list of very capable and very worthy citizens who will serve this commission extremely well. She will look to see who has bought the Peterson red ties recently or who has gone to the cocktail party of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and, boom, those people are on the list. There is our pay commission and our hearings tribunal, and so on it goes.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is going to be like the Senate. We are going to take members from your party too.

Mr. Baetz: The Minister of Natural Resources will probably have his own people on it as well. We were told the other day by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) that our friends should not bother to apply for any of these jobs. Maybe their friends in the accord down here have half a chance, but certainly we do not.

They create this freestanding tribunal and, the members being human beings with a desire for healthy growth, we can be sure this thing is going to grow by leaps and bounds.

The other very worrisome thing about the Pay Equity Commission, the hearings tribunal and so on is that when we get to the final section of this legislation, we turn over enormous powers for regulations to this particular commission. It can do all kinds of things with this legislation without ever coming back to this House and asking for legislative authority to do what it wants to do.

The combination of the two -- the freestanding commission and the enormous, sweeping powers that are going to be handed over to it in this legislation -- will provide a time bomb for this province some time in the future.

A very major concern is that this House, the Legislature, the elected government, the elected people are going to have very little control over this commission. Some people have said this commission is going to be employing pay police. I am not spooked by the words "pay police," but I certainly know one thing: If this commission were under the real, as distinct from illusory, control of this House, there would not be pay police because the elected members of this House would not allow it. But because of the powers we are giving this commission, that is a real possibility, and we cannot do a thing about it.

As I said before, I do not believe in the tooth fairy. As the parliamentary assistant looks across here at me as I am making these remarks -- I hope very helpful remarks -- l do not see anything in his very pleasant countenance that would suggest he is going to change his mind now and support us. Now, maybe -- no, I am getting the thumbs-down here from the New Democrats as well. That is not too surprising. I guess that is all part of the accord.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That's right. Team, team.

Mr. McClellan: You are offside. It is too late, Vince. You had your chance.

Mr. Baetz: This is the last hurrah. I have tried my best. For the last time, let me say that the employers in this province who know the employment standards branch -- we know the weaknesses of the employment standards branch and of the present minister, but those things can be changed and corrected -- would prefer dealing with the employment standards branch.

Once again, the government should know better. Aided by their bedfellows down here, they totally disregard the wishes of the employers in this whole pay equity bill. My motion will probably be defeated. However, as I am shot down, at least we will go down with flags flying and guns blazing.

Ms. Gigantes: I think the response of the New Democratic Party to this proposal can be simply put: No, no, a thousand times no.

The employment standards branch has proved that it has quite enough on its plate now. We know that since 1951, in one form or another, the employment standards branch has been called upon to enforce legislation that provides equal pay for equal work in this province. We know that it has been ineffective in doing even that simple task.

We know that hundreds of women have been fired for having recourse to the legislation that is supposed to provide them with equal pay for equal work, that aged piece of legislation under the administration of the employment standards branch.

1650

We know the employment standards branch has never undertaken a successful prosecution of an employer who fired a woman for trying to make use of legislation that is supposed to guarantee equal pay for equal work. We cannot ask the employment standards branch to take on a task which essentially amounts to the installation of a major social initiative in this province and a large work load in making sure that initiative is carried through, in so far as this limited legislation will provide it. We must have a Pay Equity Commission and a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

One word of advice I would offer to the parliamentary assistant, so that he can pass it on to whomever, is that once the member for Ottawa West is at liberty after the next election, he not be invited to join the commission or the tribunal, because I think the attitudes displayed by his input on this legislation, which is quite representative of certain portions of the Conservative benches at this point in time, are attitudes that would see to the undermining of even this modest piece of progress.

Mr. Barlow: I rise to support this amendment. This is an amendment that we argued quite vehemently in committee. It was one whereby we were trying to assist the government in making a decent piece of legislation out of this, on behalf of the business community. There is a real concern out there about this brand-new bureaucracy that would be established, for all the reasons my colleague pointed out. I will not enumerate them all.

I am sure the parliamentary assistant has had meetings with the business community. If he has not, then it is a downfall, in his position. I notice that neither the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) nor his parliamentary assistant is here to discuss this particular issue.

Certainly, there is a need for having an experienced body that is used to dealing with labour matters, no matter what sort of matters have cropped up. The member for Ottawa Centre pointed out one or two issues the employment standards branch did not deal with correctly, in her opinion, and she may be right, I do not have the details or background on any of those matters.

Ms. Gigantes: Talk to some women for a change. Don't limit your circle of contacts.

Mr. Barlow: I do. The same people who come to the member come into my office about various matters. I deal with them in the best way I possibly can by researching and finding out where the problems have arisen.

There is a body that is in existence now. The new commission and the new tribunal will have no expertise, unless they happen to have been picked out of Heather Peterson's potful of names of those she is trying to repay for past favours. These people have no expertise in labour matters and these are labour matters. They may well be referred to as social matters, but they are labour matters.

It is a matter of an employer who is out there to make -- and this is a bad word; I know it is not acceptable to the left, and I doubt it is very acceptable to the right -- a profit. Before I get criticized for it, he is not trying to make a profit on the backs of women. He is out there to make a profit by putting the best people he possibly can in the jobs, to be competitive with the balance of society.

If there is a problem of a person being discriminated against, then it should be dealt with; I agree. It should definitely --

Ms. Gigantes: Do you support the minimum wage?

Mr. Barlow: We are not dealing with the minimum wage at the present time, but I can talk about that too if the member wishes.

I am simply saying this is a Liberal solution adopted from the New Democratic Party to set up a new bureaucracy. It is a job creation program, as near as I can make out. I feel we do not need this new level of bureaucracy. Any amendments we have made up to this point, including and especially this one, are trying to help the parliamentary assistant out with this bill he brought in here. We are trying to make a decent piece of legislation out of it, so that we are in a position to support the bill. Without the amendments we are introducing, it is not an acceptable piece of legislation.

I ask that the parliamentary assistant please think about it, caucus it if he will, before we come back here to vote on this. We really would like to have his support on this amendment.

Mr. Ward: I thank the member for Ottawa West for once again raising this issue, an issue that was dealt with in committee. As a matter of fact, I believe the amendments put forward today are the identical ones that were considered by the standing committee on administration of justice. I can understand some of the concerns my friend the member for Ottawa West has with regard to the fact that people like Robert Elgie or Frank Drea or Anne Jones could possibly be considered for order-in-council appointments in positions such as commissioner with the Pay Equity Commission of Ontario.

I will say that the member for Ottawa West did bring to the committee's attention an issue that certainly needed clarification as it relates to the role of the hearings tribunal and review officers functioning with the Pay Equity Commission. I think he made a very important contribution to the bill as we move to clearly identify and separate their roles and I want to acknowledge the effective and forceful manner in which he put forward his arguments on that particular issue.

But surely the member will recognize that, as the implementation schedules of this legislation kick in, it is fair to say that literally thousands and thousands of pay equity plans will be put forward and will have to be dealt with by some form of bureaucracy, although I am sure the member hates the mere mention of the word.

I do believe those who are needed to assist in the implementation of this legislation will require a very certain expertise. I believe there will be a need to have individuals in place not merely to make rulings and determinations, because the legislation also contemplates a very important public education component -- a function that, it is my understanding, is not really undertaken to any great degree by the employment standards branch. I believe the systems that are put in place and contemplated by this bill are the most effective and prudent. Therefore, we will not support this amendment.

Ms. Gigantes: Could I just draw to the attention of the Legislature a misunderstanding which may have been created by some comments of the parliamentary assistant?

He seems to be suggesting that part of the work of this "overburdened bureaucracy," as it is referred to by the Conservatives, is going to be dealing with thousands and thousands of pay equity plans. He knows perfectly well that is not the case. There is no requirement in this legislation for pay equity plans to be filed with the commission. The only way the commission is going to know what is in a plan is if there is a complaint about a plan or about the implementation of a plan.

Do not let us get confused about this point. The plans will just be sitting out there somewhere in the work places, more or less good, more or less effective, more or less acted upon, until someone makes a complaint. We are not going to have a great, big registry of pay equity plans in some central office.

I think it is very important for the parliamentary assistant to choose his words carefully and reflect the true nature of this legislation when he is speaking to the question of the work of the commission and the tribunal.

1700

Mr. Ward: I thank the member for Ottawa Centre for her intervention. It is most encouraging to see that, after all the time we have had in debating this issue, she is convinced that these plans can be put in place without the requirement of review officers to assist either employees or employers, or that there will be little or no activity as it relates to complaints.

All I can say is I sincerely hope she is right, but I fear there will be a need for people in place to assist, and indeed, in the short term, there will be a substantial work load. That is merely the point I was making.

Mr. Harris: I would like to rise on this. I think the member for Ottawa South --

Mr. Baetz: Ottawa West.

Mr. Harris: I have to get the Ottawas right. I should know. You put the amendment.

I heard the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) replying to the parliamentary assistant and it has given me new hope. I think she is perhaps disagreeing with the parliamentary assistant. I am not sure if that means she has changed her mind and is going to come around and support this amendment, but I did see a little crack there that perhaps she at least does not see the same need for this new, gosh knows how many thousands, bureaucracy that will be set up through the new Pay Equity Commission, so l am going to take a crack at convincing her.

We know the propensity of the Liberals for expanding the civil service, expanding government, spending every blooming nickel they can get their hands on and taxing the bejabers out of the public in this province. That seems to be their whole aim and goal in government. We saw that with Trudeau throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s. We saw what it did to this country and we see no remorse on the part of the members of this government that that indeed is not their political goal as well.

Perhaps they figure that if they can hire all nine million of the province they will all be working for them and that is the best way to get the votes. I do not know, but I do want to speak on this and make a pitch that in fact this legislation ought to be administered by the employment standards branch as opposed to setting up this whole new level of bureaucracy that is being proposed.

I doubt that even the Ontario women's directorate brought this forward. I think it was cabinet, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) who said: "No, let us build a new bureaucracy. Shove that down their throats. See if they will live with that." I say to the Attorney General or minister responsible for women's issues, I think they probably whipped them all in shape so that they came out in support of that as well. I suspect that. I really should not go on too much in that area because the staff does not have an opportunity --

An hon. member: Cut the staff for North Bay; is that what you want? No staff for North Bay?

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan) is not in her seat.

Mr. Harris: -- to rebut my arguments directly in this chamber. Perhaps it would be more appropriate if I were to go on to a new line of attack. I was being highly speculative, I admit.

This is very far from perfect legislation. It is very far from the correct approach our party believes we should be following on the implementation of the principle of pay equity. Many have said this is a lousy bill. I would not use that terminology but I am not ashamed to associate myself with the principle that terminology is intended to express about this piece of legislation.

We in this party think a far better approach to this piece of legislation would be to have already begun, two years ago, to implement pay equity in the public sector. With the commitment of all three parties, with the commitment in the 1985 campaign, with the commitments that were there, there is absolutely no reason the employees in the public sector, the employees of this province are not now covered by a pay equity plan.

Second, there is absolutely no reason the broader public sector, including school boards, municipalities, hospitals, a significant number of employees, could not have been covered perhaps as early as a year ago, because with all the fiddling and fooling around and the backwards way this government has gone about this piece of legislation, that surely could have been the case. There was a commitment that --

Ms. Caplan: Does Bill agree with you? That is not what he said yesterday. He said yesterday that your party did not support any of this.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member will have a chance to debate.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, might I ask you about the appropriateness of the member for Oriole changing into her own seat to speak out of order. Why did she not just stay where she was? She is out of order no matter where she is speaking from.

Ms. Caplan: He would not hear me if I were not in my seat.

Mr. Harris: I hear you.

We in this party condemn the government for leaving the public sector employees out in the cold for two years. We condemn the government for leaving out in the cold the broader public sector women from any pay equity plan for at least a year. We do not think one bill is an appropriate way to cover all three and we have made those arguments. As well, we have made a significant number of amendments to try to make this a better piece of legislation and all of them have been turned aside.

We are dealing here with an amendment. I am finally getting to the point, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for not calling me to the specifics of this amendment. I think that preamble was necessary for me to get to the specifics.

This amendment does not change the bill, does not change the principle and does not change the intent. What we are talking about is how this bill is going to be enforced; many in the private sector say how it is going to be policed. My colleague the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) mentioned the term "pay police." I guess it bothers me that there are employers out there who feel threatened, not by the legislation, not by the principle and not by what is in here, but by a fear of what is going to be set up to help administer this piece of legislation.

My colleagues from the New Democratic Party have pointed out that they feel there are some loopholes in this legislation. What one person calls a loophole is different from what others call it. I think it is important that every piece of legislation that comes forward requires the co-operation of the people it is intended for. We tax the bejabers out of all Ontarians but it still requires their co-operation to give up their money voluntarily and say, "I owe you this and here it is." It requires their co-operation. If we had to police everybody, it would cost us more to collect the money than the amount of money we would get in.

If the government taxed 100 per cent of the income, for example, nobody would pay it. They would all cheat. They would not volunteer it. What happens in our society and in all societies is that when governments go too far, get too silly and get too unreasonable, there is a revolt, a rebellion, and you do not get the co-operation of the very people you need co-operation from to make legislation work.

1710

It is important that they consider the views of the business community, of the employers, of the people they are so proud to say create all the jobs. I am proud to say it too. I have never seen government create one single job other than government jobs. I admit it creates the civil service jobs, but when l see a member of this Legislature standing up or a member of any parliament standing up and making a little speech when he cuts the ribbon, saying, "Our government is proud to have created these jobs" when this plant is opened, that is a lot of crap.

Mr. Brandt: Baloney.

Mr. Harris: It is a lot of baloney. The most a government could ever claim is that it went so far as to not interfere, so that this guy finally decided to go ahead and build the plant. That is about the best a government could claim.

One needs the co-operation for this piece of legislation. One needs the co-operation of those employers in the private sector, and they have said a couple of things to the members. They have said, "We are not real happy with the way this legislation is evolving, but if you want to try it, make sure that when you try it you give us an opportunity to comply and that you give us an opportunity to work with the legislation."

They have also said, "We are comfortable working with the employment standards branch." I was a little surprised to hear that, because many employers have told me they found the employment standards branch and some of the people in the Ministry of Labour to be fairly tough on employers, interfering with their business and sticking their nose where they do not belong. I have had that said to me on many occasions, so I was surprised when they said they would prefer the employment standards branch.

Ms. Gigantes: Were they breaking the law?

Mr. Harris: No, in many cases they were not, but in many cases it cost them thousands and thousands of dollars before they could get to somebody impartial who realized they were not breaking the law. That occurs. Now they have said: "In spite of that, we are more comfortable with the employment standards branch than we are with a whole new bureaucracy in a Pay Equity Commission. We have seen this government. When it says it will not be a big bureaucracy, we do not believe it." And the public of Ontario ought not to believe it.

We have seen some 6,000 new civil servants being added over the last two years by this government, after seven years of restraint that finally cut down some 5,000. It is not a difficult task. When one first talks about trying to do things more efficiently, one finds employees will resist that because it may mean their jobs. But I can tell the members that after seven years of that, there was a lean, excellent civil service in Ontario that was proud to do the job more efficiently.

What has happened in the last two years? The government says: "Hey, the gates are open. We can hire more people. Hire however many you want." That tends to foster an attitude where people say: "Why should I try and get more done in the eight-hour day? Why not hire my friend? Then we both have jobs." That is the attitude the government is fostering, and that is the attitude we see going into this Pay Equity Commission. We see numbers, we see less incentive to do jobs efficiently, and as my colleague the member for Ottawa West has pointed out, we see perhaps some desire to shorten Heather Peterson's list and say, "Let us get some more places where we can make some appointments."

I think employers have a right to fear a separate Pay Equity Commission. It is an unknown for them. I would expect that very likely the key operative person to be appointed in this will not be, for instance, Alan Warren, the head of Canadian Tire Corp. in North Bay. I doubt that his name is on Heather Peterson's list for this particular appointment.

If this amendment loses, I realize there are about 15 or 16 others that are all companions to this, and I think the member for Ottawa West has said there is then not much point in proceeding with the others because they are all tied into this particular amendment. If the members are worried about me speaking on the other amendments, if that is going to hold them up from supporting it, I will not speak on them. They can go through lickety-split after we have made our comments on this one.

We are not talking about the principle of the bill. We are not talking about the legislation. We are talking about what those people who have to make it work are going to be more comfortable with: the employment standards branch or a separate Pay Equity Commission. They have said they would be more comfortable with the employment standards branch. They are going to give the same direction to both of them: to enforce the legislation. What difference does it make to them unless they really do want to set up a new bureaucracy, a whole new commission and have a whole bunch more appointments and civil servants?

I cannot think of any other reason they would not allow the employment standards branch of the Ministry of Labour -- the branch that has had experience with equal pay, in dealing with employers and in dealing with employees who have disputes with their employers -- I cannot think of any other reason they would proceed to set this up. Perhaps they just want to say to business: "You are going to get this whether you like it or not. We do not care about your amendments." Finally, they are going to spit on them and say, "This is how we are going to enforce it."

I cannot think of any other reason. Maybe they purposely want to make them mad. I have not seen any good reason given here in the time of all this shemozzle in the way they have handled all the bills that have been brought in and pulled back and not been proceeded with.

I have not heard any good reason why this amendment does not make sense. I urge members of this Legislature to support the amendment put forth by the member for Ottawa West. It will perhaps lead to a little bit of acceptance from the business community and it might lead to a little more compliance, a little more ease of operation with this bill and a little better attitude towards this bill. I suggest that if they have that attitude, they can probably administer it with several thousand fewer people.

Mr. Barlow: I would like to ask one quick question of the parliamentary assistant. How many new positions does he see being added to build the commission and the tribunal. Has he any idea?

Mr. Ward: I believe the tribunal consists of three people. In terms of review officers who would be hired to work for the Pay Equity Commission, I can assure him that not one person will be hired to administer this legislation beyond what is absolutely essential.

Mr. Barlow: Then the budget will not be any more than would be essential. Is that a fair answer?

Mr. Brandt: By way of clarification, I wonder whether the parliamentary assistant can give us his definition of what the words "absolutely essential" mean. Can he quantify that for us?

Mr. Ward: It is exactly the number of people necessary to administer this legislation effectively.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments on this amendment?

Mr. Baetz: I have one final comment. When I hear the dulcet tones of the member for Ottawa Centre ringing through this chamber, saying against my proposal, "No, no, a thousand times no," I am more convinced than ever that I am right.

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant whether his projection of how many people would be essential for the oversight of this legislation at the commission would be approximately the same number that would be required in the employment standards branch to carry out the job effectively, were we to accept the Conservative amendment.

1720

Mr. Ward: I am sorry; I missed the question because of the conversation that was going on.

Ms. Gigantes: I was asking whether you thought the estimate we might make of the number of people required to carry out the overseeing of this legislation in the Pay Equity Commission would be about equivalent to the number of people who would have to be hired in the employment standards branch to carry out that job under the Conservative amendment.

Mr. Ward: My difficulty is not so much in the question as how it was put. I would say the member makes a valid point that the people who would be required to administer this act, whether they be in the employment standards branch or in the Pay Equity Commission under the Ministry of Labour, should not be different in numerical terms because of the tasks that are being undertaken here through the Pay Equity Commission. I would reiterate that one of the most consistent concerns we have heard from the business community is the need to have people who can provide a level of expertise and consultation and who can provide educational impetus for employers.

I do want to reiterate that I think the expertise is different; not necessarily exactly the same as would be required in the employment standards branch, but the member is absolutely right, there would be no efficiency in terms of actual numbers.

Mr. Harris: Since the question has been brought up, I would submit that I do not accept that answer. I think I made my point very clearly, and I will go back over it and do it again. Let us take income tax, for example; if nobody wants to pay tax, if people are not happy with the way they are being treated, it is going to take 50, 100 or 1,000 times the number of people to administer the Income Tax Act.

If people are not happy with the people who are administering this piece of legislation, it could take 10, 50, 100 or 1,000 times more people to administer it. The people the government is going to have to deal with have said they are not happy. They have said they would like to deal with the employment standards branch. The parliamentary assistant is talking about compliance. They have said, "We would be happier -- we would trust the employment standards branch more."

We are dealing with people who already have expertise in the area. I am not saying we are not going to have to add one or two more people. Sure we are going to have to hire more people, but I think it is very clear that there would be fewer people necessary under the employment standards branch route, and I think we would have a much smoother implementation with this piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman: Shall Mr. Baetz's amendment to section 14 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: The next amendment we have is to section 15.

Mr. Baetz: In light of what I said earlier, it is with a heavy heart and with great sadness for the province and for the employers that I shall be withdrawing the other amendments. I think that is the proper thing to do at this point in time. It will help us in the procedure.

Mr. McClellan: Let me make a suggestion. In the eventuality that this amendment of the member for Ottawa West carries, we could agree to go back, reopen the bill and introduce the rest of the package of amendments. If the amendment does not carry, then it is not necessary to proceed. We will certainly agree to give unanimous consent to go back, if his motion carries, and redo the entire bill.

Mr. Chairman: For the record, there is unanimous consent. We are going to carry sections 15, 16 and those others that relate to 14. There is unanimous consent that we will revert not only to section 1 but also to all those others which relate to sections 14 and 1; they will be reopened.

The member for Ottawa West will have to assist me on which sections of these many amendments relate to section 14 and section 1.

Mr. Baetz: Sections 15, 16, 17, 22 and 23.

Mr. Chairman: Not 18?

Mr. Baetz: I do not have 18; it is an NDP amendment.

Sections 15 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 18:

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Gigantes moves that section 18 of the bill be amended by striking out "more than nine and fewer than 100 employees" in the second and third lines and inserting in lieu thereof "fewer than 100 employees, none of whom are represented by a bargaining agent."

Ms. Gigantes: Very briefly, this is similar to the amendment we had previously placed to section 11. It would have the effect of ensuring that in work places with fewer than 100 employees, where the bill currently requires no pay equity plan, if there were a union representing the employees in that work place, there would be a plan created by the employer and representatives of the employees.

Even though this legislation does not require a pay equity plan for a work place of fewer than 100 employees, we feel that in a situation where collective bargaining is established and the women do have a union representative, it makes perfect sense that the collective bargaining pattern be followed through on this question of pay equity and that the implementation of this legislation for such a firm would be one where there would be a pay equity plan.

Mr. Ward: The amendment put forward by my friend the member for Ottawa Centre is similar to an amendment put forward previously to section 11 of the bill. I will stand by the comments I made at that time and indicate that we will not be supporting this amendment.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. D. R. Cooke): All those in favour of Ms. Gigantes's amendment to section 18 will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Sections 19 and 20 agreed to.

On section 21:

Ms. Gigantes: We would like to vote against this section because it would be redundant under one of our previous amendments.

The Acting Chairman: Shall section 21 carry? All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

1730

On section 22:

The Acting Chairman: There is an amendment from the member for Ottawa West.

Mr. Baetz: I will be guided. Do I move this amendment now?

The Acting Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Baetz: I move that section 22 of the bill be amended by striking out "commission" wherever that word appears and "hearings tribunal" in the first line of subsection 3 and inserting in lieu thereof in each instance "director."

Mr. McClellan: We have already been through this. I do not know where the regular Chairman has gone. It is a problem when we come to agreements and then the Chairman leaves, but I believe this is part of the package of amendments we have agreed we will not proceed with unless we have a vote at 5:45 p.m. and the amendment to section 14 carries.

Maybe this was not part of the same package of amendments, but I think it is. Therefore, it is not necessary at this time for the honourable member to move the amendment. If the vote on his amendment to section 14 carries, then we will come back and deal with this amendment.

The Acting Chairman: I acknowledge your concern. I will turn the chair over to a more permanent chairman.

Mr. Baetz: Thank you. I had assumed that was the procedure. I guess it will now be so again, since we have the old Chairman back.

Mr. Chairman: The old Chairman?

Mr. Baetz: The former Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Having been in seclusion when the young Chairman was in the chair, l understand section 22 is one of the sections that relates to sections 1 and 14.

Mr. Baetz: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: This is the same.

Is section 23 also the same?

Mr. Baetz: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Let us go through them. Sections 23, 24; this is under the same understanding and unanimous consent to revert.

Sections 22 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 25:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ward moves that clause 25(1)(b) of the bill be amended by striking out "subsection 23(3)" in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof "subsection 23(4)."

Mr. Ward: During the course of the committee's deliberations and the amendments that were made when the bill was reprinted, I understand there was a change in numbering as a result of the amendments that were made in committee. Therefore, we are moving this amendment to correct an oversight that was made.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: An oversight?

Mr. McClellan: I hope the government House leader (Mr. Nixon) is paying attention to this. It is a government amendment.

Mr. Breaugh: Imagine that. A government amendment at this late date.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Even we are not perfect.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Harris: This is not the only government amendment. I understand it is one of a package of three government amendments.

I will be very brief. I regretted I was not in this chamber when the first two were moved, but I happen to be fortunate enough to be here now when this third one is moved.

This is from a parliamentary assistant and a government that insisted, in fact, in a precedent- setting vote where, I believe, almost unanimously, with the exception of section 10a of one bill the Attorney General had, have I seen people being co-operative, willing to go back over and make sure every member has an opportunity to have a say on a particular piece of legislation. But no, the government said, "No, that is it, this bill goes, no more debate, no more changes." Then they come in with now the third amendment they want us to consider.

We are not opposed to that particular amendment and we are not opposed to the member bringing it in, but I think it ought to be on the record that it is a sign of a very arrogant government that treats the Legislature with the contempt we were treated to last week when members wanted to review one or two small items of this particular piece of legislation.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. D. R. Cooke): Shall the amendment of Mr. Ward to clause 25(1)(b) carry?

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Chairman: I understand the next amending motion of Mr. Baetz to section 25 is again related to section 1.

Mr. Baetz: That is right.

The Acting Chairman: The same for sections 25 and 27? You have a note in here indicating you wish to speak to section 27, which is called recommendations.

Mr. Baetz: No, we have covered that.

The Acting Chairman: Sections 28 through 31 are the same?

Mr. Baetz: That is correct.

The Acting Chairman: Fine. I have no more amendments until the government motion to section 32.

Section 25, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 26 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.

The Acting Chairman: It is also understood, of course, under that last, carrying that of Mr. Baetz, that is according to the same understanding, unanimous consent.

Agreed to.

On section 32:

The Acting Chairman: On section 32, it says a government motion but it is not really a motion. Does the parliamentary assistant have some comments on this?

Mr. Ward: I would say it is a suggestion that section 32 be voted against in that it is redundant. A later section in the bill covers the same topic. It is not that the legislation was not well drafted, there was just some unnecessary wording in there, and it will make for a much neater package if we would have members' support on that.

Ms. Gigantes: Neat?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is what we are interested in; neatness.

Mr. Harris: I would say only that, should the further section be defeated when we get to it, we would agree to give unanimous consent to come back to this.

The Acting Chairman: Shall section 32 stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

1740

On section 33:

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is section 33 the same?

Mr. Baetz: The same. That relates to the employment standards branch.

Ms. Gigantes: I have a motion on section 34.

Mr. Chairman: Excuse me just one moment. May I ask the member for Ottawa West, is your amendment to subsections 33(1), (2), and (3) the same topic again?

Mr. Baetz: That is right.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Therefore, under the same understanding and unanimous consent, shall section 33 stand as part of the bill?

Section 33 agreed to.

On section 34:

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Gigantes, you have an amendment, subsections 34(2a), (2b) and (2c).

Ms. Gigantes: Indeed, I do.

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Gigantes moves that section 34 be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

"(2a) The recommendations referred to in clause (2)(e) shall establish the basis on which comparisons are to be made and shall include proposals for the amendment of this act.

"(2b) The minister shall promptly introduce in the Legislative Assembly amendments to this act that implement the recommendations referred to in clause (2)(e).

"(2c) The amendments shall be considered promptly by the Legislative Assembly in order that the discrimination experienced by the female job classes described in clause (2)(e) may be redressed as nearly as possible according to the timetable set out in this act."

Ms. Gigantes: I will be very brief because I am hopeful we may be able to come to completion of the amending process within a few moments and have our votes to wrap it up.

This amendment addresses the very difficult question that is unresolved in the legislation of what will happen to women, some of whom are the most discriminated against in pay schedules across Ontario, who work in situations where there are no male jobs to which their own jobs can be compared. Those women would be found in day care centres in this province. They would be found working in libraries in this province. They would be working in places where women's work is being carried on and there are few, if any, males employed at all to which the female positions could be compared.

The legislation as it is now before us simply says that the tribunal shall undertake a study of the situation of women working in such work places where there is no male comparable available and shall make recommendations to the government. The amendments that are before us now and proposed on behalf of the New Democratic Party, suggest that we attempt to put in the language of this legislation the urgency we feel about the situation of women in such places of employment.

We would like to see, number one, that the legislation says the government has to take action based on the recommendations of the tribunal, and number two, that this action shall as nearly as possible provide pay equity adjustments suitable for women in work places with no male comparable on the same time schedule as those set out for other women within this legislation.

Mr. Ward: Briefly, the government does not support this amendment. As the member for Ottawa Centre knows, we worked long and hard trying to arrive at the wording in this section of the legislation. I would point out that the obligation in terms of amending legislation -- and I would also reiterate that this bill has an automatic review process built into it in other matters -- the obligation in terms of putting forward legislation does rest with the government and the minister responsible at the time. We have put in the section that does in fact represent an amendment from the original bill, a one-year timetable, and I believe that is appropriate.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments on Ms. Gigantes's amendment? There being none, shall the amendment to add subsections 34(2a), 34(2b) and 34(2c) carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: It being 5:45 p.m., do we have unanimous consent to waive the 5:45 stacking and carry on with clause-by-clause consideration?

Agreed to.

On sections 35 and 36:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa West has two amendments which are probably deferred.

Mr. Baetz: That is right.

Mr. Chairman: One was put in yesterday and one today.

Mr. Baetz: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Sections 35 and 36 are the same.

Sections 35 and 36, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 37:

Mr. Chairman: Clause 37(g) --

Mr. Baetz: That is different. I also have one on section 37.

Mr. Chairman: Is the hearings tribunal the subject of clause 37(g)?

Mr. Baetz: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Then there is another one with regard to 37 only, the Lieutenant Governor in Council making regulations.

Mr. Baetz: Right. That is different.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Baetz moves that section 37 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"37. The Lieutenant Government in Council may make regulations,

"(a) prescribing forms and notices and providing for their use;

"(b) prescribing criteria that shall be taken into account in deciding whether a job class is a female job class or a male job class;

"(c) adding to the appendix to the schedule any person or class of persons or any agency, authority, board, commission, corporation or organization of any kind and providing that the mandatory posting date for an entity so added shall be such date as is set out in the regulations."

Mr. Baetz: I want to make very brief comments on this because I touched on one aspect of it before. This relates to the sweeping powers given to the commission to set up and carry out regulations. That is, of course, a commission that we have opposed through earlier amendments. We really feel here, as I indicated earlier, these kinds of sweeping powers given to the commissioners are totally inappropriate. It means they can do almost anything they like without coming back to this House, and that is something we frankly cannot support.

In the light of what has happened before, I would think this too is going to be in discussions with other members of the committee. I am quite confident, once again, seeing I do not believe in the tooth fairy, that this amendment is going to be defeated and, therefore, this is my last hurrah and my last statement on this particular bill. I simply want to say that because none of our very important amendments have been accepted by the committee, we cannot help but feel that as a committee we have tried to create a silk purse out of a sow's ear and we have failed.

There are many clauses in this bill that we as a party do not like, but we are committed to the principle of pay equity, so much so that in spite of the fact that there is much in here that is very, very undesirable, I suspect that when it comes to the final vote we will close our eyes, plug our ears, hold our noses and support the legislation.

1750

Mr. Charlton: Very briefly, I would just like to say to the member for Ottawa West that I wish he would stop repeating his very negative comment about his refusal to believe in the tooth fairy. It is upsetting some of us.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments on this amendment of Mr. Baetz to section 37? There being none, shall Mr. Baetz's amendment to section 37 regarding regulations carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: I am all out of amendments. Correct?

Sections 38 to 42, inclusive, agreed to.

Schedule and appendix agreed to.

1800

The committee divided on Ms. Gigantes's amendment to subsection 9(1), which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 17; nays 56.

Section 9 agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms. Gigantes's amendment to clauses 10(b), (c) and (d), which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 10 agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms. Gigantes's amendment to subsection 11(1), which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 11 agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms. Gigantes's amendment to subclauses 13(2)(e)(ii) to (v), inclusive, which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Ms. Gigantes's amendment to subsection 13(7), which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 13 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The next amendment is an amendment by Mr. Baetz to section 14, and you will recall that this is an important amendment upon which many other amendments will hinge.

The committee divided on Mr. Baetz's amendment to section 14, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 21; nays 52.

Section 14 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: That will be correct. It is understood that all the other amendments are negatived.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Next, we have section 18.

Would the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) and the three in the centre of the front row of the opposition benches please be seated.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order. We do not want to have any error here.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

The committee divided on Ms. Gigantes's amendment to section 18, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 17; nays 56.

Section 18 agreed to.

The committee divided on whether section 21 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 56; nays 17.

Section 21 agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms. Gigantes's amendment to section 34, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 17; nays 56.

Section 34 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Baetz's amendment to section 37, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 21; nays 52.

Section 37 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

Le projet de loi, modifié, sera rapporté.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.

The House adjourned at 6:13 p.m.

10 juin 1987