[Report continued from volume A]

WANT OF CONFIDENCE MOTION

Continuation of debate on Mr Elston's motion, pursuant to standing order 43(a), on want of confidence motion number 3.

Mr Cousens: I'm telling you, Mr Speaker, this government cannot absolve itself from the political responsibility of the decision it made to set up the Interim Waste Authority, which is reporting to it. We in our community will certainly deal with the Interim Waste Authority on the technical background that is needed to be followed through, but there is going to be a continuing political battle on Ruth Grier and this government that tells this government, "We will not accept your decisions."

Your decisions as a government are political decisions, and not based on a full environmental assessment of the possibility of rail haul. They have not subjected rail haul to an EA, which would then allow it to be not a political decision but a decision based on scientific and technological consideration of things. Then we also suggest that the whole subject of incineration be subjected to a full environmental assessment, and let the technology be considered rather than make a political decision out of the Minister of the Environment's office.

Also, let's see the political decision this government made by saying Metro's garbage goes to York. Come on. This is political as long as you're going to make political decisions like that and as long as you make a political decision that says: "Only within York, Durham and Peel can you find a landfill site to service the needs of those areas plus Metro. You can't look across the boundary line of other areas." Talk about politics.

Then you talk about where they're locating them: on prime agricultural farm land in Caledon, Sutton and Whitevale. You're talking about land that is as ecologically sensitive as the Rouge Valley. You're talking about land that drains into Lake Simcoe. We're seeing the very issues that concern people who live in the greater Toronto area being sacrificed over this government's political decision that says, "We must have the dumps in York, Durham and Peel."

I know that there have to be dumps. I accept that there will be dumps, and I also accept the fact that the government's position on reducing the amount of garbage by 50% by the year 2000 is something every one of us has to work on.

I support the minister, Ruth Grier, on her whole 3Rs program; I do indeed, and strongly. We've got to work on both sides. But don't violate the trust of the people of the province of Ontario by saying Bill 143 must be the case. Nothing has taken away the rights of people more than Bill 143. I will never, ever accept that as anything else than a declaration of war, where this government has declared war on the people of York, Durham and Peel.

1650

I will fight you. I will fight with Greg Sorbara and Charles Beer and anyone else who will come along and go after this government for having failed, for having broken the promise, for having broken its commitment. I'll fight with anyone on this government, because if you want to know, you've kicked a hornet's nest. The people in our communities will not forgive this government for what it's doing to our land and our property and the things we hold dear.

This government has forgotten its promises. When it came to power, it immediately went to work to develop a strategy that is absolutely anathema. Then they come out now. What really has to be infuriating is when the Minister of the Environment, last week, when the member for Durham West raised a question -- he was pretty upset that I, Don Cousens, the member for Markham and critic for Environment, could get confidential documents from the government before he got them. Managing the Impacts of Landfill: A Commitment to Fair Compensation -- I have it right here. I released it first. I got it before the government members got it. Probably the best compliment I've had from Minister Ruth Grier is that she called my actions "irresponsible."

If I want to wear a badge of honour, it is just that. If I am seen ever as being one who's irresponsible for fighting for my community, fighting for what I believe in, fighting for what is true and honest, I will continue to fight that battle. I'll fight it over every one of you, come the next election. All I'm saying to the people of Ontario is, hang in till 1995, survive till '95, because we won't do it today, but you know the day is coming.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): We'll try to bring a little bit of focus back to this. It's really difficult, because I look at this want of confidence motion, and it talks about no confidence in this government because of people. I'm sorry; I'll take responsibility if the government makes a mistake. If the government makes a mistake, sure, we'll resign, you know, if it's worthwhile. We're talking about people here and people do make mistakes.

As far as I'm concerned, we have to have a little bit of forgiveness for these people, because we're human beings, and human beings make mistakes. I think the Premier's taken the right tack. In every case, he's taken these people into their offices and he's talked to them, and where it's warranted, he's called for an investigation. He's never abdicated his responsibility in any of these cases that are listed and some of the ones that aren't listed.

Now, one of our biggest battles down here -- the member for Etobicoke West started out this debate talking about the media. He spent his whole time talking about the media and some of the things that have been listed and some of these allegations and innuendoes. Basically, what you have to do is look at the media's perspective right now.

For a year and a half now, I've been sitting in committee, chairing the advocacy acts, trying to get them through. These are far-reaching bills that are going to affect more people in the province of Ontario and empower more people and give them more rights, and yet where did the media spend their time? They spent their time dealing with Bill 40, which on the whole is going to empower people working in the factories who want to join a union. If they don't want to, so be it.

But the media spent all that time covering that. They brought out full-page ads paid for by themselves, stating their position. So obviously the media are focusing against us. There's a very big war going on with the media. They're against us. The media are doing this.

The advocacy package wasn't even covered. I think one day in committee we had somebody from the press there reporting on this, and these are things that are going to mean more to more people in the province of Ontario, and they'll have more far-reaching implications.

Now, a mistake or an error in judgement is not the only scale of measurement. Let's consider some of the actions taken by this government. Right now we've got the firefighters' immunity. We're bringing in things that are beneficial to all of Ontario. Our firefighters across Ontario are mostly volunteers, and our government has taken action to protect and encourage development for these volunteers.

Our agricultural minister, Elmer Buchanan, announced that his ministry will begin using ethanol-blended gasoline, maintaining our commitment to the use of alternative fuels to gasoline. This product is environmentally friendly, which supports our environmental policies.

What you have to do is look at some of the other things we've done. There are things that aren't really noticed right now, that we haven't done a really good job of advertising because the effects aren't going to be seen for years to come. We've got Jobs Ontario and the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.

The initiatives of this government have affected members of my constituency. Right now we've got the Mannheim water recharge system. Traditionally, in our community we've had water shortages during the summer, or threats of water shortages. With this Mannheim recharge system coming on line now, we now have the availability of more water during the dry season, and now they've even announced that they may be able to close two of the wells out in the agricultural area. I know that for a lot of the rural people who have shallow wells, they have run dry during the summer. Hopefully, this will solve their problem.

Lately, we've just given financial assistance to B&W Heat Treating. They've brought in a new fuel-efficient process, and we've acknowledged this and we've helped them out.

This is what we've done. We've gone across this province and we've looked at people who are going to help us with the environment and help us with saving our unrenewable resources.

We've provided education moneys for junior kindergarten facilities across this province. The media got hold of that and they went around saying that we're mandating junior kindergarten but we're not going to give the funding. Well, now we've announced that the funding's coming.

What's happened is that we bring these initiatives out and we go out and consult with the stakeholders, and we're getting hammered every time we turn around because these initiatives are good but everybody says, well, there's no funding or we're not going to follow through. We've built up a lot of expectations over time.

Sure, we need expectations out there because this is the worst time to be in government. I think the Liberals or the Conservative Party wouldn't want to be in power right now. I know a lot of times they say we're an illegitimate government, that people voted out the Liberals. Well, the Liberals deserved to be voted out. In 1985, when they came to power, they had two great years because the New Democrats sat down with them and wrote an accord and we had some of the most progressive legislation at that time for two years. Then they decided, "We'll take a run at it ourselves now," and for three years they did nothing. They sat around and studied the studies and we saw nothing happening in Ontario. During the five best years this province has ever had, they kept raising the deficit.

Now that we're in power and the money's drying up, we're being told, "Well, you've got to control the deficit." Where do we control the deficit? We could close every other hospital if that will serve the purpose, but that's not the way we want to do it. We're looking at it. We're trying to control the deficit and we're trying to protect services.

I know that the people in my community who are looking at in-home care for their children who they've decided to keep rather than putting them in institutions are saying: "We understand there's no funding right now, but we're willing to accept that. Just make sure you keep your principles intact and make sure you save these programs, and in two years or three years when the economy turns around, this process will be there so that we'll be able to get our children into these things."

I think the public are being very patient with us. They understand it's a difficult time. If they look at us as a total government, which will be judged in another two and a half years or three years, I think they'll sit down and look at it and say: "Yes, these people have brought in a lot of programs. They've dealt with the economic situation and the realities of being in government."

I know that when I first came down here, I talked to members of the two opposition parties and members of my own government who had been here for a while, and they said, "Make sure you don't get sucked up in the political process." That's what I've tried to do. I've tried to do a good job. I don't usually get involved in things in the House, but when they bring in non-confidence motions like this which don't address the undertakings of this government or some of the policies of this government -- sure, the Premier set high standards in his first throne speech. You've got to set high standards, because if you set your standards low enough, people will come in and they'll use that. They'll lower the standards.

He set the standards high, and I think the public understands that you can't meet a lot of these standards, but we're making a true effort. I think the Premier's done a good job by calling for requests. He can't make all the decisions because he doesn't have the facts, just like the opposition members don't have the facts. They read something in the paper and they jump all over it.

If you look at one of the recent things that has happened in the press, you'll see that it started out as a huge affair and then it eventually worked down so that it was almost a non-event. These are the things that are going on.

I think the opposition truly, when we get into committee, actually does a good job. But when they're in the House, they're doing the media, and that's one of the biggest problems. They're playing to the media in the House. This is a media event, because you're talking about people here who have made mistakes. I'm sorry to say that I'm probably going to make some mistakes over time, and I hope there will be forgiveness. I've got people in my community, people in my church, people across this province who write to me and say, "We pray that you'll have the wisdom to try and do the job as well as you can."

I'm sure when my tenure's up here -- you all have five years in here -- if I don't get re-elected, they can't take that away from me, because I think I'm really doing a good job for this province. But I hope to be back and I'm sure that for myself and us as a government, it will reflect and we'll be back for a long time to come.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Further debate?

1700

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I don't know exactly how long I have to debate this resolution that's before us tonight.

Interjection: Five minutes.

Mr Perruzza: If someone will just tell me -- I believe I have roughly five minutes, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak for five minutes on behalf of the government and in support of the government and in support of some of the critical things I believe our government has done.

On September 6, 1990, something very dramatic and something very new happened in the province of Ontario. The people in the province elected for the first time ever a social democratic government which is committed to a number of very real and very substantial social democratic principles, which the government has on a systematic basis laid out, a very comprehensive and a very aggressive agenda.

I'll just talk on a couple of the things the government has done and has ruffled so many feathers across the province of Ontario that it'll take quite some time to put those feathers back in place. But I believe that every member of this government is committed to putting the feathers that have been ruffled across the province of Ontario right back in place, because as Ontarians begin to look at the record this government has accumulated and is accumulating on a daily basis on a wide array of issues that cover almost the entire gamut, Ontarians will come to see that this is a government that speaks for the people of the province of Ontario, represents the people of the province of Ontario and does its best, its absolute best, to ensure that it delivers on the services and on the programs Ontarians need.

September 6, 1990 -- and I alluded to this a few moments ago -- something very dramatic happened. A social democratic government was elected, a government which speaks for middle-income earners, which speaks for the middle class, which speaks for the poor in our society, which speaks for the marginalized, and took power.

This almost instantaneously created reaction within the establishment, within the status quo. Business showed up here at our doorsteps with big loudspeakers, microphones, and they played some of the funkiest music you've ever heard in this town, trying to attract who to protest at our doorstep? I'll tell you who they were trying to attract: all the people who hang out in front of Queen's Park here during the lunch hours, who work in the office towers right across here from Queen's Park. They tried to attract them with very fancy music, before Queen's Park, right across our door, beneath our steps.

Well, Ontarians were wiser. They were wise to this. They knew the people who were behind renting the fancy speakers and the high-powered microphones: Bay Street, Wall Street.

Who was facing what? I'll tell you what they were facing. They were facing one of the most dramatic recessions ever in the history of Ontario since the Depression of the 1930s. That's what they were facing. Whether it was free trade, whether it was the GST, whether it was the cross-border shopping policies of our federal counterparts, whether it was because of the gloom and doom, the naysayers, the spin doctors in the opposition parties, who worked aggressively for the first two and a half years into this mandate to undermine consumer confidence, to undermine business confidence in this province and quite frankly to throw us into a worse recession than we already are in. So what were we faced with? That's what we were faced with. We were faced with the status quo taking us on at every corner, at every turn.

Who were the last to line up? The police. They lined up and came to Queen's Park because at the end of the day, when their work is done, they don't like having to sit down and, while they're filling out their daily report of duties, also write out a line that says whether or not they drew their gun and pointed it at somebody that day. So they lined up and came to Queen's Park and protested.

They tried to do to this government precisely what business tried to do before, what the opposition parties tried to do before here at Queen's Park, what the federal government tried to do before by cutting its transfer payments by billions of dollars. Did you ever hear any of the opposition members here at Queen's Park stand up when the federal government lined up and took a whack at this government? Did they stand in their places and say: "Oh, my gosh, how bad these people are. Oh, my gosh, they want Ontarians to pay for it all"? No, they didn't do that.

They proceeded to hack and attack at every government program which was introduced hence. Why? With one sole purpose, and that is: The more you undermine the government, the more gloom and doom you spin, the more you undermine consumer confidence and business confidence, the worse things become and the more popular you become in opposition, because you don't have to present a vision, you don't have to develop a program, you don't have to try to put in place OTAB, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, which speaks to retraining people in this province, people who find themselves out of work for a number of the reasons which I've mapped out in front of you. You don't have to do that in opposition.

You don't have to develop a wage protection fund which eases the pain that is felt by working-class people when they lose their jobs. You don't have to develop a budget and find the capital moneys to initiate capital works programs and job retraining programs to put Ontarians back to work. You don't have to try to preside over a budget which is ever-ballooning as a result of cutbacks, as a result of failing government revenues, as a result of high unemployment and expanding welfare rolls. You don't have to deal with any of those things.

But when you cut through the fuddle-duddle, Mr Speaker -- because you, I know, are a fairminded member of this place -- when you take away interest payments on the debt, when you take away the rises in social assistance, you will find that this government has managed to control government spending to a level that has never been done before. Zero point three per cent: That's the rise in government spending once you eliminate some of these costs that are beyond government control. That's the reality of it.

Mr Speaker, do you find the opposition standing in their places and applauding the government for having done just that, for having controlled government spending, which rose at unprecedented rates in the past? Our Liberal friends raised taxes 32 times in the span of five years. They took the provincial budget from $27 billion or $28 billion when they took office to $44 billion when they left. That is unbelievable, and they claimed to have a balanced budget when they got there.

In September 1990 they were in a $39-million surplus. We all know what happened to that and we all know how that panned out. Was there a $39-million surplus? No, they were billions of dollars in the red. We were billions of dollars in the red and we've been struggling to manage that, to fix those mistakes, to fix the old Conservative mistakes, to fix five years worth of Liberal mistakes.

Quite frankly our executive, that is, the cabinet of the New Democratic Party, is doing an excellent job of doing just that: managing the finances, managing the legislative framework within which this government is trying to operate and making the lives of middle-income earners and the poor people across the province of Ontario during the worst recession since the 1930s more tolerable.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Mahoney: I would be tempted to go nuts and respond to all of that stuff but I won't bother. It's just a good thing that when he was out there like this, there wasn't a gust of wind. I think we might have had cause for a by-election.

I want to say something quite seriously, and that is that I think this government is doing a really good job.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Thank you, thank you.

Interjection: Screwing up everything.

Mr Mahoney: Well, you said we weren't going to say that.

I think you're doing a terrific job of showing the people in this province what a disaster has been created as a result of the election, by 37% of the population, of the most inexperienced gang to ever come into this place.

Interjection: Any place.

Mr Mahoney: Into any place. Truly amazing.

Then we hear a member of cabinet, the Minister of Agriculture and Food --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I'll get to you in a minute, Oxford. We hear the minister standing up and telling us that really we shouldn't be worried about the confidence the opposition has in this government because of all the good things the government has done and some agreements that have been entered into with his ministry. Well, I would hope you're doing something. I would hope you're meeting with your counterparts in Ottawa and discussing how to help the farmers. You've had two years to try to do something, so I would hope you would do that.

But to suggest that there's no cause for alarm, to suggest there's no reason to put forward a motion of non-confidence in this government is truly mind-boggling. What they don't seem to understand -- they simply don't get it -- is that this motion is not put on behalf of simply the members of the Liberal caucus in this place.

I would like to see the results of a phone-in poll that's conducted every day on the radio stations around this province. CFRB does one every morning. They ask a question and ask people to phone in. I would like to see a question, very simply: "Do you have confidence in the New Democratic Party governing this province? Yes or no?" That's all. I can assure you that if --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Well, if you don't care what the results of such a poll would be, then obviously you're sticking your head in the sand and you don't seem to understand.

The member for Oxford raised in his comments the fact that we should be getting on to what he termed "other more important items" and we should be ignoring all of these things. We would be delighted to get on with job creation. You know we had another 1,600 people laid off in Windsor today by General Motors. We see the tragedy of the hundreds of people in St Catharines. We see the fear and the anxiety of the people at Algoma Steel in Sault Ste Marie that while, yes, you did ultimately put together a bailout program to help the employees take over, they live in fear of losing their place in the international marketplace and facing restructuring on their own. We see the fear of the same thing happening in Kapuskasing.

We see people in my own constituency office -- I'm sure it must happen in yours -- if you answer the phones, you find people phoning you all the time, predominantly male individuals, 45 to 55, calling and saying: "Mr Mahoney, I'm out of work, I've been laid off. I still have a mortgage, I still have a family, I still have a youngster going to university, I still have responsibilities, but I do not have a job." What can you say to them? It is very frustrating for any member.

I don't lay all of that at the feet of this government, but in two years this government has failed to do anything other than announce a few programs supposed to help. What, $1 billion for Jobs Ontario to create 695 jobs, and they say, "Bear with us, we're getting to the rest of them." You see, we don't have confidence because we don't believe you understand what you're doing. Not just the members of my caucus or the Conservative caucus, but the people do not believe you understand what to do to help this economy. Indeed, that is predominantly the issue we should be dealing with.

But what happens? I just did a quick analysis. Mr Speaker, you might be interested in this. Do you know there are 26 members of the current cabinet? Out of that, sir, as far as I can tell, eight of them have not been tainted with some form of allegation, scandal or impropriety.

The Premier himself has his own staff sending a letter to the Ontario Municipal Board trying to influence the date of a hearing. The most important thing, if you are a proponent of a development proposal, about an Ontario Municipal Board hearing, once the reference there has taken place, is the date. "When are they going to listen to my appeal?"

That's the primary thing any proponent would be concerned about, and this Premier doesn't think it's a problem that a member of his personal political staff, on his behalf, on his letterhead, writes a letter to the Ontario Municipal Board asking it to fast-track the development proposal. It's not a problem to the Premier because the development is important to him.

Mr Mancini: It's in his riding.

Mr Mahoney: It's in his own riding, so that's okay. "It's going to create jobs," he says. "Therefore, we should put our principles on the side burner and simply try to influence the date." You just find it incredible. Talk about moxie.

Mr Stockwell: It is not moxie, my friend.

Mr Mahoney: I think it's called chutzpah --

Mr Stockwell: Not even chutzpah.

Mr Mahoney: -- for someone to stand up in this place and actually defend the record of this government and to pretend and tell us that we should ignore all of these problems when we've got eight members out of a 26-member cabinet, and that doesn't count the seven who have either resigned in disgrace or been fired.

I would love to be in a caucus meeting, wouldn't you? Can you imagine what it would be like in a caucus meeting? If any of these people have the courage to stand up when the Honourable Robert Rae attends -- I assume he attends there more than he does question period, although I'm not sure -- it must be truly an experience to behold.

You must sit there and go: "Premier, how are we going to get elected next time when we've only got eight members of our cabinet who are not involved in some kind of hanky-panky, creating distrust in the province of Ontario? How are we going to get elected next time and go to the people and tell them that you promised this would be a new and open government?"

Go back. Remember not only the throne speech; remember the wonderful swearing-in ceremony at the university, over at Hart House, when I think the comment by the Premier was, "This government will give access to people who have never had access to the halls of power before." He didn't tell us it was going to be John Piper. He sort of left us out there to wonder, "Who's he talking about? He's bringing in some people who are going to influence" --

1720

Mr Stockwell: The OPP.

Mr Mahoney: The OPP all of a sudden have access to our offices. They knock on our door and they walk in. There's a certain tavern in town that has become somewhat famous of late for the --

Mr Stockwell: The Loose Moose.

Mr Mahoney: The Loose Moose. They have wonderful T-shirts they've put out. The phone number on the back is 1-800-SCANDAL. It's gotten to the point where people out there are laughing at you. It's almost past the point of sadness. It's become a comedy show. Some would call it a horror show.

Go down the list: We have the member for Sudbury East. No problem, tell a lie. Get up, admit she lied, take a lie detector test to prove she was telling the truth when she lied. "That's no problem. You can stay in cabinet because your daddy's Elie and I owe Elie big time." That's Bob Rae: good principles. We didn't make it up, folks. That's not a fabrication of what happened. That is exactly what happened.

The only honourable thing I've seen a cabinet minister do is the member for Ottawa Centre, I say, who made a mistake, blurted out the name of someone who was using the system for medical reasons, realized she'd made a mistake and resigned, went out of cabinet and was brought back in later in the Ministry of Housing.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): She did it before she got Bob Rae --

Mr Mahoney: She didn't do it without some anger and without some serious, hard meetings. But at least, I say to the other members from Ottawa, she made the decision to resign, albeit orchestrated and forced, I'm sure, by the Premier's office.

But the rest of them -- let's go back to one we've all forgotten about. What was the very first thing that happened in this place?

Mr Stockwell: The walk in the park in Hamilton.

Mr Mahoney: The secret meeting in Hamilton. Somehow that's not important any more. You see, you sort of grade the scandals from one to 10. It's down there at one, I guess, in importance because now we've got ministers who have admitted they've lied. We've got a personal appointment of the Premier charged with sexual harassment. What does the Premier do? Can you imagine the phone call at Tory Tory DesLauriers and Binnington? "This is Premier Bob Rae calling." "Who? You're calling us? You want us, that Tory law firm" --

Mr Stockwell: "Do we owe taxes?"

Mr Mahoney: "Do we owe taxes? You want us to investigate one of your appointments? Premier, we'd be delighted to do that. That just sounds like that's going to make our day."

They conduct an investigation and they finish their investigation, presumably. What happens?

Mr Mancini: They send the bill.

Mr Mahoney: I assume they sent a bill to the taxpayer. I assume they got paid. We can't get the results of that information.

He resigns. Now either the Premier is putting Mr Masters in some jeopardy -- his own father, for goodness' sake, in Jamaica, is quoted in the newspapers as saying, "Please, Bob, my son's a good man." I presume that may well be true, but I don't know that. Carl Masters's own father is calling on the Premier to come clean and release the results of the inquiry done by the big law firm.

Why won't he do it? Is there some way we should simply say, as the member for Oxford said, we should ignore that? We could say: "Okay, that's fine, Bob. Sorry to bother you. Sorry to really put you under that kind of pressure. Go ahead. Keep that publicly paid for investigation and information in your sock. We don't really care. We don't have a responsibility as the opposition to try to get this government to come clean with the people of Ontario. We're really sorry we bothered you. Everything is okay." Is that what you really believe?

I just can't imagine how any of you can tolerate that nonsense when he comes out and simply says he can't tell us because he's hiding behind freedom of information. He wants to protect the reputation of the individual involved. Meanwhile, he's destroying it.

Finally, the greatest insult of all -- I want to leave a substantial amount of time for one of my colleagues to wrap up this debate -- the most incredible situation of all is the John Piper issue. What is it they say now, that Piper picked a piece of personal papers from the office in the middle of the night or late at night with some staffer watching this? And we're just supposed to once again sit back and say: "Sorry, Mr Howard Hampton, Mr Attorney General. Sorry, Mr Premier. We don't mean to bother you. We're just curious. Do you have any idea what was in those boxes."

Could it be there was anything important to the good of public business? Could it be that he punched a button to wipe out a computer program? I don't know, but we can't find that out. This government acts in the most sanctimonious way. The Premier's own admission, on a television interview when they asked him why the opposition was giving him such a hard time, was, "Probably because of 10 years of sanctimony in opposition."

Let me tell you, that's only one of the reasons. The real reason is that this Premier's leadership is lacking. He's showing incompetence. He has no backup. He has a cabinet riddled with scandal, inexperience and mistakes. If you people believe we should show any kind of confidence in you, you have got to be kidding.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The honourable member for London South.

Mr Stockwell: You told me you weren't speaking.

Mr Winninger: It's true that I said earlier that I wasn't speaking, but I was prompted to great heights of eloquence by some of the lofty sentiments expressed across the House just now. I think it behooves me to address the issue of scandal that seems to have taken up much of the debate today.

I represent London South, as you know, and it's only a short time ago -- in fact, it seems like yesterday -- that there was much brouhaha in the House about a certain former Solicitor General and party whip for the official opposition who found herself in some difficulty too. In those days, as an innocent bystander in London, I felt some empathy for her role and position in this House. I was also cognizant that she had brought many things to the riding of London South and that she had achieved a great deal over the course of her illustrious career on the board of education, on city council and finally as an honourable member in this House. Yet due to a late night visit at the Lucan detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police, all of that came crashing down around her.

I'm cognizant that in the spirit of the House at that time, her achievements were obliterated overnight by the fact of this scandal in which she found herself. I find quite distressing that this emphasis on negativity, this emphasis on scandal, this emphasis on trivial matters that detract from the important business of the House can consume the length and degree of attention it's being given today and that it has been through repeated question periods.

1730

It would seem to me that we come to this House with the mandate of our constituencies to address very real problems. The people who call my constituency office in London South have very immediate problems. Their concerns are with the economy, job creation and protecting quality and services in the kinds of programs this government delivers. I think the members of my community respect the fact that our government has taken some very concrete initiatives in protecting vulnerable people, delivering long-term care, delivering advocacy services, as my friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot spoke of earlier --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Winninger: -- in connection with introducing for the first time an environmental bill of rights, in connection with advancing the native agenda to a level that is unrivalled across this province, and I have some intimate knowledge of that.

I think we have to put these matters in perspective. We hear time and time again of the negative, but we don't hear often enough and we don't communicate well enough the achievements during two scant years in government of our party, and I think we have to be mindful of that.

At the end of the day, in 1995, when the next election is called --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Winninger: -- I think that when we add up the list of achievements this government can take credit for --

Mr Mahoney: There will be little kids crying all over the province.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Winninger: -- truly state-of-the-art legislation, very progressive legislation -- the voters won't be as concerned as the opposition is today about some of these trivial events. They'll be looking at the achievements of this party and evaluating them and determining, I'm confident, in their own minds the overall policies set forth by this government and whether this government has made an honest effort to meet its commitments in the election of 1990. I think that honesty and integrity in carrying forward our policies will win the day with the voters in my riding and, I'm confident, across Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Before I call for any more speakers, I just think I should say a couple of words. In the last few minutes we've had constant interruptions and interjections from members in the House. That's not acceptable. Interjections in the House are strictly out of order, and it's not fair to the honourable member who is speaking at the time. I would ask that we could please pay some respect to this House and to the honourable members.

Further debate?

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Thanks a lot, Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to follow my colleague from London South and his very apposite remarks. I think it's true to say that in the face of these flights of rhetorical fancy that stem from the moral rectitude of the opposition, it certainly moves one to, I guess, respond in kind.

But I have to say that this subject doesn't really grab my attention the way it does the opposition's, and in fact it takes incidents like this to remind me that probably all ridings are faced with incidents like this. Of course the thing that comes to mind when I hear the member for London South discuss an incident in his riding is something that became known as the booze cruise in my area, which I'm sure many members in the House will be reminded of. It's remarkable how often that incident was raised, not only in the riding but also in other areas in the province. It gained, I would say, attention far beyond the proportions of the incident, but it just shows how important it is that we put these things in perspective. I mean, what has that got to do with good government?

I would say it's similar to many of the incidents that have been raised here. What has that got to do with good government? I think it's quite clear that people make mistakes and that, too often, in my view, the opposition leaps on these mistakes and rips them to shreds, very often at the expense of somebody's reputation. I think we would all agree that's wrong, compared to what can be done in more constructive forms of opposition.

I think it's quite clear to say we have made some mistakes. It was said right at the beginning that a government that was so new as ours, and including many new members, would make mistakes, but probably the worst thing to fear were the mistakes themselves, rather than try to do things for the people of the province in a way we had long said we could do.

I find it a bit ironic, though, just to talk about how the opposition now calls into question our record in opposition. Why then don't they try to set a new standard of opposition by ignoring some of these incidents they think we used to criticize unfairly? Now they're doing the same thing. Why not set that new standard? However, that's up to them.

I think the worst thing is that they don't then criticize the things we're bringing forward in a way that will make it much clearer to the people of the province to see what we are trying to do, and I'm thinking of things like OTAB, where I think there is a place for constructive criticism, and in our initiatives in the environment and our labour initiatives. All these things should be criticized in a way that will lead to greater understanding and even better kinds of legislation. Instead, the things that grab the headlines are these rather superficial and meaningless, in the overall context, events.

The main point I want to make, as I say, as a new member who really wasn't that well acquainted with what went on in the days of opposition here, is that to be told that this is the way or even to see that this is the way the opposition should act in drawing these incidents before the House day after day and saying nothing new about them and ignoring the kinds of initiatives that we're doing and trying to bring up what should be done today when we all agree that there is a crisis here that wasn't created since we've been in government, that has deep roots and that have to be addressed in a very constructive way -- I would say that there are better ways of doing things. I think the people in the province will realize that. I must say that in my riding I don't get these things thrown in my face very often. In fact, it's quite the opposite. There is sympathy, where it is raised; people realize that there are mistakes that are being made, but they recognize the superficial, meaningless nature in the way these things are done. But I submit that it will be the people who will decide in a couple of years' time just where the truth in this matter lies and whether the things we've been doing for the province have been to the overall benefit. I submit that we will see a good judgement in that case.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'd like to conclude on behalf of the Liberal Party with some remarks this afternoon.

I want to begin my remarks by picking up something that the member for Kingston and The Islands has just observed and something that has been offered by the Premier himself in some comments that I saw. I will refer to an article in the Ottawa Citizen of November 30, 1992, wherein Bob Rae says, listen, we're having some trouble, but you must understand that "we are governing with a group, many of whom have never been in public life before, many of whom have never been in politics before."

The argument being advanced in this connection is, "Listen, give us time, be patient, because we are a group of inexperienced amateurs, neophytes in the business of politics and government." I just want to test that argument to this extent: by asking my friends here and those listening out in television land to compare the record of this government with the records of the McKenna government, the Pawley government and the Romanow government, to take three non-Ontario examples. Because I think it is fair to say that any group of people, particularly a group that has no experience in office and is swept into power after never having been there before, deserves some consideration on that count. The member from Kingston's boss, the Premier, has said that a lot of the difficulty has to be credited to that inexperience.

I'm prepared to make some allowances, but I want to ask my friends in this chamber to look at the McKenna government, to look at the Pawley government, to look at the Romanow government. You will not find the mix of incompetence, nitwittery and -- what else shall I call it? -- scandal, in two particularly serious cases. To get this kind of nitwittery and incompetence you have to go back to the Barrett government 23 years ago in British Columbia.

Mr Sutherland: Oh, no, you don't.

Mr Conway: Oh, yes, you do. I'm telling you, I will be quite prepared to debate my friend the member for Oxford. And that's not to say there are not good people in this government. I accept that. But this parade that we have been witnessing here -- this last six weeks has seen an endless array of maladministration and worse. So I want to ask people to compare the record of the Rae government with the Pawley government and with the Romanow government. Have you been watching the Saskatchewan government, a New Democratic government? I mean, they are not falling over themselves every day of the week with this kind of trouble, nor was the Pawley government, as I remember it, or the Schreyer government in the 1970s and 80s. So let's just put that in some kind of perspective.

My friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot and others say, "You will not engage us" -- I think I heard the member for Oxford say it as well -- "on substantive questions." Let me say, as someone who has been around here probably too long, that when I look at this government and when I look at what it has done on public auto insurance, when I look at its current position on the common pause day, when I look at its position on gambling, when I see Pierre Berton lacerating the Rae government because he can't believe what it's up to, what are we to say about the principles of the New Democratic government?

1740

I don't want to be too provocative this afternoon but let me read a quote from the London Free Press from April 24, 1992. Let me quote an honourable member of the New Democratic caucus sitting in this chamber this afternoon:

"I don't think I have the luxury of a personal opinion in this matter of casino gambling. At a time when our government is cash-starved and trying to keep taxes down, I don't think that morals and ethics should enter into it."

That was my friend the honourable member for London South. I'm sure there is more to the quote and I think I know what he's saying there, but I have to tell you that is the kind of flexibility I never expected to hear from a principled New Democrat. If there seems to be some frustration on the part of the opposition in this matter, I mean, what we are looking at now is Elmer Gantry; we're looking at Jim Bakker in all his sin.

I'm telling you I've sat here for 18 years and I have listened to the saints and prophets in politics, namely, the organized NDP, say that, "If only we have the chance, we would take you to the promised land of ethical purity such that you have never seen before." That has been the consistent line.

I want to say that I served in this place with people like Fred Burr and Fred Young, about whom I had no doubt in so far as their commitment to that kind of politics, but what have I seen now from my friend the Premier of this government -- and I want to focus on two questions, because it is true to say the opposition does a lot of caterwauling about perhaps some trifling matters. I think that's fair to say about any opposition.

All governments have had their problems and that has to be admitted as well. When we were in government we had our share. The Davis and Robarts governments and all the governments have had their problems, but I submit that no provincial government in the history of Ontario has had on its copybook anything to match the Martel affair and the Piper affair.

What enrages me about the Martel affair -- I'm even more angry about it now because I think I understand more about how it came to be that the honourable Minister of Northern Development was put in so pathetically a compromised position.

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): You forgot about Patti Starr.

Mr Conway: My friend says I forgot about Patti Starr. Patti Starr was a very serious matter for the Peterson government. It ought to have been treated seriously and, believe me, I think it was.

I was here the day, my friend from Wentworth, when Ashworth phoned in from wherever he was and almost instantly his office was sealed by the police. The idea that Gordon Ashworth would have been allowed, given his offence, to come back to this building and walk in there and clean out his files would have been preposterous.

Mr Winninger: Now he's in charge of the federal Liberal campaign. How did that happen?

Mr Conway: Let me just say that in the case of Ashworth's misconduct, the police investigation began almost immediately. What I remember up in that second-floor suite of offices was a great amount of police tape. He wasn't allowed into this office, nor was anybody else without police supervision.

The notion that John Piper, the dirty trickster -- and think about Piper's crime. Think about what Piper was up to. I know he doesn't represent the views of people like Gordie Mills and I don't believe he represents too many of the views over there. For a government that has professed a concern about the disadvantaged in our society to see some scoundrel -- and I won't use the word that I want to use because I'd be thrown out of here.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): You're right because you never use --

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: I just want to say that in the Piper case what we had was a senior official working in the Premier's office who was prepared to take information he ought not to have had and use that with wilful and premeditated intent against a defenceless woman in the court of public opinion and probably in the civil action involving the member for Kitchener, the former Minister of Energy, and that is reprehensible in the extreme. I submit that is qualitatively worse than anything I have seen in this place or know of in the so-called history and index of scandals. If I'm wrong, I will be happy to be shown how I am wrong.

The notion that any one of us, as an elected official or as an appointed assistant, would use our office to take information and to attack individuals in the community who have dared contest the government or the party is a notion so fundamentally repugnant as to make it almost unthinkable. The idea that this scoundrel, this dirty trickster was allowed to go back to this office and, with the help of another colleague, a person whom I know -- I know Melody Morrison. I can't believe that she allowed herself to be caught in such a compromised position. I can't believe that she would allow herself to be brought into that mess. I can't believe that she didn't think or that somebody over there didn't think, "Even if there is nothing," -- and there may have been nothing -- "I want to pay some respect to the police investigation and none of us will go back to the scene of the crime without the police there in a supervisory role."

If my friends opposite don't understand the problem with that, then this speech is for naught. But I say in relation to the Martel matter, and I've said it before, I've known the Minister of Northern Development and Mines longer than most of you and I know her to have been and, I believe, to be a decent, honourable person. I don't know what happened in that situation in Thunder Bay a year ago this week.

I can imagine the circumstances, because I know the combatant with whom she did battle. But it was absolutely unforgivable for her or any of the rest of us to have behaved the way she did, and that she did not, as a matter of honour and principle, offer her resignation is unacceptable. In the absence of her offering that, the Premier's not demanding it was equally unthinkable, and for her own benefit, if she had done so, her honour and her integrity might have been rehabilitated. As it is, she will carry that scar for the rest of her public life, and I don't blame her so much as I blame Bob Rae and that skunk Piper, who probably was in there advising in that --

Interjections.

Mr Conway: I'm sorry. It may be too much.

Mr Fletcher: A little low.

Mr Conway: Listen, if I did what John Piper did in the matter of Judi Harris, I would consider that I got off lightly to be called a skunk. I think what he did was reprehensible and I don't need to be given a button or a ribbon to feel that way, because that happens to be my view.

But I simply say that in allowing the Martel matter to go unchecked, what was John Piper or what was anyone else to conclude about what was permissible? If ever there ought to have been a clear message sent to the cabinet, to the caucus and to the Legislature, it was surely in the matter of the Martel case.

I have somewhere in my papers a copy of a letter the Premier was sending out to people on that matter. The Premier says to an Ontarian writing on the Martel matter, and I'll just quote the last paragraph:

"Since the beginning of this issue, Miss Martel has clearly acknowledged the seriousness of her mistake. She apologized for her remarks and she did everything in her power to make amends. She remains committed to serving the people of Ontario."

I don't doubt she remains committed, but she and her government did not do everything within their power to make amends. When she signed her oath of office, she committed herself to serve this province honestly and faithfully, to be vigilant, diligent and circumspect in the performance of her duties. Clearly, by her own admission, she failed the test of her own oath. But I simply repeat: In allowing the Martel matter to go without any penalty, Bob Rae created the environment where his good friend and adviser Mr Piper could contemplate and move to execute the dastardly deed against Judi Harris.

I say to my friends opposite, I think those two cases, the Martel case and the Piper case, are qualitatively different than any of the breaches of conduct that I've seen around here in a long time and I'm quite prepared to debate with you some of the other issues.

I see the member for Scarborough West here. I wasn't here the day that she and the member for Sudbury East had the difficulty with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. I wasn't here, but I'll tell you that in my view that was not an offence for which they ought to have withdrawn from cabinet. It was a breach, but I'm quite prepared to say, personally, that it was not a capital crime.

But I'm telling you, the Martel and the Piper cases are serious, qualitatively different issues. They have brought, rightly, the opprobrium of this Legislature and of the province down on the head of this beleaguered government. That's why we're here today debating this resolution, because while there are other issues, Bob Rae was right when he said three years ago that character and integrity are at the core of any good government.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Elston has moved want of confidence notice of motion number 3. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, say "aye."

Those opposed to the motion, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1752 until 1757.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the members to please take their seats.

Mr Elston has moved want of confidence notice of motion number 3. All those in favour of the motion will please stand one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Beer, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Conway, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Daigeler, Elston, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Jackson, Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Mancini, McClelland, McLean, McLeod, Miclash, Murdoch (Grey), Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Acting Speaker: Those opposed to the motion will please stand one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Pilkey, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 43, the nays 61.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes being 43 and the nays 61, I declare the motion lost.

1800

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I'd like to call the 29th and the 37th orders, with the unanimous consent of the assembly, together.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Do we have unanimous consent to bring those two standing orders to the floor? We do.

PAY EQUITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉQUITÉ SALARIALE

Ms Murdock, on behalf of Mr Mackenzie, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 102, An Act to amend the Pay Equity Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'équité salariale.

PUBLIC SERVICE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE

Ms Murdock, on behalf of Mr Silipo, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 169, An Act to amend the Public Service Act and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la fonction publique et la Loi sur la négociation collective des employés de la Couronne.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I am very pleased to move both bills today for second reading. You will recall that more than a million working women in Ontario are covered by the Pay Equity Act of 1987, an act that we pioneered when we were in opposition. However, an estimated 420,000 women covered by the act cannot benefit from it because they work in places where there are not enough male comparators. Bill 102 equips these women with new methods for attaining their pay equity rights: proportional value comparisons and proxy comparisons.

Let me be clear that this government is not putting its commitment to pay equity on hold for three years, as was suggested after the first reading of the bill. Pay equity rights are a reality now for nearly 600,000 women in this province. In less than a month, on January 1, 1993, pay equity becomes attainable for 340,000 more women in the private and broader public sectors through proportional value comparisons, and a year later, on January 1, 1994, another 80,000 women in the broader public sector will be able to benefit through proxy comparisons.

In addition, the government has already paid out millions of dollars for the achievement of pay equity, and millions more will be paid out this year and in future years until pay equity is achieved in the broader public sector.

The level of pay equity implementation that we expected by 1995 will now be reached in 1998. That does not mean that we have stopped pay equity for three years. What has been changed is the period over which the government will pay for pay equity.

Controlling the rate of payout in this long-term program is fully in keeping both with the economic realities outlined by the Treasurer and other cabinet ministers last week and with our commitment to achieving pay equity. At the same time, our government is taking immediate short-term action to combat --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm somewhat confused. I thought we were doing something new. I have here Bob Rae's brochure from November 1991, which says that they have already done this. Am I mistaken? Has this not been done?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): That's not a point of order, actually. I'd ask the honourable member to please take his seat. I recognize the honourable member for Sudbury.

Ms Murdock: If the honourable member had been paying any attention whatsoever he would have heard that this has already been instituted since 1987 and that this government has continued with the program.

However, to continue, before I was interrupted, with the economic reality as outlined by both the Treasurer and all of the cabinet ministers last week and with our commitment to achieving pay equity, we're taking immediate short-term action to combat wage discrimination that affects working women in some of the lowest-paid jobs in the broader public sector, mainly care-giving and service occupations.

Today I am happy to provide more details about the pay equity down payment plan that the Minister of Labour mentioned. This program will provide payments before March 31, 1993, to the broader public sector workers who meet the criteria. The program will be similar to the recent child care wage enhancement program funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which provided payments of $2,000 towards pay equity for almost 14,000 individual child care workers.

Officials of the Ministry of Labour are surveying more than 1,750 agencies employing more than 20,000 workers in the broader public sector, and that survey will determine the number of women who qualify and will help establish the amount of the down payment per worker.

The agencies that are now being surveyed include home support, homemaker services, women's shelters, immigrant services, community mental health programs and developmental services, such as the associations for community living.

These agencies have been asked to return a questionnaire by December 11 -- by the end of this week. I urge the officials of the agencies, if they are listening out there, to cooperate fully so that we can expedite payment in this fiscal year; in other words, before March 31.

I want to point out that in the private sector, employers are expected to devote only 1% of their previous year's payroll to the achievement of pay equity, the same amount as required under the original legislation.

I must remind members that Bill 102, like Bill 168, which is not on the table, provides ground-breaking advancements in approaches to eliminate wage discrimination. Our new proxy methodology may well become a model for other jurisdictions, national and international, in their attempts to achieve pay equity.

I want to urge members to grant second reading of Bill 102 quickly so that it can proceed to public hearings before the standing committee on resources development during the winter months, and I look forward to the public debate that we'll be getting into when we're in that committee.

Bill 102 has a companion bill, Bill 169, An Act to amend the Public Service Act and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. The amendments stemming from these bills will extend pay equity to hundreds of thousands of Ontario women whose work is undervalued and underpaid, while at the same time preventing an unmanaged growth of the public service. By doing so, this government is fulfilling its strong commitments to correct both the historic and the systemic undervaluation of women's work and to administer the government's broad compensation responsibilities effectively and fairly.

1810

Currently, pay equity allows for job-to-job comparisons, which will be enhanced by proportional value and proxy comparison methods for achieving pay equity. Job-to-job wasn't too difficult; there were similar kinds of work being done by males and therefore it was easy to make the comparison. It became more difficult and took longer to determine, hence the reason we're at this stage only now, in terms of working out proportional value, but also in terms of the proxy comparisons.

While Bill 102 deals with the proxy comparison method that will affect women who are among the lowest-paid workers in Ontario's public sector, proxy comparisons will be used by the broader public sector organizations that cannot use job-to-job or proportional value because of a lack of male job classes.

Organizations that need to use the proxy method are generally those that provide health and community services, some libraries -- and you'll be hearing from our member from the Niagara area where she'll be talking about some examples. The rape crisis centres are another example, child care centres, shelters for battered women and nursing homes, where there are many female workers but very few male workers, and certainly none in which the kind of work they do can be compared. So you have to go outside and look at a larger employer group in order to figure out what kind of job you're going to use as a proxy.

These agencies are often staffed entirely by women at pay levels that do not reflect the true value of the work performed. In many situations where no male comparators exist, pay equity office review officers and the pay equity hearings tribunal have found that a larger organization is the employer for pay equity purposes. In some cases, the province has been found to be the employer for pay equity purposes, and the implementation of proportional value and proxy pay equity methods that allow women to find male comparators for their jobs resolves the need for government-as-employer litigation as a means of achieving pay equity. Consequently, Bill 102 spells out the circumstances in which the crown is considered to be the employer of an individual for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act.

Another means of naming the province as employer has been through the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. Currently, this act allows the Ontario Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal to decide if individuals are indeed crown employees, which then gives them the right to bargain collectively with the crown.

Bill 169, the other bill we are going to be debating on second reading today, amends the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the Public Service Act to allow the crown, as the employer, to establish once and for all its ability to determine who exactly is an employee of the government. These amendments place an important responsibility, the ability to determine the size and cost of the public service, in the hands of the government. The amendments will allow us to manage the size of the public service.

In closing, I'm honoured to be tabling these amendments today that fulfil this government's commitment to giving Ontario's working women the justice they so rightly deserve. In asking that both Bill 102 and Bill 169 go to the standing committee on resources development for further discussion, I encourage the members to support this important initiative.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? If there are none, further debate.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm pleased to rise and participate in this debate on two important pieces of legislation. I have a somewhat different perspective from the parliamentary assistant who spoke before me, and I would also like to inform members of this House that I have a significant history and have participated in the development of pay equity policy virtually from day one.

It's one of the things I'm particularly proud of. As a Liberal government, when we arrived in office in 1985, what we found was that while Frank Miller had made all kinds of commitments about implementation of pay equity, in fact no work had been done.

We arrived in 1985 with the full intention of fulfilling our commitment to deal with the gender inequalities in the workforce, that portion of the gap in wages that was attributable to gender discrimination, the fact that women in this province were, and to a large degree still are, earning only about 63 to 65 cents when you compare that to what men are earning who are doing work of equal value and often in very, very similar situations. So we began in 1985 the development of a pay equity policy which I think every observer and everyone in this House, every fairminded person, would recognize as landmark legislation.

I remember when the now Minister of Housing, the member for Ottawa Centre, used to sit in her seat on the opposition benches and regularly question our Attorney General, the member for St George-St David, about when we were going to see this legislation, because the member for Ottawa Centre, as most people in the province, recognized the importance of having this legislation brought forward.

I want to tell her -- I know she's in the House today -- and others who are interested that the policy development in that area to ensure equal pay for work of equal value, as we called it, and call it today pay equity, in Ontario, was a very important policy development process, one that entailed much consultation and the development of a green paper. Initially, we started out with an approach to pay equity for the public sector, and at the time I was Chairman of Management Board, responsible for the Ontario civil service and was very involved in the development of those policies in the position of employer.

At the same time as that was going on, under the auspices of our Minister of Labour, who was doing an outstanding job in the development of pay equity policies from the perspective of the broader public sector as well as the private sector, we began a green paper development process for those outside government. As members will remember, the two came together and formed the pay equity legislation which has been now in law and in this province for some number of years.

When we tabled that legislation and when it was debated at committee, I had the opportunity to be a member of the committee that saw that legislation through the committee stage and process. I remember through those debates and discussions at committee arguing quite forcefully on some very technical, very complex, some would even say arcane points of view, that this was such landmark legislation that nobody could expect it would be perfect and nobody could expect that it would do everything everyone had hoped it would do. But our approach was always one of incremental change, incremental in the viewpoint that we would ultimately, and as rapidly as we could, achieve those goals.

What I found interesting and would like to share with the House today is that there were many members opposite, including the now Minister of Housing, former Minister of Health, the member for Ottawa Centre, for whom that approach was insufficient, and there are many speeches in Hansard and many discussions from members of the now government who felt that the approach of the Liberal government was not good enough, not fast enough and not going far enough.

1820

They delivered the message, I thought, in a very interesting way, because today, as the government, what we find is that they are not even going to be able to implement the Liberal legislation within the time frame and the time line that had been established under that original legislation. They are not only not going to be able to do what they said they were going to be able to do, they are not even able to do what we said we were able to do, which they said wasn't good enough for them at the time.

There's great irony, because time and again what we've seen from this NDP government is that it says one thing and it does the other. We know that's one of the reasons people are so disappointed in Bob Rae, that's one of the reasons that people are so disappointed in the NDP, and we know that's also one of the reasons the public is so cynical. Once again, when we examine Bill 169 and Bill 102, what we find is the NDP government said one thing while it was in opposition and is doing something very, very different. I'm going to point out some examples of that.

I'd like to deal first, if I could, with Bill 169, because, as I mentioned to you, that has to do with who is the employer. Having served as the Chairman of Management Board and the employer for the government, I understand the need for the government clearly to be able to establish that and clearly to be able, as the parliamentary assistant said and said quite well, to estimate what the implications of legislation will be.

I had occasions, as Minister of Health, when the question of who is the employer was a very significant and important one and under the existing legislation was being challenged by a number of organizations that were developing pay equity plans in accordance with the existing legislation and wanted rulings and opinions on who actually was the employer. There were two examples -- actually, three examples -- I found very interesting.

One example of who was the employer resulted in what became known as the McKechnie Ambulance decision, where the ambulance drivers, the ambulance attendants, who provide a very important service in the province of Ontario, were arguing, not for the purposes of pay equity but for the purposes of collective bargaining, as to who should be deemed to be the employers.

They argued that because their funding came almost wholly, 100%, from the government of Ontario, whether the service was delivered by the Ministry of Health or by a municipality or by a hospital or by a private sector provider, they should be considered crown employees. The tribunal actually agreed with the ambulance drivers, and the government -- we were the government at the time -- moved to declare that, for the purposes of collective bargaining, all ambulance drivers would be considered crown employees.

There were others who pursued this same line of reasoning. One, for example, was the Kingston-Frontenac children's aid society, a case which again the government lost and a case which I'd like to give a little bit of background on for the people in the House, because this really does bring to the attention of everyone what Bill 169 is about and what some of the dilemmas were.

In 1990 the Canadian Union of Public Employees launched a legal challenge against the province of Ontario in an effort to have the Kingston-Frontenac children's aid society workers designated as employees of the province for the purposes of pay equity. This was slightly different from the ambulance attendants, because the ambulance attendants were seeking the status of crown employees not just for the purposes of pay equity but for bargaining purposes.

Here you had a situation where the Kingston-Frontenac children's aid society was arguing that, for the purposes of pay equity, its child care workers, workers who were referred to by the parliamentary assistant as being assisted by the legislation that's tabled today -- they were challenging the government, and the reason for their challenge was so that they could compare themselves in a larger establishment, because under the legislation "establishment" is defined on the basis of who the employer is. That's quite technical, so therefore who your employer is is very important in this development of a pay equity plan.

At the time, the review officer agreed with CUPE and made the Kingston-Frontenac children's aid society workers government employees for the purposes of pay equity. The government appealed the decision and eventually lost its case before the pay equity hearings tribunal on September 14, 1992.

It's quite interesting, and I can go into the decision, but what the tribunal's decision really meant, and this is what's important, is that CUPE and the ministry -- in this case it was the Ministry of Community and Social Services -- had to negotiate a pay equity plan for these workers using civil service job comparisons as the relative comparator. That was a very significant finding as the pay equity plan stood, because it quite considerably broadened the concept of who was the employer. I will state today, very clearly, that it was never the intention of the original legislation for province-wide job comparison, and there was an understanding that each employer would develop a separate pay equity plan.

It was also never contemplated that every transfer payment partner, that every hospital, that every municipality, that every university, that every school board employee would, for the purposes of pay equity, be considered a provincial employee. It was never contemplated that the ambulance workers and the child care workers and all of those mental health workers and so forth who are funded completely in their programs by the provincial government but employed, under our view, by a community-based board often or by a corporate entity such as the public hospitals are would all, for the purposes of pay equity, be considered provincial employees.

There was one case that I found particularly interesting because it's one that the member for Ottawa Centre -- and I see that she's in the House right now -- and I had some experience with together. This was the case of the Haldimand-Norfolk nurses' association.

For the clarification of the Speaker and members of the House, the situation of the Haldimand-Norfolk nurses was identical to the situation of the Kingston-Frontenac children's aid society and it was identical in many respects to the case that was being made by the ambulance attendants. The difference was in that particular situation that the board of health, which was technically and, in my view, appropriately the employer of those nurses, launched a challenge because it wanted to determine who in fact was the employer.

ONA and the nurses were arguing that the provincial government was their employer because the provincial government largely funded and set the work rules under the Health Promotion and Protection Act for the public health unit, not only in Brant-Haldimand but for all public health units across the province. The Ontario Nurses' Association was making the case that in fact the province should be considered the employer and that the Brant-Haldimand nurses should be able to compare themselves with other employees who were not just members of the public health unit, but should, for example, be able to compare themselves with the police. They were arguing, I believe, that it wasn't the province of Ontario that was the employer but that it was in fact the municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk that was the employer. So there were some differences in that particular case.

1830

But because of the province's interest in having the definitions clarified, the province, as a funding partner with the board of health and with the health unit, was sharing the funding for the court case for the appeal on the basis of having the definition clarified for the purposes of pay equity.

The reason I'm telling this story is that one of the very first things the NDP argued during the election campaign in the summer of 1990, after having questioned it and argued forcefully in this Legislature that it was a terrible thing that the provincial government was assisting in the funding of the court case in Haldimand-Norfolk, one of the very first things the member for Ottawa Centre, Ms Gigantes, did upon becoming Minister of Health was announce that she was withdrawing the funding support for the municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk in its case against the nurses. She said quite clearly and left the impression with the nurses that the reason she was doing this was that she was very supportive of the nurses in their quest to be able to compare themselves with a broader spectrum of employees, those either employed by the municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk or in fact provincial employees, if that was the ultimate decision.

Yet we see Bill 169, after that grandiose and, I would say, grand stand by the former Minister of Health, who I think left a very clear impression with the nurses in this province, left a very clear impression with the nurses' association in this province, that their policy was going to be significantly different from the policy of the previous government and that their actions would be significantly different. That was the impression that was left. We find today under Bill 169 that, having grandstanded, made all kinds of commitments and statements of intent, both spoken and unspoken, to the nurses in this province, Bill 169 says effectively to the Ontario Nurses' Association: "It doesn't matter what the decision will be of future tribunals. We, the government of Ontario, will determine unilaterally when we are the employer and when we are not the employer."

This legislation actually removes the opportunity for future appeals and future arguments, not only for the nurses but for the Kingston and Frontenac child care workers, and has implications that go far beyond what I believe the women of this province, particularly those who believed the NDP and believed Bob Rae and thought they might do what they said they were going to do -- but here again, as we've seen so often, the words and the deeds, the music and the lyrics don't match. You wonder why people are disappointed; you wonder why people are cynical.

When the parliamentary assistant stands up and in very glowing terms reads the remarks that have been given to her to again tell women about all the wonderful things this government's doing for them, she didn't mention the fact that they are planning to delay implementation of this legislation. She didn't mention the fact that Bill 169 actually takes away from those groups that have won decisions, that it actually takes away what they have won before the tribunals.

In fact, what it says to me and to many of the women and the women's organizations that thought they were going to benefit under an NDP government's pay equity plan is that not only have they begun to very seriously question the commitment of this NDP government, this Bob Rae government, but they are feeling deceived and betrayed.

I'm hopeful that in this debate the member for Ottawa Centre will speak on this issue and explain herself to the nurses of this province whom she so eloquently claimed to champion for the short time when she was the ill-fated Minister of Health in this province, whom she, I would say with respect, has disappointed so terribly by not telling them what this government was really going to do and leaving them with the impression that it was going to allow the Haldimand-Norfolk outcome to stand unchallenged and unchanged. That's what she did. She left them with that impression.

She told them she was taking away government support for Haldimand-Norfolk in their challenge and she never went back and said: "We've changed our mind. We now understand what the problem is. It is impossible for everybody who is funded by the provincial government to be considered a provincial employee. We made a mistake. That's not what we meant. We didn't understand. We were new," or just simply, "I was wrong." We never heard any of those statements coming from any member of those benches.

We never heard those statements coming from the ministers; we never heard those statements coming from those people who made commitments and promises which they are not keeping. I will say to them that this is what integrity is all about. Integrity is having the guts to stand up and say: "I was wrong. I made a mistake." Integrity is being able to stand up and say: "I may have left you with that impression. I'm really sorry, because I really didn't understand." That's the kind of integrity it takes to get people to have trust and confidence in those of us who are in public office. When we tell them one thing and do the opposite, it tarnishes us all.

I remember that it wasn't any fun engaging in those debates and having to argue for incremental change and having to argue that pay equity legislation was landmark legislation and needed time to be implemented in an orderly way that would allow for the adjustments required. Yes, women had waited a long time for equity, and yes, we all wished that we could have seen the implementation of this legislation with a snap of the fingers, but the reality of this world is that very little happens with a snap of the fingers.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): The Liberals had five years.

Mrs Caplan: I hear the member opposite talking about the fine Liberal record over five years in disparaging terms. I will say to him that it will be with pride that I match our five years in government and our achievements in public policy development and our commitment to equity and fairness with five years of Bob Rae and the NDP government in 1995. I will say to him that the people will judge. They will take a look at the Agenda for People and then they'll look at Bob Rae's record. They'll take a look at what you said when you were in opposition and what you did when you became the government.

Do you know something? I suggest to the people on the government benches that they will pay the ultimate price at the polls because the people of Ontario are fed up. They are fed up with empty promises. They are fed up with empty rhetoric. They don't like anybody who's going to tell them one thing and then do something else. They deserve better than that. I said that the best thing about democracy is that there's always another election.

1840

I happen to have some quotes from some of the women who are very disappointed in the NDP commitments and are actually questioning its commitment to equity and to pay equity.

In December 1992, the Minister of Labour announced that they were going to be putting off implementation until 1998. These are the amendments that were promised in throne speeches. These are the amendments that the NDP said were a priority for it. They have now been put off until 1998. The work we are doing here today on Bill 102 is really work that could wait for quite some time, but the reason I believe this government has lumped Bill 102 together with Bill 169 is that it wants Bill 169 and it wants it today so that it will be able to determine the employee status.

The rest of Bill 102 really could wait, because it's not going to be implemented until 1998. This government wants to be able to pass the legislation and say: "You see, we've done it. We've lived up to our commitment." But women are not going to be deceived. The women in this province understand and will know that the NDP and Bob Rae are telling them one thing and doing something very different.

Miss McCuaig said on behalf of her group and other women's groups that they had been assured repeatedly by the NDP that full pay equity was, and this article quoted, a "priority." They are worried because they know the NDP is not living up to that commitment.

I remember as though it happened yesterday, when this government changed some two and a half years ago, that it stated that the commitment to move to proportional value comparison was not sufficient. They were going to move and do that, and further proxy comparators. What we heard the parliamentary assistant say today is: "We are going to put all of that off. We are going to look at it and study it." It'll be in the legislation, but I say to the women of this province, do not be deceived. Understand exactly what this NDP government is doing. The 420,000 women who would have benefited by a proportional value amendment, which we have included in Bill 102, will now have to wait three years longer than what Bob Rae promised them.

I find it interesting that they've chosen the three-year mark. I've become a bit of a cynic too. Like the rest of the people in this province, I expected this was going to be an election promise by the NDP, that it would implement, three years from now, just about the time we're heading into an election -- that they are going to restate their commitment to implement pay equity.

I can understand why people are so cynical. I can understand that because these are the same people who two years ago and three years ago and four years ago said, "The women in this province should not have to wait." They said then, "Do it now." Now that they are the government, they're putting this off beyond the next election. To me that is crass, cynical politics at its worst, and I'm ashamed that the government of Bob Rae would try to use the women in this province in that way.

I suggest that they will not be able to get away with it, that the women in this province will not be duped. All we have to do is take a look at many of the other promises this government has made that it has reneged on. This is just one more in a litany of broken promises. They've broken their commitment on so many of the things they promised in the Agenda for People, which we now know is in the shredder.

I would like to speak for a few minutes as well, if I may, on Bill 102, because it's interesting to see when this bill was finally tabled, especially when you compare it to when Bill 169 was tabled. Bill 169 is An Act to amend the Public Service Act and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, which deals primarily with the declaration of who is the employer. This was tabled December 18, 1991. Shortly after, within that first year, the priority for this government was to go back on its word to the nurses, to the child care workers, to all those people whom they championed and supported and misled.

I will say it clearly: I know that is a provocative word in this House, but if you look at the record, the nurses, the child care workers, the ambulance attendants can come to no other conclusion than that as a result of those cases this government moved, and moved fairly quickly, to change the definition of "employer." In December 1991, within one year of taking office, Bill 169 is there to make a change that nobody would have ever believed the NDP would have done.

Then, when do we see Bill 102 fulfilling their commitment on pay equity to the women of this province, doing what they said they were going to do in the Agenda for People, doing what they promised in the election of the summer of 1990, one full year after Bill 169 was tabled for the first time? On November 26, 1992, we see Bill 102 tabled for the first time, a full year later.

Why have they chosen to deal with these two pieces of legislation together? I've answered that question. As I say, I too am disappointed in the policies of Bob Rae. I too am disappointed and somewhat disgusted that they say one thing and they do the other. I am speaking for the women of this province who trusted Bob Rae and trusted the NDP that they would not turn their backs on their commitments to equity for women. But in fact that's exactly what the NDP has done. They've done it in quite an insidious way and they've also sent, I think, a very important message by tabling these two pieces of legislation one full year apart.

It's interesting also that we are going to see these bills now out to committee over this intersession, and this is the second reading debate. It's interesting because Bill 169 has been on the books now for well over a year. It's also interesting because Bill 102 is a relatively new piece of legislation, but before it's even gone to the committee, the Minister of Labour and the government have said: "We're not going to implement it. We're not going to implement the provisions of pay equity that would benefit women. We're going to delay it by three years."

I thought that was interesting because they made these announcements even before this bill has had second reading. They made this announcement even before this bill has gone to committee.

Now there is much in Bill 102 to commend it. I believe that there are many aspects and features of Bill 102 which respond to the initial piece of legislation, which, as I said, nobody could have expected would have been perfect because any landmark and new piece of legislation must be tested to see how it is working.

It is very common and very reasonable to expect to see amendments coming after you have had a piece of legislation that has been in place for a few years. That's the way the legislative process works. That's the way new legislation evolves and is developed. Anyone who is telling you the truth and sharing with you the facts of the legislative process will tell you that it is very rare that any piece of legislation is perfect, even if it's a housekeeping amendment or a drafting error.

1850

Those people who expect that there will be no amendments at committee because a piece of legislation is so perfect are often very surprised to find out that there are many, many amendments at the committee level. I expect that we will see many amendments to this piece of legislation. There will be a number of amendments at committee when we are dealing with these pieces of legislation. But the important thing is that there will be committee hearings.

I believe that, in principle, these pieces of legislation are worthy of support. I am not satisfied with the way the government intends to implement many of its policies and I would also suggest to people who are watching this debate that the committee time is a very good time to really understand what the government is attempting to achieve. If you have a concern about it, you may write the committee or come in and ask to be heard. That's an important part of the public policy development process.

These pieces of legislation, as I said, are very significant. Pay equity in Ontario was introduced by the Liberal government. It is a piece of legislation which I believe is in need of some amendments and some change. I would also say that I think it is important for the government of Ontario to properly be able to plan, to properly be able to manage its resources and designate who its employees are. That is the reason our government was looking at the results of those test cases to determine what was an appropriate way of doing that without disadvantaging any of those people we wanted to see benefit under our pay equity legislation.

I want to be very clear about that. I'm not arguing against the policy. I'm arguing against the way this NDP government presented its policy. I'm arguing against the way it told people what it was going to do to and then, with this legislation, is doing something very different. They left the very clear impression that they were going to not change the definition of employer. They left the very clear impression that they were not going to intervene and make it more difficult for women to compare themselves with a broader spectrum of employees. They left the impression, when it came to the implementation of the proxy comparator, that it would be done at the same time as the proportional comparator.

That's what you told people and that was not true. That's not what you've done. It was wrong for you to raise people's expectations and tell them that's what you were going to do. It was wrong because it betrayed their trust in all of us. From time to time we will have differences of opinion and engage in partisan rhetoric, but at the bottom line, for all of us who enter public life, it is important that we maintain that public trust by ensuring that we are as honest as we can be.

I've always tried to do that when I represent the people of the riding of Oriole and I would implore Bob Rae, his NDP ministers and his NDP government caucus to please try to do better in the future. Stop the rhetoric. Stop telling people you're going to do one thing when you are going to do the opposite.

I would also say to them, if you get information that suggests that your policy is nuts or is going to be destructive to the province of Ontario or your ideology has run rampant and socialism is outdated and tilting your policies towards labour leadership is going to destroy confidence in this province, have the guts to stand up and say, "We were wrong." Have the guts to come clean with the people of this province and tell them the truth.

The reason I am so distressed and upset is that pay equity is a perfect example of what you shouldn't be doing in communicating to people and raising their expectations, telling them one thing and then doing the opposite.

I could go on at some length, but there have been a number of people who wish to participate in this debate. The House is planning to rise and, I understand, prorogue in the very near future, so I understand that the House leaders have made an agreement that we would deal with the two bills, Bill 169 and Bill 102, together and that our two critics could share our time for leadoff speakers, which is normally an hour and a half. I would therefore ask for unanimous consent that Ms Poole, the member for Eglinton, take up the remaining time for the leadoff speech in the normal rotation. If we have that unanimous consent, I will yield the floor.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The member for Oriole has asked for unanimous consent for Ms Poole to share the lead time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the request be granted?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would give our Progressive Conservative Party's consent to that proposal as long as the same principle applies to our party as well. I believe Mr Carr and I would be speaking.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? The honourable member has agreement. Now we proceed in the normal order for questions and/or comments.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Just a couple of comments. I think the statement of the member for Oriole has been somewhat overexuberant in many aspects. I'd like to remind the member for Oriole that if we go back in our memories to the period of 1985 when, for the first time in 42 years in Ontario, a government other than a Conservative government was formed, it was the members of the NDP caucus who at that point made it a point of insistence in order for the Liberals to be able to form a government that the Liberal government would have to proceed with pay equity. Our commitment to pay equity is long-lasting. It was the commitment which got this province moving on pay equity. I think the member for Oriole should both acknowledge that and accept that our commitment is a genuine one.

When she talks about the understanding of how we would proceed as we moved to carry out election promises to extend the pay equity legislation of this province to the hundreds of thousands of women who have not been covered by the old legislation, you would think that nothing in this province had changed in the last two years. You would think that times were booming in this province, that it was perfectly acceptable in this province that we could allow a system just to move out without having any discipline and that the public coffers would respond like that to it.

A lot has changed, and the member for Oriole should open her eyes, look around and understand that the women of this province understand that change has happened and that they know that when we extend the legislation, even though it will take a longer period of time, they're going to get pay equity, when they didn't have it under Liberal legislation.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel.

1900

Mr Tilson: I was not going to respond to the member for Oriole's comments until I heard the Minister of Housing comment with direct criticism to her. Although I'm as critical as she is of the Liberal Party, I would remind the New Democratic Party, which is are putting forward this legislation, exactly what its promise was in the agenda for power.

Specifically, on page 4 of that document they talked about pay equity and they talked about the Liberal pay equity bill and they said that:

"The Liberal pay equity bill, passed in June, 1987, excludes hundreds of thousands of women, many of whom, such as garment workers and child care workers, are among the lowest-paid workers in the province.

"New Democrats would pass legislation that covers all women. The cost to the government of eliminating current exemptions is estimated to be $60 million."

That's what the New Democratic agenda for power says. But now we're in the debate of Bill 102, and what she forgot to say was that her legislation isn't treating all women the same, that we're going to have exactly one sector, the private sector, that's going to be dealt with now. For the public sector we're now talking about 1998, according to the announcement from the Minister of Labour. Already the promises that have been made by this government on probably one of its major planks, the protection of women in this society, are just thrown out the window.

So the member for Oriole is correct, although I obviously didn't agree with her philosophy when she was in power. Her comments today are quite timely. You people stood up and made these promises during the election. This was in August of 1990 prior to the election. Well, read it. There it is in black and white. You're contradicting your election promises. The people, and particularly the women in this province, don't trust you.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Sudbury.

Ms Murdock: I want to comment on the comments made by the member for Oriole because, first of all, this is not being implemented in 1998. In fact, it is being implemented on January 1, 1993, and must be completed by 1998, so there is no question that it is being delayed by three years, as the member has wrongly stated. The second phase for proxy comparison starts January 1, 1994.

I would also like to say that if there was no commitment by this government to do this, then these bills would not be the priority they have been in the House leader's negotiations in order to get this done before this House rises, because we want this to be law. The previous government, admittedly, put job-to-job comparisons into the Pay Equity Act very well. However, they did not go any further. Proportional comparison and proxy comparison were not even looked at. Nothing was proceeded with. We are putting it in law, it will be law and it will not be allowed to be put off by us when we win the next election or by any other government that comes after us.

You're right that women will not be duped. You're absolutely right, and we're going to see that those bills become legislation so that they cannot be duped. We said we were going to do it in our Agenda for People and we are doing it in the first session in which we sit.

The Acting Speaker: One final participant.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have to really disagree with the comments of the member for Ottawa Centre.

The Acting Speaker: I must remind the honourable member we're dealing with the member for Oriole's presentation.

Ms Poole: Yes. When dealing with the member for Oriole's comments she was perfectly correct in saying that this government has betrayed its promise to the women in this province. When the government says that, "We're in different economic times," let me remind the members in the government that when this legislation was brought in in December of 1991 Ontario was in a deep recession. They knew the economic picture, they knew there was a huge deficit, and yet they brought the legislation in and they said to women, "We are going to do this because we believe in it." Yet month after month, day after day we had them stalling on it saying, "Well, it's the economy." They knew the straits of the economy. They knew what kind of money was required for pay equity. For them now to cry poor mouth and say they don't have the money just doesn't wash.

When the members say outrageous things, such as that they are doing it in the first session possible, let me remind you that this government, in the speech from the throne in November 1990, promised that they were bringing in pay equity. The next month I said, "Where is your pay equity?" Finally, over a year later, in December 1991, they introduced the bill and they let it sit.

People out there are very disillusioned. Like I said, they were promised this was coming, and we are now over two years since they made that promise that they were bringing it in, and this member has the nerve to say they brought it in in the first session possible.

This government is just full of it. They aren't telling the people the way it is.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Oriole has two minutes in response.

Mrs Caplan: I know the member for Sudbury was not in the House between 1987 and 1990, but I would tell her that there was a ministerial statement of an announcement by the Minister of Labour at that time -- it was actually in 1990 -- announcing many of the amendments that are contained in Bill 102 that it took this government two years to table, particularly the amendment on proportional value. That was announced and stated early in 1990 --

Hon Ms Gigantes: You had five years. Why couldn't you get it together in five years in good times?

Mrs Caplan: -- that that was the intention of the government, that was the policy of the government, and it was the member for Ottawa Centre and many of the members from the NDP government who stood in their place and said that wasn't good enough; told the people, the women of this province, "Elect us the government and we'll do better," and in fact they haven't; they've done worse. They are not even going to be able to implement the pay equity plan that is in place.

Hon Ms Gigantes: We're going to get it done.

Mrs Caplan: Further, I would say to the member for Ottawa Centre that the women of this province will not be deceived by her rhetoric. They are furious, frustrated and angry. They know it is the NDP's economic policies that have delayed economic recovery. They know equity can only be achieved in good, buoyant economic times when there is the confidence and the resources that will allow for these kinds of important public policy measures to be implemented in a fiscally responsible way. Women understand that. What they don't understand is that they have an NDP government that tells them one thing and does something which is very, very different and that stands here today more interested in the credit than the cash.

I was the first one in this House to acknowledge that there were many people in this House committed to the principles of pay equity, including the member for Ottawa Centre. I don't question her motivation; I question her competence.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: This evening we are debating two bills at the same time, Bill 102, which was introduced by Mr Mackenzie, which is An Act to amend the Pay Equity Act, and the second reading of Bill 169, which is An Act to amend the Public Service Act and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, which was introduced by Mr Silipo. I will be restricting my comments to Bill 102 and allowing my colleagues to debate 169.

Employment -- pay equity is a subject that --

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Employment's very important too.

Mr Tilson: Employment is indeed very important, and I think that is what this of course is all about, dealing specifically with employment, and that has been the disparity between men and women over the years. Probably the gap has been expanding, and I think all three parties, the Liberal Party, in spite of its faults in the last time it was in power, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party, are all concerned with that subject. We've all made those statements at different times, and I think you pick up any pieces of literature dealing on that subject and it's a general concern of all of us, how are we going to stop that gap between the unfairness of the high wages men are earning and the lower wages women are making. It's a problem this government has put forward in this bill and its predecessor, which is Bill 168.

There's no question, when you pick up such pamphlets -- the one I have before me is the pamphlet that's put out by the Pay Equity Commission. I'm not too sure of the date of it, but the information that I would relay was as accurate when it was written as it is now. It talks about why we need pay equity and, "Doesn't Ontario already have equal pay laws?" I'd just like to quote from those two sections, because that explains the spirit of all three political parties when we are trying to work to solve this problem.

1910

The first comment is, "Why do we need pay equity?"

"In 1986, the average salary for a full-time working woman in Ontario was $20,710. The average salary for a man working full time was $32,120. At that time -- "and this was 1986" -- there was a 36% difference between the rates paid to men and women and that difference is called the wage gap," which is a term all of us have used.

"Studies have shown that nearly one quarter to one third of the wage gap results from so-called women's work not being valued or paid as highly as men's work. Pay equity, which reflects 87% of working women in Ontario, seeks to eliminate this portion of the wage gap."

Clearly, that's what this government is trying to do, to eliminate the wage gap. I refer to what its promise was during the last election in the Agenda for People, and I will be referring to that again, because I really don't believe this government has honoured its commitment to the people of Ontario, and particularly the women of Ontario, by its specific policies that it is following today.

The question is asked, "Doesn't Ontario already have equal pay laws?"

"Yes. Equal pay for equal work is not the same as pay equity. Under equal pay for equal work, all employees performing similar jobs must be paid the same. For example, electricians in the same workplace must be paid the same, regardless of their sex. Pay equity, on the other hand, requires employers to pay men and women the same for jobs that are different but are of similar value, a secretary and a grounds keeper, for example. It's the difference between comparing apples with apples and comparing apples with oranges," all of which statements have been made by all of us at different times in this House and outside this House. The question is, how are we going to solve it, particularly in these difficult times?

I will be commenting on Bill 102 very briefly soon, but the difficulty that I and members on this side of the House have as we're proceeding with trying to solve this wage gap is the sudden realization of this government that it doesn't have, in these recessionary times, the ability to solve it as fast as it wanted to. Therefore, the minister made an announcement that those women in the public sector -- and I correct the member for Sudbury when she commented that this bill was not going to wait until 1998. The fact of the matter is that we have two groups of women. We have women in the public sector and we have women in private sector and they're not being treated the same.

When I say that, then I turn to the Agenda for People, which is the document the New Democratic Party has relied on, the party itself, when it meets in conventions and when it meets in this House. All of a sudden that policy isn't being followed. But this is what they said, and I'll read it again. I did read it when I was responding to the comments made by the member for Oriole.

"The Liberal pay equity bill, passed in June 1987, excludes hundreds of thousands of women -- many of whom, such as garment workers and child care workers, are among the lowest-paid workers in the province. New Democrats would pass legislation that covers all women."

I emphasize the words "all women." Does this legislation cover all women? The answer is, it doesn't. It covers the private sector. In the legislation, the philosophy that we're looking for is for them to honour their promise and solve this wage gap for all women, and they're not doing that.

I continue reading from the document, Agenda for People: "The cost to the government of eliminating current exemptions is estimated to be $60 million." That's the very short passage that is referred to in the document Agenda for People, which members of this government carried around with them, all of the candidates who were running for office and all of the members of the New Democratic Party, when they were running for office.

It is referred to in this document, and this is what they said: "This is how we're going to solve the problems in this province," and they referred specifically to pay equity. The question is, have they done it? Clearly they haven't.

When you start referring to what has been going on recently, the Treasurer has acknowledged the fiscal problems of this province. The revenue isn't coming in. Job losses are unbelievable. Companies are closing down. We're in a terrible recession. The government can't make ends meet. Why in the world do they think private enterprise is going to make ends meet?

They're cutting back on hospitals. They're cutting back on the municipalities. They're cutting back on school boards. They're cutting back on colleges and universities. Tuition fees are going to go up because of the policies of this government. So they say everybody else is going to have to toe the line. They're going to have to cut back, and therefore the whole philosophy of pay equity, with respect to the public sector, is being delayed.

But with respect to the private sector, they're right on stream and they're going to ram it through with those businesses, notwithstanding the fact of the job losses and notwithstanding the unbelievable unemployment and terrible feeling that this recession is making in the working people of this province and the people who are trying to get the economy in this province moving again.

At the end of November, of course, the minister made his announcement as to what he's going to do with the public sector. I think it's important that we revisit those words that the minister made, when we're debating Bill 102, because Bill 102 does not cover all women.

There are two articles from the Toronto newspapers, and they essentially say the same thing. One is the Toronto Star and one is the Toronto Sun. They both refer to the announcements that were made by the minister previously, and the concerns that the women in the public sector have and the feeling of despair they have. They counted on you people. They really did. They thought you were going to support them on this, and yet you're not.

One article is by Peter Small of the Toronto Star. It was reported on November 27. "Tough times mean at least 420,000 working women will have to wait three years longer than promised for full pay equity," the New Democratic government announced.

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): You wouldn't have had it at all if it wasn't for us.

Mr Tilson: Listen, the fact of the matter is that you promised all women in this province that there would be pay equity in this province, and the fact of the matter is that you haven't honoured your promise. The article continues with a quote from the Labour minister, Mr Mackenzie: "'Our resolve has not weakened, but the economy has,' said Labour minister Bob Mackenzie in announcing a delay in promised amendments to the Pay Equity Act."

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): How about 42 years ago?

Mr Tilson: Listen, don't talk about 42 years. We're now talking in 1992. If you're going to heckle, get in your right seat. I'm simply saying -- I'm sorry; I addressed the wrong member. You're both up there yattering away. But I'm simply saying that we're not talking about what happened 42 years ago; we're talking about the promises you made to people and the women of this province. You're not honouring them, and this is the most flagrant example of a breach of promise. You're not fit to govern if you're going to make these irresponsible promises and then just revoke them.

Mr Mackenzie, in a quote in the Toronto Star: "'Our resolve has not weakened, but the economy has,' said Labour minister Bob Mackenzie in announcing a delay in promised amendments to the Pay Equity Act." Isn't that wonderful doublespeak? You know, we're going to carry on, but we're going to delay it. Yet Bill 102 is right on schedule. The heck with business in this province.

We turn on the television, and particularly the labour leaders and the parliamentary assistant and others connected with the Minister of Labour talk about the wonderful business partnership that's being formed between labour and business in this province. We have never seen those two groups further apart than they are now, never. How in the world are you going to make this province get moving when you keep having the adversarial system and you're making that whole process -- they're hating each other. Why? Because of your crazy legislation and because of your contradictory legislation. So Mr Mackenzie saying, "Our resolve has not weakened, but the economy has" -- their resolve has weakened. They're not honouring their commitment to all women in this province.

1920

I'm continuing on with this article:

"The NDP had vowed to extend the law to thousands of women in the broader public sector who weren't already covered because they work in facilities -- such as hospitals and day care centres -- that lack direct male counterparts against which their wages can be compared." What doubletalk. What doublespeak. It doesn't make any sense.

The fact of the matter is that they realize they have to delay it, because this government will go bankrupt. It's probably bankrupt now. Yet they think that all the private enterprise that is going to be forced by Bill 102 to honour this schedule that's set forth of company size, employees starting January 1, 1991, to January 1, 1994, is going to be honoured. They say: "Plow ahead. It doesn't matter whether you're going bankrupt or whether you're pulling up and going to the United States. You've got to do it."

Carrying on with Mr Small's brief report on the minister's announcement to abandon the women in the public sector, "Those women -- who now won't get full pay equity until 1998, instead of 1995 as originally promised -- said they feel 'insulted' and will take their fight for fair wages to the steps of the Legislature."

They've been here. Big deal. Have they listened? Here we are debating just moments before Christmas and a large portion of the women in this province are not going to receive, are not going to have the results of that promise that was made by this government during the election.

They then give a quote by Kerry McCuaig, who is the executive director of the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care. She says:

"'We've accepted their'" -- referring to the NDP -- "'word and we've been polite for far too long,' said Kerry McCuaig, executive director of the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, which represents 14,000 women in non-profit child care centres.

"'The only way to be heard now is to make a fuss,' she said, adding the coalition is organizing a protest with other groups."

If they are consistent, and I suspect they will be consistent, I hate to tell you, Ms McCuaig, if you're out there listening, that these people won't listen to you. They're plowing ahead, notwithstanding the contradictory stances they've been taking in this House.

The article from the Toronto Sun is similar. I don't know who wrote it; there's no name. But it's a report on the same announcement of the minister. It was made the same day. I'm going to refer briefly to it. The member for Eglinton I believe will be pleased because she's quoted in this article, and she's probably going to quote it herself, but I'll save her the time.

It talks about, "The province will delay implementing its $1-billion pay equity plans by three years, says Labour Minister Bob Mackenzie." November 26, on this Bill 102 which we are now in the process of debating, "Mackenzie yesterday introduced legislation that allows the government to defer pay equity costs by extending the deadline in the public sector from 1995 to 1998."

Then he gives the same quote that Mr Small referred to, saying, "Our resolve has not weakened, but the economy has." I say your resolve has weakened. You haven't honoured your commitment set forth in An Agenda for People. You aren't treating all of the women in this province the same. There's no other way of looking at it. You can talk about 1995. The fact is, you've got two different sets of dates for two different sets of women, and either you're going to treat all of the women in this province the same or you're not.

"The government announced last December it would extend pay equity to cover another 420,000 women -- 193,000 in the public sector and 227,000 in the private sector.

"A Labour ministry spokesman said the new law will save the province $45 million of the $285 million set aside for pay equity this fiscal year." That just tells you in a nutshell what this government thinks of the women in the public sector of this province.

Here they referred to the member for Eglinton, and I'll quote it -- maybe she'll put me in her newsletter. "Liberal MPP Dianne Poole said the delay will cost the NDP its credibility in dealing with the issue of protecting women." And she's right. She's absolutely right. I hate to admit it because I don't like agreeing with her quite often. We've had many sessions together and it does bother me when I do agree with her, but I do agree with her on this specific point.

It continues on quoting the member for Eglinton, Dianne Poole. "She charged the NDP has known it couldn't keep its pay equity promises since unveiling the plans." And again she's right. Two points for the member for Eglinton.

The fact of the matter is it gets back to this whole issue of keeping your word. You run for office. The people of this province have become so disillusioned. There's no question. You'll stand up and say: "What about the Tories in Ottawa? What about Mr Bush?" They keep coming as we speak, and there's no question. All of this isn't your fault. There is a worldwide recession. But then you start comparing policies in this province to what's going on around us, what's going on in other provinces. There's more unemployment in this province than the rest of Canada. Why is that?

It gets back to a question I often ask the members of the government. If you wanted to invest in this province, if you wanted to start up a new business, you'd look at taxes. You'd look at labour laws. You'd look at the existing businesses. People are holding on by their fingertips. The government's holding on by its fingertips, which is why it's delaying this legislation.

I simply say: "Treat all women the same. Don't have one group in the public sector different from one group in the private sector." Again, it's that whole antagonistic feeling. It's the whole issue of fairness.

Finally, there have been protests, there have been press conferences. The Equal Pay Coalition, which I referred to, did hold a press conference on this subject and it's very concerned. There's a quote that was given in the Toronto Star on December 1 that expresses the frustration of the women in this province who have counted on this government to protect their rights, to honour the commitment that was made in An Agenda for People. I'm going to quote very briefly from that article as well. I'll only refer to three on this particular subject.

"Women's groups from across the province have vowed to hold the New Democratic government to its pledge of full pay equity -- and they want it sooner rather than later.

"Representatives of the Equal Pay Coalition, an alliance of women's organizations and unions representing about a million people, told a news conference yesterday" -- this would have been the last day of November -- "they will lobby Premier Bob Rae to introduce immediately legislative amendments to the Pay Equity Act that Queen's Park has decided to put off until 1998."

Again, the member for Sudbury says, "Oh, it's not 1998; that isn't what this bill says." You're right, that isn't what this bill says, but the very fact of the matter is that you've got people in the public sector who now have to wait until 1998. You've put it all off. There's no other way about it. They are treating women differently in this province, and the whole issue of treating everybody the same, particularly on this issue, has been thrown down the tubes.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): What, you want us to speed it up now?

Mr Tilson: I'm just simply asking you to honour your commitments and be fair.

"The amendments would extend the principle of equal pay for work of equal value to public sector women not previously covered because they work in centres like hospitals and day care that lack male counterparts whose jobs and wages can be compared with theirs. At least 420,000 women would be affected" -- I repeat, 420,000 women. They say, "Oh, well, they can wait until 1998."

1930

A quote from Pat Bird, who represents one of the people who appeared at this press conference:

"The economic analysis that says the deficit is the overall priority is a big mistake.The Catholic Church has revised its catechism of sins and one of the changes declares that paying unfair wages is now theft. That is the core -- "

Interjection: Finally.

Mr Tilson: Well, finally, and yet you continue to be contradictory in this whole subject. You keep saying you're holding the torch for women. Well, the torch has fallen. It's gone out. That's what's happened in this province and it's because of this New Democratic Party, the people who have broken their promises from the last election.

Ms Bird continues: "That is the core of what the government is doing -- and it's not petty theft. It is allowing employers to continue stealing from women." She's worried about the signal the NDP decision will send to the business community. "I am concerned that private sector employers will now use the excuse of restraint to pay unfair wages."

That's assuming they're still around. Businesses do operate -- not like this government, of course; it doesn't seem to have any fiscal plan. Their deficit just keeps going higher and higher. They've got an endless supply of money with all the strange philosophies and policies that they can implement. Yet for businesses, if that gets too high, they're cut off. The banks cut them off. They're gone. They're foreclosed on. So long. Farewell. They're out of here. They're either on the bread lines collecting social assistance or they've left the country. Or they've left the province. Many of them aren't leaving the country; they're leaving the province for a more healthy economic area than what is going on in this province.

"Coalition member Kerry McCuaig charged that 'women on the lowest rung of the ladder are once again being told that they don't matter.'" That's what you're saying. You're saying women in this province don't matter. That's what you're saying with your policies on pay equity. She continues by saying, "'There seems to be an assumption out there that there have to be sacrifices that should be equally shared.'"

Of course, you know, the Treasurer has talked about some of his new fiscal policies -- the issue of transfer payments. Do you remember the promise that was made of 1, 2 and 2? Well, now it's 1, 2 and minus 2. That's the percentage of the transfer payments that are being made. It's affecting hospitals. It's affecting school boards. I mean, there's a municipality in my riding, the town of Caledon, where people aren't even paying their taxes. They can't even afford to pay their taxes, and the tax debts that are going -- and I'm sure the town of Caledon isn't any different than the constituents in your ridings. The municipalities are in deep trouble. Why are they in deep trouble? Because people can't afford to pay their taxes. Unbelievable increases in percentages of people who can't pay their taxes.

So the Treasurer says that we're going to have to hold the line, we're going to have to delay this whole issue of pay equity for the public sector, and yet, notwithstanding these tragedies that are going on all around our province, this bill is going to plow ahead; the business community can afford it. He says the business community can afford it, but can they afford it? I mean, my goodness. Look at the statistics of job losses, just business closures and job losses.

You know, there was an announcement that was made back, again, in the latter part of November of a provincial Labour minister report that talked about a record 127 major business closures this year. That was announced in the government report. The provincial Labour minister report says that 23,491 jobs disappeared in the first 10 months of the year as 176 large companies closed or scaled down operations. These are the people who are going to have to be paying for this legislation, people who are going out of business. No wonder the revenue's down. No wonder there's no revenue. No wonder we're in such dire straits in this province compared to what's going on all around us.

Treasury policy assistant Simon Rosenblum said, "The figures are a sign the recession has been deeper and more prolonged than anyone had suspected." The report says 104 companies employing at least 50 workers each shut down their doors from January 1 to October 31, and another 23 served notice that they will close by year's end. Unprecedented. We're in terrible, terrible times, and yet this bill says everything's fine, notwithstanding the fact that revenue is down far lower than what the Treasurer had felt. I suspect that as he stands up more and more we're going to find more and more information as to exactly how terrible the financial state of this government is.

Again, I emphasize, the whole philosophy of this government is that there's lots of money in the government, because we'll just keep spending it. We know the deficit will get higher; it doesn't matter. But private enterprise, which is going to be funding pay equity, Bill 102, what will happen to it? If they don't have the money, they can't provide it. There will be no jobs. The companies will close down, because that's the philosophy on the one hand that the NDP is saying for its own operations, and yet for business, "Oh, the heck with business." We saw what they felt with Bill 40 and some of these other pieces of legislation, though now the most amazing part is Bill 80, where they're going against unions.

Mr Rosenblum also said, "Government forecasters predict modest economic growth next year," and added, "We would be very, very surprised if the numbers don't improve." So this is going to continue; the whole state of job loss, as it appears from the government's own reports, is going to continue; the whole issue of job closings is going to continue.

Problems with seniors: We've just finished debating the long-term care issue and the whole philosophy of the Minister of Health where seniors are going to face health cuts and jumps, and it was indicated in that debate that 33,500 seniors face higher nursing home fees of up to $330 a month under a plan to overhaul Ontario's long-term care system.

You start looking at the information that's gradually coming forward as to the desperate straits that school boards are being put into, which plan, hopefully, far ahead, notwithstanding the very strange policies that are coming out of this government from Mr Silipo on non-fiscal matters. School boards and the administration of school boards are having a very difficult time operating. Again, the philosophy is quite clear with Bill 101: Everything's okay with those guys to do it, but we're not going to do it. Again, it's creating a disparity.

Remember the whole issue from my opening comments: It's called pay equity. Already by passing this bill they're going to have a disparity; they're going to have a disparity between women. The whole subject of pay equity, the whole matter that all three parties have supported, is a contradiction. We were trying to talk about the disparity of pay between men and women. Now we're going to have a disparity between women by your policies.

You look at some of the reports that the Treasurer has gradually talked about in the scrums in the last number of weeks, and there were hints at one point of 63 conceivable ways for Queen's Park to raise money. There's a list revealed of different ways. They're going to sell things. They're going to sell GO buses. They're going to sell things all over the place because they're broke. They're absolutely broke, which is why they made this announcement that they're going to delay pay equity for women in the public sector to 1998. They're broke, and yet they won't acknowledge the fact that people in business are broke, and they're doing nothing about it.

His rationale for this whole thing is, to quote one of the papers, Mr Laughren, the Treasurer, saying, "The recovery is a bit bumpy and slow, so that we still have a lot of problems containing our expenditures in order to meet our fiscal targets." It's fine for him to say that; he's got control of the cards. But business doesn't. They're going to be stuck with all these funny taxes that are coming out. This government has put more taxes than any other government in the history of this province has ever done; even worse than the Liberals, and the Liberals were a disaster. You people went during the last election campaign and talked about what they were like. They're beautiful compared to what you're doing --

[Applause]

Mr Tilson: Well, don't let it go to your head. Finally, it said that the revenues the Treasurer was counting on to pay for the promises they've made, including pay equity, haven't materialized because people and businesses aren't making as much money as the Treasurer had originally hoped. It's taken him two years to come to that conclusion. Doesn't he read the newspapers? Doesn't he read his own provincial reports?

I'm going to close because of my agreement that Mr Carr, from our party, is going to make a few comments. I will close by repeating my thoughts that what this bill is doing is creating the problem it was trying to solve. It was trying to solve the subject of pay equity, but by doing so, you have women making wages up here, up high, and then you have a lower wage scale to the people in the public sector, so that gives me grave concerns that this government has not honoured its promises.

1940

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel. Questions and/or comments?

Ms Murdock: I want to thank the member for Dufferin-Peel for getting into the fray. However, I have to clarify some things for him in regard to the disparity issue he's mentioned.

First of all, I would point out that pay equity in 1987 came into being following the accord with the New Democrats and the Liberals. Second, I would also strongly urge that he look at the difference between the public and private sectors.

Women in the public sector, first of all, have much more stringent requirements. They have to have job-to-job and proportional value comparisons, and they must achieve pay equity by 1998; that's true. They started the job-to-job in 1990 and they're going to start the proportional value comparisons on January 1, 1993.

Women in the private sector, however, have no deadline whatsoever. The only requirement is that the employers must set aside 1% of the payroll from the previous year for pay equity adjustments; there is no deadline.

What I understand from the comments of the member for Dufferin-Peel is that, somehow or other, all women should be lumped in together and that it should be done automatically by one bill. I wish it were that easy. It's been over a year trying to figure out how we're going to do proxy alone.

If we treated the public and the private sectors the same way, we would end up putting a deadline of 1998 on the private sector, and then they would have to come up with all the money and, you're right, bad times for them, bad times for us too. But we'd be putting that kind of restraint on the private sector, and if that's what the Progressive Conservative Party is advocating, then I suppose we could consider it, but he'd have to answer to his corporate friends.

This bill goes some way to strike a balance between fairness to working women and private sector employers. Like I said, 1%; it is not applied to the private sector, there is no deadline, there is only a deadline on the public sector.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to add a couple of comments to my colleague's remarks here this evening. As usual, he has taken a fairly complex issue and cut right through it and put it in very simple terms that we can all understand.

I would reaffirm a lot of what he has said. This government asked the private sector to do things that it cannot do. They have told their transfer partners that they're going to be getting less money. It's kind of ironic that this socialist government blames the federal government for transfer payments, yet its transfer payments proportionately have been less than the federal government's were, which it criticized. That's why people are a little cynical about politicians.

We heard Bob Rae running around criticizing, saying that all the problems of the provincial government were the federal government's fault, and then he turns around and what he did to municipalities, universities, school boards and hospitals is going to hurt the very workers.

And I hear them talking about helping the women of this province. It's very ironic that they gave the nurses big increases and then turned around a year later and laid them all off. In a portion of my riding, in Burlington, the Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital is going to be laying off nurses at a record number. Pay equity won't matter when they're on the unemployment line. You could make it 50%, 100%, you can increase it 200%; it's not going to matter when they're on the unemployment line.

The point we want to get across is that it works the same for the private sector. All these programs, whether it's pay equity, employment equity, environmental assessments, aren't going to matter, because this government is driving jobs out in record numbers. Quite frankly, the people being hurt are the women of this province, who are losing their jobs and going from well-paying jobs to the unemployment line. It's a tragedy.

I compliment the member for his great speech. I hope the other side is going to listen to him.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Chatham-Kent.

Mr Hope: I was just going through Hansard and trying to understand where the Conservative Party was in 1987; that's still hard to understand. But there is something I want to try to understand. I remember a leadership campaign. During the leadership campaign -- or was it during the provincial election? -- the leader of the Conservative Party, the member Mr Harris, made a comment that he would repeal the pay equity legislation because he was not in favour of making sure that women are appropriately paid for their work? I know the member mentioned a three-party agreement in 1987, but I wasn't clear: Was it during the leadership campaign that the current leader of Progressive Conservative Party made that comment or was it during the 1990 election? I wonder if the member opposite could maybe clarify that for me, just so I get a clear understanding of where the people are.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): That's a flip-flop.

Mr Hope: Is that what they call it? I'd just like to know for my own interest, as I had the opportunity to read Hansard and I saw what was said back in 1987 on June 15, and I'm just curious about where the Progressive Conservative Party may be today.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant in questions and/or comments.

Ms Poole: I would like to make a few brief comments on the speech by Mr Tilson, the member for Dufferin-Peel. He has raised a number of valid points. The previous speaker was quite critical of where the Conservatives may stand on this bill, but I don't think you should make light of a number of things that he said.

Right now, it is very difficult for business. We have seen daily that there are bankruptcies. This is really a warning: Any time government comes in and imposes a system, even if it is something we agree with, there has to be a sensitivity to the impact it will have. The best thing that can possibly happen is if employers and employees work together in a very cooperative approach, because if it is imposed without this cooperative approach, it will not work, but I think that can be achieved.

I support pay equity. I am going to vote for this legislation and I'm not ashamed to say it, but at the same time, I say that there are ramifications and that we have to be very careful. We have to be very careful that we do not get bogged down in bureaucracy. We have to be very careful that when the regulations are put in place -- and much of the substance of this bill, actually, will be in regulations -- we must take care that the rules and the time frames are reasonable and that there is this cooperative approach between business, which must implement it, and the employees, who desperately need this pay equity.

I guess the bottom line is that we want this legislation, we must support this legislation. It's not perfect, and we'll talk about that later, but for heaven's sake, don't close your eyes to the fact that it must have some change.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel has two minutes in response.

Mr Tilson: I notice that when the members of the government are desperate, they always point to what somebody did 42 years ago or what the people in Ottawa are doing or what Mr Bush is doing or Mr Clinton is doing. The fact is, we're here talking about Bill 102. There's no question that if you look at the policies of this government on pay equity -- and I'm talking about now. I'm talking about December and what this government has done as a result of the minister's announcements now, not 42 years ago or not last year or not X number of years ago. I'm talking about this bill, and there's no question -- and there's no way the government can get around this unless it changes its philosophy -- that this bill is creating a double standard in that there is one group of people, particularly women, which they are abandoning. I can simply say that in your attempts to solve it -- all very admirable -- you're creating inequity.

1950

I'm simply going to close, if I have a few seconds, by reporting on a letter, which I'm sure will be referred to throughout this debate, from Catherine Swift, who is with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. She says:

"The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is deeply concerned by the double-standard approach of the Ontario government to the issue of pay equity. The announcement yesterday, November 26, to delay the implementation of Bill 168 came complete with the rationale that the economy was too weak at this time."

The groups really haven't had an adequate chance, and I'm sure they're going to come forward at the hearings to do it, but that's the concern that is starting to come out, once they realize that what this government is creating inequity among women of this province.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel for his participation. Further debate?

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): This is quite an intriguing debate, especially some of the things I've heard from the previous speaker. I believe he was saying that this government was in effect not doing enough to help women. Following from that logically, the supposition is that his party certainly would do that.

I put to you, member for Dufferin-Peel, that if we had moved ahead faster with pay equity, if we were pushing this any faster, is there any doubt that you would stand up right here, at this moment, in this House and say, "You are driving business out of this province"? There is absolutely no doubt that they would say that.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would like to remind the honourable member to address her remarks through the Chair, please.

Ms Harrington: I am personally disappointed that pay equity cannot go forward more quickly in this province. I am personally very committed to it, and I believe we all are. It must happen. There's absolutely no doubt that it must happen. Why? Because it is an essential tool in a much bigger picture in our society, a much bigger change; that is, a change in attitudes in our society towards women and towards the disadvantaged, attitudes that have been around for decades, centuries, probably millennia. That is the reason, I believe, for me to be in this House, and I believe that is part of the reason for this government to be here: to redress some of the inequalities that have existed for a very long time, and we must move as quickly as possible.

Pay equity is part of full equity, and what is equity? Equality. What it means to me is some measure of control and some measure of choice in life. This reminds me, going back seven years ago, 1985, of when I was involved with the YWCA. I was the president at that time, and at the annual meetings I had to give a talk about the purpose of that organization. In the city of Niagara Falls, we provided different courses for women but also a residence for women who were in various desperate types of situations. Teaching women life skills, providing a residence and a haven, was in effect to allow these women some control in their lives and some choices in their lives.

I'd like to go back to that era. From the YWCA we had a group, called a social justice committee, which evolved from that. Part of the issues we addressed over the years from 1985 to 1990 were public forums. The first one was about the problem of prostitution. Second, we held one on pay equity, where we invited Shirley Carr. We had one on housing, the desperate situation of housing for women in Niagara Falls. We held one on the socialization of women, that is, the attitudes that women are brought up with, and we had Rosemary Brown come and address the people of Niagara Falls at this public forum. We also more recently held one about pornography. So this group addressed very difficult controversial subjects, and the whole idea was to have women have choices and equality in their life.

Before I get to the bill, I'd like to make one other observation, that another symptom of inequality of women in our society is sexual assault. I see it as a vicious circle, that inequality causes sexual assault or makes that venue flexible enough that people feel they can do that, and sexual assault also causes inequality. So it is a vicious circle.

How and why has inequality been perpetuated in our society? It is lack of economic power, and that's exactly what this bill is here to address. Lack of economic power means you're trivialized in society. It is so important that we have the ability as women to have those choices and controls.

The other point I'd like to make here of the reason inequality is perpetuated is lack of political power. One of my personal goals is that in the very near future, this Legislature would be 50% women, and hopefully this House would function in a better way. I think most of us would support that.

The purpose of this bill is to allow women to have their full potential to strengthen and contribute to our economy. It will benefit our economy to have women's full skills, their creative talents, involved in our economy, and not just in certain segments of the economy.

I'd like to point out also that we must realize a very important point here, that equity does not bring anyone else down. I've heard some white males say that they fear this from our employment equity legislation that we are proposing. There is nothing to fear. Equity, equality, in fact liberates those who have enjoyed the privileged position in society. They need no longer struggle to maintain that artificial position. So both men and women will benefit from initiatives like pay equity and employment equity.

Historically, women have been in certain jobs and job groups such as care giving and service occupations, community service such as mental health service providers and the women who work in women's shelters. I remember at the YWCA that we were trying to work for women's equality and pay equity; at the same time we could not pay our own women employees what we knew they should be paid. It was a very difficult position to be in. These are important jobs. I think people are beginning to realize that, and now as job comparator systems are coming forward, a point system, it does show that these women's jobs compare favourably to men's jobs which are higher paid.

We believe that women's work must be paid fairly. Pay equity represents a basic right of women to equitable, non-discriminatory rates of pay, and it is part of a bigger picture of equity that we are pursuing. I'm very proud of this initiative. I admit that it is a very difficult initiative. It is going against centuries of the way things have been, and that's always difficult, but we must continue.

2000

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Carr: I appreciate the member's comments this evening. I will bring it up because she did: sexual assault. It's interesting that all these people who are concerned about sexual assault and sexual harassment -- where were you during the Piper affair? Your people sat there. What happens during that? Some poor, innocent woman's records -- and where was the member then? When did she speak up to the Premier of this province and say, "That's not right, for somebody in your office to be doing that"? Where was she then? I say this as best I can, without trying to be too partisan: You lose your credibility when you don't stand up all the time.

The same situation comes up with the Masters affair. There's total silence on behalf of this government. We don't know whether he is innocent, guilty, what deals have been made. Where were you, I say to the member, in speaking up to this government when the silence came in on this issue? You can't do it only when you're in opposition and before the election, and then when the election comes and you're elected it just isn't convenient any more, because you lose all credibility.

I think most people respected the NDP before the election for principles. We didn't agree with you, but we thought you had principles. You cannot stand up here and talk about these things and then when your own government does it -- the harassment, and I just pointed out those two cases -- sit silent and expect to have any credibility.

I'm sorry. I know the member, and I say this trying to be non-partisan; I know she won't believe it. But you lose your credibility when you don't stand up; when you do it when it's convenient; when you do it when, politically, you can slam the Liberals or the Conservatives. You have to be consistent. You haven't been, and that's why nobody, but nobody, respects you.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Bisson: I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague on what I thought was an insightful look into the basis of this whole issue, which is the question of equity.

I've listened to a couple of the speakers in debate. Members from the opposition have raised some points that I guess are issues we can agree with, but what the member for Niagara Falls did was to come at this from the perspective, basically, that one of the things we have to strive for in this society is to try to address some of the inequities that have been there for a long, long time, and a lot of these problems are very systemic.

I thought the member put the point across in a very concise way, that we have these problems within our society, they've been there for a long time, and it's our responsibility as people within a society, and especially us as legislators, to try to deal with those issues so we can really get to the root of the problem, which is dealing with the question of equity so that, in society, it doesn't matter who you are, a man or a woman or a person from a visible minority group or whatever: You all have equal opportunity to move through the workplace, move through society in a way that would be deemed fair among all.

Another thing the member brought into the debate -- and I think the member of the opposition brought that point forward -- is that around this place there are times when we have to get into the political fray; there's no question that that's what happens in this Legislature. But there are times when we're trying to deal with substantive issues when members opposite, such as we had from the other member, try to take the low road on some of the issues. I thought the member had tried to deal with the whole question of equity, that not only do we have to do something on the side of pay equity but we also have to deal with employment equity, because the basis of all this is the root of the problem: We have to deal with the systemic problem within our society.

I'd like to congratulate the member on a very well made speech.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): We just heard the member on the government side, Cochrane South, talk about my colleague from Oakville taking the low road. I have to strongly disagree with that. I think he made very valid points.

I have a great deal of respect for the member for Niagara Falls. She has roots in my home town of Brockville, so obviously she can't be all bad, despite her political affiliation. Hopefully she'll see the error of her ways in the next couple of years and cross the floor. There's always hope. We'd welcome her with open arms. She's one of the few folks across there whom we would welcome with open arms.

With respect to the comments by my colleague from Oakville about sexual harassment, I think they're quite valid. I think the instance he raises in respect to Mr Masters is very appropriate and very timely. We have seen the members of the government proudly wearing their white ribbons for the past week or so with respect to violence against women by men, but at the same time we have very serious allegations about a personal friend of the Premier, a personal selection of the Premier as our representative in the United States: his being charged with sexual harassment and this whole matter being covered up by the Premier and his government, his cronies in cabinet and his sheep-like backbenchers.

I think you have to address that very serious concern. We can't simply say that this didn't exist. It happened, and we have no real answers from the government with respect to these allegations.

We have to look as well at Mr Piper and what happened there. There's no question about the allegations surrounding Mr Piper and the way he dealt with an individual who herself was the object of sexual abuse in her lifetime.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. We can accommodate one final participant.

Ms Poole: I would like to make a couple of comments on the speech by the member for Niagara Falls. By the way, I have a feeling that if the member for Niagara Falls crossed the floor -- I can't imagine her going over to that right side of the room; I think she would be much more liable to end up over here.

The member for Niagara Falls mentioned a couple of words that I think are very important in this debate, and they are "fairness" and "equity." Women are not asking for anything that we do not deserve. We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for equality and we are asking for fairness. There are those who believe that women have all the fairness we're entitled to, thank you very much, and there is no work left to be done. Let me tell you, that is not the case, and pay equity is a perfect example. We have made enormous strides over the last six or seven years in pay equity and there are many women who have pay equity today, are in the beginning stages of pay equity, but there are women out there right now who aren't covered, and that's what we should be talking about: How do we bring fairness and equity to those women?

I have some disagreement with one of the approaches of the government in how to obtain it, but the other method, that we'll be talking about tonight, the proportional method of evaluation in pay equity, is one that I think will bring fairness and equity. I am very supportive that the government is taking that move to extend it to women. I wish they were doing it sooner, I wish they were not delaying it so that women are going to have to wait those three years to get that fairness, but I think at least it's a move in the right direction.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Niagara Falls has two minutes in response.

Ms Harrington: I appreciate some of the comments that were made. I will allow my colleagues who are going to be speaking later to go into some of the details with regard to this legislation and the 420,000 more women that this legislation is now going to cover.

Yes, I agree that we must address the attitudes towards women; there is no doubt about that. We have to keep at it. And it's not just sexual assault or physical assault against women, but it's also mental abuse, and that can be in very subtle ways. When women offer an opinion or put forward, as young girls growing up, their own ways of dealing with things, very subtly they are told, "No, you don't have the right to have an opinion or a value judgement." I think those little attitudes, that can be overlooked, are something we have to draw more attention to. I think if we do have half the legislators here as women, that will at least be a role model to say we are valid in our opinions, as valid as anyone.

I agree that we must stand up at all times and say -- this is what the opposition member was accusing me of, of not being able to stand up at all times and say that equity is very important. If I didn't believe that, I probably wouldn't be standing up during the last few minutes.

2010

We need everyone's help, all the people in this Legislature, to change these very long held attitudes, and this legislation is only one part of this movement forward. I would really appreciate the other members of the Legislature being involved. It's not our duty only.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you to the honourable member for Niagara Falls. Now, as previously agreed upon unanimously, the honourable member for Eglinton will have the remaining lead time for the official opposition.

Ms Poole: Tonight I would like to give you some comments, some facts, some viewpoints about pay equity. It's not an easy subject for many. It is particularly contentious in a time of deep recession, and there are people who are saying, "We believe in pay equity, but is this the right time?" I say to you, if we start saying that there is a bad time for equity and there is a bad time for fairness, there's something very wrong with our priorities.

Tonight I'd like to talk about how we got where we are today. I want to talk about the need for equity and pay equity, and I want to talk about what it means for women. I want to examine this government's action on pay equity. I want to talk about some of the concerns that have been expressed concerning pay equity and how it will be implemented, and I want to give my personal response to those concerns.

How we got where we are today: In the mid-1980s, when the Liberal government took over, there was an accord signed between the NDP and the Liberals, and one of the items on that accord was to bring in pay equity. The Liberal government kept that commitment and it brought in the Pay Equity Act in 1987.

I am proud of that legislation. I'm proud as a Liberal and I am proud as a woman, because Ontario is the only jurisdiction in North America which requires the preparation of pay equity plans in both the private and the public sectors, and I'm not ashamed to take credit for that achievement.

The act brought pay equity to about 1.4 million out of the approximately 1.75 million women working for employers covered under the act. When this legislation was brought in, it was recognized that there was a deficiency: The deficiency was that it was a beginning and the method chosen was job-to-job comparisons, but job-to-job comparisons cannot be utilized where there is no male job class which can be used as a comparator for female job classes. Without male comparators, female job classes covered by the act cannot benefit from the legislation, even if their jobs are undervalued.

This was something that the Liberal government was aware of at the time, but we felt it important to go ahead and take that very first major step. At the same time, we made a commitment to study and propose changes to the act to enable employees in female jobs without appropriate male comparators to achieve pay equity. In October 1989, the Pay Equity Commission released a report recommending that two new comparison methods be introduced to increase the number of women employees able to benefit from the act.

As I said, there were two recommendations: One was for proportional value and one was for proxy. The Liberal government had a problem with the proxy method. We believed it was problematic to try to compare with another establishment, because, first of all, the definition of pay equity was to bring equity into the same establishment -- that was one of the definitions of pay equity when it was introduced -- and also, this involved complex administrative difficulties and the sharing of confidential payroll information.

But the Liberal government did support the proportional value method, and in February 1990 the Minister of Labour announced that the Liberal government was recommending adoption of the proportional value method of job comparison for any female job for which there is no male comparative job in the same establishment.

Of the 420,000 women that we're talking about today, this method would have covered approximately 340,000 to 350,000, so the vast majority were going to be covered by the Liberal announcement of February 1990. Unfortunately, there was an accident, an aberration in September 1990, and the Liberal government did not have the opportunity to carry out its plan.

I must say before I go on that when we said that we did not believe the proxy comparison was the right way to go, we did say there was an alternative. The alternative that we believed in as Liberals was that we would set aside funding to improve the wages of poorly paid social services workers, and we also made direct operating grants to child care centres for wage improvements.

Let me tell you, the child care wage improvements were a fantastic success. There is no doubt that today child care workers are still not paid what they're worth, and anybody who doesn't recognize that, doesn't recognize how little they're still paid, but we have made enormous strides. I want to quote from an article in the Toronto Star in April 1992. The title is "Ontario Tops Day Care Pay Survey."

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

"The survey of 7,200 child care workers across Canada was funded by the federal Department of Health and Welfare and sponsored by a number of day care advocacy groups.

"Ontario day care workers earn an average of $22,983 a year. In Metro, the average annual wage is $25,104. Workers in municipally run day care centres in Metro do even better, with average annual salaries of $29,409."

What this points out, although these wages should be higher, is that a government policy, which was to directly give wage enhancement grants to the child care sector, was very, very successful. In Metropolitan Toronto, we were particularly delighted to see that both the Metro level of government and the city of Toronto level of government also participated in this and helped raise day care salaries.

For members who think that just under $23,000 isn't very much money for a child care worker -- and you're absolutely right -- I can remember that when I first ran for Parliament back in 1985, the average salary around that time was something in the vicinity of $9,000 or $10,000. We paid our zoo keepers three times as much as we paid our child care workers. What did that really say about us as a society, when we were thinking of people who do the valuable task of taking care of our children being paid a third of what zoo keepers are? Certainly, although I personally am an animal lover and have three in my house at the present time, a dog, cat and hamster -- nothing against animals; I think they should be well cared for -- surely our children deserve more than that and the people taking care of our children deserve more than that.

I got on a bit of a tangent there, but I wanted to say that that was the route we felt was appropriate to help reduce this inequity, so the Liberal government said we were going to go ahead with proportional value; that we had problems with the proxy and we had other mechanisms to address this.

For people who say that women are in a fine position today and they don't need pay equity -- "Let them fight their own battles" -- I'd like to give you a few statistics of where we are today. Statscan 1989 statistics show that the wage gap between men and women means that a woman earns on average 67 cents for every dollar a man earns. You've heard that statistic many times. Have you heard this statistic? They looked at the Ontario female labour force, at the composition by earnings in 1989: 59% of the full-time workers who are female in this province earned less than $20,000; 81% of the women in this province earned less than $30,000. Now, we have made some progress since then, because the pay equity plan put in in 1987 is well on its way, but I submit to you that there are still major discrepancies between what women ought to be earning for the valuable work they perform in our society and what they are earning today.

2020

I want to take a look at the women who are going to benefit from this legislation. Obviously, there will be a large number of women in the private sector who will benefit, but I want to talk about some who are in the broader public sector who will end up benefiting. We have visiting homemakers, home support services including homes for the aged, children's aid societies, shelters for battered women, child care workers, workers who work with the physically handicapped, those who work in elderly persons' centres, Indian friendship centres, credit counselling, children's mental health, children and youth services, developmental services, children's boarding homes, nursing homes, public health units, community health centres, psychiatric facilities, district health councils, laboratories, small hospitals, libraries.

These are the women who are going to benefit from this legislation. If you look at the pay of the women in these sectors, it is far below what they deserve, far below what we would consider to be equitable. The estimate is just under 80,000 workers who would benefit from these particular categories, but with the cutbacks that have been in our social service sector, I suspect that these figures are overly optimistic. I know for a fact that in the child care sector, where they're estimating that 16,000 workers will benefit, right now there are only 14,000 because 2,000 child care workers have lost their jobs; that's what cutbacks are doing. Those are the types of women who will benefit.

That takes us to where we are with this legislation today. This government has chosen to delay the implementation process. They're putting a brave face on it, but when all is said and done, Bill 102, that was first introduced only 10 days ago, delays the implementation of the legislation which they promised they were was bringing in two years ago. I want to tell you some of the comments of the women who have been affected by this delay.

I want to refer to an article in the Toronto Star November 29, 1992, the story of Nancy Easton:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a quote from Kerry McCuaig, who is executive director of the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, which represents 14,000 women in non-profit child care centres. She said that recruiting professionals is going to be more difficult than ever. "Child care careers are starting to have a lifespan of about five years. A lot of women are going into the field because they love kids, but they can't afford to hang in; you can't eat love. We want highly skilled workers with a college education, but we don't treat them like professionals."

Kerry McCuaig was representing the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care. It was part of a press conference called by the Equal Pay Coalition, the Coalition of Visible Minority Women, the Union of Child Care Workers of Eastern Ontario. Together, those five organizations called a press conference after this government delayed the implementation of pay equity. These women had been waiting; they had been waiting for two years. One of them said to me: "We didn't make a fuss because the government kept saying it's coming. 'It's coming next week. It's coming next month. We are going to deliver on our promises.'" So they patiently sat back and waited. When this government announced it was, one more time, delaying implementation of this legislation and bringing in a new bill to make that happen, these women were fed up.

This is what they said; I copied down a few quotes: "This government is good for a lot of announced dollars which translate into nothing." They said they were tired of having announcements made by the government which the government got full credit for, yet those moneys never flowed, those programs never happened. They said this government was petty to delay pay equity for this sector of underpaid workers. Remember, I told you about them: 59% of the women in Ontario who are working full time earn under $20,000. Well, that's who is paying for this and that's why these women were upset. They said, "Have we delayed pay equity for our sector out of existence?" They talked about the average time of a child care worker in the sector. They said it's five years. There is burnout, there is low pay and there is no recognition. They said that by the time pay equity is in, those workers will be gone. They will never benefit from it. They talked about the delay and they are convinced there will not be any moneys flowing until 1995 -- if they're lucky. The moneys will still not be flowing until then.

I just want to speak to that for a moment. When I heard that, when they said that to me, I thought, "I can't believe I'm hearing this." After being in this Legislature for over five years, I thought I had become a bit cynical; I try to retain a few illusions but they rapidly dissipate, being in this place. Why 1995? The probable time of the next election; moneys start to flow at the time of the next election. They don't even have to account for the moneys until after the election, if indeed they are the government and have to account for it at all: "Let the next government take the rap for what this is going to pay." These women are saying they are disillusioned by this government and don't trust its promises any more.

2030

I copied down another quotation at that conference because I thought it was very eloquent and very true: "This government is slamming the door on the most vulnerable." And I said, why does it have to be on the backs of women? We understand that there's a financial crisis in this province, we understand that there isn't money to burn, but this government has priority for everything else. Why not priority for women? Many of them candidly admitted that they voted for this government because they thought this government would do something, and now they're telling us, "Well, no, this government has betrayed us."

The final comment I'd like to express from that particular press conference was from the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care. "Women on the lowest rung of the ladder are once again being told that they don't matter, that they're going to have to wait again."

The member for Lambton may laugh at this. She may think this is all a big joke, but it isn't. These women are at the lowest end of the pay echelon, they're the ones most in need, and this government has said, "But you can wait." The unions couldn't wait: They could have their Bill 40, they could have their legislation. But these women, they don't have the protection. They're going to have to wait.

I'll take a direct quote: "How can you feel anything but anger? How can you feel but that you've been used?" These women feel betrayed. They believed the promises of this government. They believed the promises of this government in 1990. Do you remember November 1990? There was a speech from the throne, when this government said, very proudly, "We are going to be the government to extend pay equity to 420,000 women."

As women's issues critic, I waited and I waited, and I asked some questions in the House: "Where is this legislation?" Then in November 1991, I was reading through a household newsletter put out by the Premier. I think you'll recognize this, members of the government, the Premier of Ontario, Bob Rae. This was his community newsletter, which I assumed was distributed to 35,000 or 40,000 people in his riding.

The Premier said in November 1991, "We have extended pay equity to cover 420,000 women who work in jobs that until now did not qualify for pay equity increases." I thought: "I'm women's issues critic. I would have noticed if they'd even introduced the legislation, let alone passed it, yet in the fall of 1991 the Premier's claiming they've already done it." I really didn't quite understand how this could be.

The opposition House leader stood up at the beginning on a point of order and said: "Mr Speaker, I have the Premier's word for it. This has already passed, so why are we doing it again? Why are we bringing in legislation when the Premier of this province, we suppose a man of integrity who's going to tell the truth to his constituents, says, 'We've already done it.'"

When I got that, I was pretty outraged. To add insult to injury, the very next week I received a letter from Jill Marzetti, who was the secretary of the New Democratic Party. She said, "I'm proud as provincial secretary and as a woman to give just a short list of what the Ontario New Democrats have done in our first year of government for the women in this province." I looked and, lo and behold, it says, "extended pay equity" -- past tense -- "to an additional 420,000 women who work in jobs that until now did not qualify for pay equity increases."

I said, "I'm going to go check this." I went to my House leader and said: "The Premier of the province has told me that pay equity has been extended to 420,000 women. How could I not know about this?" I showed him the letter from Jill Marzetti, secretary of the New Democratic Party. And if this letter went to a Liberal member of the Legislature, I can only assume it went to several hundred thousand other people in the province, when they're reduced to sending it to a Liberal member of the Legislature. My House leader said: "No, Dianne, you haven't been asleep. They haven't introduced it. They haven't even given any indication."

So I made a statement in the House. I asked a question to the Minister of Labour: "Where is the pay equity? Your Premier says you've already brought it in. Where is it? It's been a year since you promised in the throne speech you were going to do it." The minister blustered and said, "We're going to bring it in," and sat down, and lo and behold, several weeks later they brought in the pay equity legislation for first reading.

I was quite excited by this, and I thought: "Finally, women are going to get pay equity extended. We've waited. The Liberal government made the announcement in February 1990 that it was going to do it. When the government changed in September 1990, it said it was going to carry on and do what the Liberal government had said it was going to do. And here we find they are finally introducing it in December 1991."

I would say that probably 10 or 12 times in the last year my House leader has said to me, "Dianne, we're going to do pay equity next week." At first I was quite excited by this, because I thought, "This is great; we're going to put through this legislation." There were things we wanted to change in it, but, hey, it was a step in the right direction. But unfortunately, that day didn't come. Just like the women in the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care and the Ontario Coalition for Pay Equity, I believed this government, that it was going to bring it in. Finally, in December 1992, a full year later, this government stands up and says: "We're very proud of this. We're still going to bring in pay equity, but we just had to delay it a titch because the monetary situation isn't too good."

I submit to you that this government knew the monetary situation in December 1991 when it introduced Bill 168. They had to have known it. The deficit had gone out of control, the province was in dire economic straits, and they brought it in. I submit to you that this government brought it in knowing well that it couldn't do it, but it did it to pacify the little women out there. Well, I don't find that acceptable, I'm sorry.

That wasn't the only way in which this government let down women and betrayed women. A year ago I made a statement in this Legislature. I talked about the delay in the pay equity legislation, the fact that the Premier said it in his householder but they hadn't delivered, they hadn't even introduced it. But I also talked about the $30-million payment in pay equity for child care workers. This government promised it in January 1991, reannounced it August 1991, and by November 1991 it still hadn't delivered, almost a full year later, and child care workers were furious.

I talked about the fact that they made a grand announcement about $20 million extra to women's shelters, but I pointed to a press release from Hamilton, which was just one of the many shelters that indicated that not a penny had flowed. They'd been promised in the spring; November they were still waiting for this government to show its commitment.

I said: "What about the 30,000 nursing home residents, 70% of whom are women? When can they expect the money this government promised them? Why did this government refuse to advance the money for support and custody that it had promised? Why did they delay that until the spring?" These were questions I asked a year ago, and what this points out is that this government is great on talking but it isn't very good on delivering, and it has badly let down the women of this province.

2040

The last example I want to give -- I could give many more, but I want to save some time to talk about some of the concerns with pay equity -- the last example of how this government has let down women was illustrated in an article in the Hamilton Spectator, November 24, 1992. Members of this government will remember the OAITH lobby, the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses; well, not very many of them will remember, because only 10 of them showed up. This was what was written about the concerns of those women who work in assaulted women's shelters across this province.

"The concern Ontario's NDP government once showed for abused women appears to be drying up, say workers from women's shelters across the province.

"Beleaguered by scandal, Premier Bob Rae and most of his cabinet did not show up yesterday at an annual meeting between Queen's Park MPPs and members of the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses. Fewer than 10 NDP members attended this year. During the 1990 and 1991 meetings, the 74-member NDP caucus packed the room. Their absence yesterday sparked sharp criticism from the 150 women, who warned the government that it ignores them at its peril.

"'What will happen is, women will not vote this government back in power. If they want to be in a position to show us in a concrete way that action is going to happen to stop violence against women, they'd better start listening to us,' said Lisa Duggan of Hamilton, the meeting coordinator.

"In 1991, 25 women in Ontario were slain by their male partners. This year, a partial list of 46 killings has been compiled, said Ms Duggan, yet the government has failed to keep up with inflation in its funding of shelters and hasn't done enough to reform the justice system to protect women, participants said."

The article goes on and on in criticism of this government.

What we've got is a government that was full of hot air. They talked about protecting women, but when push came to shove, they did nothing, and the women of this province will remember that.

I haven't got that long left in my speaking time, so I want to touch on some of the concerns that have been expressed about pay equity and in implementing it at this particular point in time.

The concerns that have been expressed are: What is the cost? Will the government pay for the pay equity adjustments in the broader public sector? If not, the agencies concerned will have to cut programs or cut staff; those are their only alternatives. Then they ask, how much more can the beleaguered taxpayer bear? They also ask about the impact on businesses and on jobs.

I'd like to address some of these concerns. What will it cost? We have yet to see this government's cost estimates for the implementation of the two methods of pay equity. To the best of my knowledge, the Ministry of Labour has not yet released any public estimates of the cost implications of proxy and proportional value. If he has, he's kept it a well-guarded secret. He certainly did not send it to the critic for the Labour portfolio in the Liberal opposition, nor did they send it to the women's issues critic. From what we've talked, and all the groups affected, there has been nothing, no breakdown, no analysis of what this is going to cost.

Ministry officials have said that the government has stated it will be absorbing 100% of the cost of implementing proxy; proxy will only affect the public sector, by the way. So I contacted the Ministry of Labour when Bill 102, the new, not-so-much-improved Bill 102, was introduced some 10 days ago. I contacted the Ministry of Labour and said: "Look. The government House leader has said he wants this to have second reading during this session. We have not the resources at this time, with so much on the docket paper, to do an analysis of the changes. I would like to see an analysis of what this will cost. What is this going to cost us in the future?"

This is what I got back. I got back some figures on what they had spent to date including, for instance, the $19 million on the child care wage enhancement program, but for future cost? I got: "In 1992-93, up to $240 million will be spent. The real figure cannot be finally ascertained until surveys of pay equity costs are returned from transfer payment agencies."

That's the definitive word from the Ministry of Labour, which wants us to give second reading to this legislation within 10 days, but it hasn't analysed the cost yet, when it has had the year the original Bill 168 was on the docket paper. What's happening?

Today when I was talking to some of the people who are involved with pay equity in the various agencies, they said, "I've got those estimates for you." I said: "Where did you get this? I haven't seen anything public." They said: "Oh, no, there's nothing public, but we have a copy of a letter from the government, from the Ministry of Labour. We have an analysis of what it's going to cost."

They shared it with their buddies in the Ontario Federation of Labour. They said funds for pay equity are to be allocated as follows: dollars in mature costs by 1994-95 fiscal year, job-to-job will be $175 million, proportional value $400 million, proxy to equity $285 million, the Ontario public service pay equity $140 million. The total is $1 billion.

But when the critic for women's issues for the Liberal Party, who has responsibility for carriage of this legislation, asks what it is going to cost, "We can't tell you because we haven't contacted the transfer agencies." Not so much as the courtesy to say, "These are our estimates, but we can't confirm them until we get everything." The Ontario Federation of Labour can get that, but somehow we can't. I'm still not sure what this is going to cost. I'm still not sure what this government is going to pay towards it. I don't know, because they won't share that information with me.

The second thing that people have had to say in concern with pay equity and whether it should be introduced right now is the business reaction and whether this is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. That is a very valid concern, and I don't think for a moment that this government should make light of that concern.

There was an excellent article in the Globe and Mail in June 1992 called "Small Business," by Martin Harts. In this column, Mr Harts said:

"Pay equity is now law in the federal government and in all but three western provinces. Ontario, however, is the only province with pay equity laws that directly affect small business. Companies with more than 10 employees -- meaning more businesses in Ontario -- must comply with pay equity.

"As the only jurisdiction in North America with sweeping pay equity rules for the private sector, Ontario has been praised and damned, depending on who you talk to.

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

"Small companies, on the other hand, have reacted negatively to pay equity. Typical comments from CEOs and owner-operators include:

"'What is the penalty if I don't comply?' 'Let them catch me.' 'If government continues to interfere with business, we may as well throw in the towel.'

"What is it about the pay equity law that evokes such emotional responses from small businesses?

"A lot of it has to do with the recession. Reduced sales, lower profit and a minimum of administrative staff leave small companies unable to afford the time and costs of undertaking the pay equity exercise.

"Lack of knowledge of what pay equity means and what it requires of an employer is another problem. The many publications provided free of charge by Ontario's Pay Equity Commission are often of limited value.

"Reluctantly, small companies that decide to comply are seeking the advice of experts to help them through the pay equity minefield. Some, of course, are simply ignoring pay equity altogether in the hope that authorities will take years to catch them."

The article goes on to talk about the current legislation:

"The Ontario government tabled amendments to the Pay Equity Act last December. They are expected to become law by this fall.

"The main impact will be on companies that have female-dominated jobs for which a suitable male-dominated job comparison does not exist. In this case, you must increase the pay of these female-dominated jobs in proportion to the pay of some, but not necessarily all, male-dominated jobs in your company.

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

I want to bring you to the conclusion of the author of this article:

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

I guess that's what it comes down to: What do we owe our daughters? I think we owe them passage of this pay equity legislation.

It is a difficult issue. In September and October, I went out on a women's issues outreach to a number of communities across the province, and I asked many of these organizations: "What about pay equity? What are your feelings? Should we pass it?" And I said: "This is the dilemma. On the one hand, this is a terrible time for business and this might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. On the one hand, maybe this bureaucracy and this process will be very difficult for some businesses to cope with. On the other hand, there is no best time to bring in equity. Now is always the best time to bring in equity, and if we don't proceed now, is there a possibility that it will be lost for many, many years?"

2050

The interesting thing is that a number of these groups, like the YWCA or the children's aid societies, or the professional and business women's club, were organizations that were in the throes of implementing pay equity or which, under this legislation, would be implementing it. They talked about the difficulties: They talked about the bureaucracy, they talked about the impact on business. I said, "So you think I could vote against this pay equity?" And they said, "Well, wait just a moment; on the other hand -- " And I said, "Yes, on the other hand?" They said: "If it doesn't go ahead now it probably never will. There will be people who sacrifice, there will be people who lose their jobs, and there may be women who lose their jobs. We must try as much as we can to protect those jobs and those women, we must protect our agencies, but at the same time, we must go ahead with this pay equity legislation."

So they recognized the difficulties, and it was unanimous. Of all the women's groups I asked this question of -- and I got a lot of suggestions about how to implement it, how to phase it in, how to buffer it, how to cut the bureaucracy, how to help small businesses with it. With small businesses, I'm not talking of those under 10 employees, because they are not covered under this legislation nor were they under the previous Liberal legislation; I mean 10 to 50, that size of business. So it was really interesting, because in the bottom line, women said, "Yes, it is difficult and it may cause difficult times, but we must go ahead."

So when we have public hearings, which I'm sure we will -- I believe there is an agreement from the government that we will have them; certainly I will be pushing for them -- I think it is important that people come to us and tell us how we can make this work, how we can smooth the transition, how we can ensure that women get this pay equity provision as quickly and as expeditiously as possible. We cannot stop now.

For all the difficulties, difficulties with bureaucracy, with the enormous cost in taking any case to the pay equity tribunal, with the difficulty in bringing it in when the money isn't there, I think it's important that we recognize that the time is right to continue a policy of fairness and equity towards women, to give women that small ray of hope that at the end of the tunnel there is that light, that one day in this society they will have fairness and equity.

I think we must look on the positive side of this. While we must try to ameliorate any dislocation for the business sector, isn't this a good time, when the business sector is already in the midst of restructuring its labour force, isn't this the right time for them to look at their policies towards payment of women? Isn't this the right time for them to say, "Let's address this inequity"? I believe it is.

If you say this is not the right time -- "We believe in it, but it's not the right time" -- I ask you the question, when is it the wrong time to bring in equity? If you say it is the wrong time to bring in equity, then I suggest you have to re-examine your priorities.

I would like to close with a quote from one of the Kennedys -- I think it was John Kennedy -- who said: "If not here, then where? If not now, then when?" That's what it comes down to. You're never going to find a right time. This province is probably going to be in for some severe economic times for years and years to come. We have a deficit that is very difficult to cope with. Money is going to be very short for not only the next few years but, as I say, the decade to come.

The time is now, the place is here. I would hope that every member of this Legislature will stand and support this legislation. It isn't perfect. There will hopefully be things we can do to ameliorate the impact in these tough economic times. But in the bottom line, if you truly believe in the equality of women, if you truly believe it is unacceptable for 59% of the women of Ontario to be earning under $20,000, you must put your courage and your conviction on the line and you must vote to extend pay equity to the women of this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Thank you for your participation in the debate. Questions and/or comments?

Mr Bisson: I want to congratulate the member for what I thought was a fairly insightful speech about pay equity. She made, I think, the same points my colleague from Niagara Falls had made about the whole question of equity in general, the things we need to do as a society in order to give people equal access.

I was most interested in the point she made about the question of timing. As she said, many would argue that questions of equity should not be dealt with in times of recession, that they should not be dealt with in rough times, but she raised the point, and I thought she did it very eloquently, that there is never a good time to do this. I would say we have to do it now.

For that I would like to extend my congratulations to the member across the way for comments that were well taken, a very well thought out speech that raised some points that should be heard by many people within this province. We have a province probably not different from any other in Canada and probably not very much from any other jurisdiction in the world when it comes to how people look at the question of equity.

She raised earlier in her speech the question that some people see equity as taking something away from somebody. I think the point has to be stressed over and over again, as the member did, that giving people access within our society, through employment equity rules or through pay equity rules, doesn't take anything away from anybody. It basically puts them on a level playing field so that they can compete within our society on an equal footing with any other person. Long behind us should be the times when people had to compete in an uphill battle because they were women, because they were a visible minority or because of whatever reason. Everybody should have equal access.

I'd like to extend my congratulations. I thought it was a very insightful speech.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

2100

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Just a few brief comments: This subject matter comes under "societal" and goes to the very core of what each and every member portrays or tries to convey. There have been others; I have seldom heard this just cause put in such a commonsensical way with a course of action. I, too, wish to congratulate the member.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Sudbury.

Ms Murdock: I just wanted to thank the Liberal critic for her comments, because she obviously is quite knowledgeable about the bill and has done some work in preparing her remarks. That is evident and should be commented upon.

But I do want to correct one of the statements that was made, in that it is not true that the government isn't flowing any money until 1995. That is incorrect, because right now we're paying up to $240 million in the 1992-93 fiscal year, which she herself stated later on in her comments, for pay equity to the broader public sector. I think again we have to make that distinction between the public sector and the private sector. Money will be paid on a targeted pay equity down payment program by March 31, 1993, which I mentioned in my comments at the very beginning, and then proxy will be implemented, but not until January 1, 1994.

Again, I will reiterate for the record and for the benefit of those people out there who don't understand the difference between proportional value and proxy, there is no deadline on the private sector at all. The deadlines that are mentioned -- 1998 -- go to the public sector only.

I would adjourn the debate on these two bills.

The Acting Speaker: No, actually, we're not ready for that yet.

Any further questions and/or comments? If not, two minutes for response for the honourable member for Eglinton.

Ms Poole: First of all, I'd like to thank the member for Cochrane South and also the member for Lake Nipigon for their very kind words. I'm beginning to get very nervous. I think I've lost my identity. First I have a Conservative over here agreeing with me and quoting me in the House, and now I have two NDP members who have said very kind words, so I think I'm losing it. It's Christmas, or they feel sorry for me because I'm exhausted after market value assessment. But I thank them for their comments.

For the parliamentary assistant: When she's talking about already flowing funds to the broader public sector, this is, of course, from pay equity plans that are already in place under the previous legislation. One of the problems with this is that funds aren't flowing the way they should be.

We had a meeting, I think it was about six or eight weeks ago, with the Ontario Hospital Association. They said their concern is that they have been given a minimal increase, like 1%, in their budget, and they're being told that there will not be a pay equity adjustment to help them. Their concern was that if they don't get this assistance from the province with the pay equity adjustment, then they will have to lay off workers. If you look at the hospital sector, who is it who is going to be laid off? It won't be the doctors; it will be the nurses. Look at the gender of those nurses. It's the women who will pay.

That was the point I was trying to make, that it is going to be extremely important that, if the government brings this legislation in, it keep its commitment that our agencies will not suffer. Women should not have to suffer because of this legislation; neither should our agencies.

I thank all the members for their participation in this debate tonight.

The Acting Speaker: I recognize the honourable member for Oakville South.

Mr Carr: I understand there's been agreement that we'll go on to another bill so I will save my comments for a later date. Just like last night, I was prepared to speak on long-term care and I ended up speaking on something different. So I will move that file aside. I believe, by unanimous consent, we have agreement to go on to another bill, so I will move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Carr has moved adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

INCOME TAX AND ONTARIO PENSIONERS PROPERTY TAX ASSISTANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU ET L'ALLÉGEMENT DE L'IMPÔT FONCIER DES RETRAITÉS DE L'ONTARIO

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 31, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act and to provide an Income Tax Credit to Seniors and to phase out grants under the Ontario Pensioners Property Tax Assistance Act / Loi modifiant la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu, prévoyant des crédits d'impôt sur le revenu pour les personnes âgées et visant à éliminer progressivement les subventions prévues par la Loi sur l'allégement de l'impôt foncier des retraités de l'Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): My understanding was, when we left this debate, Mr Sterling was going to have his two minutes' response. Mr Sterling is not in the House, so in terms of rotation, we now move to the government side. No? Further debate?

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I'm rather surprised that none of the government members has anything to say on what I think is quite a significant measure and, frankly, a measure that I think is going to have some political consequences for the governing party.

When I explained to the public -- because I'm sure not too many members of the public out there will know offhand what Bill 31 stands for. It's a measure to eliminate property tax grants for seniors and to turn them into tax credits. Up to now, seniors received up to $600 a year from the government to take account of the school taxes, the property taxes, they have to pay and to help them a little bit with all these expenses they have, and also the $50 sales tax grant which is going to be taken away.

Also, in Bill 31, there are certain other adjustments. In fact, there are increases to everyone's taxes. There's an increase in the basic income tax rate, and I will be talking about that a little bit later.

Then, of course, there's also a lowering of the income tax threshold to apply the Ontario high-income surcharge. So, again, to make this simple, what this bill does, in addition to hurting seniors, is try to raise more money from basically the middle class. I know the government members probably will argue, "It's not the middle class, it's the high-income earners we want to get more money from." But as we will see, the definition of "high income" from the NDP government is very different from what the ordinary person would consider a rich person.

2110

I should say that when, in the good old days, the Liberals were in power, when my party was in power -- unfortunately all too long ago, but I'm sure it's going to change again very soon when I look at the poll results -- I was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Revenue. I used to be in this place and argue very shortly before the adjournment of the House, before Christmas, certain tax measures. I always found it rather strange that, at the very end of the session, we would still talk about and decide on measures that were long ago more or less already decided by the government. These measures we're talking about tonight were in fact announced in the spring budget by the Treasurer. Of course, whatever the public was saying about it, the government had made up its mind.

When the Treasurer stood up in this House -- I don't remember the exact date, it's that many months ago, but it was some time in the spring session, at the end of May or the beginning of June -- and announced his budget, these measures that we're voting on and talking about tonight were included in that budget. I must say that perhaps we should find a better means to look at the tax measures arising out of the Treasurer's budget and not wait six or seven months to give them the full legitimacy of the Legislature. I think there should be a better means to discuss these issues when they're proposed.

But be that as it may, we are discussing this matter tonight. I would like to first of all speak about the, in my opinion, regrettable step to take away the tax grant to the seniors. Mind you, this government seems to be getting very used to taking away grants from people who can least afford it, and that's really what's bothering me very much about this government.

I know that the Speaker tonight represents the government, but I respect members who have certain views about social policies, social democratic policies. Sometimes you call them socialist. I don't particularly care for that word, but I don't mind it either. If people hold dearly to those views and want to represent the interests of the less-well-off, the underprivileged, I think it's a very noble goal. I personally share in that.

But when I then see a party and a government that had, once upon a time I guess, committed itself and gotten itself elected on a platform especially to support those who are less privileged, when I see that party and that government turn around 100% and take away grants from seniors and take away, as the Minister of Colleges and Universities just did -- obviously on instructions of the Treasurer and the Premier -- from students, I have some very serious questions about the integrity of the NDP and the promises and philosophy of this government.

I'm sure there must be not a few party members out there, grass-roots members, who are bitterly disappointed. In fact, I have had in my own riding card-carrying NDP members call my office and say that they're so disgusted they're handing in their card and they're going to vote for me the next time.

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have trouble believing that.

Mr Daigeler: If the member doesn't believe me, he can come over here and I will give him those names. I should tell him I've also had some Conservatives who've also said that they're going to vote for me.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Oh, that can't be true, Hans.

Mr Daigeler: I guess there must something I'm doing right, because I am getting these calls from both NDP and Conservative members saying that they are going to support me in the next election and they're going to support the Liberal Party. Why is that? Why are the NDP members turning against their own party? Because, as the Speaker whom we have tonight knows only too well, the NDP government is turning against its own principles on a great many issues, and this bill that we're discussing tonight is just a perfect example. It does not go unnoticed by the public.

I have had over the month since this was first announced letters and calls from constituents. I asked my staff this afternoon, when I knew I was going to talk about this measure and that this was coming up in the House tonight, to pull out again the letters I had received. Constituents in my riding were very upset, and I'm sure other members have received these complaints as well. They were very concerned that the government was making it harder for seniors to cope with the property taxes, which always rise.

It is true, but the argument is being made that these are seniors who have a certain level of income. But many of them, even though they live in a home that is perhaps worth a good deal, do not have the operating income that would enable them to pay ever-increasing property tax rates, especially from school boards. I've had many complaints from seniors, even before this measure, this reduction of the grant was announced. I've had these concerned seniors contact me and tell me how difficult it is for them to cope with the ever-increasing cost of living, and in particular the taxes.

This measure, the property tax grant, was put in place I think by the Conservative government; I think it was Premier Davis. Seniors did count on getting that cheque. If I'm not mistaken, it arrived around Christmastime and it helped them celebrate Christmas and purchase some of their gifts, perhaps for their grandchildren or their family. It helped them to have a more enjoyable Christmas season.

Now the government is saying, "We will still give you something, but it will be all rolled into the tax credit system, and when you file your income tax, then you can reduce your payable taxes, but the maximum you can get back through your reduced payable income tax will be $450." It used to be $600, so there is a reduction even for those who will take the full benefit of that credit that will still be available. In addition to reducing the full credit from $600 to $450, there is also, however, a gradual reduction in that credit according to the income seniors have.

2120

Frankly, if that were the only measure we're asking seniors to accept, perhaps it would be reasonable. I don't want to stand here and say this is going to make it impossible for seniors to live. This measure in itself, just taken by itself, I think you could say: "What's the big fuss about it? After all, we're not talking about that much money." But this is just one measure, together with many others, that this government is putting on the seniors. For example, again, I've had people contact my office -- many of them go to Florida -- who are now no longer covered under OHIP in the same way they used to be. The residency requirements have been changed.

It's mostly seniors, people who have been living a productive life, who have been paying taxes in Canada and in this province for a long time. They write to me and say: "Listen, I've done my share for the province. I've done my share for many years for this country. Now, when I'm finally able to enjoy life a little bit and enjoy retirement and spend a few months in the south where it's warm, all of a sudden I'm no longer able to do that because of the changes in the health care coverage." That's another coverage on seniors.

I should mention the fees for seniors that are now charged when they go to provincial parks. Again, in itself, when you just look at that one measure alone, it's not big money, agreed. Previously, during the week seniors were admitted free to the provincial parks and now there's a fee. Again, you'd be surprised the number of people who have contacted me on that and who are concerned about it, because they just see this as a rather nasty way to collect taxes.

If the government is really that desperate, let it do some of the other measures in this bill. I can see that. Let them raise the income tax rate, even though one can certainly seriously ask whether this is the time to raise taxes further. But at least from a philosophical point of view I can see a certain logic that an NDP government would raise the income tax rate, especially for high-income people.

As I said earlier, it depends how you define "high income." According to this government you're a high-income earner when you make something like $53,000. That, for the people over there, is a high income. One can argue whether this now makes you super rich or not. I begin to wonder whether you really have made it in the list of Forbes magazine if you make that amount.

My point simply is this: I think that's a much more logical argument, that if you need revenue you go that avenue, you go that direction. Frankly -- I shouldn't shy away from it -- my government did it and I was here in this House as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Revenue, making the very same point and raising income tax rates, usually at the end of the year.

That is an avenue open to governments and from time to time it has to be done. Obviously, you have to take into consideration: What is the general economic climate? What will be the impact of this measure on people spending money? Is that wise? Are you encouraging people to spend money by raising taxes? and so on. But I think these are more pragmatic considerations. Reasonable people can come to different conclusions on this and I think that's fine, but when you start and go by the back door which, unfortunately, this government seems to be getting into the habit of doing, then I see real trouble.

What is the back door for seniors? As I just said, this measure we're talking about is eliminating, for the most part, the property tax grants for seniors, raising fees for the provincial parks for seniors, making it much more difficult for seniors to enjoy their retirement in Florida, or in the south generally, by jacking up the rates of OHIP coverage.

There's another measure that I haven't mentioned yet and that I'm still getting quite a few letters on, and that I sure hope the government members are getting letters on as well, the increase in the copayment fees. I don't know whether the people out there who are watching are aware, but as of January 1 the copayments in nursing homes are going to be increased by a daily amount of $11. That's a 38% increase of that fee.

Again, who are the people who are presently paying that $24 copayment towards the cost of the nursing homes? Who are those people? They are mostly seniors. I'm getting these letters from them, from people who are extremely concerned about it.

I have one of them. This is from one of my constituents. These people -- it's signed by the husband and wife -- say: "We understand that the Ontario government is considering an increase of $10 per day in the copayment that residents will pay in long-term care facilities. We believe that a 38% increase is incredible and in fact far beyond the government's own rent control legislation."

That's a very good point. I see the Minister of Housing here. Knowing her predilection towards rent control, I wonder what she was arguing around the cabinet table about increasing what is essentially rent, I guess, by 38%.

They say, "We urge you to oppose this proposal and to encourage the Minister of Health to lower and, if need be, phase in any increase." Why are they saying "phase in"? Because, as I said earlier, seniors are reasonable. They are aware that the government needs revenue. They are aware that the services that are being provided, and from which the seniors benefit, have to be paid for in some way. They are certainly prepared to pay their share and, as people are saying in their letters to me, they are prepared even to see an increase.

I think that is very praiseworthy. The seniors are not just shying away and saying, "Don't touch me at all." They are saying: "We are prepared to pay somewhat more, but 38%, $11 a day? Is that really fair? Is that reasonable, especially if you take this measure, this copayment increase together with these other significant increases to the cost on seniors?"

This is what concerns me so much about this bill and what I feel is quite an unnecessary and a very hurtful step to take by this government, which supposedly is the government that represents seniors, that represents the underprivileged, those who are less well-off, those who are less fortunate.

2130

There is not much time that I have left. I want to touch briefly on the two other measures being proposed in Bill 31. As I indicated, there are three aspects to the bill. There is the one that has this effect on the seniors, but then there's an increase in the Ontario basic income tax rate.

We should, for the benefit of the viewers, indicate that for the tax year 1992 -- in other words, for the one that's just finished -- the income tax under the Ontario income tax rate will be increased to 54.5%, and in 1993, next year, it will increase even further; it will go to 55% of the basic federal income tax.

That actually brings in quite a lot of money for the provincial treasury. This measure will bring in approximately $520 million in one year. In 1992-93, it will be about $520 million and in subsequent years it will be even higher, approximately $580 million. That's a lot of money.

Of course, what this measure does is that it really takes away again with the provincial hand what the federal government was trying to give back, because the federal government at the beginning of 1992 decided to reduce the surtax on higher-income earners. With this increase in the provincial income tax rate, the federal largess is pretty well totally taken away. I guess the NDP government says, "If the Conservative federal government wants to give it, we can use it." I can understand that. That's a back and forth between those two governments, but I think we should realize that this measure, this higher income tax rate, brings in close to $600 million a year more, and that's important to remember.

As I said, there's this third measure of a special tax, because when you make higher income, we have taken in this province, and I guess in this country, the position that you should also pay higher taxes. I think that's a reasonable and fair approach and most people will agree with this principle, but there's a special surtax if you are at the higher end.

It used to be that you had to make $84,000 to be hit, or be charged with this surtax or this special income tax. Now you're rich, as I indicated earlier, or super rich, if you make $53,000. Whether that's rich, super rich or not, I will leave it up to the viewers to decide. I guess they will know whether they find that they should be or can be classified to be super rich.

I doubt very much that many of those people out there who are in that income tax bracket are living on the high. I think to put this special high-income surtax, with Bill 31, on people who are making $53,000 is a measure that only hurts the middle class. I don't think we're talking about high-income earners here. We are talking about the middle class. We are talking about the vast majority of the people in this province.

This measure in itself brings in a lot of money: $150 million. I can understand the Treasurer's looking for money everywhere and he's doing that, but let's be fair, let's be frank. I think the government should come clean and say: "We need the money. We have to raise taxes." But don't try and hide, saying "We are implementing our NDP philosophy in taxing the rich." You're not taxing the rich. You're taxing the middle class. As I said earlier, you're hurting, with this other measure, the seniors and those who can least afford it in this province.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Nepean for his participation in the debate. Questions and/or comments?

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): The member for Nepean distorts reality in such a serious and injurious way that I feel compelled to make some remarks. Prior to 1992, every senior got a tax grant, irrespective of what he or she made, so it meant that a senior who made $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000 got a tax grant in the same way that a senior who made $10,000 got a tax grant.

To offer an example that is quite simple, my mother, who makes $10,000 with all of her combined income, would benefit from this more than someone who's making $50,000 or $60,000 as a senior citizen. That, in my view, is good, because what it does is to redistribute the wealth in such a way that those who make a lot will not need it as much and those who make little will need it and therefore will benefit from it.

The remarks the member for Nepean makes that this is an increase in everybody's tax, that it's a high-income surcharge tax, that it makes it harder for senior citizens to cope, that the maximum you can get is $450, that it's a nasty way to collect taxes -- all of that -- are a serious distortion of reality. I think it would be wrong to allow that to be said without some retort.

What it does is to bring some justice to those who are on low income in such a way that those who make less than $23,000 will get the $600 they always got and get a little more, and those who make less than $30,000 are likely to get the same amount, more or less, and those who make more than $30,000 will get less. It brings justice to those who are less well off without affecting in any way those who are very wealthy.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I want to congratulate the member for Nepean on a fine presentation which I think fairly reflects what's in this rather draconian measure, Bill 31. I am amused, as I think most members and most members of the public might be when they reflect upon the Agenda for People. I didn't see this in the Agenda for People. I didn't see the idea in the Agenda for People that the rich people in this society were making $53,000.

I look around at who might make $53,000 in this society and I think of my steelworkers, the few who are still working at Elliot Lake, at Rio Algom. I think a lot of them are making $53,000. They're working very hard to make that $53,000, and they're working very hard to pay their bills. I don't think they think of themselves as rich people. But I know now that the definition a socialist government, a New Democratic government, is that $53,000 is a rich person.

2140

I look around my constituency and I ask who else might make $53,000. Frankly, my constituency does not have one of the highest average incomes in this province. As a matter of fact, unfortunately I think it would be one of the lowest. But who makes that? I'll tell you who makes $53,000. It's my friends the school teachers. They make $53,000. Some of the public servants make $53,000. These people are people who work hard, serve, do good work, but who I think would be totally amazed -- and the member for Nepean might want to comment on this -- about how rich this NDP government of the people has just found them to be. I find that totally amazing.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I'd just like to say in response to the comments from the member for Nepean that in spite of the fact that the member for Fort York was able to give a wonderful critique of the member for Nepean's comments in two minutes, the rest of us on this side of the House, on the government side, in order to make sure we get second reading of this bill this evening, will not be joining in this debate, not because we have nothing to say or do not have any critique of what will be offered on the opposite benches, but because we wish to get the business over.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): The last speaker, with her remarks, indicated that I should speak. I cannot accept what she has said here this evening. This government wants to get this business over because it doesn't like what it's doing to the seniors of our province. That's why they don't want to take part in this debate.

They're the ones who, during the last election campaign, had the whisper campaign going that Harris wanted to take the tax grant off the seniors, that he was going to give them nothing. These are the very people who are now doing it and who never whispered a word in the Agenda for People about what they intended to do. Here the Minister of Housing is up tonight saying they don't want to take part in this debate. I can tell you why they don't want to take part in the debate: They're ashamed of themselves.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Nepean has two minutes to make a response.

Mr Daigeler: I think the member for Simcoe East very rightly pointed out the difference, frankly a difference that surprised me. I really, honestly, did not expect that the NDP government would bring in initiatives and changes that it gave no inkling of whatsoever during the election. In fact, on many issues they're doing exactly the opposite -- and I mention the elimination of OSAP grants as one of them -- to what they had promised during the campaign and what reasonable people expected them to do as an NDP government.

As I indicated, I accept the fact that the member for Fort York was arguing that this is a more just measure, that seniors who are more well off get less and that seniors who are less well off get a little bit more. First of all, the reality is that even those seniors who are less well off get less under this system, because the property tax grant used to be $600 and the maximum is $450 now.

Hon Ms Gigantes: No.

Mr Daigeler: The Minister of Housing says no. I have the bulletin of the Ministry of Revenue right here.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): You haven't read it right.

Mr Daigeler: It says, "The maximum will be reduced to $450 in 1992 under the budget proposal." I also thought that when the Minister of Housing stood up she would at least give some comments as to how she can justify a 38% increase in copayment fees when under her rent control legislation all the other people who are paying rent are held to increases of something like 4%. I thought she was going to comment on that and give an explanation to those seniors who are being hit by that other measure of this government over there which is added to the one we're talking about now.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr McLean: I welcome the opportunity tonight to participate on Bill 31, the Income Tax and Ontario Pensioners Property Tax Assistance Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992.

The explanatory note with regard to what this bill intends to do is:

"(a) increase the Ontario personal income tax rate and the surcharge imposed under the Income Tax Act;

"(b) introduce a property and sales tax credit for seniors in the Income Tax Act for 1992 and subsequent years and phase out grants payable under the Ontario Pensioners Property Tax Assistance Act; and

"(c) make necessary administrative amendments to parallel the 'fairness package' recently enacted under the Income Tax Act (Canada)."

There's more to this legislation than just the pensioners act. This bill is the Minister of Revenue's attempt at implementing proposals in the NDP government's budget for 1992. They want to increase the Ontario personal income tax and surtax rates, to replace the senior sales and property tax grants with an income tax credit and to make administrative changes to parallel the Income Tax Act of Canada.

Under Bill 31, the PIT rate is increased from 53% of the basic federal tax payable to 54.5% for 1992. For the 1993 and subsequent years, the PIT rate is increased from 54.5% to 55% of the basic federal tax payable. For 1992 the surtax, currently at 14% of Ontario's PIT over $10,000, is changed to 7% of Ontario's between $5,500 and $10,000, plus 14% of Ontario PIT over $10,000. For 1993 and subsequent years, the surcharge will be 14% of Ontario PIT between the $5,500 and $8,000, plus 20% of Ontario PIT over $8,000.

Prior to the NDP government's 1992 budget Ontario senior citizens, regardless of their income level, were eligible to receive a property tax grant, if they paid either rent or property tax, to a maximum of $600 annually, and they got a sales tax grant of $50. This government now proposes to replace these grants with a refundable income-tested property and sales tax credit with a maximum value of $1,000 per year. The legislation also provides for a credit reduction equal to 4% of the combined family income in excess of $22,000. The grants program, which seniors rely upon very heavily, will be terminated at the end of this year.

During the 1991-92 fiscal year, the sales and property tax grant programs cost the province about $512 million. That's $60 million for the sales tax grant and $452 million for the property tax grant. Approximately 740,000 senior citizens benefited from this grant program, with the average property tax grant amounting to $429. That is a lot of money to senior citizens. They got back an average of $429, those 740,000 seniors.

There's an Orillia resident, Mr Ken Clark, the president of zone 11 of Simcoe county for the United Senior Citizens of Ontario. Mr Clark attended the USCO's 34th annual convention in Windsor last August. Mr Clark was good enough to provide me with a copy of the resolutions that were debated and voted on during that convention. These resolutions deal with issues of great importance to Ontario senior citizens and focus on such matters as health care, law, housing, pensions, transportation and, lastly, a matter that concerns us here tonight: taxes and grants.

2150

I would like to read into the record seven of the resolutions that were approved by the USCO membership in August because I believe they should be of interest to the Minister of Revenue, who is responsible for Bill 31.

"Property and sales tax grants," something that's been in place for many years:

"Whereas we protest any move to discontinue the $600 property tax grant and the $50 sales tax grant for seniors" -- they don't believe that should have been removed -- "Therefore be it resolved that the USCO make a strong protest to the provincial government objecting to any proposal to reduce these grants."

They also had a resolution with regard to the elimination of the sales tax that says:

"Whereas a significant portion of the cost of living experienced by senior citizens results from government taxes and such seniors cannot afford such costs on fixed incomes, and

"Whereas economists predict that only by stimulating the economy of this province, especially in the retail sector, can the present recession be broken,

"Therefore be it resolved that this USCO convention go on record as urging the various levels of government, federal and provincial, to eliminate such sales taxes for senior citizens who are retired and on fixed incomes."

They went on and they talked about many different items. They talked about the rent rebates and they had resolutions with regard to them at their convention. It says:

"Whereas rental costs for housing for senior citizens can take up to 25% or more of pension incomes, and represents the most significant portion of income expenditures for senior citizens trying to live on fixed pension incomes,

"Therefore be it resolved that this USCO convention call upon the Ontario government not to reduce rebates to which senior citizens in this province are presently entitled."

There are not many seniors who only pay 25% of their income on rent. It's mostly 50%, in some cases 60%, in some cases 75%. They were calling on the government not to reduce any of the funding that they were getting. They need those dollars.

"Property tax rebates." They were being taxed to the limit. "Whereas the news media has mentioned that the provincial government plans to cancel the $600 maximum tax rebate," they went on and indicated "that the United Senior Citizens of Ontario request that the provincial government retain the special tax rebate for senior citizens."

That's all part of this tax system that is being taken away from the seniors, except those in very, very serious need.

There were some other resolutions they looked at at the Windsor conference, and Mr Clark was good enough to pass some of these on to me because he's very concerned. As the chairman of zone 11 at that convention, he was capable of getting his points across of what he felt, as a senior, was the need.

It says, "Whereas seniors citizens in Ontario have benefited from the Ontario property tax grant and sales tax grant for the past several years." These people relied on that money in October, in the fall of the year, to help to pay the bills.

It says, "Whereas a great number of seniors residing in Ontario have not heretofore been required to prepare an income tax return because of insufficient earnings." I've had some people in my office who indicated they have not filled out a tax return. I've indicated to them very strongly that I felt they should because I felt that they were missing out on some benefits that may be in their favour if they did proceed to have their income tax filled out. I felt there were some benefits that perhaps they may not have been receiving that were possible for them to receive.

"Whereas the United Citizens of Ontario have consistently opposed de-indexing of old age security pensions on principle, and

"Whereas no opportunity has been given for consultation with senior citizen representatives respecting the proposed change."

Doesn't that sound a familiar tune? Whereas they have not been consulted. That is the history of this government when it comes to dealing with anything it is doing. They are not consulting with the people.

They went on and said, "Therefore be it resolved that the United Senior Citizens of Ontario beseech the government of Ontario to reconsider its intention to change the property tax grant and sales tax grant as outlined in the provincial government budget speech of 1992."

I want to speak briefly with regard to the property tax rebate.

"Whereas at present the provincial government gives senior citizens instalments of $300 twice a year towards property taxes, and

"Whereas the present taxes on each residence continues to rise significantly, be it local or education taxes,

"Therefore be it resolved we approach the government of Ontario to continue these biyearly payments.

"Be it further resolved that these payments be increased or indexed to assist the seniors to remain self-sufficient in their homes or apartments or rental accommodations."

As I've said before, these residents have relied on this amount of money for many years. When this program started out it was $450 a year, and at that time this program was in place to help to pay for the education tax on the seniors who found themselves in need when the education taxes had increased drastically. The $450 was going to do that. Now it's been increased to the $600.

That was a great benefit to many people and that was increased about five or six years ago. Many of us thought it should have been increased to $1,000 because of the cost of taxes today on property. This government has seen fit to bring in a change whereby those it feels are in need will get it and those it feels are not in need will not get it.

I want to talk briefly about adjustment and property tax grants. This is part of the overall convention that was held in Windsor when Mr Clark indicated to me the resolutions were talked about there.

"Whereas the provincial budget for 1992-93 announces adjustments to provincial tax grants. Under these arrangements senior households with incomes between $23,000 and $40,000 will suffer appreciably. Furthermore, with Canada pensions linked to inflation, and bank interest rates falling to levels unheard of since the 1960s, many seniors have even less income than they have had in previous years."

That's very true. Seniors of this province realize that. The seniors of this province are saying this at the conventions they are holding. They went on and said:

"Therefore be it resolved that the provincial government be urged to raise the $23,000 threshold, in order to help those seniors against whom the loss of the former level of property tax grants is especially discriminatory."

I have noted before that it is rather ironic that this NDP government goes to great lengths and expense to designate, proclaim and promote one month out of the year in recognition of our senior citizens.

This is the same government that continues its discriminatory policy that requires senior citizens over the age of 70 to undergo automatic driver's licence testing in the event of an accident, regardless of the circumstances. Clearly such testing should be restricted to only those charged with causing the accident or those who have displayed a lack of competence in operating a vehicle.

This is the same government that penalized senior citizens on June 8 when it increased the cost of several civil court transactions, such as real estate and mortgage transactions, wills and estates, divorces and family law matters, mostly pertaining to the senior citizens of this province.

Yes, this is the same government that has penalized senior citizens in a government ripoff that will see their nursing home fees increase up to $300 a month with the passage of Bill 101. There have been contradictions to that, but it has been increased substantially.

2200

I would like to take the opportunity to thank Mr Ken Clark, president of zone 11, Simcoe county, of the United Senior Citizens of Ontario, for bringing these important resolutions to my attention. I have offered this Legislature tonight the opportunity to be part of those resolutions that Mr Clark brought to me. He told me that a copy of all the resolutions passed at the USCO's 34th annual convention last August in Windsor was forwarded to the government for its consideration and comments. Judging by Bill 31, I don't think the Revenue minister even glanced at the USCO resolutions. He failed to give them any consideration whatsoever; I'm not so sure they've been looked at.

There are also some other considerations that should be part of the property and sales tax grants. The USCO made many recommendations with regard to the concerns they raised at their annual meeting in Windsor, many concerns that I know have been forwarded to the minister. They talked about many different issues of the property tax grants; about the adjustment to the property tax grants; about the sales tax rebate; property tax and sales tax grants; elimination of sales tax on certain items, and rent rebates. I wish the Minister of Revenue had sat down with these people and listened to some of the concerns they raised at their annual meeting.

They also talked about dental care and mental health programs for our senior citizens in this province. I remember, some seven years ago, an election where a Premier was promising free dental care to seniors. I have not seen that yet. It's not part of this bill, it has not been discussed, and I wonder why. Have they forgotten about our seniors in this province?

I've said many times at events I attend that our seniors are the people who have made Canada and Ontario what we're enjoying today. Those people worked for very little, did without many things. They worked hard. They were part of a community, they built a community, and made sure that things in that community happened. And they did it mostly on a volunteer basis, something we're lacking very strongly in society today. In small-town Ontario we still have that, and it's the seniors who instilled that into many people of this province.

I hope the people listening tonight will realize who I feel are the most important people of this province, the ones who built it, the ones who cared for us and the ones who made this Legislature what it is. But when I look at this bill, I have the feeling that this government does not realize who built Ontario and Canada and made them what we're enjoying today.

Even the students of this province are having second thoughts now. I remember that somebody here called the last Liberal leader in this province a liar five times. When I look at the Agenda for People and at what's in that Agenda for People, and when I look at what's happening today and at what's happened in the last two years in this Legislature -- the people out there watching know what's happening. The people watching know the mistake they made. The people out there know they did not elect an NDP government. The people out there know they were sick and tired of tax increases they had seen and that they wanted a change.

In that last campaign, I remember going to seniors' homes, and they were saying that Mike Harris was going to do away with the tax grants to the seniors. That was not the case at all. I did not see any of that in the Agenda for People.

The Agenda for People indicated what they wanted to do in education, with small business and farmers, how they were going to make loans available to the farmers and the small businesses and keep them in operation. Has that happened? No, it has not happened, and they know it. They know full well what they have done. They blame everything now on the economy. They want to blame it on the government in Ottawa.

Today, I asked some questions about why business is moving out of Ontario. I couldn't get answers about why business is moving out of Ontario. We appointed a head of Hydro who was businessman of the year in the United States of America. I said to myself: "You and Bob Rae have something in common, because Bob Rae was the Buffalo Booster man of the year, and you were the man of the year for the United States. So you did have something in common."

Look at education costs and this government. There was all kinds of talk about 60% funding: "Within five years we will have 60% funding, back to the level that people want." When we left government, 51% was what the province was paying, when the new government took power, 43% was what government paid, and today it is somewhere between 37% and 39% that the government pays, the government that promised a commitment of up to 60% funding.

The other thing they promised was that student tuition fees were going to be free, no charge for tuition fees. What did they do? There are no more grants. If you want to apply for a loan, that's your privilege, but there are no grants.

Look at tuition fees and the cost of education today. We're dealing with the sales tax grant here for our seniors, and all we've got to do is look at these people who are living in their homes, at the increased education costs in their property tax. How can some of these people remain in the homes they have built and worked so hard to achieve? This government has not made it easy for that to happen. Now this government is bringing in a bill that says: "The $600 and the $50 sales tax rebate you got, no, no, you've got to apply for it now. You don't automatically get it; you apply for it." So there are a lot of things --

Hon Ms Gigantes: The GST, the GST.

Mr McLean: All the Minister of Housing can talk about is GST. She's not interested in what's going on here in the province of Ontario. She's not interested in looking at her own ministry. In one case, this government bought 127 two-bedroom units for an average of $140,000, and the survey showed that the average Metro price was $70,000 in 1989 and $51,000 in 1991, and this minister has the gall to talk about the GST. You can't even run your ministry. You don't know what's going on in the province of Ontario when you pay $140,000 a unit for subsidized housing. You should know better than that. The people know better, but it's unfortunate that you don't.

With regard to the property tax rebate and the sales tax grant, this bill certainly leaves something to be desired. They want to talk about dental care, some of the programs that should have been brought in for our seniors. We don't hear it. They think somebody who's making $23,000 a year is making a great salary. Ask some of the seniors out there who are paying $4,000 and $5,000 in property tax on their homes if that's a good salary. Mr Speaker, you know different and I know different, and I'll tell you, the people out there know different.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr McLean: When it comes to dental care, health care and health promotion and illness prevention, the Minister of Health has just recently brought in a bill with regard to streamlining the health care in this province. We all know it's going to cost up to $300 a year extra for a lot of people, seniors, to stay in their homes.

2210

A part in here talks about the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia; it's what I have been talking about for years. The senior citizens in Windsor discussed this very issue. It says:

"There is an increasing need for chronic care facilities in central Ontario to deal with illnesses of an ongoing nature and which require specialized care; and

"Whereas the province already owns the Huronia Regional Centre, located in Orillia, which is an adequate facility for this purpose; and

"Whereas the Huronia Regional Centre is located on the shores of Lake Simcoe and Lake Couchiching, which would provide a positive quality of life with a holistic and restorative atmosphere, and Orillia is situated in the centre of Ontario's most highly populated areas, making it convenient for visitation; and

"Whereas the Huronia Regional Centre is conveniently located in relation to the Soldiers' Memorial Hospital in Orillia, convenient to the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie, Parry Sound Regional Trauma Centre, Huronia District Hospital in Midland and the public health laboratory which is located in Orillia on the same grounds;

"Therefore be it resolved that the USCO strongly recommends to the provincial government that the existing Huronia Regional Centre be used as a chronic care facility for the treatment and care of patients suffering from long-term illnesses such as Alzheimer's."

For at least seven or eight years now, I have been making statements in the House on this very issue, this very issue of helping our seniors, this very issue about people in this province who are Alzheimer's patients. I spoke here the other day about a friend who was in the hospital in Orillia in the chronic care unit who couldn't see anything out the window.

Those members who want to make fun of this, who are not interested, maybe should listen, because they may be old some day. They may not be able to look out a window, like this lady. They may be in a position where they would like to be in a homey atmosphere such as the Huronia Regional Centre whereby they would be able to have some dignity and some pride, and family and friends' visitation would be all part of it.

The last thing I want to leave with you is that during the 1990 election campaign, this government had indicated nothing in its Agenda for People -- there was no such talk -- about taking the sales tax grant away from our seniors. It was a program in place for many years. It started at $450 a year and increased to $600 a year. It was something those people looked forward to. The $50 tax grant may not seem like a lot of money to some people, but to our seniors it is a lot of money.

I went to seniors' homes, and they said that our leader was going to do away with the property tax grant. It was a whisper campaign from the very people who are sitting here today and doing it to them. And the ones who voted for them will do it back. The people will not forget what these people have done to our seniors of this province, who made this country, who made Canada and made Ontario that we're enjoying today. They're penalizing them tonight, and I say to all you people who are taking this property tax grant from our seniors, shame on you.

The Acting Speaker: Now is the time for questions and/or comments.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'd like to compliment the member for Simcoe East on his speech today on this bill. He brought out some very germane points, I thought, about how this government is really taxing the seniors of Ontario. I like very much his feeling about the seniors being the people who built this country and how we of this generation, whom they took care of, really owe them for that. In this legislation today, I think we're not doing that.

It's worthy to note that one could say that maybe some of the changes in this particular bill aren't the worst things in the world, but when you look at the cumulative impact of all the different bills, regulations and issues that this government has brought down upon seniors, I think you could go so far as to say that this government has basically declared war on elderly people in Ontario.

If you look at the provincial park fee increases, that's another one in isolation, but add that up. For the seniors who travel south for more than six months of the year, while I agree with that policy of them having to pay their share, that's another cost being borne by them. Add that up. Yesterday we debated Bill 101, talking about long-term care. The copayment structure fee has been changed and the average senior in those institutions would now pay 38% more.

It's one change after another. It's the changes in these bills and other bills that have gone on for the last little while. But the cumulative impact is going to mean that seniors are going to have to be paying a lot more in Ontario in order to live, and that's wrong.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Tell the truth.

Mr Ramsay: That is the truth. The member for Lake Nipigon over there says, "Tell the truth." I'm just listing off all the various things this government has done. For each one in itself one could make a very rational argument, but the cumulative impact of all of these various issues put together is costing the seniors of Ontario a lot of money. On behalf of the colleagues I represent, I just want to say that I think it's a shame.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I want to compliment my colleague the member for Simcoe East for what I thought was an excellent and very compassionate speech on behalf of the senior citizens and the frail elderly of Ontario.

It strikes me as passing strange that this government, which went to our senior homes during the last campaign and said that Mike Harris was going to cut the property tax grant, is now manipulating that property tax grant to the tune of saving itself, the government, $80 million to $100 million a year, simply out of the pockets of senior citizens of this province. As the Ontario PC Health critic I find it strange indeed that the Minister of Health and other ministers of the government get up and tell us that the way to go in health care is with community-based health care. How can seniors afford to stay in their homes if this government keeps attacking what little money they have?

I say to you that we have not seen any studies to indicate that community-based care is any cheaper, and it won't be cheaper if you don't give seniors the property tax grants they're entitled to. These aren't freebies. These were introduced by Tory governments to offset property tax and school board taxes and enable seniors to stay in their homes with dignity as long as possible. This government's sucking $80 million to $100 million out of the pockets of seniors and yet the Health minister says they're supposed to stay in their homes. Many seniors simply won't be able to afford their property taxes and school board taxes and their heat and hydro and everything else that's gone up under this government.

I think the NDP should be ashamed and the members who are here tonight should be ashamed to be part of that party that spread falsehoods in the campaign about my party, a party that introduced the property tax grant. Now these people are out to destroy the Ontario that our seniors once took for granted. All I can say is that they should be ashamed.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Nepean.

Mr Daigeler: I think the member for Simcoe East put some very important points on the record. I have heard him before speak on behalf of seniors and I certainly appreciate when he puts forward the views that he's heard from people in his riding and other events he has attended. The member for Simcoe East put them on the record.

I too get a lot of letters and comments. I quoted some when I spoke earlier on this evening. I just want to put on the record something that I just received from somebody in my riding. This is a letter I have here. It's dated November 28. The member for Fort York was saying earlier: "We're making it fairer. Those seniors who have a higher income will get less. In fact, they get very little when they have high incomes." This senior who wrote to me, his income is $60,000, which sounds high, sounds very high.

Interjections.

Mr Daigeler: Just a minute. Listen to what this gentleman says. His wife is in a nursing home, and the cost he has to pay for his wife to be in the nursing home is $30,000. That reduces his income to $20,000. You're increasing the copayment fee. You're charging him almost $4,000 more, reducing his disposable income way below the poverty line.

2220

On paper, in theory, according to you NDPers this gentleman is supposed to be rich, but the reality is that the actual life is very different. You're hurting this gentleman further with the elimination of this property tax grant and with all the other measures you have introduced and that you're about to introduce that are hurting the seniors and that are hurting the people who are writing to me, and whom I have the letters from right here.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I'd like to save the NDP from the truth but you're going to hear it anyway. What I object to about this tax and why I fully support my colleague Mr McLean is simply because this government doesn't have a vision or a policy framework in which to deal with senior citizens.

It's very clear, if you listen to the debate in this House, what the Bob Rae government didn't say to seniors. I hearken you back to your election platform. There were no specific proposals or programs for seniors. Seniors were basically being told: "You don't count in this province. You're not part of our future in this province."

What did we see in the throne speech? The very first throne speech in November 1990 was the first throne speech in modern Ontario history with not one reference to the word "senior," to the person "senior," to those personnes âgées, says my colleague opposite. He knows whom we're talking about. But I defy you to pull out that throne speech and show anywhere where there was a commitment from your government to senior citizens. That has been the policy of this province for many years, to ensure that retirement is as important as early childhood education in this province.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): You guys offer a lot of lipservice.

Mr Jackson: The member who is sometimes masquerading as the Community and Social Services critic knows the many programs which he and his ministry have withdrawn from, but the story is much deeper. Not once did this government mention its interest in seniors in the fair property tax commission review -- that irony of statements, a Fair Tax Commission. Not once did you mention in that literature, in that pronouncement, the interests of seniors. But today you're asking this Parliament to pass a bill to remove the tax grant that was given to seniors in recognition of their many years of commitment and service and the increased costs that seniors will face.

You've pre-empted the commission because you don't have any commitment to seniors in this province.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Simcoe East has two minutes in response.

Mr McLean: I'd like to thank the members for Timiskaming, Simcoe West, Nepean and Burlington South for their comments.

There are a lot of people here who don't know what it was like to be poor and they don't know what it was like to work hard. My father built the road between Orillia and Barrie with a team of horses and a scoop. I remember my mother going shopping with a $10 bill for seven kids. I remember going to the beef ring with my father for a pail of meat that would do our family for the week.

I know what the seniors did in my day. I know what my parents did for me and my brothers and sisters. I know what our party did to bring in the property tax grant to help those very people who built Ontario and built Canada with a team of horses and a scraper like my father did.

Interjections.

Mr McLean: Those people over there are laughing about that. I'm telling you, that's hard to accept when I hear these people saying what they are saying about people like my parents and many parents in this province who worked so hard.

I remember working for $2 a day. These people will probably laugh about that, but they don't know what it was like to be poor. They let on they know what it's like for the little people. With the legislation that I've seen brought in here since they've been in power, they're not what they have said they have been over the years: the people for the poor. No. They are different. They should be ashamed of the legislation they are bringing in in this Legislature.

The Acting Speaker: I want to remind all members that interjections are out of order, and we do have the opportunity for questions and/or comments. Please use those. We now proceed with further debate. The honourable member for Algoma-Manitoulin.

Mr Brown: I was waiting for one of the government members to stand and take their turn in the rotation. I suppose many of us are really quite surprised that they don't want to participate in this debate, or perhaps we're not very surprised they don't want to participate in this debate. You know, this is the first week in December.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My point of order is that if the member had been present earlier he would have heard me explain, on behalf of the government side, that we are not participating in order to allow the opposition full rein this evening in the hopes that this very good measure will pass.

The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order. It's clearly a point of view; it's not a point of order.

The honourable member for Algoma-Manitoulin has the floor. I remind honourable members that interjections are out of order, particularly when they're not in their own assigned seat.

Mr Brown: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your patience. Just to help the Minister of Housing, I of course was here when she made that comment. I didn't accept that explanation. I think the explanation is that the government is ashamed of this bill.

If I can take you back, just for a while, to the spring of this year, when this draconian measure was put before this House, doesn't it strike you as a little strange that this measure is being debated the second-last day this House sits before the Christmas recess? I think the government is hoping that the people of Ontario are thinking about Santa Claus, reindeer and other things, and not paying attention to what this government is doing. I put that to you because I know they don't want to participate in what I think is a valuable debate on some really important policies to the working people of this province and to the senior citizens of this province.

I would like to indicate what this bill is really about. It does three things. The first thing is it changes the seniors tax grant program to a seniors tax credit program. There's a significant difference; I'll get to that later. The second thing it does is increase Ontario's basic income tax rate for all Ontarians. The third thing this bill does is lower the threshold for the application of the Ontario high-income surcharge.

The government, through this bill, will increase Ontario's personal income tax to 54.5% of the basic federal income tax for the 1992 taxation year. For 1993 the government will increase the rate to 55% of the basic federal income tax. That means, for example, that a single-income family of four at the $40,000 income level will pay $110 more in taxes to our good friend Pink Floyd.

The government says, and I think this is important, that this measure, this increase of income tax was necessary because of high deficits. I want to take you back again, because I think this is an important point. I recall, as most members will, that this government was going to buy Ontario out of this recession; this government was going to buy the free world out of recession. Singlehandedly, Bob Rae, the only one who understands economics in the free world, was going to buy Ontario out of the recession; hence an increase in the first year, Mr Laughren's first budget, of, I believe, 13% to 14% in the gross spending of this province. That reflected an unbelievable deficit, something that no other government in the free world saw fit to run, an atrocious deficit. But it was going to work. It was going to take us out of the recession.

2230

Well, here we are a year later and we're in the middle of this recession, still here, and now the Treasurer is going to tax his way out of the recession: a very interesting suggestion. He waited. He waited until Mr Mulroney had his budget. Remember that? Mr Mazankowski in the House? He cut the income tax. A good old Tory cut the income tax, and guess what? Mr Laughren was back in there as soon as he could get a budget to take up the slack. He increased Ontario's income tax exactly the same as Mr Mazankowski dropped the income tax: kind of interesting, interesting in that he thought he could hide it. He thought nobody out there would notice. He thought they wouldn't know Mr Laughren was taking back the money Mr Mazankowski had just given.

It worked, maybe, except for one thing: He had to increase the tax this year to 56% because he only had half the year to do it. He increased it so that you, Mr Speaker -- and I know you're in this income category -- could pay a little bit more to help out good old Floyd. Sleight of hand is kind when you describe that.

I'm told that Mr Mazankowski, that generous Tory Finance minister, gave somebody making $10,000 a whole $10 rebate. He could pay $10 less in taxes. Maybe it wasn't going to help a lot, but Mr Laughren grabbed that $10 before Mr Mazankowski could hardly blink an eye. For $20,000 a taxpayer would save, I believe -- I could be wrong on this, but I think it was in the neighbourhood of $30. Floyd grabbed the $30 right back. And guess what? For $30,000, and a lot of my constituents don't make $30,000, but they would have saved $75 if Mr Mazankowski's measure was taken through, but Floyd, with his greedy little paws, grabbed the money, because now he's going to tax his way out of this mess because he wasn't able to buy his way out of this mess. I find that kind of strange.

Then what did the party of the people do next? The party of the people wasn't satisfied in just having every Ontarian pay more tax. They decided that the income surcharge, which previously had applied to people making $84,000 or more, would apply to people making $53,000. In other words, you became rich in Ontario, under this Bob Rae socialist government, when you got to $53,000.

Who makes that kind of money? I'm sure I've got some people at E.B. Eddy in Espanola who will make $53,000, and they would tell me they're not rich. I have a few folks at Rio Algom -- what's left after the NDP laid most of them off -- who would make $53,000. They're going to be out of jobs in 1995. They don't think they're rich at $53,000. I have schoolteachers, who work very hard for our children in our school system. They're going to be paying the surcharge because now, in Bob Rae's Ontario, they're rich.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Tax the rich. Make them all poor.

Mr Brown: That's exactly what we're finding. The NDP's policy of tax the rich when they were in opposition has become tax the middle class.

I don't know, but in my travels through my constituency, I'm getting what I guess the political commentators call "tax fatigue." My constituents are telling us: "We just can't accept more taxes. It just won't work." You can't keep going back to the well, because people are hurting out there. People are unemployed.

But not in Bob Rae's Ontario. In Bob Rae's Ontario, we're going to tax our way out of this deficit. I tell you, I don't think it will work and I don't think Ontarians, in this Christmas season, will believe that it's going to work. I suspect that perhaps in this Christmas season the good people of Ontario might be calling our friend Bob, "Scrooge."

I think perhaps the most interesting part of this bill is the changes to the seniors' tax grant system. It is now being changed to a seniors' tax credit system. That means a great number of my constituents will no longer qualify, or will qualify for reduced amounts from the provincial government. I think of the people in Mindemoya, the people in Manitouwaning, the folks in South Baymouth, those at Whitefish Falls, the good people at Massey. Their families came to the area over 100 years ago to carve out of the wilderness farms and places for people to work and prosper. They had a great deal of difficulty in doing that. They worked hard, and through the generations they have managed to build a society that is good.

The intent of the seniors' tax grant was to offset, primarily, education taxes. That was the real intent: to offset education taxes that seniors pay. It seemed reasonable to people that after having worked your whole life, put your own children through school, and probably your grandchildren, after you reached 65, you would no longer have to continue to pay education taxes through your property tax base. That was one of the primary reasons the grant was put in place.

But that's all gone, because in Bob Rae's Ontario I believe the number -- I should look at my notes -- is that if you make $27,000, you're now considered rich. You start to see the money, the tax credit, evaporate.

I'll tell you, $27,000 is not a great deal of money. When we're trying to encourage our seniors to stay in their homes, stay out of institutions, to not be taking advantage of the facilities the good taxpayers of Ontario make available to them, the property tax grant was probably a good deal in helping them pay their bills. But now you're rich at $27,000.

The true problem with this is that the Treasurer should be really up front. This is really a revenue bill that is going to bring the Treasurer of Ontario hundreds of millions of dollars. He's doing it on the backs of seniors. He didn't balance it. He didn't say, "I'm going to take some of the money from the high-income earners and give it to the low-income earners." He didn't say that.

What has happened is that he's paying the low-income seniors a little bit more, and that's good, but he's taking a lot of money away from higher-income earners and just sticking it in his jeans and using it to finance one of the many government fiascos that we see going on today.

2240

The seniors I represent have had a difficult time in the last few years. This is not the first attack on seniors. As a matter of fact, I suggest to you that this government has made numerous attacks on seniors, and on the middle class: the middle class of seniors, that is. Seniors, for example, are now paying huge amounts more money if they choose to go to more southern climes for a month or two in the winter, through having to pay tremendous increases in fees for out-of-country health service. That may be fair -- I'm not sure -- but I know that it presents more burden on these folks in their homes.

I also know that the long-term care initiatives of this government are following the same principles. Now we have a 38% increase in what seniors must pay to be in institutions. That may not seem a tremendous amount of money, but I think it works out to be $3,400 or $3,500 additional a year. If you are, as are some of the people I know, in the position that your spouse is in a nursing home and you have a reasonable but relatively low level of income, the cost of having one spouse in the nursing home while the other tries to maintain an apartment or home is very difficult for these people. I don't believe the government has taken a hard look or a good look at how those people who have a spouse in one of our institutions are supposed to cope.

Another problem in particular for seniors has been hydro rates. With the exception of welfare, I probably get more calls about Ontario Hydro than any other particular issue. Seniors in my communities do not have access to a cheaper fuel such as natural gas. Many of them heat their homes with hydro. The increases in hydro, I believe, would be in the order of at least 30% in the last three years. That is another increased burden on people whom the government professes it wants to keep in their own homes.

Moving on, I look at rent control under this government. The Minister of Housing is here. That's great. I want to tell you how well that's worked. What that's done is that under the previous regimes of rent control the average rent increase in the province was always about the rate of inflation. When inflation was 5%, it was around 5.6%.

Interjection.

Mr Brown: It's right there. There was very little difference between the increase in rent and the increase in the rent control guidelines. But guess what? Under this government rent increases are running 3% to 4% ahead of inflation every year. That's rent control that really works. I know seniors who got something like 37 cents additional in their last federal seniors' cheque. What do you call that? Social security cheque? Whatever. Those people got 37 cents and were hit with very large rent increases last year. It was 6%, I believe; this year it's almost 5%.

To add further injury, the government went so far as to charge senior citizens more to go to provincial parks. Even provincial parks have to get more money from seniors.

I think it would be a good time to point out that there is one good thing about this bill. The good thing about this bill is at least it's up front. At least we have an opportunity in this Legislature to debate it. At least we can talk about it.

I have a list of but a few revenue grabs that the government has passed by regulation that will not be debated here. No one in here will talk about it, because it's done by order in council behind closed doors. But guess what? You get surprised every time you go to see a government agency. I'll just indicate a few of them.

There's a $50 corporation filing fee imposed. So every time you file your corporation papers, $50. That's up from zero. That's going to raise for the government another $1.8 million.

Now there's a fee to register handicapped elevating devices, and it's up 320% to $210.

Fees for signs. You know the signs you see on the sides of roads? They're up 200% in some cases. Two hundred per cent.

The cost of probating a will has tripled. The cost of a divorce petition transaction is up 68% to $320. The cost of searching a title for residential real estate has tripled to $11. The cost of filing a claim in civil court is up 66%, from $75 to $125. The cost of defending a claim in civil court is up 75%, from $40 to $70. The cost of a writ to seize property goes up 80%, from $25 to $45.

The cost of a fishing licence is up 30%, from $11.50 to $15, and you have the added pleasure of paying $6 so you can have your Outdoors Card. There's a new royalty of 2% imposed on the value of fish caught by commercial fishermen.

Environmental certificates of approval, formerly free of charge, now require a fee that will generate $900,000 this year and $1.85 million next year.

I've had municipalities write me about this one: There's a fee now charged by the Ministry of the Environment to test well water. I'm also told they're now going to charge municipalities for testing their water.

Lab licence fees are up 6%, from $602 to $634.

This members will really like. There's a $20 fee charged for the government book listing on the value of used vehicles.

That's just a partial list. We really didn't work very hard at that list. But the amazing thing is that all these fees and all these charges, we never see here. They're never debated. They're not debated like Bill 31 is. None of us has an opportunity in this place to speak to these charges that every one of our constituents will take advantage of in some way or another over the next few years.

I find this whole revenue grab, this tax grab announced by the Treasurer, the largest tax grab in this province's history I'm told, at a time when the government is hoping the consumers will lift us out of the recession that we're in by spending more dollars -- the policy is contradictory. I can't understand it. Why does the government have to be reaching deeper and deeper into your pocket?

To me, Keynesian economics or any economics would indicate that that is the way to stall an economy out. That is the way to stop an economy. That is the way to knock inflation down, do all those good things. Tax, make sure the consumer has no confidence and make sure you grab as much as you can from every paycheque that you can. That's this government's new philosophy, a new philosophy that has come to pass because the government now believes it can tax its way out of the recession that last year it thought it could spend its way out of.

2250

I think Mr Laughren has been very clever here. My friend the Treasurer has snuck in and grabbed some money out of the pockets of the people. They probably haven't noticed because they probably thought Mr Mazankowski was still in their jeans. But that's not the way it is, and I think that has the full impact of the decisions the government is taking with regard to senior citizens in particular.

This government, as the seniors become more and more aware, which they will as time goes by, will find it's going to have to rethink this one. I sincerely hope you'll have to rethink this one because senior citizens, at that level of income, at the level of $27,000, are not rich people. They do not have the ability to live in a manner that I think all of us would believe appropriate, independent in their own homes, on $27,000.

As a poor Liberal looks over at the party of the people, at the party that promised it would tax the rich, the kind of Robin Hood philosophy, and has ended up indicating that rich people are at $27,000, and in the case of income tax surcharge at $53,000, and has increased income tax on every single Ontarian this year, notwithstanding what the Premier said -- if you'll recall back in June, Mr Rae actually believed, at least he told us so I guess I can't be sure he believed it, that the government was lowering taxes on the low-income people, but it's just not the case.

With that, I will resignedly sit down in my seat, with no great feeling of joy in this Christmas season because, Mr Speaker, I submit to you, Scrooge is here.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for Algoma-Manitoulin for his contribution to the debate and invite questions and/or comments.

Mr Wiseman: I'm rising now to make some comments because we understood, on this side of the House, from the beginning that there had been an agreement by the three parties on how this debate would continue, and it seems to me that the parties opposite, particularly the Liberal Party, have demonstrated that they have no honour, that they will not keep agreements and that they will renege on what has been agreed by the House leaders.

I would like to say that if there is a tax fatigue in the community, it has more to do with what the Liberals did in power than what we have done. I would just like to go through this as an example. In the 1986-87 year, the total taxation revenue for the province of Ontario was $19.958 billion. In the taxation year 1989-90, three years later, the total taxation revenue collected was $31.015 billion, an increase of $12 billion in tax increases by that party in three years.

Let's talk a little bit about where these increases came from. Personal income tax: $8.618 billion in 1986-87, $13.518 billion in 1989-90. That's a 62% increase in income tax collected. Retail sales tax went from $5.6 billion to $8.5 billion, a 60% increase. Yet they have the audacity to sit here and say that the cause of tax fatigue is what we're doing, when in fact what we are doing is redistributing income from those who are well able to pay to those who have been less fortunate, following on a tax program that they themselves advocated in 1980.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired. I recognize the member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: The member for Algoma-Manitoulin --

Mr Daigeler: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is it not our tradition that we rotate question and answers?

The Speaker: Stop the clock for a minute, please. We have a total of four and we try to have a balance, and indeed I'm prepared to recognize the member so that there will be a balance. The member will be recognized after the member for Fort York.

Mr Daigeler: I accept that, but it's been my understanding that we normally rotate. I can stand corrected, if you want.

The Speaker: The member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: If the member for Nepean distorted reality, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin mythologizes even more effectively, as did the member of the Conservative Party.

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In spite of your hand signals to your colleagues in the government, I'd appreciate it if you'd recalibrate the clock in accordance. Otherwise, the member opposite is getting more time, and that's only fair, if you'd consider that, Mr Speaker.

Mr Marchese: I've lost all my time.

The Speaker: I don't think there's a problem with the clock, no. The member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: I hope I would be allowed the extra 30 seconds on this. As I was saying, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin mythologizes even more effectively, as did the member for Simcoe East when he spoke earlier on this bill as well. I don't know where either of these members come from, but in my riding most of the people I know don't make more than $20,000.

I use my mother as a fine example of a senior who makes $10,000. I use my mother as an example of a senior who took care of her husband, who had Alzheimer's disease when he was age 70, and he died at 77. She makes $10,000. That's the world I know, and these are the people who orient themselves in my riding and, I presume, in theirs as well.

The member for Algoma-Manitoulin mentions some area called -- I can't even remember where --

Interjection: Whitefish.

Mr Marchese: Whitefish Falls. I'm presuming from his comment that they make over $50,000 as seniors. He says, for example, "You're rich." The NDP is saying you're rich if you're making $53,000. Well, I can tell you that you are rich if you're making $53,000, and when I see that my mother makes only $10,000, she's very poor. So where they invent this reality somehow that we're doing something improper is beyond me.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Marchese: Mr Speaker, you will admit that my time had been robbed.

The Speaker: No, the member for Fort York, the time has expired. I realize that the member was trying to make presentations, but the time has expired and I recognize the member for Nepean.

Mr Daigeler: I don't think we robbed anything from the member for Fort York. In fact, he was lucky he got his turn, because normally we rotate and it was just out of courtesy that I let him speak.

Interjections.

Mr Daigeler: Well, many of the members in the House are young members. I've been in this House now for five years and it is a tradition that we have rotated the questions and comments.

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: How can the member stand on his feet and say it is his courtesy when it was your ruling that in fact recognized the member?

The Speaker: Members are recognized by the Chair, and the member for Nepean is recognized.

Mr Daigeler: I just would like to say I've been in this House now for much longer than most of the members over there and I know what the traditions are in this House.

But let me say to the member, because we're commenting on the remarks by the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, he made some very important points about the hidden taxation that is taking place by this government, and he gave a long list of indirect taxation measures.

One of the most offensive ones, and in fact the member for Renfrew North brought it up in this House in question period, is the one on the used cars. That again is a taxation measure that hits the underprivileged and those people the NDP is supposed to stand for most. Just last week I received a letter and it reads as follows:

"At this time I want to register a vigorous protest against the new procedures to register an older car in Ontario. This is another NDP ripoff of the taxpayers and consumers, especially the poor, who can only afford an old car, if they are lucky. It should be obvious to anyone that cars, especially old cars, are not equal in value."

That is another measure that this government has introduced as hidden taxation and is not willing to discuss in this House.

2300

The Speaker: The member's time has expired. Questions and/or comments? The member for Burlington South.

Mr Jackson: I find it rather unusual that both the Liberals and the socialists are debating over just who taxed more, or who took away services more in the last seven years in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Jackson: I think that if we were to put things in perspective, we would know that far too many things are being put on the property tax base in this province. Far too many things are being offed to the municipal property tax, and there will be a large number of senior citizens in this province who will be affected by this bill tonight. The fact of the matter is that in spite of the protests opposite, those members should listen carefully to the kinds of concerns that are being expressed.

Seniors are paying for the services you're offering them. The integrated homemaker program: You campaigned and said you'd spend $62 million. You're spending $3.2 million before the end of this fiscal year, and where are you going to get the money? By cutting short these property tax grants to seniors in recognition of the incredibly high property taxes that are paid in this province.

If you look at market value assessment, another one of your enforced --

Mr Hope: Darcy McKeough.

Mr Jackson: Well, you want to bring up Darcy McKeough. Darcy McKeough made some outstanding contributions to this province. We'd be well served to have a Darcy McKeough back in this House. But I'll tell you that your Treasurer, Floyd Laughren, is no Darcy McKeough. That is for sure.

It's indeed unfortunate, but I listen to the member opposite referencing the circumstances of his mother and his family's circumstances. I just ask him, if in fact he is listening to his mother's concerns, he'll consider --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate. I err. How could I forget the member for Algoma-Manitoulin? He has two minutes within which to wrap up his comments in response.

Mr Brown: Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. My first comment would be to thank the member for Durham dumps, no, Durham West, for participating.

One of the very interesting things they do is to talk about revenues. He talks about an increase in revenues from income tax during a Liberal government. Of course, the economy grew. People paid taxes. We didn't have unemployment. We were paying that kind of stuff. Of course the revenues went up. You've got to understand that the way to get more revenues isn't to increase taxes; the way to get more revenues is to get the economy going. That's how that works.

To the member for Fort York, I appreciate his intervention, but I wasn't talking about seniors in Whitefish Falls making $53,000. We were talking about the tax credit. That's a $27,000 -- when you start to have the credit reduced. That is a far different figure and many of my seniors --

Interjection.

Mr Brown: You're right. Probably the majority don't make that. That's fine. I understand that, but they're not going to get much more money. That's not how that works.

The member for Nepean made the best point of all. He talked about the hidden taxation that this government's putting out, the unconscionable seizure of not only the 20 bucks for registering your car but the unconscionable policy of this government in charging sales tax on the Canadian Red Book value, on what the bankers say the car is worth and not what the market says the car is worth. We had some good examples of what the Ministry of Transportation does in that regard, which I think all members of the House would understand to be very interesting to say the least.

I wrap up by saying again to this government at Christmas time: Scrooge.

The Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Jackson: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this terrible tax from our Treasurer. It is with some concern, having been assigned the responsibilities of being advocate for seniors' issues and advocate for Community and Social Services issues for the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario, that I rise to put in context how patently unfair and how typical this initiative by the government is.

I said earlier, in responding to a speaker, that what we're seeing from the government opposite is that it does not have a clear vision or a clear planning profile in which to deal with senior citizens and their concerns in this province. What is clear is that we have a patchwork of reaction and, unfortunately, the pattern is all too clear.

To talk to seniors out there, they have legitimate fears and concerns about the policy pronouncements that have come from this government. We have seen reductions in access to services. We've seen reductions in insured services in health in a variety of areas. We've seen delisting of drugs from the Ontario drug benefit plan, and as has been evidenced in this Legislature, drugs that do not have a generic alternative or an alternative drug, so that being single-source drugs, they have to be acquired by seniors. Some of these drugs are more expensive on a monthly basis than the monthly rent that they pay in a rent-geared-to-income housing unit in this province.

When seniors see that one of the first tax increases -- and this government has resisted tax increases or grant reductions. It has resisted that. But why did they choose seniors first? Why is it that they chose seniors first? One might reasonably argue that political observers cynically watched some of the cuts the Liberals did in the last three years and there weren't thousands of senior citizens arriving at Queen's Park and lining up on the front lawn. Grey power did not come to Queen's Park in any significant numbers at all in the last five or six years.

I guess the NDPers felt, "If the Liberals can get away with these cuts, perhaps we can proceed and make some additional cuts, because they really don't have the cohesive infrastructure, the mobility and the ability to lobby and to demonstrate in large numbers here at Queen's Park."

Perhaps it's in their nature not to complain. Perhaps it's in their nature, having gone through a depression, having gone through a recession, having gone through a world war, to realize the true context of sacrifice. But in that context, governments have great responsibility not to abuse that trust and confidence that seniors traditionally put in their government.

It puts a responsibility on a government to ensure that it doesn't look at seniors as some lobby group that will be less effective and less vocal in the media. It becomes important, then, that they be treated with respect because they are politically vulnerable. That is not what we have seen from this government to date, and I cite Bill 31, these reductions in property tax grants to seniors, as a clear and classic example of the government's growing indifference to seniors in Ontario.

I see the Minister of Energy opposite shaking his head. I have been a colleague of his in this Legislature for many years and I know he's raised these concerns in the past, but he also knows that he is currently responsible for some rather large increases in residential hydro rates. He's fooling himself if he thinks that senior citizens will be insulated somehow from these costs. The minister knows that, and that's clearly on the list of the kinds of additional expenses for seniors.

You can't simply isolate one policy announcement one month to the next. Seniors are sitting in their living rooms at home and they're looking at their monthly bills growing and they're looking at their income and their capacity to spend dwindling at an alarming rate. They deserve better in this province, but we make decisions here as a government, we as a Legislature make the kinds of decisions that fuel that insecurity and provide a climate in which seniors really, truly fear for their future.

I have said earlier this evening that there was no surprise that seniors have fallen to a low-level priority for the government. As I mentioned earlier, the throne speech, an address presented by His Honour Lincoln Alexander on November 20, 1990, the first throne speech in modern Ontario history that through all of its -- let me get the number of pages -- 17 pages -- I'm sure it took His Honour a good half-hour to read it -- has not one mention of senior citizens.

2310

There was some scant hope for seniors when the government said, "We're going to pursue a property tax review, a complete tax review, on the Fair Tax Commission, and we intend to listen to seniors." Yet with the work of the Fair Tax Commission barely begun, with the scant few seniors who were invited by the government to sit on the Fair Tax Commission for their input, to understand the impact taxation issues will have on their lives, this government in its first budget jumped to the forefront and started raising issues about reducing grants to seniors.

It's incredibly important that we try and take a moment and put into context the impact that grant reductions and tax increases will have on senior citizens on fixed incomes in this province. There is the global issue of just how fast property taxes are rising in this province, and I remind all members of the House that the reason we have a property tax grant system for senior citizens and pensioners in this province was in growing recognition by the Progressive Conservative Party, when we were the government, that senior citizens had made a lifetime contribution towards their education taxes and deserved and needed appropriate relief from the effects of the very huge tax increases that were occurring. Within the last five, six years it was clear --

Interjections.

Mr Jackson: Mr Speaker, I would like to prevail upon you, if you could arrange to have this serious debate raging from the House leader of the socialists, to please remove herself from our side of the House so that I can continue with my debate. Her presence is rather disruptive and she's making accusations that are inappropriate. She's leaving. That's fine. Thank you, Mr Speaker. You're a help.

The Speaker: Would the member please take his seat.

I think it would be very helpful if the member would have perhaps a touch more generous approach to the opportunity to debate in the House. If there are disruptions, of course I'm more than pleased to deal with them at the time. I also realize that all members are trying to provide a reasonable accommodation for the matters that are at hand with respect to the clock. The member has the floor and I invite him to continue with his remarks.

Mr Jackson: Thank you for your support, Mr Speaker.

Mr Marchese: You are too much.

Mr Jackson: Well, I'm sure the Speaker would prefer his impartiality to be demonstrated, especially when that incident was occurring within earshot of the Speaker. That's a tradition in this House and should continue, and he has ruled accordingly.

The other document --

Interjections.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Why?

Mr Marchese: He's doing it again.

Mr Wiseman: You call it a mirror.

Mr Stockwell: Yes, it is, believe it or not, it's exactly what you look like.

Sorry, Cam, go ahead.

Mr Jackson: That's okay.

I was putting in context how many of the decisions by the socialist government of the last two years have had an adverse effect on the property tax paid by all citizens in this province, a persistent and consistent downloading of additional services and costs on to the municipal tax base.

I was in this House 24 hours ago debating this government's approach to long-term care. I indicated that there were serious gaps in the government's announcement and its legislation. I advised that there were whole components to long-term care that were implicit, that there would be additional costs put on municipalities that operate homes for the aged for seniors in Ontario, and we're talking of a large number of seniors, a large number of homes for the aged that have a component of municipal tax subsidization.

We have also seen increased pressures for additions to day care costs put on to the local tax base. In the previous government, we saw additional police services put on to the local municipal tax base. We're now seeing schools financed, thanks to this government, with debenture financing added additionally to the municipal property tax base.

Senior citizens ask, why is it that all these services are downloaded on to their municipal tax base? The limited relief they have is contained in the seniors property tax grant, and this government, for a large number of seniors in Ontario, would propose to take it away.

Seniors shouldn't be taken so lightly by a government. They really are wise, by their age. They really are understanding of what governments do to them. And I remind them that there is case after case of where, if you take seniors for granted, they will respond at the ballot box.

The fact is that in long-term care, as I mentioned, they're not getting the resultant additional supports if they should stay in their homes. I raise the question of whether insured medical services would transfer from an institution to a home setting. Those people are sitting at home paying property taxes, because this government says: "You should stay in your home longer and receive medical treatment. But if you're in your home, you won't get some of the medical supports paid for by OHIP, and if you're in an institution you will."

The fact is that with that uncertainty, seniors paying property taxes could pay doubly. They could pay with additional user fees for medical attention and medical services while they're at home, plus pay the taxes on their property which are then in turn used to pay for institutional care within a given community.

It's an offensive double standard, and it is only further underlined when the government proposes to reduce property tax grants in the fashion that the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue and indeed the entire NDP government propose to do with Bill 31.

I believe the government should withdraw this bill and should reconsider some of its choices for seniors in this province. I would hope that this government would begin some solid policy planning about how seniors are going to be able to afford to stay in their homes, if that's the vision this government has.

No one's challenging the notion that living at home, a meaningful, quality life, is more important; we all agree on that. The issue is, is it affordable? It can't be affordable if your property taxes are rising at such a dramatic rate and yet the government takes away from you the time-honoured property tax grant for seniors that is to offset those additional costs and burden.

Where will these seniors go? The Minister of Housing is producing subsidized housing in this province, but the number one priority is not seniors; it's families. The number one priority is not seniors; it's also for the disabled and for certain cultural groups in northern Ontario. That all may be fine, but the fact is that we're not building modified, smaller, seniors type of residences in this province in order that seniors can move to those and be relieved of some of their property taxes.

Where do they end up going? They go into older homes in communities where market value assessment hasn't been fully implemented. We all know what happens when market value assessment is implemented on older homes predominantly occupied by seniors: They experience 80%, 90% -- we've seen cases in Metro Toronto here of 150% increases to their property taxes. Yet at the same time we have a government that knows that is happening, it is prepared to take away, for a large number of seniors in this province, access to their property tax grant.

I believe the government really must re-evaluate this. The Treasurer has indicated that he has a serious revenue shortfall in this province, but I remind the Treasurer that he and his government could also examine some of their spending priorities.

My contempt for the largely symbolic gesture of the $15-million expenditure for bilingual road signs in this province is no secret. We're talking about $15 million being spent over a three-year period for this symbolic gesture. Seniors have every right to complain, and complain bitterly, that a government is more interested in the window dressing and the symbolic gestures out there than it is in ensuring the basic comforts and security of hearth and home and family services and medical treatment. Those should be the government's number one priority.

2320

I ask the government to stop its experimentation with each and every cause that comes blowing through this Legislature, with each and every vocal minority group asking for something. I ask the government: Consider what seniors are trying to say to you, consider what seniors are trying to communicate to your government. Please consider the impact of these overt attempts to reduce seniors' ability to pay their property taxes.

I will not be supporting this bill when it comes forward; I didn't support it on first and second reading. I encourage all members of the House, in the spirit of the season, to reconsider the impact of this bill. I invite members, during the holiday season, to talk to their senior citizens and find out how well informed they are about this bill, if they are fully aware of its impact, and just what they would say to you when they realize what you've done and what you've taken away from them.

I wanted to put those comments on the record because they are concerns that have been expressed to me, as I'm sure they've been expressed to many members in this House. I wanted to put them on the record because it's important that in two years or two and a half years, when we have an opportunity to undo some of the social engineering and the fiscal philandering that this government of socialists has done to this province, seniors are going to have to be restored to a position of respect, and they will be when they are finally understood by a government.

Interjection.

Mr Jackson: The member opposite who again parades as a parliamentary assistant should be fully aware that his ministry has reduced many of the services to seniors. The member for Chatham-Kent knows that his ministry has just issued an edict -- I was just about to finish and you want to engage me, so I will. The member for Chatham-Kent indicated that he was concerned about what I had to say. But let me say to the member opposite that it is your ministry that recently announced it had to cut a billion dollars over three years from social services to the citizens in this province who rely on it. A large number of those are seniors.

The memo that was circulated and finally uncovered by the Liberals indicates very clearly where the government's priorities are. It iterates what the top priorities are, and I can tell you, the first priority isn't seniors, and the second priority for protection in this province isn't seniors, and the third priority with social services in this government is not seniors, and in fact the fourth priority for this government did not mention seniors.

So I tell the member for Chatham-Kent that he should re-examine his own ministry for the massive cuts it's about to undertake to seniors at the same time it's prepared to reduce the modest property tax grant given to seniors.

My party is very proud of the genesis of this property tax grant. It was put in place for very legitimate reasons. I patently oppose both the comments of the Premier and the Treasurer, who said the grant has outlived its usefulness and its purpose in this province. The truth is that seniors have paid a major portion of their contribution to society and they deserve better of any government. They deserve to be recognized for their contribution. If this bill adds to their insecurity, I say it is a bad bill. It should add to their comfort and reassurance that a government in Ontario understands and is listening to them. I fear, and it's clear to us on this side of the House, that this government is not listening.

The Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Marchese: This will allow me an opportunity to finish the remarks I could not complete earlier on. The member for Burlington South makes a number of provocative statements: that we are making cuts; that seniors are low-level priority for us; that property taxes are increasing so seniors need appropriate relief; that this bill adds to their insecurity. I want to bring some clarity and some truth to this debate, which I think might be helpful to a number of the speakers who have spoken.

What have we done? What we're saying is that if the combined income of two seniors is below $23,000, they will continue making the $600 they have been making, and they are likely to make anywhere from $100 to $400 more; if they are making anywhere from $23,000 to $30,000, they're likely to continue receiving the $600 they've always received; and if they're making more than $30,000, they will be making less under this Bill 31.

Is that unfair? I say to the member for Burlington South, no. This is a matter of redistribution of the wealth. What does it say? It says that if you're making $50,000 a year, you're very well off, and if you're making $10,000 a year, as is the case with my mother and so many in my community, then those people need relief indeed, and that's what we're doing. We're saying that those who are making less than $23,000 need more support. That's what we've done.

This, in my view, is a vision of fairness. I don't understand whether the Tories have a vision of fairness or not, or what that vision is, nor do I understand the vision, if the Liberals have one, of what fairness means to them under this bill. This bill is just, it's fair. It's a vision of fairness for seniors.

Mr Wiseman: I'd like to comment a little on the comments that have been made. I think it's important for us to recognize that in the seniors category, what is happening is that it's going to a tax credit. There will be a basic $500 plus 10% of occupancy costs, plus $100 for one spouse and $100 for the second spouse, minus a certain amount above $22,000. What is going to happen is that 350,000 seniors in Ontario are going to see an increase in the amount of tax credit, the amount of money they have in their pocket at the end of the day, because of this bill.

This bill, as I indicated yesterday, is in fact what the Liberals didn't have the courage to introduce, when David Peterson took to task the Tory party in 1980 when it introduced this tax grant system and transferred huge amounts of money from the lower-income earners to the very-high-income earners.

In this taxation year there will be a $450 grant to every senior, and for those who qualify when they file their 1993 tax form, there could be up to a future $1,000 tax credit for this year, bringing the total for this year for some seniors who qualify to $1,450. And then next year, in the 1993 tax year, they could be obtaining up to $1,000. This is not less money for 350,000 seniors; in fact, it is more, and it's fair.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired. Questions and/or comments?

2330

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): Unfortunately, my colleagues have stated the numbers over and over again. I would like to dwell again on that, that the Ontario tax credits for seniors are designed to provide low-income seniors with more property and sales tax support than under the Ontario tax grants for seniors program.

Now when we talk about the --

Mr Stockwell: You're a bunch of hypocrites.

Hon Mrs Haslam: I am not a hypocrite.

When you look at 350,000 seniors' households, we're talking about 45% of seniors' households, so 45% of seniors will then receive an additional amount of money. The benefits at a lower level, when we talk about the 261,000 seniors' households --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Haslam: -- we're talking about 34% as a percentage of the seniors' households. The only percentage not receiving the benefits would be 21%. Approximately 160,000 seniors' households will have incomes high enough, 21% of the seniors have incomes high enough, to exclude them from receiving the benefit.

What we are doing is helping low-income seniors, and that 45% of the seniors will have an increased benefit. I think that's worth mentioning. Low-income seniors have an increased benefit, at 45% of the seniors' households.

The Speaker: Further questions or comments? The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: I wasn't even going to enter into this until the comments by the member for Durham West and the Minister of Culture and Communications. It's tough for at least myself to sit here and listen to the pap being spewed across the floor. Let's get it straight, folks. You were the people who campaigned that this particular tax credit went to all seniors. Get it? You campaigned saying that all seniors would get the tax credit. We as Conservatives have suggested in the past, publicly, that quite possibly, maybe just low-income seniors should get this tax credit.

When I spoke to this issue, I said at the time, during this debate yesterday, that I don't fundamentally believe in the universality approach to the seniors' tax credit. You campaigned, including in the member for Simcoe's riding, that you were the only party that was firmly in favour of this specific program. Now, to expect me to sit still while you stand up in the House extolling the virtues of this piece of legislation when it's absolutely contrary to everything you stood for in the past is asking simply too much.

I understand that the Minister of Culture may have a poor memory, but you have some kind of memory, I would suggest, and with some kind of memory, you should recall, as the Minister of Culture, that your party believes in universality, believe it or not. You believe in universal programs for health, for day care and for seniors.

Hon Mrs Haslam: Think of somebody besides yourself for a change. Think of the seniors. Think of the seniors who don't make $50,000 a year. You don't need the money; low-income seniors need the money.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: I listen to the Minister of Culture heckling, which has to be the colossal joke of all time that this minister stands up and suggests that she supports this legislation when you don't even know your own party's policies. Get off the bench and get in the game, Madam Minister.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired. The member for Burlington South has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr Jackson: I would like to thank my colleague from Etobicoke West for his contribution, as always. But the member for Fort York, you were very pleased to offer up this statistic of a senior making $30,000. I remind you, Minister, that it is possible to collect and get additional funding above your income from welfare in this province if you make over $30,000. I say to you, you have an offensive standard when seniors are ineligible but you would provide welfare on a $30,000 threshold. You are standing in the House today and calling a senior making $30,000 a year rich, and yet you're telling a citizen who is half their age that you can't live on $30,000 in this province, and that's what you've brought in. That is hypocritical.

Mr Hope: I hope you've got some clear facts, Cam. I hope you're putting some clear facts across.

Mr Jackson: You've missed the point; rather, you've proved the point. Your government doesn't understand poverty lines any more. You just know that the NDP have forgotten how seniors have to live in this province.

My colleague the member for Durham West: I'm so delighted he's no longer in a classroom, with the way he looks at statistics. You'd better wake up and smell the roses. You were quoting statistics on seniors who will benefit from this? The fact is that your government's going to increase provincial income tax, which will affect seniors, moving it from 53% of the basic federal tax to 54.5% this year. Next year you're going to up it again, 54.5% to 55%. You're taking money out of their left pocket and you're telling them, "There might even be a few of you" -- and I might even buy that theory, if you had the common sense to read these statistics and realize what you were saying in the House. The fact is, you're eroding the base of financial support for seniors. You know it, and thank God you're not in a classroom any more.

The Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, I have a point of privilege. I'm not quite sure if this falls under section 21, but I have some very serious concerns about an incident that just occurred in this place.

We've had a dispute between the acting House leader and members of both opposition parties as to the agreement that was arrived at in earlier House leaders' meetings today, and I believe the dispute has been resolved. It had to do with completing the debate on Bill 31 and moving perhaps to concurrences, and there was some misunderstanding between the acting government House leader and myself as the chief whip for our party.

This has nothing to do with her, but I attended at the back and talked to the staff of the government House leader to show them that I have notes written as a result of the meetings that took place earlier today, which clearly say under this note that the seniors' tax credit speakers would be two for our party, Mr Brown and Mr Daigeler, and the Conservatives would have Mr Jackson, Mr Wilson, Mr McLean and Mr Runciman, four speakers. That's not in dispute.

I went back and informed the staff of the government House leader that in talking with the Conservative caucus I had arranged an agreement that they would finish their debate by approximately 10 to midnight, at which time the acting government House leader would place the notice to defer the vote until tomorrow, and had there been time left on the clock, we would then move to concurrences. There would not be any time left on the clock, so the House would adjourn.

I simply went back and informed the staff of the government House leader that if there was any betrayal of that agreement, I think my exact words were, "We'll be sitting here on Christmas Eve," at which time certain members of the staff of the government House leader's office in the back made some challenging noises, in an attempt perhaps to try to intimidate me in doing my duties as chief whip, at which point we had an exchange and the suggestion by the one gentleman, whose name I do not know, was, "Any time," as if to say, in typical fashion by this government, "Step outside and I will beat you up."

I don't know what kind of nonsense or intimidation -- obviously the political leadership has transferred this kind of intimidation to their own staff, who think in this place they can address a member of this assembly in that manner or in any manner other than with utmost respect. I feel personally angry and insulted and believe that my privileges have been damaged in relationship to this place, Mr Speaker, and I frankly would like to refer the matter to you to bring a report back on the behaviour of staff of the government House leader's office.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, if I might on this point, this is a late hour, and obviously members are tired, staff is tired, and I hope that the member will understand that our understanding -- and it explains for any viewers who may still be alive, having witnessed this debate. We did not participate as a government in the debate this evening in support of our own bill, which we feel to be a good one, because it was our understanding that we would finish, with limited debate from the government side --

Mr Mahoney: That's not the point, Mr Speaker. That's not my point.

Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I am explaining.

Interjections.

2340

The Speaker: I will deal with it. Just --

Hon Ms Gigantes: If the member will just be patient, Mr Speaker, I will explain why I'm providing this context to you. We had taken this stance because we had an agreement, in our understanding, no matter what his notes might say, and I certainly reaffirmed that agreement earlier this evening, particularly with the House leader from the Conservatives, that we would move through this discussion, that we would defer the vote on second reading on this bill and that we would then move to concurrences.

That was not the understanding of the Liberal member opposite, but I think he needs to understand that there has been some grave feeling of frustration on the government side and that we have all tried to maintain our patience. I have tried to maintain my patience in discussions with him earlier when I found it difficult, so I hope he will forgive others.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga West, you raised a point. Just take your seat for a moment.

I listened very carefully to what he had to say. I must say, if the events are as he described them, they are unacceptable. No member of this House should feel at any time that he or she is under intimidation or threat. I realize, as the honourable House leader has said, that members are tired and they're trying to reach accommodations to ensure the efficient use of time in the passage of public business. At the same time, tempers sometimes are lost.

I wish that I could be of some help to the member. What I can do, of course, is make inquiries through the Sergeant at Arms to see if there is some report that we can provide for the member. I can only offer him my apology that whatever occurred, occurred within the precinct, because that does cause me to be disturbed, and I don't find that type of conduct to be at all acceptable.

Lastly, I will say that all members will know that the Chair is never privy to discussions or agreements which are made. The only agreements that the Chair can assist in are the ones that are brought to the floor of the House by way of motion or unanimous agreement.

I can sympathize with the member and I wish I could be of more practical help to him. Lastly, I could only say, as I stated before, that I regret that the incident to which he refers occurred and hope that cooler heads will prevail as we attempt to conclude the business of the House.

Mr Mahoney: Further to my privilege, Mr Speaker, I am not disputing the agreement that may or may not have taken place between the House leaders. I'm accepting in fact the acting government House leader's statement that her understanding was as she's put it to me. I have shown her my understanding, which is in writing, which are instructions that I as the chief whip, in the absence of my House leader, am required to follow.

My point of privilege, sir, simply has to do with a member of staff. It has nothing to do with the acting government House leader or with any of those members. It has to do with a staff person behind your chair who I feel tried to intimidate me. I would like you not to report to me this evening but I would like you, as the Speaker of this place, in charge of this place, to investigate what took place and report on it.

The Speaker: I am sorry if I didn't make it clear to the member earlier.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): I am just telling you --

Mr Mahoney: I don't care. Are you trying to intimidate me?

The Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga West brought a concern to my attention. I said to him before, and I'll repeat it: I am pleased to examine the situation. The Sergeant at Arms will investigate and will be pleased to report back. The only thing I can add to that is, regardless of the report, I find, if the events are as the member has described, they are unacceptable.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, if we are going to investigate incidents in which people spoke unkindly, a bit roughly, oversternly and in fact accusingly and somewhat threateningly to each other this evening, I can add some complaints to that list. I think you understand that this has been a difficult evening in terms of the operations. I do hope that whatever inquiries you carry out, you will take care that all the people who may witnessed this incident in fact have a chance to describe it.

The Speaker: We have an official and effective Sergeant at Arms, and indeed such will be done. No one understands better than I the limits of extended hours and what they do to persons.

We are back into debate. The member for Simcoe West.

Mr Jim Wilson: Bill 31 is a piece of legislation that I have some very strong feelings about, and I'm disappointed that my time's been taken up with the bantering back and forth between the official opposition and the government over time allocation. I think senior citizens of this province are more important than squabbling over time allocations and agreements among members of Parliament here.

Veiled threats, or threats otherwise, I think Bill 31 is a dark day for senior citizens in Ontario and the frail elderly, and it's a dark day for the NDP, a party that at one time firmly believed in universality. They never spoke in the past about just helping low-income seniors. They agreed with my party, the Ontario PC party, and the Liberal Party that the seniors' property tax grant was, much like the farm tax rebate, to be distributed to all seniors regardless of income, in simple recognition of the fact that the government felt, and all parties agreed for many years, that seniors should be rebated some money in the form of a grant because they no longer had children in school yet they had to pay school board taxes, and because they use less of the municipal services that their property taxes pay for.

There was never any discussion from the NDP, and certainly not in the last campaign, particularly in my riding of Simcoe West, that they were going to means test the seniors' property tax grant.

Mr Stockwell: Quite the opposite.

Mr Jim Wilson: Quite the opposite, as the member for Etobicoke West points out. In fact, I remember very bitterly the NDP candidate in my riding going door to door in the seniors' apartment buildings and telling them and dropping a pamphlet that said that Mike Harris and the Ontario PC party were going to abolish the seniors' property tax grant. I remember Mr Peterson, the Premier of the day, saying the same thing and distorting the truth.

The truth is, and was, that my party had the guts and the honesty and the integrity to talk about the fact that some of these programs do have to change, that some of these programs will have to change.

Mr Stockwell: We know one thing: You are a bunch of liars.

Mr Jim Wilson: But we made the commitment that we wouldn't change the seniors' property tax grant without talking to senior citizens, without ensuring that they could afford whatever program was to replace the seniors' property tax grant. The Liberals, at our urging, raised this property tax grant from the $450 it had been --

Hon Ms Gigantes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Perhaps you might not have heard it, but I think probably Hansard did, that the member for Etobicoke West noted things that were unparliamentary about the government. I wish that you would review Hansard tomorrow and if, as I believe, it is recorded in Hansard, then I hope you will take the appropriate measures.

The Speaker: To the member for Ottawa Centre, I indeed was distracted by a discussion with another member of the House. I didn't hear the alleged remark, but as always, if the member who's identified believes that he did in fact make an unparliamentary remark, he has an opportunity to stand and withdraw that, and I would so invite the member.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I did say that in the last election the NDP were a bunch of liars. I will withdraw that.

The Speaker: The member for Simcoe West may resume his remarks.

Mr Jim Wilson: Similar words crossed my mind more than once when I was preparing for this debate. Unfortunately, the language of Parliament doesn't allow us to say that, but certainly there were some untruths spread in my riding with regard to this particular issue.

Secondly -- because I only have a couple of minutes left, with all the bantering that's gone on here this evening -- this bill also increases the personal income tax. I think what's important for seniors and all people in this province to understand is that the NDP is increasing the tax burden on single taxpayers earning as low as $10,000 a year. So when the government members get up, and they have many times this evening, and say they are trying to make the tax system fairer and they point to their manipulation of the seniors' property tax grant and the abolition of universality in that program, what they forget to tell you is that they are hitting everybody in this province who makes any type of money at all over $10,000 with increased personal income taxes and that will affect seniors.

As the member for Burlington South said earlier, my colleague Mr Jackson, they are taking not only from the left pocket of senior citizens, but from the right pocket as well. They are hitting senior citizens with high personal income tax rates.

2350

Mr Hope: You better read what it said during the campaign.

Mr Stockwell: We know what those people are, Randy. We are not allowed to say in here, but we know what they are.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I apologize to the member for having to interrupt him in the midst of his speech, in full flight in fact. This has been a trying time, I realize, and I would ask the member for Etobicoke West --

Mr Stockwell: Look, Mr Speaker, this guy was heckling and I was heckling, all right?

Interjections.

The Speaker: No. Order. Rather than simply test the patience of the Chair, perhaps the member for Etobicoke West would be best advised to either remain silent or to resume his appropriate seat. I would ask the member for Chatham-Kent and some of his colleagues to exercise some restraint so that perhaps in the remaining eight minutes we will be able to sit back and relax and enjoy the speech from the member for Simcoe West.

Mr Jim Wilson: Perhaps the members would be silent for just a few moments on all sides of the House. I think it's sad if the government thinks that by heckling my colleague the member for Etobicoke West, it somehow is going to distract the public from the implications of Bill 31 and the very serious implications it will have on seniors and poor seniors.

That's the point I'm trying to make because in terms of the personal income tax, that will hit poor people. If you make $10,000 a year and your taxes are going to go up as a result of this bill, which I must say -- to have a bill that encompasses both an increase in personal income taxes and manipulates the seniors' property tax grant program. It's sinful that the government would encompass both of these.

If you wanted to change the seniors' property tax grant program you should have gone out and consulted with seniors. You should have been honest and forthright with the public and said: "Hey, look, we've got a budgetary financial problem. We think everybody should pay his fair share of taxes and we want to revamp the program." The cabinet did it, and now it's before Parliament, in a very closed-door backhanded way. You campaigned against this sort of thing and in a very hypocritical fashion you now bring it at 5 to 12 on a Wednesday evening when many seniors in the province are probably asleep. They sneak in this bill and in the next five minutes it'll be the end of debate on this piece of legislation.

it is the last time we in the Ontario PC Party and members of the opposition had to speak about such an important piece of legislation that changes for ever and ends for ever the universality and the concept that every senior citizen was entitled to the property tax rebate because they don't have children in school, because they use less services on the municipal side that their property taxes pay for and because we want seniors to stay in their homes, we don't want them in hospitals.

This government has closed 5,300 hospital beds over the last 12 months. They've sent the message out clearly to seniors across the province: "You've got to stay in your homes. If you stay in your homes you have got to pay your hydro, which has increased 25%. You have got to pay your property taxes, which are going through the roof with all the downloading the Liberals did and all the downloading and the increased tax burden the NDP has done."

I think the government should be ashamed of its treatment of senior citizens, the people who built this country, the people who built this province, who went through two world wars and to Korea so that we can be here in this Parliament and debate in a parliamentary manner in Parliament, so that we don't have war and strife on our own soil and that we can take our battles to Parliament

Our seniors developed that system. Our seniors made it possible so that I can be here today. This government has done nothing but hit them over the head with tax increases, ending the grant program as we know it, telling them they can't go to Florida, assuming all seniors are rich and they go to Florida for six months of the year because they have all kinds of money to spend.

The fact of the matter is that many senior citizens go south for legitimate health reasons, and they save the Ontario taxpayers' money and they save the health care system because they're down in a warmer climate. But no, over the last year we've seen the government change the out-of-country OHIP policy. Now seniors are paying $1,000, $1,500, $2,000, $4,000 a year for third-party insurance so they can go down south.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: All this crap you spew.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

Mr Jim Wilson: They're told they can't stay down south any more than six months, that there's now a new six-month residency requirement here in Ontario. I've had many seniors write to me and phone me and stop me on the street in my riding and say, "We feel like we're under house arrest by this government."

Seniors are under attack. I know they won't take this much longer. The unfortunate part is that it appears this government feels there's no hope in heck it'll ever get re-elected, so it's thumping away at seniors and it's thumping away at all kinds of other groups, because it simply doesn't care. Its only agenda is to pay back the big union bosses.

If Bob White were a senior citizen, I can tell you that we wouldn't have Bill 31 as it's written today. We just wouldn't have it, because this government wouldn't stand for it if Bob White and the big union bosses were against this. I call on the union bosses. They'll be seniors some day. I call on them to bring some social justice back to Ontario, because the NDP, a party that at one time stood for social justice, has made a mockery of social justice, has made a mockery of the words "fairness" and "consultation." I think the government should be ashamed to be on that side of the House, supporting this terrible piece of legislation. With that, I will conclude my remarks.

The Speaker: Questions and/or comments? Further debate?

Mr Wiseman, on behalf of Ms Wark-Martyn, moved second reading of Bill 31. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. A 30-minute bell.

Hon Ms Gigantes: No, we are going to defer. Hold the bells.

The Speaker: Order, please.

"Pursuant to standing order 28(g), I request that the vote on the motion by the Honourable Shelley Wark-Martyn for second reading of Bill 31, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act and to provide an Income Tax Credit to Seniors and to phase out grants under the Ontario Pensioners Property Tax Assistance Act, be deferred until immediately following routine proceedings on Thursday, December 10, 1992."

Signed by Shirley Coppen, MPP, chief government whip, by her own hand.

The vote is accordingly deferred. This may come as a deep disappointment, but this House now stands adjourned until 10 of the clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 2359.