Journal des débats 1993-juil-15 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

That, in the opinion of this House, because the issue of the property taxation of producing farm land has become of increasing concern to farmers, as education costs have risen and as municipal service costs have increased, while over the same time farmers have not received a proportional increase in services, and that the Ontario farm property tax rebate has distorted the actual program budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and that the Fair Tax Commission's Property Tax Working Group has evaded the issue by calling the taxation of farm property a farm policy issue (as opposed to a tax issue), the Government of Ontario should, first, list the farm property tax rebate as a budget item separate from the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and second, the government of Ontario should initiate, with farm and municipal organizations, a thorough and public review of the taxation of producing farm land with the aim of maintaining a viable agricultural industry and family farms in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): The farm property tax rebate has been an issue that's been around for a number of years. However, the problem is that it's a hot potato and it has to be addressed on an annual basis. We find, from time to time, and as it occurred with the Liberals when they were in power, that the farm property tax rebate went back and forth and became a political issue. We now have a government in place where public dollars are very scarce. Again, the farm property tax rebate has been frozen. Indeed, we worry about what the next step will be.

Farmers are certainly willing to pay their fair share of property taxes if all citizens are taxed in a fair and equitable manner. The problem with the taxation of farm land is that taxes on farms are out of proportion to farmers' ability to pay and out of proportion to the services received on that portion of the farm which is farm land and farm buildings, income-producing entities.

Residents of the same municipality with much higher incomes but who live in town usually pay fewer taxes and indeed receive more services. The basic principle governing the taxation of farm land in Ontario has until now been that where farm land does not benefit from municipal services to the same extent as other properties in the municipality, it should not bear the same tax load. Today, with the province in financial difficulty, the NDP government has frozen farm property tax rebates and that principle is now being eroded.

This government is very much influenced by pressure groups. With only slightly less than 3% of the population actively involved in agriculture, the voice of agriculture is somewhat akin to a cry in the wilderness. Growing education taxes on farm land are of major concern. Education taxes today are roughly three times more than the municipal taxes and continue to climb, and yet farm land and farm buildings do not have any influence at all on the cost of education.

During the debate on farm taxes in 1970, the expected impact of escalating education taxes on farm land was countered by the government's plan to cover 60% of the education costs. That figure's been bandied about very extensively. As a matter of fact, this government promised that it would increase funding for education to 60%. That's yet to come. As a matter of fact, all different parties, at different times, promised 60% funding for education. It never quite occurred. Today we're looking at something less than 50% of the cost of education being borne by the senior level of government.

Provincial downloading on municipalities and requiring new programs from school boards have made it difficult for local governments and school boards to hold the line on taxes. In the late 1960s and early 1970s the provincial government was actually reducing costs to municipalities; for example, by taking over the administration of justice from the local tax base. In recent years, the former Liberal government and the now NDP government have created additional costs to municipalities and school boards by mandating costs. The boards and the municipalities had no say in the matter at all. The costs were simply added to their operating costs and therefore passed on to the taxpayers.

Because of escalating municipal and school board taxes, the farm tax rebate program is by far the largest spending item by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Right now, it's frozen at $159 million, which is a very large percentage of the $550-million total budget for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. It distorts to a large degree the Agriculture and Food budget. Farmers everywhere want to see it moved out of OMAF, either to Municipal Affairs, where indeed Hansard debates of the late 1960s and early 1970s clearly indicate it began, or to the revenue side of the Finance ministry, where the assessment functions are actually performed.

As long as rural municipalities remained agricultural in nature, with small, stable populations, the taxation of farm land was never a major problem or a major concern. Property taxation was almost entirely used to provide services to property. In the 1960s, population growth in towns and villages throughout rural Ontario led to an increase in the required municipal and social services, but not services to farm land or farm buildings. These were paid for by increases to municipal and local school taxes. Farms, being much larger, acreage-wise, than town residences, paid significantly more in taxes. Throughout the 1960s, farm discontent rose and threats of a tax revolt started to be taken seriously. I think the government should listen to this, because indeed I think we are on the borderline of another tax revolt.

1010

In the 1969 budget the government spoke of moving to a system of market value assessment and announced that the province would take over the assessment function across the province. The then Treasurer MacNaughton stated that farms would have to be treated differently and, indeed, in the budget of that year, and I quote, it says, "Generally, the government believes that the property tax on working farms should be considerably lower than on non-farm properties because of the limited ability of working farms to pay taxes out of current income." And the situation is even worse now than it was 30 years ago.

On June 5, 1969, the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, Darcy McKeough, announced a committee on farm assessment and taxation to report with recommendations, and the requirement of this committee was to define a working farm, to find a basis for valuing farms for tax purposes and on the manner in which farms should be taxed. The committee was to find a policy to tax working farms in a manner that was equitable with taxation of other properties that would not impose an undue burden on farms for as long as the land remained in agriculture.

When the committee reported, it recommended that "all farm land, regardless of ownership, be treated the same way. That is, land held by bona fide farmers, by developers, and by speculators should receive preferential treatment if it falls under the definition of farm land." I want members to note that even then the government shied away from trying to define a working farm. We were dealing with productive farm land, period.

The solution proposed by the government was to rebate 25% of the net property tax beginning in 1970. In 1969 the government had announced its intention to take over the property tax assessment process, which it claimed was in a shambles. While debates in the Legislature made it clear that the major need for the rebate was to counter the education tax on farm land, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr McKeough, pointed out that it was not possible to determine the percentage of a farm's assessment if it were split between a residence and the farm land and farm buildings. In many, many areas, I think if a net income were used and capitalized, we would find that, indeed, the ability to pay on this farm land is certainly a lot less than many, many members in this Legislature realize.

Debates in the Legislature also indicated government members thought that rebate would be a temporary measure, necessary only until a provincial income tax or other tax reform would correct the situation. The Liberals were in agreement, with Bob Nixon supporting the government's 25% rebate, but only as a "first step towards the reform of the tax system which would, in fact, relieve the farm community at large of the responsibility to pay for a large share of education on the basis of the assessment of property."

Many years have passed. Tax reform is being talked about extensively, yet nothing has happened. Taxes rise. Municipal taxes rise in spite of the fact that our municipal politicians are doing their level best to hold the line. School boards are in the same situation.

If the Liberals are listening closely, I think they could actually pinpoint a number of rural seats in southwestern Ontario particularly that were lost by Liberal members because of the then Treasurer, Mr Nixon, trying to change the farm tax rebate. Farmers never did forgive the Liberal government of the time for playing around with what indeed was a requirement and a level playing field, where education taxes must not go on farm land and farm buildings.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): It's interesting today we stand up to talk about this issue and I thank the honourable member for bringing the tax issue to the House today. So many times we don't get farm-type issues brought up and it is good that they are. However, the government today cannot support this resolution at this time for a number of the reasons which actually he brought up in his remarks.

I think it's important to realize that the issue isn't whether 3% of the population in this caucus or 33% of the population are farmers. This caucus is worried about all people in this province; regardless of what percentage, they're all people. In fact, in these economic times we're in, the first government since the Depression which has actually seen income of the government decline -- I think it can be shown quite clearly that this government held the line. Yes, the farm tax rebate was frozen but, knowing full well what was on the line for actually a decrease, I think we have the proof in the pudding that this government does care.

Let's look back a little bit. You mentioned the Liberals. The Liberals did take this budgetary item over to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and I don't think that really was much of a problem as far as I could see because many times, and in fact today and 20 years ago, as you pointed out, everybody went to the Minister of Agriculture to do the lobbying on any issue regarding rural Ontario. The fact that we actually put this in the budgetary line at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to me is something that I can understand.

What the Liberals did was that they insulted rural Ontario. When they put it over there that was good, but they then went and had the BS, if I can, in rural terms, to try to make it look like it was new money at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. That kind of bull, quite frankly, didn't sell in rural Ontario, and that's where the problem came in. In fact that's when the farm groups had to start saying to the government, and it came in this resolution, that we wanted to try to keep it separate as a tax issue and separate as a budgetary item. The Liberal government tried to make it look like it was a new program and we've been painted with that.

We've been very careful at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Elmer and all of us in caucus. We don't try to play games that somehow increase or decrease the budgets of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, but the Liberals brought that in.

Let's look back a little bit further to some 20 years ago, as the member brought out. Really what it came down to back then was the fact that the farm community had very low commodity prices on all things, most of us back then were mixed farms and normally there were a couple of commodities that stayed up in price and got things through.

But the fact was that all commodities were low and costs kept increasing and we could not get our share of the dollar. We were trying things like supply management, and the minister then was working hard in a couple of those areas, but indeed we weren't making enough dollars to pay for bills.

We had to get the government's attention, we saw that this was an issue that might get the attention of the government and it went for it. But the government also realized that the general community felt that the farm community was in trouble, and it agreed that it needed to have some fairness put to it and came up with a 25% reduction. But as many people said, it was only the first step. We really felt that what we needed was to get a fair share of the dollar in our commodities.

The new term now is "value added," and this government is working very hard at that. In fact, we can look at the whole area where we've made improvements over the years. The food basket is something that many people don't remember, but it was a term with which they said the farm community got over 50 cents of every dollar back to the farm gate. We are now below that in this province, and that only tells me the Liberal and Tory governments weren't working on that issue strongly enough, and we are.

The issue -- and I deal with that in our community economic development programs that we're starting, the rural loan pool programs, the private mortgage to put stability back in agriculture to help keep some fair competition out there so that we have stability, so that I can have dollars to pay for things -- of the farm tax rebate is an issue that helps society to help the farm community as part of our stability and our sustainability of agriculture, and that's where it's at.

We go back a little bit again in history. He talks about Darcy McKeough, but I remember another urban Minister of Agriculture, Mr Timbrell, who came up with an idea. He said, "Let's just get rid of the tax completely off the farmers." I was definitely no card-carrying, yellow-dog supporter of the Conservative Party, but as a farmer and as a business person I look at everybody's ideas with an open mind and to question, and I really felt at that time that he did have a fair idea. Lots of other problems that the Tories were doing with regard to my side of income stability I think they weren't going ahead on, but that was an interesting issue, and I then said I would agree with that.

Unfortunately, some people put the big-P politics in that discussion. I look again at the Liberals. They didn't want to give any chance of fairness here. They looked at the politics instead of, "Does the guy have a good idea?" and they got rural Ontario all excited and created quite a groundswell, which I felt was about a mile wide and an inch deep. Maybe this is where it was a problem, having an urban Minister of Agriculture. He maybe didn't quite understand that a little bit and he backed off. I found that unfortunate, but you know, it's so easy to get people whipped up to criticize, rather than constructive criticism, so the then minister backed off, and that's fine.

1020

The Liberals had their chance. They got in, and what did they do? As the honourable member pointed out, they dilly-dallied around with the program and, yes, it's a tough issue. It's been going on for 20 years, like he pointed out. Darcy McKeough set up a committee and they couldn't find an answer. I think that the energy should have been spent on my income stability side and my interest payment stability side -- something that we're doing -- but they did not come up with the answers. What we were afraid of in rural Ontario was that they would take the dollars away from the program, but they wouldn't reinvest it in other programs for rural Ontario; they would just suck it into the big black hole.

I think, quite frankly, the member was right.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): And you're destroying agriculture in this province, that's what you're doing.

Mr Klopp: The Liberals are getting a little frustrated, and they should. The farm community did show them at the last election. But it was more the insult that they actually tried to paint as some new money in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and, believe me, we're not doing that and we're not going to try to do that.

So what are we doing? On the issue -- on the second part of the motion -- that we should set up a committee, yes, there was a committee set up. The Minister of Agriculture did push that it be part of the fair tax review and the Fair Tax Commission realized it is a very difficult issue and said that it should go on to a committee. There'll be some stuff coming out in December, I understand, and that may be dealt with later on by some other colleagues.

But in short, we do look at it as a society, to help in rural Ontario, for the stability of agriculture, but believe me, the real issues that we need to have for me as a farmer and for my colleagues as farmers is the stability that we can get in the value added, and that is what we're working at: the rural loan commodity pool, which allows a little more competition for a farmer to get a lower cost for his income inputs; the private mortgage pool, which is now out, allowing again some more competition out there in helping people to get loans that are maybe a little better interest rate, but also more recycled in rural Ontario; and what was announced in the budget, the community economic development, which allows us to get farmers and rural people into the value added side, so that we can regenerate and get a more fair dollar.

If I may go back to the old system, the food basket, in which farmers get more than what we're receiving now, because at one time it was in the 60-cent range and I think we had a better, healthy community. It got below the 50-cent mark and then the government, lo and behold, quit advertising that.

We need to get on and revitalize. We're doing that, but for those reasons and some others that will come out later, at this time it is good that it's at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food so that we can keep a handle on it, so that we can work towards getting a fairer system, and for those reasons I think it should stay there. We're not playing any games about the dollars of it, as the Liberals did, and I thank you very much.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm pleased to participate in this morning's debate. I'd like to state at the beginning that you might find it unusual that a Metropolitan Toronto member, someone who I can say clearly has no farms in her riding -- the riding of Oriole does not contain any farms -- I'm still pleased to speak on this issue because this does not have to do with simply farms. This debate this morning, and I'm pleased that it is before us, really has to do with taxes, tax fairness and particularly municipal taxes.

I think we've heard a little bit about the history and I'd like to take the few minutes that I have to put my perspective on the record as we discuss this resolution by Mr Villeneuve, which I believe is deserving and merits support. The reason I think it merits support is that this is an issue which has been before the Legislature and governments in this province for many years, as we heard.

Where did it all begin and when did it become a problem? In fact, it was in the late 1960s, early 1970s when the Conservative government at the time decided they were going to reform the property tax system in the province. In doing so, as they implemented this tax reform, the result was that farms in the province which, as people can well imagine, are very land-intensive -- and so when you have a property tax which taxes land, regardless of how it is used -- were paying significantly more taxes under Conservative tax reform than they were prior to this initiative in the late 1960s.

Of course the farmers were upset. Nobody likes to pay more taxes. But more than just being upset, what was realized fairly quickly by the Conservative Treasurer and the Conservative government at that time was that farms were paying more than their fair share because use did have some relevance to what the tax should be.

Because farms take such a large amount of land in order to produce the agricultural goods and products, whether they are farm animals or crops, the problem was that because such a large amount of land was needed, you often had a farm paying far more in taxes based on what the income of that farm was than a small business in a small rural town not too far away. It wasn't even a question of comparing what was happening on the farm to the urban big city; this was what was happening out in the county on the farm compared to a piece of property in a small town that was near the farm.

There was a recognition that this was patently unfair. It was unfair to farmers but, more than just being unfair, it was having a very serious economic impact on the farm itself. So what did the Conservative government at the time do about it? What they attempted was what I would call a Band-Aid solution.

The Band-Aid solution was in the form of a property tax rebate for farmers, based on a formula. The result of that Band-Aid was not a solution to this problem, and in fact it wasn't really support for farmers, as much as you'd like to think that now the money was going to farmers. In fact the money was really a transfer from the provincial government to the municipalities, because property taxes are paid by property owners to the municipality.

If the property owners can't afford the taxes or they are unfair, and they then don't pay their taxes, what happens is the municipalities just end up getting less and then they can't provide the needed services. Let's remember, as my friend Mr Villeneuve pointed out, it's not just for municipal services but also for education that property taxes are used.

So what you had was a situation where, as property taxes on the farms became too high and farms were failing or farmers couldn't afford to pay their taxes, then the municipality and the school board didn't have the money to provide the services that were required and the province stepped in with a rebate program to assist.

The problem was the rebate program didn't work all that well either, because the farmers, as was rightly pointed out, didn't really believe that anything was happening in the way of a support for farmers, because they knew that as a result of tax reform under the Conservatives, they were then, after the reform, paying more than their fair share. So they never considered the tax rebate as an assist to farmers, and there we had the debate percolating over the years.

I must admit, as a member of the Liberal government during the years 1985 to 1990, that we also looked at this issue and said: "What can we do to fix it? What can we do to make it fairer?" The reality is that we as well tinkered with the program in an attempt to make it fairer. It was in good faith that we attempted to fix it, but the reality is that I believe it needs a comprehensive solution that is tied generally to our whole approach to tax reform and to municipal tax reform. It's one of the reasons I'm very concerned about the result of the Fair Tax Commission.

I listened very carefully to my colleague from the NDP talking about all the things the NDP has been doing for farmers. I would say to him, in the colloquialism of the youth today, in response to his statement when he said, you know, "We are," meaning strongly supportive of farmers -- I would add the word "not," which is what the kids say today when they just disagree completely with a statement that has been made. That's because the Fair Tax Commission, which was established by the NDP -- their response to this issue was to say: "We're not going to deal with it. We're not going to do anything about it. We're not going to deal with it. It's too complex. It's too complicated." Frankly, it is a complicated issue, but it is about tax reform; it is not about just support for farmers.

1030

There's no question that farms and farmers in Ontario today are having a very, very difficult time. We know that with the general state of the economy, the very serious recession that we've come through, it has been province-wide in all sectors and that farms and farm incomes have suffered a devastating blow under the policies of this NDP government. But this tax rebate, the fact they have frozen it, is making the problem that much worse.

However, a complicating factor has been that over the years nobody has looked at this comprehensively. When they do, there's always this assumption that tax reform is going to mean less taxes, as opposed to looking at, how are we going to properly fund education, how are we going to properly fund needed municipal services and how are we going to make sure that business people, whether they are on the farm, in small towns or in big cities, rightly feel that they are paying their fair share?

I want to point out that in the summer of 1990, Bob Rae had all the answers. I sat in this House from 1985 to 1990; he had all the answers then. They were all simple, they were all easy, and he was going to get it done like this. I can understand the farmers' sense of betrayal in the fact that after almost three years in government, Bob Rae and the NDP have only made matters worse.

I'm going to wind up this debate this morning in support of the resolution and say that I think it is important that we look comprehensively at a problem that was first caused by the Conservatives, that wasn't fixed by the Liberals and that has been made worse by the NDP. The farmers in this province need a break and it's time we all put our heads together to find the solution.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm pleased to rise this morning to speak to the resolution of the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, the resolution that states, "That, in the opinion of this House, because the issue of property taxation of producing farm land has become of increasing concern to farmers, as education costs have risen and as municipal service costs have increased, while over the same time farmers have not received a proportional increase in services, and that the Ontario farm property tax rebate has distorted the actual program budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and that the Fair Tax Commission's property tax working group has evaded the issue by calling the taxation of farm property a farm policy issue (as opposed to a tax issue), the government of Ontario should, first, list the farm property tax rebate as a budget item separate from the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and, second, the government of Ontario should initiate, with farm and municipal organizations, a thorough and public review of the taxation of producing farm land with the aim of maintaining a viable agricultural industry and family farms in Ontario."

I intend to support this resolution very, very strongly. I want to compliment the member for S-D-G & East Grenville for this outstanding resolution. I believe that he is the most passionate, most knowledgeable, most committed advocate for Ontario farmers in this House. We're fortunate to have him. I want to thank him once again for taking the time last year to come to Wellington county to show his interest in Wellington county and meeting with Wellington Federation of Agriculture people. He showed, certainly, his interest in agriculture throughout the province, including his own area of eastern Ontario, but as well, southwestern Ontario.

This resolution has to be put forward, because I personally, as the member for Wellington, have to question the NDP's commitment to agriculture. We've seen over the last three years agriculture relegated to a very minor portfolio by this government.

In Wellington county, I represent the farmers' interests as best I can with respect to the issues that come forward in this Legislature, and the property tax issue continues to be one of the most important issues that farmers have on their minds in Wellington county, as well as the GATT issue, I suppose. The GATT issue, I know, may be a mystery still to some members of the government side, but we have to maintain our capacity to produce food in Ontario, and I see supply management as being a very important component of that.

Our marketing system is designed to provide a stable business climate in which dairy farmers and other supply-managed commodities can plan, invest and receive reasonable compensation for their costs and labour from the market. Farmers and government representatives came together years ago to establish an efficient supply management system to stabilize the prices and the supplies of supply-managed commodities.

Quite simply, supply management is managing the supply to meet the market demand and encourage price stability, which is very, very important for the local economy in rural Ontario. But of course that's not the only important issue. The farm tax issue is probably every bit as important as the GATT issue in Wellington county.

I think that we see with this farm tax issue the fact that successive governments since 1985 have toyed with it, tinkered with it. We've heard during the course of the debate that annually it is reviewed for possible changes. It creates a great deal of uncertainty for farmers, and I think that's an important issue that has to be addressed.

We've seen consistently over the last number of years provincial downloading of mandated services and costs from the provincial government to the local governments to school boards, especially, for example, junior kindergarten, which we don't want and don't need, and other programs as well, to municipalities, where the cost is downloaded and the mandate of responsibility is downloaded from the province to local government, which has driven up local taxes. Municipal taxes are higher than they should be, higher than they need be had the province not downloaded responsibilities over the last number of years.

We should look at this farm tax rebate as an interim measure until the issue of tax inequity can be redressed, because I think most people support the principle of saying that farm land should not be taxed municipally.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, over the course of its discussions on this issue, has continued to put forward this view, and even most recently in March when it put forward its pre-budget summary, it asked that the farm property tax rebate program be continued until property tax reform eliminates the need for this interim administrative mechanism. I certainly agree with them that this is an important objective.

This resolution is a modest proposal and should be supported unanimously by all members of the House. It talks about honest accounting. When we talk about separating the cost away from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, that's an honest accounting provision that the government should address.

We're also talking about a public review, which should lead to looking at the farm tax issue in a different way so that it redresses the tax inequity that is inherent in the existing system.

The objective of this resolution is to maintain our capacity to feed ourselves and to ensure the economic survival of rural Ontario. This is an important resolution. All members should support it today. I want to compliment once again the member for S-D-G & East Grenville for putting this forward.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): As I'm shuffling some paper here, I want to take a few moments to answer the resolution of the member for S-D-G & East Grenville. I don't think anybody in this House in any way doubts his great concern for agriculture. He is a great advocate and I know a great supporter of ethanol. I know that he's well aware of a range of problems that exist in agriculture, not only in his own area in eastern Ontario but in mine, and he's visited with local farmers. So he's well aware of the situation. I appreciate it that as a critic he takes that kind of time to really inform himself of the issues far beyond his own area.

What I will counter with -- and I will not at this point support this particular motion, though I do know where his resolution is coming from, because I think there are some things that have happened in Niagara which his resolution doesn't recognize and obviously can't because he's really dealing with a larger provincial issue. It really relates to the fact that I personally believe there are some things that have happened locally, through the municipalities and through the school boards, that really have improved the lot of the rural community as well as the urban community.

I know that there's a lot of frustration with our regional government situation. A lot of people don't necessarily like regional governments across the province. But the fact of the matter is that as a result of the regionalization within Niagara, the services that the rural community gets are the same as the urban community. Roads have been paved, the police department has been regionalized and people have access to these services in a way that they did not have when they were their own separate little communities. As a result, I think the farm community has benefited in the same way as the urban community has.

When I look at the Lincoln county school boards, both the public and the Catholic board, I'm aware of the kinds of efforts that they have undertaken to ensure that both urban residents as well as rural residents receive the kinds of services to which they are entitled as a result of their tax dollars.

In the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, Niagara District Secondary School is in fact the performing arts high school for all of the Lincoln county board. Now, under those circumstances, one wouldn't expect that a rural community would have a performing arts centre, but in fact it does. I think we have to recognize that in some respects there are differences within rural communities, and for that reason I cannot support this motion.

1040

I would also say that the Fair Tax Commission has done a lot of work with regard to what the member is putting forward. As someone who is supporting the Fair Tax Commission and its work, I think I have to say that when a commission like that says in one of its recommendations that it wants to retain the farm tax rebate program, or develop an equivalent program, it really says a lot for the recognition throughout the province of the fact that farming is an important factor of our economic life.

I really do think we have to give the commission and this government credit for the fact that it does recognize the value of farm land. I know, just for my residents who might be watching, that there is still work going on in the conservation easement question that is very much in the minds of farmers in my area. I support it and I know that many members of this House also support it, including the Premier.

I will yield the rest of the time to one of my other colleagues, the member for Perth.

Mr Eddy: I too rise and appreciate the opportunity to speak to the member for S-D-G & East Grenville for presenting this resolution, because I support it, and very strongly. I agree with most of his views, except of course for some of those regarding the Liberal government and my predecessor Bob Nixon. I'm prepared to tell you why.

Going back, I well remember when the Conservatives started to initiate the program. The original plan was to pay the tax on farm land, to reduce the education tax on farm land, directly to the municipalities. There was a revolt by the farmers, and indeed OFA, because they said, "If the province pays the taxes, who will own the farms?" Imagine the concern that the farmers of this province will have when they learn that the NDP government has even considered assuming ownership of all farm land in Ontario and leasing it back to farmers. I think there will be tremendous concern. Certainly there will be by me.

I have to just speak briefly to the Liberal initiative under the previous Liberal government, because the thrust there was to eliminate the farm tax rebate on land owned by developers, a great deal of which had been rezoned for development but was used for farming purposes. Why? Well, to get the farm tax rebate. That was a very substantial cost and so it was eliminated and the rule was used: farmers whose main income was from farming.

I well know about this change because I personally suffered that particular year under that program. However, it did result, of course, in a first surplus for the province of Ontario in 24 years. In 1989-90, there was a $100-million surplus, the first and I hope not the last we've seen in Ontario. I just wanted to clarify that particular item. As I say, I do support the member's initiative and this resolution because something had to be done. I have no problem with it being an OMAF program as long as the amount of money is a separate budget item and it's there.

Why am I concerned about the present system? Well, OMAF is being drastically restructured -- we know that -- and there's less service for farmers -- that's very apparent. The agricultural research funds are being drastically reduced, and this will have terrible repercussions in the agricultural industry because research is the heart of all development and progress and is very, very important.

We note that the OMAF budget is being substantially reduced each year by the government. Indeed, I believe last year or the year previous was the first time in many, many, many years that the budget for the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food had been reduced.

Another great concern is the fact that the farm tax rebate this year has been capped. This means that farmers in those municipalities that have seen an increase, and there are many -- and there have been various reasons given for that. Some of it is downloading of services and more regulations in certain respects, and of course that results in greater cost. Therefore, some municipal budgets have increased. So the capping will seriously affect, I believe, if not the farmers in those particular municipalities, farmers right across the province, because the pot in effect has been reduced. I know the government says it's been capped, but that means reduction if the costs go up. That is very bad and it's a great concern.

The other matter of course has been mentioned, that this farm tax rebate program is a year-by-year decision and that it's time the matter was cleared up once and for all, have a program and have it as an initiative that's there and an ongoing thing and not have people wondering and rumours continuously circulating: "What are we going to do this year? We're not going to get the farm tax rebate and it's the end for us."

The other thing I have to bring before you is to mention that in some municipalities, there are two upper tiers. The county of Brant and the region of Haldimand-Norfolk, both of which are partly are in my riding of Brant-Haldimand, have a different system to the other upper-tier municipalities in this province that have been reassessed at market value assessment. In Brant and Haldimand-Norfolk, the farm tax assessment is at a higher value than residential properties. It's been separated. The factor is higher, with higher taxation; a farm house on a farm pays higher taxes than a residential property, and with increased taxes, this means they're at an extreme disadvantage. I don't know that this is generally known. It's the only two upper tiers in the province that are that way, and I beg the government to change that system.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to comment briefly on this important resolution from the member, a colleague from the PC caucus from Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville, who has been our agricultural critic for many years and who has done a fantastic job in that portfolio; well aware of the concerns of the farmers in Ontario.

This resolution calls on the provincial government to "list the farm property tax rebate as a budget item separate from the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food" and to "initiate, with farm and municipal organizations, a thorough and public review of the taxation of producing farm land with the aim of maintaining a viable agricultural industry and family farms in Ontario."

I'm going to support this resolution, because, as a dairy farmer in Oro township, I know the farmers are ready, willing and able to pay their fair share of property taxes, provided that everyone else is taxed in an equitable and fair manner.

Most people in this province have a problem with the taxation of farm land. The problem is that the taxes on farms are out of proportion to a farmer's ability to pay and out of proportion to the services they receive.

Under the current government, the province of Ontario is mired in financial difficulties. The NDP has frozen the farm property tax rebate under the current government. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food's share of the provincial budget has been reduced to less than 1% of the total budget.

The NDP argues that given the serious fiscal situation the government faces with declining revenues and large deficits, ministry budgets must reflect this, and the NDP suggests that farmers experiencing financial difficulties can avail themselves of safety net programs.

I would respectfully submit that the NDP is out in left field on this and many other important issues. Overall, there is lower provincial expenditure on agriculture and food in Ontario as a percentage of the ag and food gross domestic product than in other major food-producing provinces. The NDP fails to recognize that as Ontario's second-largest source of economic activity, agriculture unquestionably ranks as a priority.

1050

When the NDP froze the property tax rebate, it demonstrated that it declines to include our farmers in its long-term vision of the future. Farmers are struggling to survive in an economic system that does not treat them fairly or equitably.

I will be supporting this important resolution because it's time for this government to realize it is obligated to collaborate with its agricultural and rural community to ensure productivity and fair distribution.

Any modern province that fails to protect and promote its agricultural community is headed for big trouble. A province that is not reasonably self-sufficient and secure in its production of food and the preservation of the rural way of life risks losing a precious measure of independence, security and prosperity.

I thank the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry for bringing this important resolution to our attention. I urge all colleagues here in this Legislature to support it.

You know, we have been promoting ethanol. Why isn't the ministry full force behind this great promotion? Our ag budget is down, the lowest in history. The minister, I don't think, has any input around the cabinet table. The question is: Where does our food come from? The question needs to be asked.

If we help our farmers, we can build new towns. If we kill our farmers, grass will grow on the streets. Basically it's an indication of what this government's attitude is towards our agricultural community. I'm not so sure it is as forceful as I would like to see it, but I commend the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry for bringing this resolution through.

It's great to see my two granddaughters here -- the one who's still on the farm -- watching their old grandpa today have a few words to say.

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I will try and be as brief as possible. Everyone knows I could speak 15 minutes on farm and agricultural issues but, given two minutes, I'll try and put it in as quickly as possible.

We're talking about a farm tax rebate. Sometimes I think people out there don't understand that this is not -- I actually had somebody say to me that they thought it was welfare for farmers. It is not. It is a rebate of the taxes they pay, but it's a rebate on unserviced land.

As to the resolution before us, I would like to say that the farm property tax rebate has already been treated as a separate budget item from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food as a base budget under the recent expenditure control plan. When setting targets for the plan, the Ministry of Finance exempted the farm tax rebate program from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's base budget. Had the program been included in the expenditure plan, the ministry would have had to contribute far more than the $52.9 million or 8% of the budget that was actually contributed.

As members may know, the issues surrounding farm property taxes and property taxation generally are complex and challenging; issues that have been around for more than 20 years. The objective of the original farm tax rebate which was introduced in 1970 was to help ensure that taxes were paid in proportion to the benefits of services received on the property. Given that farm land did not require educational services provided from educational taxes, the idea was to relieve farmers of what was perceived as an unfair financial burden.

A 25% rebate for farm property and residence was set up at that time which was about the same as the educational tax assessed on farm land and buildings. Since then the program has gone through many changes. The rebate levels and rules of eligibility have been adjusted several times to reflect changing circumstances. Under the current program, the rebate level is at 75% excluding farm residences. We recognize that farmers continue to be concerned about the fairness of property taxation on their farm land.

We know that farmers are going through a tough period right now. We realize that this is not only a farm policy issue but also a farm land taxation issue. That's why last summer the Minister of Agriculture and Food asked the Minister of Finance to direct the Fair Tax Commission to include farm property tax issues in its deliberations. I look forward to that report.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of my colleague from Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville, who has been our agricultural spokesman in eastern Ontario for a good number of years. I know in my constituency offices, when there's a farm issue and there's a good deal of discussion on any of the issues, often times the discussion ends with: "And what does Noble Villeneuve think of this? What is his position on this?" So our colleague is recognized I know in eastern Ontario as being a strong voice for agriculture.

I think this morning, after listening to the previous speakers, I would just like to dwell for a few minutes on the history of this so-called farm tax rebate. As the member for Perth said, using the term "rebate" to me is very demeaning to what this taxation problem really is.

Relative to that, as long as this so-called tax rebate policy is left in the hands of the minister and the cabinet, it's continually going to be fluxing here and changing there. I think it's time, in support of my colleague's resolution, that this problem was brought here to the Legislature and we actually legislated the future of farm land relative to its base of taxation.

They have the old saying, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it." My experience across rural Ontario was that the present way of dealing with it was fairly acceptable to the people. They were paying full tax on their residence and one acre of land. The farm buildings and the farm land were exempt from the taxation. The administrative workload and paperwork involved to send in these forms and have the money sent back out, to me, is quite unnecessary.

The problem seems to be that the government and the committees that different governments have set up have not been able to define what a farm operation is. They've used gross income, they've used many guidelines to try to define a farm. I think this definition should be becoming more clear to the government daily as it moves ahead with its stabilization fund, because in establishing that stabilization fund across the province for the farmers, it is in fact going to establish a definition of what it's going to agree is a farm operation.

When they do that, I would like to see it then in legislation in this House, so that it can't be changed by regulation of cabinet just depending on how much money is left in the minister's budget. This has been going on for a number of years: If they were looking for more revenue, they took a look and said, "Oh, we're giving too much here in a rebate."

I think it's time that changed and that we actually accept the fact that a family farm is the basis not only of rural Ontario but of Ontario. It will be a sad day for the cities and towns if we allow the rural heart of Ontario known as the family farm to disintegrate. To ask the family farm operation to pay a tax for services not rendered is really not acceptable to the future of the business.

I would like to say that the Sewell commission, for instance, going around rural Ontario, couldn't understand or wasn't able either to define a farm operation, but in going around the province, it was able to identify the fact that when we had straight rural Ontario, the needs of the farmer were very basic and the services required were basically roads, snowplowing in the wintertime and other needs that were very basic to living there. All the operations on the farm were sustained by the owner and operator of the farm. His water supply, his sewage system, you name it; it was up to him to maintain that. He was no load whatsoever to the municipality and therefore the taxation was relative to that. After the severances and the septic systems became common throughout the province and we had the development of rural Ontario, that responsibility changed.

1100

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Villeneuve, you have two minutes.

Mr Villeneuve: I certainly want to thank all of my colleagues from all sides and all parties. Government members for Huron, St Catharines-Brock and Perth are very supportive of the farm tax rebate, and I thank them for that. It will be interesting to see how they vote. The Liberal members for Oriole and Brant-Haldimand, I certainly want to thank them. I think they show their understanding as well of the problems, the inequities that are inherent in the present tax system, and my colleagues in my own party, the members for Wellington, Simcoe East and Lanark-Renfrew, certainly very understanding of a situation that has to be corrected.

It's simply the correction of a major inequity. Farm land and farm buildings do not put any drain whatever, other than fire protection on the farm buildings -- that's the only claim to the municipal taxes: fire protection on farm buildings.

Mr Jordan: And they're volunteers.

Mr Villeneuve: And those, in most instances, are volunteer firefighters with equipment owned by the municipality.

The roads are there to service the people who live in the homes. All of the other services are people services, and certainly education is a service to people.

So always bear in mind that we now have a frozen farm tax rebate. This government saved $7.1 million by freezing it.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food this week, in reply to a question, said it will likely be a farm tax rebate not at 75% this year but at somewhere between 72% and 73%. Next year, that will drop again.

I am simply looking to lock in the farm tax rebate at its 75%, that it is not a line item in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food: $159 million there, a major inequity. It looks like farmers are sponging when indeed it's simply correcting the books.

I look forward to everyone supporting this motion.

The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for the first ballot item has expired.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ALLOCATIONS DE RETRAITE DES DÉPUTÉS À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

Mr Kormos moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 53, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les allocations de retraite des députés à l'Assemblée législative.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): At the outset, I'd like to indicate to you that I propose to dedicate a portion of the 10 minutes permitted me to the member for Victoria-Haliburton, subject to unanimous consent by this assembly.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? There is unanimous consent; therefore I will recognize the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate the cooperation of the assembly.

I feel especially honoured to be able to speak to this matter, not only because it's timely and it's significant and it expresses, in my view, the wishes of the people of Welland-Thorold, including a whole lot of folks in all other parts of this province, but honoured because we're doing it in the presence of two young women from just slightly north of here, the grandchildren of the member for Simcoe East, Crystle Cooper, who's from Waterdown school in Waterdown, and Jennifer McLean -- McLean, of course, a familiar name to all of us -- from W.R. Best school in Dalston. I'm sure they're as pleased to be here as I am this morning, and as pleased to watch their granddad at work as all of us are throughout the course of our sitting here.

I'm happy that this bill has an opportunity to be debated so soon after it was introduced for first reading on June 17, 1993. I know that after the introduction of Bill 53, my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville introduced a few weeks later a bill similarly reforming or amending the manner in which MPPs receive pensions. I'm not at all troubled by the fact that he introduced a bill as well, and I enjoyed and listened carefully to the debate that took place last week today, last Thursday, about that bill.

As a matter of fact, what's really remarkable is that, along with perhaps the common pause day Sunday shopping debate, was among the most non-partisan, legitimate and sincere debates that one has heard in this Legislature for perhaps a considerable period of time, if not perhaps for the whole history of this Legislature. That speaks, among other things, to the need for individual members, for any one of the 129 of us out of the 130 who are entitled to speak to matters, to be able to speak freely, independently and on behalf of our constituents.

Let me tell you very briefly and very simply, this isn't a complicated issue in so far as it's addressed by Bill 53. Right now we don't have to go through the horror stories about the cash for life, the gravy train that MPPs and, let me be fair, members of Parliament, because if you think the numbers are dramatic here at Queen's Park when it comes to entitlement to pensions for members of the Legislative Assembly, take a look at what federal members are receiving.

The issue having been dealt with, again, in a very different way in the province of Alberta, in a way that I would be modestly critical of, because I don't think it addresses the matter in a way that's entirely successful, but the fact is, the Legislature of Alberta has addressed the issue of MPPs' pensions. This is an opportunity for Ontario to provide leadership throughout this country and to provide some direction for what seems at times a somewhat misguided, perhaps confused -- who am I to talk about confusion? -- federal Legislature that has ignored the issue practically in that it has not done anything meaningful to reform MPs' pensions. I tell you once again, the numbers there are phenomenal. The numbers here in the province are, at the very best, embarrassing. The numbers at the federal level are phenomenal.

What this bill does in a very succinct way is simply this: It limits eligibility for members of the Legislative Assembly to pensions to those who've achieved the age of 60 years. It's a very simple proposition. In my view, it's a very commonsense proposition. I submit that it puts MPPs' pensions very much in line or somewhat closer to the reality of the real world.

The fact is that most working people here in the province of Ontario don't have any pension eligibility whatsoever -- none. Talk about people who do real work in real workplaces, who make things and who make things happen, and I tell you, most of those working people in the province of Ontario have no pension eligibility. We indeed are blessed and we are part of a very small segment of the Ontario population to have any pension eligibility whatsoever.

I propose to yield the floor now to the member for Victoria-Haliburton, trusting that I will be able to rejoin this debate during the 15 minutes allowed subsequent to the introduction of the motion by the member.

The Deputy Speaker: I'd just like to advise the House that I will recognize Mr Drainville immediately, instead of going in rotation, because it is part of the 10 minutes which is normally allocated to the member when he presents his bill.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I thank the honourable member for yielding the floor to me to speak about this very important bill of public administration. The issue has been raised for a long time in the public about the remuneration and the pension benefits that we receive as members of Parliament.

There's no question that we live in a time and a place where there is great scrutiny on how we spend the public purse, and I think that's appropriate. There's no question that we as politicians have to be responsible for the moneys that we spend. There's no question, as well, that as we look through the whole panoply of programs and projects that are in the government what we see in fact is that there are moneys that are not all that well-spent.

Today we deal with this bill that has been brought forward by the honourable member for Welland-Thorold, a bill which essentially is a very simple bill, and what it says in principle is that members of Parliament should receive their pensionable benefits at the age of 60. If you put that into context, it makes great sense. Why should a member of Parliament receive a healthy pensionable benefit at the age of 40 or 42 or 43?

1110

We need to look a little bit at the history of how this came about. It's not that many years ago, maybe 20 years ago and before, when the average age of a member of Parliament in this place was about 45 or 50 years of age. In a sense, this kind of pension scheme was established as a means of supporting members of Parliament who took their prime earning years and gave that up to public life. So 20 or 30 years ago, you would see members in this House who would be members who were greying. Their hair was grey; they were older people; they were giving a great deal of their career years up to public service.

What we see now is that there has been a real change in the character of politics in this province and in the kinds of people who come here to this House. We see members who are in their early 20s, we see members who are in their late 20s and early 30s, and that changes substantially the kind of pension you have. There's no question that we now are beginning to realize that we can't have the same kind of pension plan today that we had 20, 25, 30 years ago, so this is a very timely bill that's being brought forward by the member for Welland-Thorold.

I just want to touch on another issue, and that is, we live also in an age of great cynicism and negativity, when people looking at politicians and the political system have doubts about the wisdom of spending the amount of money that it costs to keep the political institutions, the democratic institutions, functioning. I have to say that, again, there is need for critique, there is need to look at the way money is spent in those institutions.

But in acknowledging the need for us to change the present pension scheme and ensure that members should get that pension at an appropriate age, such as 60, as in this bill, we also have to say that it is important that the right of having a pension after serving years in this House should be reaffirmed. Not a lot of people will end up benefiting from this. If you look at the last Parliament, a huge number of members left this House after the last election who did not walk away with any pension. So there are many people in this House now who will probably never receive a pension.

But if the people of those respective ridings continue to support their member and that member is re-elected and re-elected and gives a great deal of time to those people and to public service, it is appropriate that the person receive a pension which is appropriate to the years of service that he or she has given to the public. So I want to reaffirm that principle and say to the honourable member for Welland-Thorold, I thank him very much for bringing this bill forward and for again bringing this issue into focus for the people of Ontario.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I'm very pleased to rise in support of the member for Welland-Thorold's private member's bill. We had the opportunity just last week to vote as well in favour, in our caucus, of the bill put forward by the member for Windsor-Walkerville, I believe. A member of our caucus, the member for Halton Centre, has introduced a private member's bill which we're going to support as well.

I think it's important to look at these issues in context. I think some facts about the background of the extent and scope of the problem will give a little flavour to what we're dealing with. Really, I think the issue is one of perception, of telling the public that it's important that they see their politicians being responsive to the economic times, and I think this is one of those issues.

I'm not quite prepared to indulge in some of what might have been the self-flagellation about politicians that some of the speakers in favour of this bill have participated in; I think politicians do real work, at least certainly the best ones.

There are 174 past MPPs who are drawing pensions. The average age of those former members is 65. The average pension is $23,000 a year. I think when you start looking at it in that context, the real pensions are not that rich and it's not that inappropriate at 65.

What we're trying to do and what this bill is attempting to do, and our caucus support it, is get rid of those circumstances where there is seen to be unfairness, where people who are quite young are entitled to a full pension at a very early age.

One thing this bill does not address, which our caucus supports as a position of course, is the whole issue of double-dipping, and I think there may be a real concern there and one that I support. I can think of certain members of the government caucus or former government party I guess, more appropriately, who have a pension from this House, in fact a pension from the federal House as well, and are currently on the government payroll. I think that's inappropriate. That's the kind of thing that should be addressed, and to be fair there are people in each party who are in that circumstance and we should legislate to try and attempt to get rid of that.

I think we should have a new plan for a new Parliament. The leaders of the parties have to get together and do that, and they've agreed, and I think it has to happen. As I said, the principles have to be that we need to address the problem of people being able to retire at a young age with a substantial pension, and I think we have to look at the issue of double-dipping. Those are the issues I think that need to be addressed for the public.

I know the member for Welland-Thorold made reference to the Alberta situation, and I think it was highly appropriate that situation was addressed. Alberta had a very substantial and rich pension plan, in fact I think one of the richest in the country. I'm not sure how it competed with the federal pension plan, but it may in fact even have been richer.

But I think this is an important issue. I think of myself, for example. I am a relatively young member and I think it's inappropriate that I could retire in eight or nine years and be able to draw a pension at that age. I too will make the commitment that if that circumstance arises and the electors of St George-St David are kind enough to re-elect me in a few subsequent elections I would defer that pension if I'm under the current plan. If we're under a different plan, then I will live with those provisions, and I make that commitment here.

But I think it's also important to look at the opportunity that we have presented. If you look at the age of members and the length of service, more importantly, because I think that's the real criteria, that average length of service has dropped substantially. In parliaments in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and even the early 1980s, the length of service was in double digits. It was around 12 years. People came into this Parliament and served for a long time and retired.

In many cases people retired without having real access to the pension benefits, and in fact when you think about the fact that for each Parliament 130 people are elected to this assembly, the fact that there are only 174 members currently drawing a pension is not a substantial number. But the interesting thing to note through the last number of years is that the average length of service in this Parliament has dropped substantially.

My friend from Renfrew North calls it a series of electoral decapitations, and I think that's an appropriate analogy if a bit flowery language. Far be it from me to participate in that kind of flowery language.

But if you look at it, for example in the Parliament in 1985, there were 44 people who had under five years of service. That number has more than doubled in this current Parliament. There are now 90 members, I believe, maybe 91 after my election in the by-election of April 1, who have under five years of service. It's important I think to note that none of those individuals, if they are defeated in the next election, will be qualified for the pension.

What we have is an entitlement that is seen to be unjust, frankly, which has no real application because most people can't take access to it. So we have a situation and an opportunity to really create a new circumstance that people can see us moving forward, and an opportunity for reform. I think we should take advantage of it, and that's why I'm pleased to support this bill and our caucus will be supporting this and the other bills.

1120

I think, though, there are some issues we should also look at. The lowest pension paid right now is $240 a month, so there are people who have been unjustly dealt with. I don't think $240 a month is a very rich pension and I think there's a circumstance perhaps where there is an element of unfairness, because the tradeoff really in the way this system got developed was that people were paid pensions out of line with the private sector, I think it's fair to say, as compensation for what was viewed as lower pay. It was part of a package at the time where you traded off lower pay in the public service for a pension scheme.

I think it should be dealt with as a whole. We should look at the pay package and the pension package and reform it as a whole. There are many people out there who would be taking a substantial pay cut to serve in the public service as an elected member, and I think that's an unfortunate circumstance. We need to look at that because I think the best-quality people are the kind of people the public and all of us want to serve in this Legislature, and I think there is a real impediment in the salaries paid.

That is also an issue that's in the context of making sure that what is paid to members is clear and upfront and has no hidden elements to it, no tax-free allowances. It should be a whole, it should be clear to the public, and any expenses should be done by way of receipt so that it's clear and obvious to everyone what is being done.

I think it's those kinds of issues that raise a concern in the public mind, and those are the kinds of issues we should redress. I'm pleased to be able to support this private member's bill. I think, however, it's only part of the loaf, and I'd like to see the whole loaf.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to provide a few brief comments on private member's Bill 53, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act, which was introduced by my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold and received first reading on June 17, 1993.

With this bill, the member for Welland-Thorold wants to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act so that members retiring on or after January 1, 1993, would not be entitled to receive a pension until they reach the age of 60.

I never did approve of people that got pensions in their forties, and there have been several. I believe pensions are there for a purpose. They're there in the province of Ontario and other sectors for the purpose that when people are retiring, that's when they receive a pension, and not just because they're quitting one job and going to another.

If a member dies, the surviving spouse would not receive a survivor's pension until the day the member would have turned 60 years of age. That's part of this bill. However, if the member left a survivor child or children but no spouse, the children would still be entitled to an immediate survivor benefit.

I am eager to comment on this type of legislation, because I've always shown a long-time interest in this type of legislative reform. It was just last week that I spoke on the member for Windsor-Walkerville's resolution with regard to private member's Bill 58, the Legislative Assembly Statute Law Amendment Act, and on private member's Bill 57, the Election Statute Law Amendment Act, because I believe the entire process is in need of a considerable overhaul.

You may no doubt recall that I asked for an all-party consent to have the member for Windsor-Walkerville's bill referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, and do you know what happened when I asked for that unanimous consent? Strangely enough, that same member was the first to object to my suggestion. In effect, he killed his own bill.

I've never seen such a show take place within this Legislature of bringing forward a bill to get some public debate and then ending up killing it. This cynical move on the part of the NDP member for Windsor-Walkerville leads me to believe that his party is not serious about reform and saving taxpayers' money. The NDP is only interested in publicity stunts.

Some of you may recall that during the late 1980s --

Interjection.

Mr McLean: -- well, he's not an NDPer -- I introduced private member's Bill 73, which was An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, and private member's Bill 74, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act.

Now, my bills aimed at both elected officials and civil servants, and those bills would have ended the practice commonly known as "double-dipping," where people receive retirement pensions from the government while also being paid as a member of a government agency, board, commission or committee. I believe it is morally wrong and I believe there must be a return to fiscal responsibility and personal integrity in the ranks of elected officials and the senior civil service.

While I support private member's Bill 53 in principle, I have some concerns about the following: Would a long-time member who's still quite young, but who retires due to ill health and is unable to find alternative employment, have to wait until the age of 60 before receiving a retirement pension? That's why I liked the age of 55. The reason I liked the age of 55 is the fact that there are many people today who work for the civil service -- there are police who retire, there are teachers who retire, there are many of the OPP who retire and at the age of 55 collect their pension. Why are you saying now that, because you're an elected official, you can't collect yours until you're 60? That's where the member and I will disagree on the figures that are in it.

When this is referred to committee, this can be changed, depending on the input we receive from people who want to debate this. So those same concerns apply also to their surviving spouse, with regard to the age limit I've talked about. While I support the member's bill in principle, I do think it requires a bit more work.

I also believe members should not have a tax-free allowance. Their salary should be based on one salary and they pay tax on that full salary. I believe the Premier had the opportunity to do that in 1990, when they were first elected, and the public would have accepted that because of the fact they were doing away with the tax-free allowance that members get. I think that's proper and I think it's appropriate and I think members should have no free taxes on any part of their pay. They should pay on the total amount.

But I also think there's another aspect here that we're kind of forgetting. We have many senior civil servants who have been here for many years, who have retired, and they have expense accounts that nobody can get to see. They have salaries we can't get to see, unless we go through the freedom of information. At one time, it used to be in the book here in the Legislature that every salary over $30,000 was published. I think it was proper to have that done.

The other thing, that the expenses of civil servants were published, I think is proper because many civil servants in this province have credit cards, they have expense accounts that nobody knows what the expenses really are. There are some that we see when we get the estimates books with regard to certain people, and I've seen some expenditures in there up to $48,000. Grant you, it may be in the north where there's a lot of flying that the senior civil servant is doing, but there are many, many accounts in there that I sometimes wonder really where the accountability is.

When we look at and talk about elected people, I think we also should be looking at some of the senior civil servants which my bills, back at that time, looked at. We have many members who have left this House -- and I remember when my bills were before this Legislature, there were many people who spoke opposing them. Some of those people today, like Michael Breaugh, who is now a member in the federal House, is receiving a pension from this Legislature and is also on the payroll in Ottawa.

I have an interesting letter here that I cut out of the Star last week. It says, "Re 'Millions of Reasons for Furor Over MPs' Pensions', June 20, in which you mention me as a 'prime example' of 'double-dipping' -- collecting an MP's pension while working in the public sector." This individual spent 21 years as a member of Parliament and he now receives a pension. He retired from politics in 1989. He is at the age of 54 and he wanted to continue working.

"After considering a number of possibilities, both nationally and internationally and in the private sector, I decided to accept the offer to become the first president of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development. I did so because I believe public sector work in the cause of international rights and democratic development is worthwhile both for Canada and developing countries. I now find myself accused by some of so-called sleazy 'double-dipping' because I accepted this job."

1130

This is what this individual wrote. This individual is making over $100,000 a year in a salary paid for by the taxpayer. This individual is drawing a pension of probably $60,000 a year, approximately. This individual is not ashamed to accept his pension.

My estimation always was that you take a pension when you're retired. This individual is not retired.

This individual is Ed Broadbent, president, International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development. This is from Montreal.

Here we have members of Parliament who thinks it's fine to accept their pension, and he's not 55 years old yet, and yet get $100,000. That's just a typical example of an individual. I'm saying everybody is the same who is doing the same as he is, regardless of what party you're from. I just got that out of the paper, and that's why I read it. There were no others in there to pick out. Anybody else could write in and tell me the same thing, but I've never seen them.

There's lot of others, from all parties. There's Andy Brandt. There's all kinds of them.

Interjection: Elie.

Mr McLean: Elie Martel, George Samis. I don't know how many Liberals, but Bob Nixon was probably getting a good pension when he was in Europe.

Well, I don't agree with that and the public doesn't agree with it, and that's why we're having this debate here today, to try to bring some common sense back to the whole issue of pensions.

I believe that 55 is the right age, but I also believe that members should be paying taxes on everything. You can go on for a period of time with regard to this, but what I saw here last week certainly led me to believe that there's nothing really going to be done, because when the members indicated they supported the bill from the member for Windsor-Walkerville and then got up and stopped it from going to committee, they're playing games.

For those people out there who are listening and think we're really accomplishing something here with regard to the pensions, I don't see it. The only way we'll know if we're going to accomplish anything is today when the member for Welland-Thorold's bill is passed and it's referred to a committee where we can have some full input into it, and I congratulate the member for Welland-Thorold for bringing --

Mr Kormos: Tell them to keep watching for 30 more minutes.

Mr McLean: Just keep watching. The people will, and they'll be watching when we vote on this to find out. I'm telling you, if it's not referred to committee, then these people are not serious about pension reform.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): It's with some pleasure that I rise to speak to my colleague's bill. My colleague is a New Democrat, and he is fighting the issues New Democrats have fought for a long time, sometimes in not the most popular way.

These are difficult times in our province, and times when we as legislators act as leaders. We must act as leaders in meeting the challenges that we face in the public service.

Recently, we've heard of the Tory federal government being under some public scrutiny for abuses of the public purse. The former Prime Minister is treating himself to a king's ransom, some $160,000 in a yard sale at the taxpayers' tab, and he'll have a handsome pension already, in addition to his salary in his law firm that he's going to so quickly. He is not going to lose from his many years of public service.

Some 25 of his cronies will be entering renewed careers with huge pensions. Politicians much younger than I am now will receive lifetime sinecures. One Carole Jacques, at the age of 32, will be receiving a $24,000-a-year pension even if she's convicted of corruption, and I believe she may even spend some time in a publicly funded facility.

Mr Kormos: Does she still get her pension?

Mr White: She will, I think, yes, and that pension will be adjusted when she reaches the age of 60.

The Senate, a singularly useless body of old hacks, which costs the public purse immense millions every year, has recently been under attack for the audacity of granting itself even further allowances. As New Democrats, we traditionally have fought against the very existence of that singular body of patronage and called for a three A Senate: abolish, abolish and abolish. At this time, our federal leader, Audrey McLaughlin, is calling for a national referendum on the future of that institution.

Canadians have long been used to thinking of Ottawa as a sanctuary for abuse of the public purse by an irrelevant breed of jurassic porkers. Perhaps because of federal scandals with so many convictions and charges for corruption and past provincial private profits for politicians, the public still looks with its jaundiced eye on our benefits.

Compared to the federal government, we have little in the way of perks. Even so, we should examine those that we do have. In regard to MPPs' pensions, something should be done to make them appropriate to the 1990s. We know that a member recently retired at the advanced age of 41. This man will have a $48,000-a-year pension as he enters a full-time managerial position. The youngest former MPP pensioner is only 39 years of age. These are exceptions, as the member opposite mentioned. Most recipients of MPP pensions are of retirement years, yet the public deserves the assurance that we're not above the law, that those exceptions should not be tolerated and that we don't have pay privileges at their expense. The public has grown cynical of politicians and the way in which our privileges seem to be protected at their expense.

When I was first elected, I thought, like so many of my constituents, that MPPs had a fairly good pay package. I can well understand the cynicism the public feels, because I felt it myself. It was some time before I realized that the salary was in fact quite modest. Fair enough. All of us enter public life with a desire for public service, not for private profit. Still, it behooves us to make our compensation understandable, if not perfectly acceptable, to the public in general.

There are different kinds of privileges that we as members of provincial Parliament have. Members can rise on points of privilege. There are times when their ability to represent their constituents has been threatened. Parliamentary privilege refers to this privileged ability to represent the interests of the people of Ontario to the best of our ability. That's obviously a privilege that everyone can appreciate, understand and support.

We're also privileged to serve our constituents, to represent their concerns and to offer leadership within our communities. We may complain about the pressures of the job, and they're real, or the stressors; all of my colleagues are visibly much older than they were two and a half years ago, as I am. Even so, we enjoy the privilege of that leadership, we enjoy those tasks and we rise to the challenge that leadership now demands of us.

At this moment, that leadership involves eliminating ways in which we're different from other members of the public service, and not maintaining privileged pensions that are dramatically different and better than the rest of the public sector has. Privilege has several meanings for members of Parliament. Let's not allow one of them to be an illicit gain from public service.

At this moment, we're negotiating cost reductions in the pensions, wages and benefits that members of the public sector receive. It's only appropriate that we look seriously at the costs of those retirement allowances, as government members will be taking a leadership role in the social contract. The Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act came into existence a generation ago. That was a time when professional careers were much more stable than they presently are. A generation ago, working men and women could expect to spend their adult lives with only one employer. Now we all retrain and professionals go through job changes every five years, on average.

As I look at my colleagues, there's not one of them, not one of us here, who would long be unemployed in another arena. Frankly, the rules of a generation ago are no longer appropriate in the 1990s. Like every other worker, we're earning moneys towards a pension. We're putting moneys away. Like any other worker, we should look forward to an adequate retirement in our senior years, but no more than any other member of the public sector.

1140

Pension issues are hard-fought parts of collective agreements. Young men and women have struck for the pension benefits they won't see for long decades. Their families are hungry while they assert a claim upon the future.

We do not honour here those struggles by working men and women of the labour movement by continuing an easily gained privilege. We're asking other members of the public sector to join us in meeting the challenge of getting our deficit and debt down. That's an important and valid goal. We embraced this challenge a couple of years ago in terms of our salaries -- they've been frozen for some time -- just as we're asking the rest of the public sector to do now.

As members of provincial Parliament, we've had several years of wage freezes. Still, I think this bastion of privilege, a pension plan that rewards those who are still in the prime of their lives, should be changed. As a sign of our good faith to the public sector workers, we should go further with wage freezes, just as we have in the last few years. We should extend that at least until 1996.

In addition, we should amend the LARAA, the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act, along the lines that my friend the member for Welland-Thorold suggests. Our pension should be no more generous in early retirement than those that OPSEU and CUPE members have. In fact, most municipal councillors have the same pension arrangement that their employees have under OMERS. There should be no public sector leader able to say to us that we have expensive benefit packages and privileges they do not share.

None of us need this extra form of compensation. We're all capable people, most in the prime of our lives, and those of us who are approaching retirement years should have that benefit of a full pension. But for the rest of us, we do not need, nor should we need, this form of extra compensation.

Let us be up front in suggesting that we can contribute to wage and benefit savings by trimming the costs of these pension schemes. Let's remove the expensive and outdated privilege and bring it to the table as we consider how we meet the challenges of leadership in the 1990s.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to share some thoughts with you on this very contentious issue. First of all, I'd like to commend the member for Welland-Thorold for bringing this bill forward. Since the issue was first raised, I have consistently maintained that an independent commission, such as the Commission on Election Finances, should review MPPs' pensions and make recommendations to make sure that those pensions are fair.

I don't believe that we should be the ones to formulate and decide on the matter, because I think we have a decided conflict of interest. It must be an independent body that makes the recommendations, because it is important to the public on the pension issue that the recommendations not only be fair but be seen to be fair.

Of course, in the final analysis, changes will have to be made by the Legislative Assembly, and we will have to vote on the issue, but at least if an independent body makes those initial decisions and recommendations, I believe the public will be more likely to think they are fair.

Now, having said all that, I'm nevertheless going to support the bill brought forward by the member for Welland-Thorold which makes changes to our pensions, the same as last week I supported the member for Windsor-Walkerville and the same as I will support the bill introduced by my colleague from Halton, Barbara Sullivan.

I support all of these bills, even though some of their provisions are quite different and even though they vary from bill to bill, because I think it sends an important signal. The signal is that MPPs themselves believe changes should be made.

There are some things I very strongly feel should be changed. I believe the age when MPPs receive pensions should be changed. I believe the provisions which allow double-dipping are totally unacceptable. There are changes like that which I will stand here today, even though I have a vested interest in it, and say I support. But the bottom line is that I hope passing second reading of this bill today will send the Premier a message that we want him to act and that he will ask the Commission on Election Finances to review the issue and come back with recommendations for reform.

You know, when I ran for Parliament, I didn't run because of the generous pensions, and I doubt that anyone in this chamber did. In fact, I didn't even know what my pension was until very recently, when the controversy erupted. All I know and all I knew, and this was something I found out when I received my first paycheque, was that there was a deduction off the top of 10% of my salary as a contribution to the pension fund. I knew I was going to get a pension at the end of it, but if I listen to the media's version, I would believe that I could leave Queen's Park today, after six years, and get an astronomical pension.

They reported things such as, "MPPs can leave Queen's Park after five years with a pension of up to $60,000 a year for life." Talk about raising your hopes. Another article said, "Currently MPPs can start receiving lifetime pensions of up to 75% of their salaries immediately upon leaving politics, with as little as five years in the Legislature." If a member of the public listened to this, then they would believe that the member for Eglinton, if she walked away from this place today and resigned, would have an annual pension of $60,000, or at least a minimum of $30,000. The facts are that if I didn't run for a third term, after serving for eight years, my pension would be around $11,000 to $13,000 a year. In fact, I wouldn't be able to collect it for a while, because it's one of the few places in life I can say I'm still not old enough.

Having said that, they may not be astronomical figures, but the pension is very generous. We have to ask ourselves the question, why? Why are MPPs' pensions so generous? I believe it's because the salaries were too low, so this was their way of doing it through the back door to provide the compensation and making it up. If you look at Ontario MPPs, they're paid $44,000, and then there's the tax-free allowance of almost $15,000.

I compared that with other jurisdictions: It's $25,000 less than federal MPs; it's $15,000 less than senators. Mr Speaker, I won't tell you what I think of senators, because it undoubtedly would be unparliamentary, but let's just say I think the work we do has markedly more value than what the senators do. I'm not talking about the hockey team, either; I'm talking about those dinosaurs in Ottawa. I said I wasn't going to be unparliamentary, too.

It's $11,000 less than what MPPs in Quebec get paid. It's $5,000 less than what Metro councillors make. Our salaries are all of $2,000 more than what MPPs in Newfoundland are paid. Don't get me wrong: I think Newfoundland is a wonderful province; I've got members in my immediate family who were born there. But the responsibility of administering a province like Ontario is decidedly different than in running Newfoundland.

There are lots of reasons I love this job. There are opportunities to meet interesting and marvellous people. There are opportunities to constantly learn, opportunities to fight for what we believe in, to say what we believe. It's always a challenge and rarely boring. It's sometimes very frustrating, but rarely boring.

But I can tell you, there are other times when this job, if I may be so blunt, is the pits. There are long hours. There are evenings and weekends that we work. There's a lack of privacy. We give up family time. There's public contempt, which I personally find extremely difficult to deal with when everybody says, "All politicians are scum." Sometimes it's very thankless, and we're constant targets of the media. Somebody said to me, "I'd hate a job where you had to smile all day."

It's an uncertain life. Out of the 50 new members elected to the Liberal caucus in 1987, 38 of them were defeated in 1990, not because they didn't do a good job but because people didn't like our leader. They didn't have any pensions. They had interrupted their careers and it was very difficult for them to get back. In our caucus, for instance, we have eight lawyers who could earn far more out in the private sector; we have business people and professionals who did. They've made a sacrifice.

What I'd like to say is that if we want to attract quality people as MPPs, who will interrupt their career path for public service, then surely it's important to make sure that MPPs are paid appropriately. Let's stop doing it by the back door. End the tax-free allowances, the perks, the per diems, reform the pension system and make sure we do it right.

1150

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): In the few minutes remaining for my party's time, I want to also participate in the debate, first of all to congratulate the member for Welland-Thorold for bringing forth a very timely topic. Ralph Klein, the Premier of Alberta, I think kind of won an election on a change of pension and pension reform.

I'm getting to be one of the old hands around here, Mr Speaker, as I guess maybe you are. You came here in 1984 and I came here the year before you, both in by-elections, and including those by-elections, we've both of us fought four elections in 10 years. It was always interesting, because your party was on the rise for a while and I came in at the decline of the Tory dynasty. As I look back, in 1983, when I was first elected, it was as the 73rd member of the governing party at that time; 17 members remain in this chamber. As I say, four elections, and not easy elections for Tories, you may have noticed. However, some of us survived.

The pensions need to be reformed -- I don't think there's any doubt about that -- and I will be supporting the member for Welland-Thorold's bill this morning. However, I think some adjustments should be made. Possibly 55, as my colleague from Simcoe East mentioned, is maybe a more acceptable age than 60.

However, as we go back and look at the elections that have occurred in 1985, 1987 and 1990, approximately 50% of the members here did not return, either by voluntary retirement or constituent-forced retirement.

It's amazing. The member for Eglinton mentioned some of the misleading information that was provided in the newspapers, that you're here five years and you get a $60,000-a-year pension. That is certainly far from the truth. It is very misleading, and perception becomes reality. It's very easy picking to go after elected politicians; we live in fish-bowls.

Eight days a week sometimes isn't enough in your calendar or mine, and we fought like the dickens to get re-elected. That's fine. We accept what goes with that. I don't think anyone is here because of the salary. We're here for a cause. Frustrating as it may be from time to time, we still work towards a cause: to better the conditions of the people we attempt to represent. It's not always easy, either in opposition or even on the back benches on the government side. Frustration does set in from time to time; as long as rigor mortis doesn't set in.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): That's the Senate.

Mr Villeneuve: That's the Senate.

However, in closing -- and I have very few seconds left -- I will be supporting the member's bill today. We look for some reform because perception is reality, and the public perception out there through misleading media information is making us look like we are using the system.

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): I want to thank the member for Welland-Thorold for bringing this Bill 53 forward. I will be supporting it later today. I also want to thank the member for Windsor-Walkerville for bringing his bill forward last week.

I think this starts talk about legislative reform as far as remuneration and as far as expenses, per diems etc that we get. I know other members around the House have alluded to that this morning.

Last Wednesday afternoon, the member for Welland-Thorold and I were lucky enough to be on 900 CHML, the Roy Green show, where we talked about legislative reform as far as remuneration and expenses go. What most people told us is that they think an MPP makes a good salary, that it's not a bad salary, but they would like to see the reforms come in where, say, things are not hidden in expenses, things are not hidden in per diems, that we maybe roll it all into one so it's very upfront, so that people around the province understand what we're getting.

That's just one issue, and I think these pension reform bills are starting to address that issue. A lot of people think that after five years, as the honourable member for Eglinton pointed out, we're pensioned off at $60,000 or we get 75% of what we've made for the past five years.

It's an issue that touches home to me because I was elected September 6, 1990. I was 30 years old. If I'm lucky enough to last until I'm 45, if I'm privileged enough that the people in Wentworth East allow me to last until I'm 45, I'll be here for 15 years and get a pension of roughly $30,000. It just seems a little ludicrous and crazy; people in the private sector don't get that. They have to wait till they're 60 or 65 and properly pensioned off.

It's something we should be a little realistic about. I know I talked to seniors in my riding: Jake Isbister; I've talked to Ken Gamble, Bill Gamble. I've talked to councillors in Stoney Creek: Maria Pearson. They don't seem to understand the issue. They don't seem to understand that they have to work for 35, 40, 50 years and their pensions aren't as good as ours. That's a real shame. They don't get it; we don't get it.

Earlier this week, I was talking about legislative reform as far as remunerations and expenses go, and I had decided that I would give up my apartment. It was kind of sad that I got openly and publicly criticized by a member of the House for doing that. That's just a sad issue and I'm not going to say much more on that. I was really taken aback that this happened. That's something we have to address; that's something we have to be very serious about.

We're asking the public service to be serious about cutbacks, about $2 billion worth, and we're asking the people of the province of Ontario to be serious; we've increased taxes. I think it's about time that we got serious and did exactly the same thing, to show them that we're in the lead and that we're starting.

I know I have roughly two and a half minutes left and I know the honourable member for Welland-Thorold gave the member for Victoria-Haliburton some time. I would like to give some of my time that I have left back to the honourable member for Welland-Thorold.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Kormos: Obviously, I'm in a position where I wrap this up with the two minutes that are permitted me.

A little bit of talk about double-dipping: Quite rightly, the remarkable thing about the formula in Bill 53 is that it effectively deals with double-dipping without having to worry about definitions and what constitutes a second salary or a primary salary because of the fact that it requires that a person be 60 years old before she or he be eligible for a pension.

One of the problems with laying out a formula and defining what double-dipping means is that there are always going to be exceptions, and then there is going to be litigation and arguments about, "Am I in a public service job or am I not in a public service job?" I don't care whether you're in a public sector or a private sector job. You still shouldn't get your MPP pension until you're 60 years old. There's nothing miraculous about that. There's nothing mysterious about that.

As a matter of fact, one of the problems around here is that this Legislative Assembly is cloaked with this mystery. We speak some of our own language, and so much that takes place here is done, in terms of the viewpoint of the public, so secretively and mysteriously and sometimes magically. Let's open the doors to this joint. Let's lay the cards on the table. Let's open the books. Let's make sure that people in this province who pay for this government, who pay for the good things in this province, understand where the money comes from and how that money's being spent.

Some talk about the event of members falling ill, becoming ill or injured to the point where they can no longer work. Let's not confuse a pension plan with a long-term disability plan. Let's talk about an LTD. I'll tell you this: I'm going to be proposing to you that this bill, if it succeeds, if it's passed, be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. We've got to get the ball rolling: no more studies, no more deferrals, no more shelving things in dusty, dark back rooms. Let's get the ball rolling in a public, open, standing committee so the discussion can begin in a three-party manner.

The Deputy Speaker: We still have two minutes.

Mr Kormos: Thank you. I sat down so you could tell me I had two minutes, Speaker. Far be it for me to offend the rules or not abide by protocol. I'm extremely conscious of the need for that.

Look, this bill, like the latter bill of the member for Windsor-Walkerville, is a starting point. I appreciate the comments about the need for perhaps having an independent body assess these things and deal with them in an omnibus fashion: pays, salaries, per diems, perks. Perhaps that's the point this should happen at in terms of real recommendations, but let's let the Legislative Assembly committee deal with that. Let's let the Legislative Assembly committee hear presentations about the process that might be followed, a public process of presentation and a public process of debate within the Legislative Assembly committee, because -- the member talked about the need -- regardless of what an independent body decides or recommends, ultimately members of this assembly have to make a political decision. That may mean rejecting a set of recommendations from an independent body that is overly generous with taxpayers' dollars. The bottom line is that there has to be a political decision made.

So I say this: I appeal to members of the assembly to support this bill. I also say this: Don't let this bill become mere window dressing. Let's get the process going. Let's refer this to the Legislative Assembly committee so that there can be an honest and legitimate, bona fide, above-the-board addressing of the issues by all the members of this assembly and by members of the public. That's where it can take place, not in committee of the whole and not deferred over to some dark, dusty shelf in a back room or in the basement of this joint.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

TAXATION OF FARM LAND

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 21, standing in the name of Monsieur Villeneuve. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Villeneuve has moved private member's notice of motion number 19.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

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

Mr Villeneuve has moved private member's resolution number 19. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.

Ayes

Arnott, Beer, Callahan, Cunningham, Drainville, Eddy, Grandmaître, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kormos, Kwinter, Marland, McLean, Murphy, Poole, Villeneuve.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until their names are called.

Nays

Cooper, Duignan, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Malkowski, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Rizzo, Sutherland, Waters, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington).

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 16; the nays are 25. I declare the motion lost.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ALLOCATIONS DE RETRAITE DES DÉPUTÉS À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 22 standing in the name of Mr Kormos. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Kormos has moved second reading of Bill 53, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1210 to 1215.

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

Mr Kormos has moved second reading of Bill 53. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until their names are called.

Ayes

Arnott, Beer, Callahan, Cunningham, Curling, Drainville, Duignan, Eddy, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harrington, Huget, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kormos, Kwinter, Malkowski, Marchese, McLean, Morrow, Murphy, North, O'Connor, Poole, Rizzo, Villeneuve, White, Wiseman.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing until their names are called. Nays

Cooper, Frankford, Hansen, Haslam, Hope, Johnson (Prince-Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), Sutherland, Waters, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands).

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 28 and the nays are 15. I declare the motion carried. Pursuant to standing order 96(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Mr Speaker, I ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly so that it can be effectively worked with.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly?

All those in favour of this question will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to this question will please rise and remain standing.

A majority of the House not being in agreement with the request of the member, this bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed at 1219.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TORONTO MOLSON INDY

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): On July 16, 17 and 18, the Toronto Molson Indy enters its eighth year as one of Canada's major sporting events. The Toronto Molson Indy has become Toronto's largest annual sporting event and last year attracted 155,000 people. Tourists from all parts of Canada and the United States converge on Toronto to view the races and participate in many of the other cultural and entertainment activities available in the Toronto area.

We are fortunate to have two Ontario drivers in the race. Both Scott Goodyear of Scarborough and West Hill's Paul Tracy have become stars in their own right, and Paul Tracy comes to the Toronto race after having won last week's race in Cleveland, beating such notable drivers as Emerson Fittipaldi and Britain's Nigel Mansell.

In conjunction with the race, the Molson Indy Festival stages events during a week-long celebration which raises money for children's charities. Since 1986, Molson Indy Festival events have raised in excess of $700,000 for various charities including the Herbie Fund, Easter Seals, Marina Lodge Rehabilitation Centre and the Variety Club.

Indy car racing is also a testing ground which has led to some of the most significant developments and improvements in the automotive industry over the years.

I'm sure we all join in wishing the organizers a very successful and safe weekend.

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): The people of Ontario are disillusioned with Ontario's NDP government. It has lost control of its agenda and is drifting aimlessly through the summer of 1993.

The government claims it extended the sitting of the Legislature because of a pressing need to proceed with its legislative agenda. I would respectfully submit that if the NDP government was really serious about getting some work done, they should have been back here on March 22, rather than delaying proceedings and hiding out for three weeks until April 13.

I suspect retailers have seen a marked increase in the number of telephone answering machines sold for the constituency offices of NDP members so those members will not have to face the music in their ridings.

The NDP members are unable to justify their antibusiness, job-killing May 19 budget and its $2-billion tax grab. The NDP members cannot defend their anti-labour social contract legislation that is a blatant attack on Ontario's education, health care, municipal and public sectors. The NDP members are unable to explain the logic of their health expenditure control act that will have a profound negative impact on the ability to provide and receive the high-quality medical services people so demand.

The people of Ontario deserve nothing less than the best possible government comprised of honest and honourable men and women. Unfortunately the government's NDP members use telephone answering machines at their constituency offices and hide out here at Queen's Park to avoid facing the constituents who elected them in good faith. What a sad state of affairs.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): As the July 30 deadline for the first wave of proposals under our government's Jobs Ontario Homes approaches, I'd like to take this opportunity to once again add my voice to the growing number of people who are convinced that non-profit housing needs to be a significant part of provincial housing policy.

Currently only 15% of our government's total annual housing expenditure is spent on non-profit housing, compared with 56% for shelter allowances and rent supplements. Yet unlike non-profit housing, shelter allowances are short-term solutions that do not create any new affordable housing. Rental subsidies function to keep private market rents too high and require increasing levels of funding as rents keep increasing. As mortgages are paid off over time, non-profit housing requires significantly decreasing levels of funding while maintaining permanent affordable housing.

One of the many groups applying for Jobs Ontario Homes is Alice Willow Co-operative Homes Inc. I wholeheartedly support their attempts to address the shortage of decent, affordable rental housing in my riding and in Acton in particular. As people in my riding learn more about what non-profit and cooperative housing means, more people are actively supporting these projects. Alice Willow Co-op, like many of the public and private non-profit corporations, will bring to its community much-needed, clean and attractive stable housing which is managed and democratically owned by the people who live there. I know their efforts will provide a very positive contribution to our community and I salute them for that.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Yesterday, the leader of the official opposition, Lyn McLeod, my colleague the member for York Centre, Greg Sorbara, and I met with members of York region council in Newmarket. We heard a story of frustration, frustration at how difficult it is to work with this government on the issue of the social contract.

The mayor of Newmarket, Ray Twinney, told us that he, together with his council and the town's employees, is convinced that they can come to a local agreement that will both save taxpayers' money and save jobs. They can do this by using common sense and by building on the positive relationships that exist in the town between council and Newmarket staff. Yet the appalling fact is that when Newmarket town officials asked government representatives if their local agreement would then allow the town to receive the full 20% reduction in their target, they were told no.

Local agreements can be made. Why won't the government offer local municipalities the same incentive they will provide to the whole sector?

The Liberal Party has argued consistently that the only way to bring about the goals and objectives of the government's proposed restraint program is to allow local communities to make local agreements.

I say to the Minister of Finance, now Ontario's paymaster, listen to what local municipalities, local school boards, local agencies of all stripes are saying: "Let us negotiate with our employees and we will meet the $2-billion target and we will get fair and equitable agreements." Minister, when Newmarket's plan is sent to Queen's Park, say yes.

ORANGEVILLE MEDIEVAL FESTIVAL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My lords and my ladies, pray pay heed: I rise to inform the House that this weekend the town of Orangeville hosts the annual Orangeville Medieval Festival. The medieval festival is the brainchild of a very special resident and artist, Lorina Stephens. Mrs Stephens has taken the medieval festival from idea to fruition, holding the first medieval festival last year, attracting over 20,000 visitors to Orangeville.

This weekend's events include a live chess match played out by children from school areas, a medieval feast on Saturday night featuring foods from the era, archery competitions and a live, full-contact jousting contest played out on horses.

Come visit the Norse encampment, an authentic recreation of the Norse landing on North American soil in the year 1000 AD.

The local museum will feature an exhibit of medieval coins and offer local walking tours of historic homes.

Orangeville will play host to the weekend events by opening up homes and businesses to people dressed in period costumes and lots of, "Good day, my lords and ladies."

Visit Orangeville this weekend and come spend a day 500 years ago.

JACQUELINE TUINSTRA

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to pay tribute to a 14-year-old environmentalist from my riding, Jacqueline Tuinstra of Vineland.

This bright young teen recently participated in the United Nations Global Youth Forum in Colorado. Jacqueline was one of the 2,000 delegates from more than 40 nations. She was chosen from more than 300 applicants to be one of Canada's 20 delegates. Jacqueline was the only representative from the Niagara Peninsula among Canada's delegates, who range in age from 12 to 22 years.

While at the forum, she exchanged environmental concerns with young people from all over the world and she helped draft an environmental declaration to be presented at the United Nations General Assembly.

Most importantly, Jacqueline learned that people from different nations and cultures can work together to solve environmental problems.

Since returning home, she has written an essay about her experience and has spoken at elementary schools and at a local school board meeting.

I'd like to congratulate Jacqueline for the dedication she has shown to saving our environment from the excesses of the industrial world. We can only hope other young people follow her example.

1340

INCOME TAX

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): As predicted, I think the angry calls are now beginning to come to our offices as people in the province realize their provincial income tax went up July 1 by 11%. The average family in this province now is paying $80 more a month in provincial taxes. If we don't think that's going to have a strong negative impact on the economy, we're very much mistaken. Eighty dollars a month out of the average working family in this province is going to have a real negative impact on the economy.

Just when I think we began to see the economy getting on its knees again, just when we saw a little bit of a faint heartbeat in the economy, there is no doubt this biggest tax increase in the history of the province is going to be like a cold shower on our economy. And just when the government acknowledged that the real unemployment rate in this province is 14%, just when we see almost three quarters of a million people out of work in this province, this is just the moment the government decides to take taxes up on the average family by $80 a month.

I hope we're wrong, but I think we are going to see this cold shower stop our economic recovery right in its tracks.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Last night, over 200 people attended a meeting in Mississauga organized by concerned families of the Tyndall Nursing Home to discuss Bill 101, which has made several changes to Ontario's system of long-term care.

Of primary concern is the new fee structure for accommodation in long-term care facilities. On July 1, Bill 101 added a user fee, or copayment, which can cost residents up to $12 per day more. Many residents heard about the fee change just days before it took effect.

There has not been enough time to do the income testing that is needed to determine the amount of the user fee. As a result, all residents are being charged the maximum user fee, with rebates to come later. This is ludicrous when many residents simply do not have sufficient income to afford the full fee.

I hope this NDP government will adopt the resolution of the PC Health critic, Jim Wilson, which calls for a graduated, four-year implementation of the copayment. Why should residents pay their full share at once if the government has four years to pay its share of the funding increase?

Another major concern is that when the primary income earner in a family requires long-term care in a facility, there is no regard for the income needs of the spouse who remains in the family home. This is particularly compounded if that spouse has young children at home also. It is possible for long-term care payments to use up almost all of the family income.

Obviously, the Bob Rae government has given little thought to how it will implement Bill 101 so that long-term care is affordable, accessible and equal for everyone.

YM-YWCA AWARDS

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): It is my privilege today to pay honour to five Oxford county women who have made outstanding contributions to our community. The five will be recognized by the YM-YWCA of Woodstock at a banquet September 8. The organization decided to honour these women because they have made a significant contribution to society, to celebrate their achievements and to recognize their contributions as role models for women.

There are four award categories: advancement of agriculture, for a sustained and significant contribution to the improvement of the importance of agriculture; arts and culture, for a significant contribution or outstanding achievement in the visual, literary or performing arts; humanitarian service, for commitment to and involvement in social services programs or organizations within the community; and professional, innovator or entrepreneur, for outstanding achievement or innovation in entrepreneurial or technological endeavour.

Sharon Rounds, a Lakeside area farmer, won for advancement in agriculture. Jean Hillis, an Ingersoll resident and founding member of the Ingersoll Creative Arts Centre, won for arts and culture. Woodstock residents Marie Bowerman, a long-time volunteer in amateur figure-skating, and Wendy Calder, a former mayor of Woodstock from 1978 to 1985, won for humanitarian service. And Frances Goff, a successful Woodstock business person, won in the professional, innovator or entrepreneur category. Unfortunately, time prevents me from giving even a brief outline of each woman's accomplishments.

Many people complain about the problems facing our communities, but all too few get involved in finding a solution or making some contribution that makes living here more pleasurable. These five women have made dramatic contributions over the years to Oxford, and I ask the members here to join me in congratulating them for their efforts.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Let me begin with a point of order, Mr Speaker: It being time for oral questions, I just make the point that at quarter to 2 we have fewer than 15 members of the government bench; we have fewer than a half dozen ministers. It's one thing to have a million dollars worth of Hydro furniture go missing and the public accounts and the auditor for the province now in search of it, but at quarter to 2 on a Thursday afternoon, 75% of the treasury bench and the cabinet ought not to be similarly missing.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I can be of no assistance to the member other than to understand his concern.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have two questions today on behalf of my colleagues, and the first question will go to the Finance minister, who's joining us as I speak.

Minister of Finance, it's now almost two months ago that you presented the Ontario budget for 1993. In that budget, tabled by yourself on May 19, 1993, you increased the tax burden on an annual basis on Ontario citizens by $2 billion, and fully 50%, over $1.1 billion of that total tax increase, is in the form of personal income taxes. My friend Gerry Phillips, the Liberal treasury critic, has just finished saying to the House that for the average Ontario family in the remaining part of this year their provincial taxes are going to increase on a monthly basis by about $80, or a total increase this year of about $500.

In light of those tax increases, which are now beginning to be paid by ordinary citizens in this province, I want to raise with the Minister of Finance a corresponding concern on behalf of the taxpayers all across Ontario, and that is how the provincial government, of which he is a central part, is spending the hard-earned money of beleaguered, embattled taxpayers.

This morning, we had released a Provincial Auditor's report on the Workers' Compensation Board building, the new building that the Workers' Compensation Board is determined to build. The Minister of Finance will know that he and I discussed this issue in this House six months ago.

Does the Minister of Finance know that in the Provincial Auditor's report on the proposal for a new workers' compensation building for Ontario, a project just beginning in terms of its construction, the auditor has reported, among other things, that the board at the workers' compensation office wanted a new building so badly that they looked not very seriously at any other options?

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

Mr Conway: Among other things, they have grossly overstated the savings that a new building would provide. Is the Minister of Finance, the architect of this $2-billion tax grab which people are starting to pay on a daily basis now, aware of the report of the Provincial Auditor and the excesses which the Provincial Auditor has found in the proposed new WCB building?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): In view of the fact that this is a question directly associated with workers' compensation, I'll refer it to the Minister of Labour.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I haven't personally read the report as yet, but I want to simply say that the auditor does not indicate that there was not value for money in the project. I want to also make it clear that the recommendation that was brought to us by the board -- I think it was in the first month or two that we were in office -- clearly indicated that they had sought legal advice and had three legal opinions on the issue, and the legal opinions were that they had the right to go ahead and proceed with the building. It was following this that we decided we wanted an assessment of vacant property as well in the area, and that's when we had Royal LePage do the assessment of unused property in the city of Toronto.

Mr Conway: My supplementary is to the Finance minister, and it concerns the way in which his government is spending the hard-earned money of beleaguered taxpayers. The government members may not have read the Provincial Auditor's report but I have, and taxpayers will be reading it as I speak. The Provincial Auditor, a professional arbiter in these matters, has made a damning indictment of this particular expenditure of the public's money.

1350

I ask the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the taxpayers of the province, will he now, in light of this report, order an immediate halt to this boondoggle on a variety of grounds, not only the grounds that the auditor has found, but as some indication to the taxpayers who are saying to all of us they've had enough, and enough is too much, and that a genuine social contract for the taxpayers is that government will restrain excessive public spending and surely the auditor's report on the new WCB building indicates plainly that this --

The Speaker: Would the member complete his question, please.

Mr Conway: -- commitment of public funds is inappropriate and unwarranted and should be stopped now?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It's not taxpayers' money, to begin with. The report clearly confirms that there is value for money in investing in this building, and that is what was the mandate of the Provincial Auditor. The report concludes that there will be a reasonable rate of return on investment.

Mr Conway: The final supplementary to the Finance minister on public spending concerns three more audits about spending in the department of the Solicitor General and particularly audits that concern themselves about community-based programs in the area of sexual assault, wife assault services and victim services.

These three audits, done by the government itself, of government programs indicate widespread misappropriation of public moneys, a clear indication that the Rae government in recent years has poured millions of dollars into these programs without laying a proper foundation, without proper accountability.

The audits, among other things, say that officials, publicly paid for people, are renting cars for long weekends and statutory holidays, have corporate credit cards running up thousands of dollars in personal charges, and there are no conflict of interest rules around hiring: three more audits in the area of the department of the Solicitor General that make plain to the taxpayers, now burdened this week with all of these additional personal income taxes, that the government is not doing a very good job in terms of spending and looking after the taxpayers' money.

In light of these audits, will you undertake today, with your colleague the Solicitor General, to deal with and to end the excesses and the misappropriations --

The Speaker: Could the member complete his question, please.

Mr Conway: -- that are outlined in these three government audits?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm not sure what that has to do with the WCB building at all, and the only thing I can do with the question he's asking is to take it under advisement.

Mr Conway: I asked the question to the Minister of Finance in the area of government spending. We've got four audits here that indicate that the taxpayers, burdened with $2 billion worth of additional taxes, are not getting value for money.

The Speaker: Does the member have a second question?

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): A new question is to the Premier. Every Ontarian I have ever met and certainly every constituent I represent believes that in this province and country, one of the most fundamental and cherished of rights is the right to be considered innocent until one is presumed guilty. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms makes plain in section 11(d) that this is a true right to be enjoyed by all Ontario residents.

I want to ask the leader of the government of Ontario, a distinguished member of the Ontario bar, to outline in this House today on behalf of his government what precisely are the views of the government of Ontario with respect to this particular right and freedom.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Mr Speaker, I'll refer that question to the Attorney General.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I'm happy to do as the member opposite requests and did so yesterday. Our position is very clear that people are indeed presumed innocent until they are proven guilty. There has never been any question that this is the government position in this province or indeed, I presume, that it would be the position of any government at any time in the province of Ontario.

Mr Conway: Given that statement from the minister of justice, my supplementary question is as follows: How then do she and her colleague the Premier explain and account for comments made in this province on a number of occasions in the last 24 hours by one of the most senior officials in the Ontario public service, namely, Ms Rosemary Brown, a prominent British Columbian brought to this province by Bob Rae to be chairperson of the Ontario Human Rights Commission?

Ms Brown has said, in the last 24 hours, and I quote from this morning's CBC Radio News, and I'm quoting Ms Brown directly: "When you're investigating a human rights complaint, you have to assume that the complaint that you're investigating is legitimate and you go out and investigate it. So the presumption of innocence should not apply at this investigative stage."

It couldn't be clearer. Ms Brown, this prominent British Columbian New Democrat brought and appointed by Bob Rae to this very, very sensitive and senior post, said she's proud of the work done by the commission in this connection. How does the minister of justice, and for that matter her colleague the Premier, explain and account for these comments from Ms Brown?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I think the confusion that has arisen is exactly around the presumptions that happen at the time of investigation. Indeed, the press asked me a similar question yesterday afternoon. The issue that was raised in the report is that very often when complaints are brought forward in issues that have not been accepted generally as serious issues, there has been a tendency for those complaints not to be taken seriously or to be investigated seriously.

The point I think needs to be that of course every complaint that comes forward ought to be considered seriously and ought to be investigated by investigators with a view to determining all the broad range of facts that occur in the case. In my view -- and I can't speak for Ms Brown and did not hear the interviews -- that is different from an assumption that this means that at the end of the day someone will be found guilty of that offence. This is no different than it is in any police case and it's no different than it is any place else. When someone makes a complaint, it ought to be investigated very seriously and given real credibility.

Let me just complete my remarks, because I think people will understand a bit better. There was a day before your government, the previous Liberal government, took seriously the issue of making sure that wife assault and sexual assault complaints were considered seriously and were investigated seriously and that the credibility of the complainant was not presumed to be wrong, that in fact that did not pertain.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: Your government and our government have ensured that those complaints in those instances are given credibility and investigated clearly. That does not mean to say that when a complaint is raised in those issues we automatically assume that the person who may have been accused of that crime will be found guilty at the end of the day.

Mr Conway: I cannot contain my disbelief. The Bob Rae I have known for 12 to 15 years, and on these matters had respected, has truly gone missing. This is a fundamental right that everyone in this Legislature and in the province beyond must be concerned about. It has everything to do with first principles. I'm deeply disappointed that the Premier has not yet addressed this issue.

I want, in my final supplementary, to get back to the essential question. This is a fundamental principle that is not a half-issue, that is not an arm's-length issue. The charter and the political and legal culture speak to an unabridged right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

1400

Interjections.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): What's Rosemary saying? What about what Rosemary said?

The Speaker: Order, member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Conway: That is not what Bob Rae's appointment to the chair of the Human Rights Commission is saying. This is NDP ideology run amok.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Conway: Will you, Madam Minister, or the Premier, give this undertaking today: Will you summon Ms Brown to your office today and tell her that this is a clear and unfettered right, that this is not acceptable to Bob Rae or anyone else, and that if she's not prepared to accept that position and to articulate it, you or Bob Rae, the man who appointed her, will remove her immediately from this sensitive post?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Histrionics notwithstanding, I would say very clearly that it is not at all clear to me that in any way this fundamental principle, which is guaranteed under the charter and which we have clearly, clearly stated we will very much protect within our purview as a government and within those agencies that are run through this government -- we're very, very clear about that, and it is not my position to call someone on the carpet for something that is reported to me and I have not heard.

I am not responsible for the Human Rights Commission; the Minister of Citizenship is. This is an issue, very clearly an issue --

Mr Stockwell: Pray to God it doesn't happen to you.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Mr Conway: This is serious and this is the government of Ontario and we cannot let these remarks stand. Mr Speaker, I can't imagine --

The Speaker: Would the member for Renfrew North please take his seat.

Mr Conway: -- a more serious issue and I cannot accept the assurance of the leader of the government --

The Speaker: I ask the member to take his seat. I must caution the member that if he refuses to take his seat, he will be named.

Mr Conway: This an affront to the fundamental rights of this province and this Legislature and the Premier must speak and he must speak now.

The Speaker: I ask the member to take his seat and to come to order.

Interjections.

Mr Conway: You find me somebody else who said that in this high office. Fred Cass said something like this and Robarts had him out on his ass in 24 hours.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Histrionics.

The Speaker: I ask the member for Renfrew North again to come to order.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: I will not accept from my friend opposite that this is a matter of histrionics. This is a matter of the most fundamental kind.

The Speaker: No. The member is a cause of disorder. I ask the member to take his seat. I caution the honourable member that, his experience notwithstanding, he is at this point in time a cause of disorder in the House and I ask him to please come to order.

Had the minister completed her response?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I can state very clearly to the member opposite and to all people in the province of Ontario that our position as a government is very clear. If it is not the same as Ms Brown's position, then that needs to be looked at and she needs to be clearly informed that it is not the position of this government. The presumption of innocence is a presumption that is fundamental to our system of justice in this province and in this country and it is not in question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Is there a question from the third party? The leader.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question to the Premier, following up on the question from the member for Renfrew North. Premier, regarding the Donna Young report yesterday, there was outrage at the repugnancy of the remarks that were in the Donna Young report. There was outrage all across this province. Indeed the outrage went across this country when details of that report were released.

Your Attorney General yesterday said that she did not condone this report -- late, well after the fact, had to be prodded into it in the House. But that started to go some way, I suggest to you, Premier, to alleviate, if you like, the concern across this province that now the justice system, along with everything else, was going to hell in a handbasket in the province of Ontario.

Then, Premier, your newly appointed choice as chairperson of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Rosemary Brown, came public and endorsed the report, gave it great credibility, worthy of further study, further sending out the signal of the repugnancy and the outrage of the fundamental tenet that you are innocent until proven guilty.

Premier, which of these two individuals do you support, your Attorney General or Rosemary Brown, your personal appointment to head up the Human Rights Commission?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only say to the honourable member that the position that was put forward in the House yesterday by the Attorney General as well as by the Minister of Citizenship is a position that I think is fully endorsed by all of us, I think by anybody who has an appreciation of the basic legal issues involved in terms of the Charter of Rights and everything else.

There is a fundamental presumption of innocence in our system. It's a presumption that applies throughout. That has nothing to do with whether one takes complaints seriously or not; of course one takes complaints seriously. But at all points, whatever allegations are made -- I would say there are many allegations that are made in this House which I don't necessarily leap to accept as being based on fact or necessarily the case.

I would only say to the member I accept the presumption of innocence and I would hope that the member would take the same point of view in all regards.

Mr Harris: Premier, there's a lot of confusion out there now whether your personal appointment to the Human Rights Commission is the one who is supported or whether it's your Attorney General. You've allowed both statements to go, and do you want to have it both ways? You support them both.

I tell you this: This report should never have been commissioned. It certainly should have been disowned and disavowed and burned and put into disrepute once it became public, which you have not done and which certainly Rosemary Brown has not done.

I tried to ask myself, how could this happen? Then I was referred to page 219, recommendation 46 of the Mary Cornish report, prepared exclusively for the Minister of Citizenship, and that recommendation says this, "The tribunal should be able to accept any evidence which it believes is reliable and relevant whether it is allowed as evidence in a court or not."

"Whether it is allowed as evidence in a court of not": Here's a recommendation prepared by Mary Cornish specifically for the minister that has been allowed to be out there, not disavowed, not discredited, not saying, "No way are we going to violate the principles in our justice system." Perhaps that's the reason why Rosemary Brown thought it was okay to proceed along these lines. Perhaps that's the reason.

The Speaker: Would the leader place his question, please.

Mr Harris: I would ask you today, Premier, have you spoken to your personal appointment, Rosemary Brown -- I can't keep track of all these NDP imports that are brought into the province -- your personal appointment brought into the province to head up the Human Rights Commission, and have you talked to your minister about the Cornish report, recommendation 46 on page 219, which in essence says the same thing: "Forget the court system, the justice system. Do what you want." Have you spoken to those two on these two matters?

Hon Mr Rae: The member was a member of the former Davis government and the Miller government. I would say to him with respect to the comments he's making with regard to Mary Cornish's recommendation -- and perhaps he'd like to talk to his colleague from Parry Sound -- the Ontario Securities Commission, just about every administrative tribunal around, is permitted to hear evidence and to consider evidence that it feels is reliable. Perhaps he can talk to his colleague from Willowdale or others.

1410

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): We are not talking about paper rights, Bob. We are talking about people's rights.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Brampton South.

Hon Mr Rae: To extrapolate from that recommendation something which speaks to the issue of the presumption of innocence is utterly, completely wrong. It's completely misleading. It shows he doesn't understand the basic elements of the recommendation. It shows he doesn't understand the basic elements of administrative law. I regret to say these things to the member, but they're so misinformed and uninformed and ill-informed that there's absolutely no connection between the two.

The government's position with regard to the presumption of innocence is absolutely clear as it relates to an investigation, as it relates to any consideration and as it relates to a hearing. It has absolutely nothing to do with the previous question or comments that you made. I literally can't understand how somebody could come into the House and make an allegation with regard to something that's in the Cornish report and somehow connect it with something else. The two things are totally different, they don't relate to one another and they reflect a level of understanding which I find literally unbelievable.

Mr Harris: I was trying to understand how a fundamental principle of justice could be articulated by your personal appointment and that she's still in the job, let alone called in or talked to. She's still on the job. I can't understand it.

I'll tell you what I do understand, Premier. I understand the repugnance of what happened yesterday. I understand the outrage all across this province, the phone calls coming into my office, into my colleagues' offices all across this province. I understand people and I understand why they are outraged when they see one of the very tenets, one of the pillars of democracy, of society, of freedom, of justice, being flaunted by you, by your two ministers and by your personal appointment.

Premier, is she still the chairman of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and if so, why?

Hon Mr Rae: I just want to put in perspective what the honourable member has just done. A report was prepared by a summer student which I hadn't even heard of until --

Mr Harris: Which Rosemary Brown supports.

Hon Mr Rae: No, wait a minute. I know you're in competition for the histrionic award today with the member for Renfrew. I know that's going on today.

I want to try to get an understanding. You talk about an allegation. This is the leader who's concerned about a presumption of innocence. Here you have a government and a Premier of which you made a very direct allegation. You've accused me of flaunting injustice and destroying the justice system. That's the allegation you've now made.

Let me just say, what exactly has happened? A summer student at the Ontario Human Rights Commission has prepared a report which I never saw, which in the course of events wouldn't be the first thing to come across a Premier's desk. One of the things that she does is look at the question of the presumption of innocence and so on. Then he says this is now a government document, which it isn't. He says it's an NDP report, which it isn't. He says it's government policy, which it isn't, which has been absolutely refuted and not condoned by this government.

I would say to the honourable member, our policy in this regard, my policy in this regard, is crystal clear. If the honourable member had the decency, which I know he has, he would stand in his place and say: "I now understand that it is not the policy of the government of Ontario. I know full well it is not the policy of the Premier of Ontario. End of the issue." That's really where the member ought to be and that's where I hope he will be, because that's the decent step to take.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: There is a saying that silence is consent. Today, with respect to Rosemary Brown, I have heard silence, which is consent, from the Premier of the province of Ontario.

The Speaker: Does the leader have a second question?

Mr Harris: I find it repugnant. I find it revolting.

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

Mr Stockwell: Do you want the text of the interview?

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, please come to order. The leader of the third party with a second question to the Minister of Labour.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): This morning, Minister of Labour, we received a copy of the Provincial Auditor's special report into the Workers' Compensation Board building. I was surprised the Liberals raised it, because in January when we went after this in the committee, the Liberals had nothing to say on the matter. Quite frankly, we understand why, given the fact that this first came up in 1988 with the Liberals and was first explored in the spring of 1990.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Harris: However, Minister, the report is shocking, and according to the auditor, the decision, started under the Liberals and continued under your government, to build a new WCB building --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the leader take his seat, please.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The leader of the third party was not at that meeting. He is totally wrong. I don't know where he's got that information from, but there was certainly no --

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. It's possible that there is a difference of opinion. The leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: The fact of the matter is that there was no Liberal minister at the switch, just as there was no NDP minister at the switch, while this decision was made. The auditor has pointed that out. It's in the auditor's report. Basically, it was nothing short of an ego trip. To quote the auditor: "The cost and the benefits of the various relocation options were not fully assessed. The assessments were highly influenced by the WCB's desire to own its headquarters."

Minister, can you explain to this House today why you failed, as the former Liberal minister failed, to put a stop to this costly exercise in empire building?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I want to say that we raised a number of questions at the time. We raised the question of whether or not there was adequate space in Toronto, and an assessment was done of that. The legal opinions that the board had, three of them, responsible, indicated that they had the authority to make the investment.

I want to clearly indicate that the project does represent value for money, as exemplified in a net effective rent for Simcoe Place of $25 per square foot, further depressing over a 20-year lease and an anticipated return on investment of about 15%.

Mr Harris: The auditor, quite frankly, Mr Minister, does not agree with you. When it comes to matters of getting a bang for the taxpayers' buck, I know you don't think that payroll taxes on employers are really taxpayers' dollars; I heard you say that today, which astounded me as well. But we kind of go with the auditor before we go with you in who has credibility on getting value for a buck.

Minister, the Liberals dug a hole and you fell into it. According to the auditor, all minutes of WCB meetings cross your desk, which means they crossed the former Liberal minister's desk. You have no excuse, just as the previous Liberal Minister of Labour had no excuse, for allowing this ridiculous use of tax dollars. The auditor concludes that the board violated the spirit of the WCB act by proceeding with the building in the first place.

Do you not agree, Minister, that this incident reinforces the need not only for an investigation into your relationship with the WCB but also a complete overhaul of the management and the management structure of the WCB?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to repeat once again, because I think it's important to be said, that the report confirms that there is value for money, and we're not dealing with taxpayers' dollars here in investing in this building. That is what was the mandate of the Provincial Auditor. The report concludes that there will be a reasonable rate of return on the investment, and I can assure the honourable members that we will be monitoring the situation closely.

Interjections

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: I'm astounded when I hear ministers of the crown saying that payroll taxes on the businesses and the corporations of this province should not be considered taxpayers' money. I just don't understand where you think all this money comes from. Who do you think is going to be responsible for the $11 billion of unfunded liability, growing at a rate of $100 million a month? Whose legislation is responsible for that? Who's going to have to pick up the tab?

Your Premier is asking every taxpayer to tighten their belt, and yet the goings-on within this government are ludicrous in how you're frittering and wasting the taxpayers' dollars that you're taking out of their pockets. We now have, in the last two days, three clear examples of so-called arm's-length agencies of this government amok, out of control, absolutely devastating the finances and affairs of this province and the justice system; yesterday, the OHRC and Ontario Hydro. Just last week, by the way, it was the Ontario Housing Corp blatantly violating, with the minister's permission, the Premier's guidelines on social contract, and today it's WCB.

1420

Minister, will you launch a full investigation into the management and the practices and what's going on over at WCB, and will you launch it today?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want the member to know that the situation at the WCB and any problems that may arise there are on my desk on a monthly basis. We are monitoring it regularly. We are currently also in the process of looking at the operation and how the board operations may be improved.

I would like to also end up by saying that I don't know where the leader of the third party gets a $100-million-a-year increase, because he's just way out of line in that figure as well.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Premier. My question is to the leader of the government. Your appointee to the chairmanship of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Ms Rosemary Brown, has said clearly and repeatedly in the last 24 hours that in so far as an investigation of human rights complaints is concerned, the presumption of innocence should not apply at certain stages. She has said it clearly and she has said it repeatedly.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): That's incorrect.

Mr Conway: I have the tape of CBC Radio this morning. I heard it clearly; I read it clearly.

I ask the Premier: Given what he has said, what I know he believes, has the leader of the government, the man who appointed Ms Brown to this enormously sensitive job, spoken with Ms Brown in recent days about these comments and how unacceptable and inappropriate they are to him and his government?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I guess the first point I would make is that I would hope that presumption of innocence would apply to Rosemary Brown as much as it applies to anyone else. I would say to the honourable member that he's made an allegation about something being said repeatedly, constantly. He then asks me whether I've spoken to Rosemary Brown over the past several days and then refers to an interview on the CBC this morning.

I would say to the honourable member very directly that the policy of this government and my views as Premier are very clear: that the presumption of innocence applies. At the same time, when one gets a complaint, one has to investigate it, recognizing that there are no assumptions of guilt or innocence when an allegation is made.

I would hope the honourable member would apply that very same standard which he's now calling for with regard to all the allegations he makes in the House when he persists and repeats and carries on in the way he does. If he applied his highfalutin' and very clear standards to himself, I wonder whether he'd be making some of the allegations and statements in this House that he's making. I don't think he'd pass his own test.

Mr Conway: I heard the woman say it. I have the tape. It couldn't be clearer. And I think all honourable members on all sides heard what I heard.

Let me say additionally that I believe I know where Bob Rae, civil libertarian and leader of the government, stands, and I respect that. That's my problem, because I think I know what Bob Rae believes, and I have before me comments made by a senior appointment by him to a very sensitive senior position in the government, comments by Ms Brown that I believe are fundamentally at odds with what Bob Rae believes and what he wants his government to believe. It's clear from the first answer that the Premier has not spoken to Ms Brown about her words in this connection.

My supplementary is simply this. Will the Premier today give this House and the concerned public of Ontario this undertaking: that he will this day call Ms Brown to his office, explain on his behalf very clearly the policy of his government, extract from Ms Brown a commitment that she will accept that view that a right to be presumed innocent is fundamental and unabridged in all respects and that she will articulate that in her public responsibilities in this province, and that if she fails to give the Premier a full assurance in that connection --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Conway: -- that you will remove her forthwith from this position, given her stated views in this regard?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me just read from an interview that Rosemary Brown participated in, because, to be fair -- and I know the honourable member, with his reputation for fairness, would want to be fair. Listen to the interview. Since the member has asked a prolonged question, I'd say this.

Interviewer Lorne Matalon says that the allegations of racism, speaking about the report, from slurs to outright discrimination, should be treated as legitimate. But, by extension, people and companies accused of racism are guilty until they prove otherwise.

"Rosemary Brown: You have to start over the assumption that the complaint which is being laid before you is a legitimate one."

"Interviewer: And do you not agree that that inherently means by definition, by extension, that the accused is guilty going into the proceeding?"

"Rosemary Brown: No." That's what she says right here: No. I've got the transcript. "No. What you are saying is that the person who has made the complaint is an honest person who perceives himself to have been injured."

She then goes on, in another interview, to say, "What the commission wants to establish right from the beginning when people come through the door to file a complaint on race is that their complaint is going to be dealt with seriously." Lorne Matalon, CBC News, Toronto.

I would say to the honourable member that I am quite confident that the chairman of the Human Rights Commission and others have a very clear understanding of the basic rule of the presumption of innocence. I would hope the honourable member would look at the entire record with respect to what has been said and apply that entire record and deal with it in fairness, rather than decide that you're going to hang, draw and quarter somebody within 10 seconds in question period and use that as your standard of justice with respect to the treatment of individuals who work for the public service of Ontario.

The Speaker: New question.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member for Renfrew North please take his seat.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of privilege. New question.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I wonder if the Premier, since he loves quoting from transcripts, would listen to this quote, CBL Toronto, 8:30 am this morning.

"Brown: When you're investigating, you have to assume that the complaint you're investigating is legitimate and you go out and you investigate it, so the presumption of innocence should not apply at the investigative stage."

In Brown's words, "The presumption of innocence should not apply." That is her voice. That is a direct quote of Rosemary Brown. Do you agree with that direct quote or not?

Hon Mr Rae: With due respect, I have to see what the member is quoting from and what he's dealing with, which I think is fair in the context of a fair discussion.

I would say to him very directly, before he gets his instructions from the member from Renfrew as to how to ask a question, that I believe the presumption of innocence applies throughout the system. It applies at every stage. I believe that the presumption of innocence does not mean that you don't take a complaint seriously. You take complaints seriously, but you assume innocence throughout the process. I believe that very strongly.

Mr Harris: Premier, do you begin to understand now, after having heard the quote, the outrage that is speeding very quickly all across this province? Do you begin to understand why your silence on this matter is contributing to the outrage out there, to the repugnance out there; the fact that you thought it was okay to waltz in today -- you weren't even going to come to question period today -- and not have Ms Brown in, not get to the bottom of this, not find out if she stands by this statement? If she does, sack her, because I hear you saying today that you disagree with this.

You cannot allow this to carry on any longer. Every minute that goes by with your silence and protection and support and reading selectively from Ms Brown's other quotes allows this quote to go out as if it is government policy. Do you support Ms Brown in this quote or not? If not, will you have her in? Will you have a retraction? If not, will you have her dismissed?

1430

Hon Mr Rae: Again, I would ask the honourable members just to listen to what is being suggested. I would say to the honourable member that I have dealt directly with this question as it has been related to me. I would say to him, as directly as I can, that I think the issue, from the government's perspective, has been made crystal clear by the Minister of Citizenship. It's been made crystal clear by the Attorney General, and I would say to the honourable member, the position of our government is extremely clear.

I don't think there can be any doubt about the position, and I don't think there can be any disagreement about the position. That position is one I'm very proud to state clearly and categorically, and that is, as I say, listening to the comments that are being made by various people, it would seem to me that the presumption of innocence ought to apply in every instance.

TAX REBATE

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Finance. I know this question concerns the members for Essex-Kent, Elgin and Norfolk. In your budget of 1993 you announced the elimination of the tax rebate for clear fuel with certain exemptions, not to mention among the exemptions the use of clear fuel by tobacco farmers. The flue-cure process for tobacco requires the use of clear fuel. The reasons for this is the colouring of diesel fuel is a known carcinogen -- otherwise known as cancer-related, and I wouldn't want to use that comment dealing with tobacco -- which leaves a residue on the tobacco.

Mr Minister, will you extend the tax exemption to tobacco farmers so they can use the clear and safer fuel in the curing process?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Several of my colleagues approached me concerning this problem after the budget was brought down on May 19. The problem was that before the budget some people would buy clear gas and apply for a refund, and there was a sense by officials and by me, quite frankly, that there was some abuse of that system. So we said that after the budget people would have to buy the coloured fuel if they wished to buy tax-exempt diesel fuel for off-road purposes.

The problem, as pointed out by the member for Chatham-Kent, was that for tobacco growers who cure their tobacco, that caused a particular problem. About a week ago I changed that aspect of the 1993 budget and from now on people who wish to buy the clear diesel fuel can do so for off-road purposes if they obtain a certificate which indicates that for legitimate purposes they are using the clear fuel for off-road purposes. Of course, people who cure tobacco would be considered a legitimate user for that purpose.

So, yes, and I appreciate very much the assistance I've had from my colleagues in this regard.

Mr Hope: I know the members for Essex-Kent, Elgin, Norfolk and myself from Chatham-Kent are appreciative of the considerations you gave to the tobacco farmers, because you're absolutely right: They are trying to make a living. Yes, we have the other tax issue.

I want to share a message from my daughter who is sitting in the gallery, and she says you are a tall person.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): New question to the Premier. I have an interview tape in front of me involving Ms Brown from this morning, an interview that I heard not once but twice. I heard the CBC news at 6:30 am and I heard it again at 8:30. I'm going to go out here and I'm going to get the tape, because I accept that I might have gotten it wrong. I don't think I did and my memory is confirmed by this transcript. The transcript, I should tell you, quotes Ms Brown and I remember this as well. She says, "I'm proud that the Human Rights Commission had the courage to commission this report." It goes on in ways that I remember distinctly as her having said this morning.

The Premier says that we have heard it incorrectly. I don't happen to think he's right. Let me get back to my main question, that there is a fundamental issue here and I'm going to ask the Premier, given the gravity and the sensitivity of this question, will he undertake to this House now a commitment to call Ms Brown to his office today so that he will have an opportunity to make it clear to her what his views are and what the policy of the government is so she will have an opportunity to explain whatever it is she said on whatever different occasions, and will the Premier further exact a commitment from Ms Brown to go forward and articulate and make policy on the basis of the policy of presumption of innocence in all respects?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I must just say this directly to the honourable member: As a consequence of the article in the Toronto Sun by Christie Blatchford yesterday, a number of questions were raised in the House. I've listened very carefully to the comments that have been made by the Minister of Citizenship, by the Attorney General, and a variety of comments that have been made by Rosemary Brown. I've just been handed another transcript of an interview that she gave at lunch.

The issue has to do not with a tribunal hearing in which somebody's put in the dock and there's an accusation made and there's a presumption of guilt or innocence; and there should always, in all those circumstances, be a presumption of innocence. The issue that I think eventually will be dealt with by the Human Rights Commission and by others is: When somebody comes in with an allegation, a complaint about a racist incident or a racial discrimination, how does the commission respond to that complaint?

What I understand Ms Brown to be saying, what I understand others to be saying, what I understood from the Attorney General and the answer that she gives, is that there has to be an assumption that when somebody comes in with a complaint, the complainant has to know that complaint will be taken seriously and that it will be investigated. That seems to me to be right. That's what the Attorney General has said and that's what this government has said and that's what should be said.

So I would say directly to the honourable member, wanting to be as clear as I possibly can be, complaints must be taken seriously, but that does not affect in any way, shape or form the issue of the presumption of innocence or guilt.

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

Hon Mr Rae: The presumption of innocence is a fundamental legal principle which applies to people who are accused of an offence and are put on the stand and are accused, and the presumption of innocence applies. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental legal principle in that sense. It has the full support of this government.

Mr Conway: I believe I know what the Premier believes. I believe I know what the minister of justice believes. My problem is that Rosemary Brown, as chair of the Human Rights Commission, appears to believe something quite different.

My question remains: If for no other reason than to clear the air and to set the record straight, will the Premier give me, the House and the people of Ontario an undertaking to call Ms Brown to his office immediately and to explain to her what he expects as a general rule across the government in the province of Ontario, that principle being the absolute presumption of innocence --

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): At every stage.

Mr Conway: -- at every stage and in every process? And will he furthermore, having invited Ms Brown to his office, seek from her a commitment that she is going to accept his view and move forward on the basis of that view, and if she doesn't, will he commit to removing her for such views as so clearly stated today?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that I am quite confident that the views I have expressed would be the views that would be shared by the Ontario Human Rights Commission and by the chairman of the commission --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: -- and I think that what the member is doing -- and before he goes hysterical, I just would say to him -- I think has got to be put in some perspective.

Someone goes to the police station. Let's set aside the issue of the Human Rights Commission. Let's deal with a complaint before the police. Someone goes to a police station and says, "I've been robbed, and I know the identity of the person who's robbed me." The police have an obligation to take that complaint seriously and they have an obligation to go and interview the person who's being accused and say, "Is this true?" all the way through presuming innocence. That basic procedure of taking complaints seriously and understanding that complaints have to be taken seriously is one that needs to apply throughout.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Parry Sound.

Hon Mr Rae: I think that one wants to be very careful before making accusations or allegations with respect to the motives or otherwise of other people who are speaking on this issue with respect to this issue.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Wellington.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Read it. Can you read? When you're reading, "A presumption of innocence should not apply at the investigative stage," what does that mean, Floyd?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Read the whole quote.

Mr Eves: I did. This is the whole quote.

The Speaker: The member for Wellington, not Parry Sound.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Parry Sound, please come to order.

1440

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): In the absence of the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, I'm pitching my question to the Treasurer, and it concerns advisory services to small business.

Our local office of economic development and trade has been providing advisory services to small businesses for a large portion of Wellington county, as well as Grey county and Bruce county, for about the past five years, services such as advice to people thinking of starting a small business and helping existing small businesses find answers to their problems.

Recently, the staff at the Owen Sound office have been told to concentrate their efforts and resources on larger businesses, from 10 to 200 employees. Most of the small businesses in Wellington and rural Ontario generally are smaller than that, having 10 employees or less, and by shifting the ministry's resources to the larger companies, the ministry may be hurting existing small businesses and stalling and preventing growth of small business in Wellington county, as well as Grey county and Bruce county. I know the member for Grey has expressed an interest in this, as well as many municipal councils in north Wellington.

My question is this: Does the Treasurer believe it is appropriate to punish small business by eliminating this service, when the small business sector is the largest creator of jobs in Ontario?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I'm sorry I missed the very beginning part of the member's question and I'm not sure to which program he was actually referring, but perhaps in his supplementary he could clear that up.

But in general, of course, I do not think that the small business community should be punished in any way at all. That's why, in the budget of a year ago, we actually reduced the tax rate on small businesses in this province to make them even more competitive than they are, because you don't have to convince me of the importance of small business. I know who creates a lot of the new jobs in this province and a lot of it is done by the small business community and I can tell you that this government stands four square, shoulder to shoulder with the small business community in Ontario as we make a very serious effort to rebuild the economy in this province.

Mr Arnott: You may think you're supporting small business, but your government's actions are working to the contrary. You're shutting down advisory services to small business in north Wellington, in Bruce county and in Grey county. What you're saying is, there are not going to be any more advisory services to the small businesses. I'm concerned about it because most of the businesses in Wellington county are these smaller ones, and I think it's important that you look at it in that perspective.

Much of the assistance is given to help companies deal with excessive regulatory demands that your government is putting on them. Recent Canadian Federation of Independent Business polls suggested that the second most important problem facing small business is the excessive regulation of your provincial government.

Will the Treasurer commit to reviewing this matter, so that advice and counselling for businesses with 10 or fewer employees will be reintroduced?

Hon Mr Laughren: I know that the member for Wellington, being as fairminded as he is -- and I acknowledge the fact that he is speaking on behalf of the small business community in his constituency and I appreciate that. But I'm sure that he wouldn't want to leave the impression that the regulatory problems faced by small business have all been created by this government. I don't think he was saying that. I think he was saying that it all started back when the Tories were in power for 42 years and exacerbated by the Liberals in office for five years, and I acknowledge the fact that it has been a problem. We are doing what we can to remove some of those more serious irritants introduced by previous governments.

I would say in conclusion, though, to the member for Wellington, that -- "in conclusion" are the words that gets the Speaker's attention. In conclusion, I know the member for Wellington, being a true conservative person, both big-c and little-c, would not want us to increase the bureaucracy any more than is absolutely necessary in this province. As a matter of fact, when he asks us to reintroduce a program and increase the bureaucracy, I don't think that's in keeping with what his leader has been saying for the last couple of years.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Grey, please come to order.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a question for the Minister of Labour. As you are well aware, the retail industry has been very hard hit by this recession.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr O'Connor: I'm trying to talk. I have a question here for the Minister of Labour. Thank you.

As you are well aware, the retail industry of this province has really been hit hard by this recession and many retail employees have lost their jobs. Just today, I read of another bankruptcy. The employees there have no money to pay their unsecured creditors and they potentially will lose thousands of dollars in severance and vacation moneys.

The bankruptcy trustee has told the over 300 employees of the Liptons women's wear chain that they will not see any money that is owed to them. There are many people who work in these stores in my riding who are going to be affected by this closure. Will they be eligible, through the employee wage protection program, for any money?

Because I know time is short, I'll put a supplementary in here as well. Minister, can you also give me, succinctly, a bit of a synopsis on the program? Is it working -- people are asking these questions all the time -- and will these people receive the money that is owed to them?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I want to tell the honourable member, and I share his concern for these employees, whether or not we will be able to find any assets we can get out of the company through any action beyond the wage protection plan I can't tell him. But I can tell him that the employees themselves are eligible for up to $5,000 each for the severance, vacation pay and wages. We have already assigned an investigative officer to look into the case.

In terms of the results, I think it should be of interest to everybody in the House -- at least I would hope it is -- that we have so far paid out to workers money that is their money in effect, or that they should have had: over $102 million in the wage protection plan to more than 44,500 employees to date.

PETITIONS

CASINO GAMBLING

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which is signed by many fine, upstanding citizens of North Toronto:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with their concerns about casino gambling and have affixed my signature.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

1450

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I greatly appreciate having this opportunity to read this petition in. It's taken me four days to get the opportunity to do so. This petition is similar to the one that was just read by the member for Grey and it's opposing casino gambling. It has about 60 signatures on it from people from all over the riding of Oxford.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly, which reads as follows:

"Whereas the introduction of Bill 29 makes substantial changes to the Ontario drug benefit program that would allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make unilateral and significant changes to the Ontario Drug Benefit Act through regulation and without consultation with seniors nor negotiation with pharmacists,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly to adopt the amendments to Bill 29, as proposed by the Ontario Pharmacists' Association, which is affixed to this petition."

Once again, this is the second time I've presented a petition of this nature. I affix my signature to it.

ABORTION

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I am presenting this petition on behalf of the member for Frontenac-Addington. Due to his position as minister without portfolio and chief government whip, he is forbidden to present it. This petition is from residents of Ontario, including Willowdale, Mississauga, Markham, Brockville, the greater Toronto area among others. It was collected by the Campaign Life Coalition Ontario, by Ms Mary Ellen Douglas, and it is signed by literally thousands of people.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the report of the tax group of abortion services providers is an attempt to impose abortion on our doctors, nurses, school boards and counselling agencies; and

"Whereas the freedom of conscience of these individuals must be respected; and

"Whereas our tax dollars should be used to provide real health care to help distressed pregnant women and not to kill unborn babies;

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

"That not a single recommendation of this outrageous report is implemented."

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by some 300 residents of my community, which reads as follows. It's addressed to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Municipal Affairs have released draft legislation for apartments in houses, granny flats, to permit accessory dwelling units as of right in all residential areas and to permit granny flats;

"We, the undersigned, object to the draft legislation for apartments in houses, granny flats, for the following reasons and petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"(1) That the province examine the implications that the proposed legislation may have on the rights of property owners, landlords and tenants with respect to their expectations of zoning authority in the neighbourhoods in which they live;

"(2) That the province not entertain this proposed legislation removing the right of local government to regulate development without adequate public notification and opportunity to review and comment on the draft legislation;

"(3) That the local municipality be granted the authority to regulate and license or register accessory apartments;

"(4) That the province, in consultation with local and regional authorities, examine methods of compensating the municipality for increased costs of servicing new residential growth," ie, accessory apartments;

"(5) That right of entry for bylaw enforcement officers to inspect accessory apartments during reasonable hours be incorporated into the legislation;

"(6) That representatives from the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs be requested to conduct a public meeting in Brampton to discuss the draft legislation with the community"; and finally

"(7) That the city of Brampton supports granny flats as a form of housing intensification subject to the assurance that the units will be removed at the end of their intended use."

I have affixed my signature and agree with this petition.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario with signatures from Elmvale, Dundalk, Flesherton, Dryden, Collingwood, Barrie, Tillsonburg and quite a few other places around Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I think he should direct that petition as well to the federal government since the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development requested us to negotiate.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I know the member for Algoma likes to be helpful.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): Not to me. I have a petition to present.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families.

"The proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act, Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan and social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario will have a devastating impact on access to and delivery of psychotherapy; and

"Whereas these proposals will enable government to unilaterally and arbitrarily restrict payments for psychotherapy; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality mental health care services across the province;

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

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw the proposal to restrict payments for psychotherapy and withdraw the proposal to allow the cabinet to make decisions with respect to the number of times patients may receive particular insured services and set maximums with respect thereto.

"The government of Ontario must reaffirm its commitment to the process of joint management and rational reform of the delivery of medical services in the province as specified under the OMA-government framework agreement."

I concur with this petition. In fact I enthusiastically endorse it and affix my signature to it.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have another petition to the Legislative Assembly with approximately 1,000 signatures. They keep coming in every day on this matter.

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

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

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association-government framework and economic agreement."

I have affixed my signature.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I have a petition signed here from many residents in the ridings of Wentworth North and Hamilton Centre, some from St Mark's United Church, the Christian Reformed Church and my own parish of St James Anglican Church in Dundas, all expressing their concern and their opposition to Bill 38, Sunday shopping. I have also affixed my name in support.

HEALTH CARE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition signed by many patients as well as physicians who live in Toronto.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

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

I have attached my signature to this petition to which I agree.

1500

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have one more petition to the members of provincial Parliament regarding the amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act proposing wide-open Sunday shopping and the elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday.

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

HOMOLKA CASE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a petition for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario headlined:

"Justice for Kristen and Leslie:

"We, the public, petition the Honourable Marion Boyd, Attorney General of Ontario, to immediately lift the ban imposed by Mr Justice Francis Kovacs in the trial against Karla Homolka to ensure that justice has indeed been served.

"We, the undersigned, feel that the sentence was far too lenient. We must know now the evidence brought forward in the trial in order to ensure that the sentence fits the crime."

It's signed by 1,852 people from Niagara region.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This petition is signed by 650 members of my riding of Sarnia and surrounding area stating their opposition to Bill 38.

The petition calls on the government to defeat the proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act to "delete all Sundays except Easter...from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days." They believe that this amendment "will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families."

In order to comply with our standing orders, I've affixed my signature to the petition.

RESTRICTIONS ON NEW DOCTORS

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition respecting the government proposal to shut out new doctors in Ontario that comes from Onaping, Levesque and many other areas of northern Ontario. It reads as follows:

"The Ontario government proposal to shut out new family doctors, paediatricians and psychiatrists from practising in most areas of Ontario is unacceptable. It will prevent these doctors from serving those patients who need care the most.

"Here are some examples: Women and children who need more access to female psychiatrists, paediatricians and family physicians; young female doctors form a much larger percentage of graduating doctors than the existing doctor population; cancer patients who will be denied care by doctors trained in palliative care and paediatric cancer; parents who have difficulty in finding obstetricians to deliver their babies and who therefore rely on young family physicians; psychiatric patients, including children, who already wait for an assessment depending on where they live.

"It's also a waste of the millions of dollars of taxpayer money already spent in training these doctors, doctors the people of Ontario will never get a chance to use.

"I oppose the Ontario government's proposal to shut out new doctors from practising."

As I've indicated, there are hundreds of signatures on this petition, and I affix my name to it.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT (TIRE TAX REPEAL), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL (ABOLITION DE LA TAXE SUR LES PNEUS)

On motion by Mrs Caplan, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 75, An Act to eliminate the Tire Tax / Loi visant à abolir la taxe sur les pneus.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Would the member like to make some comments?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Yes. I'll be very brief, as is the custom on first reading. The government tabled Bill 30. By the way, the title of Bill 30 is An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act. Included in Bill 30 are a number of adjustments to the Retail Sales Tax Act which I object to and which my constituents have told me they object to and find particularly difficult to deal with at this time of the difficult economy in Ontario.

It's my belief, and I've said so during numerous debates in this House, that this previous budget of this government should not have increased taxes. They should have held the line on tax increases. So I find Bill 30 very difficult for me to support because it contains so much which is unpalatable.

There is one part of Bill 30 which I would like to support, and that is the repeal of the tire tax. It's contained here in section 4. What I've done is to remove that in its entirety so that it is a separate bill, which I hope the government will accept so that I can be on the record and support the withdrawal of the tire tax and still oppose Bill 30, which will impose an even heavier tax burden on my constituents who are saying, "Enough; no more taxes."

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have on Orders and Notices several questions to which I have received notification, through interim responses, that the final answers would not be available until yesterday. Indeed, I have received none of the full answers and I'm asking that the Minister of Health take notice of that and provide those answers to me.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA REPRÉSENTATION ÉLECTORALE

Consideration of Bill 9, An Act to amend the Representation Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la représentation électorale.

The First Deputy Chair (Mr Dennis Drainville): Any comments or questions on section 1? Any comments or questions on any section of the bill?

Shall sections 1 through 3 stand as part of the bill? Agreed.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the committee rise and report.

The First Deputy Chair: Shall the motion carry? Carried.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): The committee of the whole House begs to report one bill without amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA REPRÉSENTATION ÉLECTORALE

Mr Murdoch moved third reading of Bill 9, An Act to amend the Representation Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la représentation électorale.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Are there any comments from the member?

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): The first thing I would like to do is to thank all the House leaders, Mr Charlton, Mr Elston and Mr Eves, for looking after this bill and bringing it back for me. I certainly appreciate that.

I think what is happening now is that it's a reflection of the name of my riding. As you know, the name of the riding before was just Grey, and when we have third reading of this bill, the new name will become Grey-Owen Sound. As I said, it reflects my riding. I have a very rural riding in the county of Grey, but I also have the city of Owen Sound, which is separated from Grey in my riding. I think with the new name change it will reflect that and it will allow people to understand that we have a rural life in my riding but we also have a city right in the middle, practically, of the riding. We have things in the city that people enjoy and will be able to come to.

Interjections.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Lousy hockey team.

Mr Murdoch: I have some other people trying to tell me we should have other changes, but I think this will be adequate.

I certainly appreciate, as I say, all the work that's been done and I think it will reflect what my riding is all about. I do appreciate that the House has brought this back. I would also like to thank David Cooke, who was House leader before, who didn't kill this bill on me and allowed it to stay around and bring it back in.

Before I sit down, I'd like to take the privilege of thanking Karen Haslam. She helped me out in my riding quite a bit when we needed a grant for our little theatre which is in Owen Sound. It shows that we have a theatre in a city that's in my riding now.

1510

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I just wanted to thank the honourable member for mentioning that. I think it's always nice that money goes into smaller communities and communities outside of large urban centres and communities outside of Toronto. I do appreciate the member mentioning that.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'd like to comment on the member's bill and congratulate him. I know that most people who watch this House often wonder where we spend our time and our efforts. I recall that it was the former member for Oriole who felt very strongly that the name of Oriole riding should be Oriole and argued before the Commission on Election Finances and actually brought it to the floor of this Legislature. That was to commemorate the fact that Oriole was a small town and a small community which should not be forgotten in Ontario.

I think the member, in bringing forward this bill, is saying a very important thing about his own riding. We're here as individual representatives. We all know the importance of the names of our ridings as they reflect the constituency. I think it's most appropriate that the name of his riding include the city of Owen Sound because people who look at the names of the ridings across this province often wonder if they have any real meaning and significance.

As someone who comes from a riding, the riding of Oriole, for which the name is very significant, I would acknowledge the former member, Mr Williams from Oriole, who recognized that and changed the name so that it would properly reflect the history.

I'd like to support and say to the government House leaders and others who've allowed this bill to come forward that I think it's a historic day for Grey and Owen Sound. I know that while it may not seem a big thing to those people watching, it is an important gesture by a member who's doing his best to represent that area.

Mr Harris: I too just want to say a few brief comments. We've heard from members from all sides of the House here in congratulations for the member for Grey, who negotiated this bill through two very, very tricky and tough government House leaders to get the legislative time. I know there are ministers of the crown who wish they could get the legislative time in the Legislature.

The member for Grey, in his very first term -- now of course the member for Grey-Owen Sound -- has been able to negotiate this bill not just through his caucus and his own House leader, who's a shrewd negotiator as well, but through the House leader for the Liberal Party, who has great experience, and two House leaders for the New Democratic Party.

It certainly speaks very well for the people of Grey-Owen Sound who have this kind of member who appreciates and understands the complexities of both rural and urban life in the representation that he's provided for his riding, the kind of representation that I know any citizen in Ontario would be so proud and pleased to have.

I want the people and the residents and the constituents of Grey-Owen Sound to know that not only is the member an excellent member in representing constituency concerns and advancing the cause of the riding, but he's very, very good at understanding the Legislature and the legislative process and then translating those concerns into legislative action. I too want to offer my congratulations.

Let me say to the member for Oriole that every time she's risen in her place in this session it's been very complementary to me and my party and my caucus. I appreciate that again today.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I just wanted 15 seconds to register my support as well to the member for Grey in being able to negotiate this name change for his riding. What's surprising is to see that such an outspoken and fervent member of this Legislature has the support of his party's leader in the way that he has. It's truly remarkable. It speaks well of the member in terms of the work he does for his riding and the way he represents the people of his riding here in the Legislature. I commend him for that, and I believe that most of my colleagues on this side of the House would commend him for that.

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

Mr Murdoch: I just want to thank everyone who has spoken on behalf of this bill. It's nice that this bill has come in now. In the last few weeks, this House has been a little boisterous, you might say, and some people get a little upset in here. I think it's because it's so hot outside and the heat gets in here.

We're trying to get out of this House. Hopefully, with everyone getting along and understanding a bill like this, that it represents a riding, maybe at the end of the day they may adjourn the House for the summer. I could only hope that they would do that and then everybody could leave on a high note.

I want to remind them that this happened when we had Tartan Day a year or two ago, just before Christmas. We were in about the same boat, and we were spending some little time extra. My private member's resolution on Tartan Day was passed, we adjourned the House and harmony came back a little bit.

Hopefully, with this bill being passed today for third reading, we can get some harmony back in the House and some saneness. We could maybe adjourn the House for the summer and people would come back in the fall ready to look at some of the other legislation that is being presented by the government. Maybe we could look at it and pass some of that.

I just want to thank everyone again and thank you, Mr Speaker, for bringing the bill forward.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Murdoch has moved third reading of Bill 9.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Resolved that the bill now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 79, An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aboriginal People, People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women / Loi prévoyant l'équité en matière d'emploi pour les autochtones, les personnes handicapées, les membres des minorités raciales et les femmes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): When we ended this debate yesterday before 6 o'clock, Mr Carr, the member for Oakville South, had the floor. As he is not here now, we will move in rotation. I recognize the honourable member for Middlesex.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I'll be very brief. I simply wanted to respond to some of the things we heard from across the floor yesterday. I think I would be derelict if I didn't say very clearly that a great deal of what I heard from across the floor yesterday was offensive. All these statements about quotas in this House simply served to exploit misinformed fears and to invite backlash. It's insulting for those in our community who every day face barriers to their employment to say, as members across the floor did, that this legislation will force employers to hire unqualified or less qualified people or to hire people on the basis of their gender, race or disability.

Employers will be expected to provide all qualified individuals with a fair and equal chance at securing a job or earning a promotion. In fact, measures such as outreach recruitment or work site accommodation for people with disabilities will widen the pool of qualified job applicants. It will bring talented people previously overlooked into our workplaces.

If we reject this legislation, we're buying into a myth, the myth that this will force employers to hire unqualified workers or fill quotas. We are accepting another damaging myth, that we have equal opportunity now. We will accept this long-standing belief despite all of the evidence reached over and over in our communities that outdated business practices and barriers in the workplace are in fact denying a large and growing number of Ontarians equal opportunity for hiring and promotion. If we believe this myth that we have equity or equality, then why on earth would we be seeing statistics that tell us that 30% of disabled people report that they are denied work because of their disability?

1520

I won't go on long, but in listening to what was said yesterday, I was reminded of an incident that I witnessed first hand when I was a student working my way through university. I worked at a local park, a local tourist attraction, and one day in midsummer, the gatekeeper was very, very upset because a group of disabled adults had come through the park with people who were aiding them. They were coming to enjoy what they had previously been unable to enjoy, and that was a wonderful park on a summer afternoon. The gatekeeper was upset because his response was that somehow they were upsetting to the people who were there on vacation. His precise words were, "People on holidays shouldn't have to look at that."

Being young and impressionable, I was appalled at what I heard. I've never forgotten it, because it occurred to me at that point in time that the reason people weren't used to seeing the disabled in our communities in places where we would vacation is because we had created barriers to their being in those places. In the same way, I discovered on listening to my colleague Mr Malkowski that barriers are also created that prevent people who have hearing loss or hearing problems from applying for jobs or picking up the telephone and that people who have sight problems may not be able to know that a job is available. In creating these barriers, we've denied ourselves a very important resource, and we've denied ourselves the privilege of knowing all of the people in our communities as coworkers.

I would say that this legislation is a very important first step on that long journey to bringing all of those who would contribute and who would participate into our workplaces and into our lives. I am very grateful to the Minister of Citizenship for all of the work she's done in making this possible.

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

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): As a young, white male, the critics tell me that I should be afraid of this piece of legislation. I want to say that I'm not afraid of this piece of legislation. I think it's a good piece of legislation.

I think the comments that the member for Middlesex has put forward in terms of responding to comments from yesterday are very appropriate. The types of negative stereotypes about employment equity legislation that members of the third party have brought forward in their speeches have absolutely infuriated and disgusted me, and I'm glad the member for Middlesex was responding to those comments in her remarks.

Employment equity is not about not hiring people on merit. What it means is that you're going to broaden your applicant pool, so it probably means that you're going to get better applicants, you're going to get even more qualified people coming forward to apply for the jobs and be considered for the jobs. That's not going to hurt business; that's going to help business. There's no doubt about it. That will help business. It is allowing everybody in our community, in our province, to contribute, to have the opportunity to contribute, to be taxpaying citizens and to work in good jobs at all levels.

I just cannot believe that in 1993 we are still hearing from some members of this House who are digging up and repeating every negative stereotype that ever existed about any piece of employment equity legislation in this House. It just really, really infuriates me. It's one thing to be opposed to a piece of legislation and how it's put forward, but some of the comments I've heard in this House in the last few days I just cannot believe that members in 1993 would be saying.

I want to congratulate the member for Middlesex for her comments, and the Minister of Citizenship for bringing this legislation forward. They have done extensive consultation with the public in general and with the business community. They've talked about what this bill is all about, about the principles behind it, about the fact that small businesses with less than 50 employees are exempt from the bill. I just want to congratulate the member for Middlesex and say that I support this piece of legislation.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I would like to respond to the member for Middlesex regarding her thoughts and comments. Her points are very valid, the concerns she raised by people with disabilities, by women, by visible minorities.

The important point I want to make concerning this piece of legislation is that it gives hope and satisfaction to parents with children who are disabled. It gives the parents hope for the future. It gives career opportunities to the children of the future. It comforts the parents of disabled children because it gives career opportunities. That's what this piece of legislation will give.

It's important that all members of the House understand this. We need the cooperation of all members of the House to work together so that this legislation will proceed.

Who will benefit from it? The disabled children who will grow up -- it will be their futures -- will benefit from it. They will have hope. They will have wonderful opportunities and they will become those people of the future.

I can't believe there are members who would be working against this legislation trying to destroy this hope. It's important that you understand, this is of benefit to all. We are proud of this. It would provide economic investment, and it will provide this through employment equity.

We are investing in people across Ontario, and I congratulate the member for Middlesex for the points she raised. They are very valid points.

I'd also like to congratulate the Minister of Citizenship for her hard work in bringing the people and the business community together to work successfully.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I'd like to comment on the statements the member for Middlesex put on the record.

My concern about this piece of legislation specifically surrounds the quotas that are being laid out by the government. Let's be clear, first off. They're not saying "quotas." They've not used that word because they think that word will affect their legislation both in the public and broader private sector; and it would, because the quota system hasn't worked anywhere. It hasn't worked absolutely anywhere. You can go state by state by state in the United States and they can show you, chapter and verse, exactly how regressive, backward, the quota system has been.

They didn't use the word "quotas"; they've used the word "guidelines." What a company has to do is to provide guidelines to the government and if the government likes those guidelines or, in essence, the quotas, it will approve them. If they don't like them, they'll say: "I'm sorry. We're going to impose guidelines on you."

I don't know how the other side can argue that this is not a quota system. You could be up front. If that's what you want to do, if that's your plan, then I think you should be up front, categoric about it and say, "We're instituting quotas," and then we can have a good, broad, wide-ranging debate on the effectiveness of quotas. But again, the member for Middlesex and the others who've spoken refuse to use that word, and I find that somewhat distasteful.

Much like a lot of other things they do, they change words. It's not "user fees," it's "sharing in paying." They change words but they all mean the same thing.

If you're going to defend the quota, then be my guest, defend it, but don't go on the pretence that you don't have a quota system because you changed the term "quota" to "guideline." That is both unfair and a little bit underhanded for the people of this province.

The Acting Speaker: Are there further questions or comments? If not, I recognize the honourable member for Middlesex. You have two minutes to make a response.

Mrs Mathyssen: Very quickly, I thank the members for their comments, and I certainly thank the members on this side of the House for their kind words.

I would like to say the member for Oxford said it best, I think, in his statement that offering opportunities to all does not diminish opportunity in any way.

1530

In response to the member for Etobicoke West, again we come back to the tired old argument, the tired old use of the word "quotas." It simply doesn't apply and the people of Ontario are not going to buy that old argument that somehow tries to make this into something that it's not. Basically this bill says very clearly that we must bring down the kinds of physical barriers that have kept people outside the workplace, that have kept them away from those in society who are so fortunate that they don't have to cope on a daily basis with a disability.

If you think about it, it's only been in the very recent past that we've seen people with disabilities on public transit, seen them in recreational facilities. This bill is designed to bring them into our workplace in a very, very positive way, because that's how we build bridges of understanding: by having all of those in our society who wish to contribute as part of that society.

I find no pleasure in saying that there are those in this House who bandy about words that are designed to inflame and to resurrect patently and blatantly unsophisticated attitudes that have no place in a thinking society. I thank you for this opportunity, Mr Speaker.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm pleased to rise today and participate in what I think will be a very important debate in this Legislature and in this province. We're discussing Bill 79, the employment equity bill which has been brought forward by the government of Bob Rae.

If anyone had ever told me that I would have been standing in my place to say that I intended not to support a bill to bring employment equity into Ontario, I think I would have expressed surprise myself, because I know the work that was ongoing. I know the history of this legislation and I know what I expected to see brought forward and tabled in this House.

Yet Bill 79 is so different from anything that I think anyone would have expected, any thinking person who understood and believed and supported the principles of elimination of discrimination in the workplace, that it is with a great deal of sadness that I speak to this legislation today, because I don't believe this legislation will achieve the goals and I believe that this legislation will fan the flames of unnecessary backlash, because it has managed to do something that perhaps only Bob Rae and the NDP once again could prove that they alone could do, and that is to bring in an enforcement model that nobody likes and nobody supports, except those on the very fringes of an issue.

In the time that is allotted to me, I will address the issues in the bill and also make some constructive suggestions to the NDP of what it could do instead.

First of all, Ontario is in the midst of what I hoped today I could have discussed as an economic recovery, but the signs are not good. People are still losing their jobs, businesses are going bankrupt and the people of Ontario who are lining up to collect welfare are sending a very important message to this province today, and that is: "We want to work, we want jobs. Jobs are our number one priority." This piece of legislation that is tabled before us today is not going to create one new job. In fact, my concern is, because it is so highly bureaucratic, because it is so intrusionary and because it will create a backlash, Bill 79 could in fact mean fewer jobs in the province of Ontario in the near future.

I want to quote two comments. One is from the Toronto Star editorial, which like myself has always been supported and supportive of employment equity initiatives. And this is what the Toronto Star in its editorial of June 27 has to say about Bill 79:

"After spending two years and a few million dollars, the government has come up with a plan that's not likely to help those it's supposed to. Yet it'll put employers through extensive bureaucratic hoops in this recession. In so doing, the NDP has managed the worst of both worlds."

The second quote, I think, speaks volumes. This quote, "To have an employment equity law that does not do anything is worse than having no law at all," is from Avvy Go, Women's Coalition for Employment Equity, and a former member of the regulations advisory group, and she said this on June 25, 1993.

What I would like to say is that employment equity is not new in this province. It dates back to a 1983 report by, at that time, Judge Rosalie Abella. We're all familiar with that report. In response to that, the Progressive Conservative government in the province of Ontario in 1984 brought in an employment equity incentive fund which was established by the government to assist municipalities in implementing employment equity programs.

The reason I'm mentioning it is that I was a member of North York council at the time. I remember when we hired an employment equity coordinator with the assistance of the province and we began an extensive education program within the city, as did other municipalities across this province.

We know that in 1986 the federal government brought forward the Employment Equity Act, and at that time there was much discussion about how effective that legislation would be and what the next steps would likely be.

From 1985 until 1990 we saw many initiatives under the former Liberal government of which I'm proud to have been a part. In 1985 we saw the Equality Rights Statutes Law Act. We also saw, and I'm proud to say that as Chairman of Management Board, I had the responsibility for developing the I Count questionnaire, which was the Ontario public service's response to employment equity.

The government of Ontario had always advertised itself as an equal opportunity employer, and as Chairman of Management Board at that time, it was my task as the technical employer of the government to ensure that the government of Ontario was moving forward with the kind of program which would ensure that in fact it was an equal opportunity employer.

Do you know what? I was particularly proud of that initiative under the leadership of the staff at Management Board. We brought in the kind of expertise that developed a questionnaire that became a model for employers across this country.

You know, Mr Speaker, there was no backlash when that questionnaire, back in 1985, was completed, when the government of Ontario for its own employees did its survey to see what the population was, who was working there, where they were, and what kind of incentives -- and I use the word very clearly -- were necessary to eliminate the barriers that those who've been identified as disadvantaged required to assist them.

We know that over the course of time from 1985 to 1990 there were many initiatives. The Ministry of Citizenship was created. In 1987 we saw pay equity legislation. Although it was damned by the then NDP government as not being good enough, going far enough or being significant enough, we know that it turned out to be a piece of legislation that this government has been unable to implement.

I find that sad and I also find it distressing because yet today we have another piece of legislation that we're debating today which I don't believe this government will be able to implement.

1540

In 1987, it was a Liberal government that established a working group on employment equity, which ultimately became named the Employment Equity Commission. We saw the establishment of an employment equity branch at the Human Resources Secretariat, which was the next step, and that was a result, after the development of the I Count questionnaire and the important work within the Ontario public service, within the Ontario civil service, to begin an internal employment equity program that could become a model for employers across the province.

In 1988, the Liberal government amended the Human Rights Code to ensure that special needs of persons with disabilities are reasonably accommodated by employers. We knew that one of the barriers to employment was often the physical requirements to accommodate a person with special needs and disabilities, and that was done in 1988.

We saw a broad discussion paper from June until September of 1989, probably one of the most significant reports tabled in this House. In 1989, the report Access to Trades and Professions in Ontario was tabled in the Legislature. That was in October 1989. It's with great sadness that I stand here in this House today and tell the people who are watching this debate and remind the members of the NDP government caucus and my colleagues on the opposition side of the House that --

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe there's a quorum present.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: I recognize the honourable member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: As I was saying, it's with sadness that I stand here today to say that the October 1989 report of the Task Force on Professions and Trades is gathering dust on the shelves, that nothing has happened, that there were many significant and important initiatives that this government could have undertaken, that I expected it would have undertaken, but it gathers dust.

In December 1989, the Ontario public service employment equity fund was established to fund employment equity initiatives in the public sector -- that's the broader public sector -- and it was supported with a commitment of $23 million over three years. That was just one more step, one more incremental step on the road to achieving employment equity and equal opportunity for people in the province of Ontario. It also was an important step in furthering understanding and educating people about what employment equity really means and why no one should fear those basic principles and why there are barriers that are in place and how we can address them.

In July 1990, the Police Services Act legislated mandatory employment equity for Ontario police forces, and before that, there were changes which required employment equity programs in the broader education sector of the province.

That's a record that I'm particularly proud to have been a part of and that's why, given the support for those kinds of initiatives, understanding the need for education and training, knowing how we can go step-by-step and knowing the legislation that was in the process of being drafted, I stand here today really distressed that I cannot support Bill 79 because it's bad legislation.

I don't think there's any fairminded person who would argue that discrimination is not a problem in our society. We know that often qualified people are shut out of hiring and promotion simply because of race or gender or disability. We know those barriers exist. We also know that most people are willing to accept the need for special measures to assist particular groups of people from time to time. That's an understanding, that's a tolerance, that's a value within our society that we have fostered and we have seen grow since back in 1983 when this was identified as a problem.

The debate is not whether or not there should be employment equity legislation in Ontario. The debate today is about whether this legislation is most workable in devising an effective way which will benefit and not disadvantage, because employment equity and employment equity legislation should not be reverse discrimination and disadvantage anyone.

Employment equity should help to level the playing field, if you will, remove the barriers, remove discrimination and educate. It's my view that there are many incentives, carrots if you will, that can be used to accomplish this without the intrusionary, highly bureaucratic stick that the NDP has chosen.

I am proud to say that the Ontario Liberal Party supports employment equity, and we believe that legislation or regulatory requirements can be a catalyst for change. That was one of the reasons that, when we were in government, we brought in the initiatives that I spoke about a moment ago, mandatory employment equity for police services.

We supported the employment equity incentive fund for school boards and implemented employment equity programs successfully and without a backlash through the entire Ontario public service. That is a record of accomplishment and that is also a model that could have been emulated by this government if it wanted to see how you could do something in a positive and progressive way, in a way that people could support.

This legislation which is being proposed by the New Democrats, by the NDP, is cumbersome, it is unnecessarily bureaucratic and, what is probably more significant than anyone watching could really comprehend, it is very vague and it has many ill-defined provisions.

From my experience here in this Legislature, it is very important that legislation be clear and be specific so that it can be properly interpreted, because unless you are clear in your legislation, people will fear it. One of the problems you have and one of the reasons that you have a backlash is because this legislation is vague, this legislation is ill-defined and this legislation is causing fear because the results are not clear about what this legislation will do.

My difficulty with this legislation begins with the stated purpose of the bill, and that's why I cannot support this in principle. You see, what this bill says is that every employer's workforce, in all occupational categories and at all levels of employment, must reflect, for each designated group, the general population.

I believe that employment equity must guarantee equal access to employment opportunities free from arbitrary obstruction, but I do not agree that the goal of employment equity is, as the NDP has told us, to guarantee in every place of business that it has a racial, ethnic and gender mix equal to what exists in the population.

1550

Let me be specific. Let me state again what I believe. I believe that employment equity is the right, it is the guarantee, to equal access to an employment opportunity free from arbitrary obstruction. To me, that does not mean it is a guarantee that every place of business must have a racial, ethnic and gender mix which is equal to the population in which that employer has his or her business.

The reason I don't support that is that that's quotas. Call it what you want, that approach is quotas, and that's why you're having a backlash, because people find that offensive. I find that offensive. I found it offensive when Bob Rae guaranteed quotas in the Senate. He was going to guarantee, at the time of the constitutional debates, X number of seats for women in the Senate who came from Ontario. That's a quota.

We have many, many examples of the NDP and their support for quotas, and even though they talk about targets, we know that what this legislation purports to do is quotas, because they have not distinguished clearly the difference between a target, a goal and a quota. Do you know why, Mr Speaker? One of the concerns I have is that this government has contaminated the language, and I've said this about a number of things they have done.

They use the term "target," and yet clearly in the legislation when they talk about the requirements of business to have a racial, ethnic and gender mix equal to what exists in the general population, that is a quota. Therefore, the basic fundamental principle of this bill is at odds with what this government says it is attempting to do and achieve.

People find quotas offensive, I find quotas offensive, and that's not what people want. When you have a quota, what that says is that in order to meet your quota, you will likely hire people who are unqualified. That's the result of the affirmative action programs in the United States. That was the downfall of those programs, because rather than just increasing, as one of my colleagues opposite referred to it, the pool of candidates, that's not what this does. That's not what this legislation does. It does not increase the pool. It has a requirement which can be legitimately interpreted as a quota.

That is fundamentally wrong in our society, Mr Speaker, and I can tell you that minorities and women and disabled persons and native persons and francophones and those who have been traditionally discriminated against in our society do not want tokenism and they do not want quotas. They want the right to compete fairly, they want barriers to equal opportunity eliminated, but they do not want tokenism and they do not want quotas. This bill will provide for tokenism and this bill will provide for quotas, and this is just plain bad legislation.

We've seen this government and its comfort with quotas on a number of occasions. We know that the former Minister of Education, Mr Silipo, now the Minister of Community and Social Services, has spoken about reserving a proportion of first-year faculty positions in education for racial minorities. When you reserve positions, that's a quota.

Bill 79, in my view, puts too much emphasis on paper and not enough emphasis on people. It's about numbers and number crunching, it's about qualitative changes and it's about keeping records and bookkeeping. It is not about educating people. It is not about expanding the employment pool. It is not about access to trades and professions. It's not about creating jobs or a climate where jobs can flourish.

As I said, I believe this is overly bureaucratic. I'm not going to go into detail about the 14-tier workforce survey that it requires or the complete requirement for statistical analysis and the maintenance of those statistics, breaking it down into designated groups and compensational and occupational groups, separate records for unionized and non-unionized employees and records for men and women. I'm not going to get into that.

I will say, however, that it does place an onerous burden on employers to allocate too much of their time and their resources on administration. The need for extensive recordkeeping will take away, in my opinion, from the employers' ability to provide the kind of education, development, training and anti-discrimination programs that will open up access to hiring and promotion. If an employer is putting his or her resources into administration and bookkeeping, you can be sure that comes right off the bottom line and will not be available to be invested in new jobs, and that's one of the concerns that I have.

The role assigned to the unions, as one would expect from this government, makes this process even more complicated and very, very costly. I'm not going to get into the process and procedure in the bill. Suffice to say that it fails to clearly explain what is meant by the joint responsibility for implementing employment equity.

In my view, these programs must be management responsibilities. There must be a requirement to consult. However, this goes far beyond that kind of consultation. This legislation does not provide time lines or even guidelines for the resolution of disputes between employers and a bargaining agent. What happens is it has a reverse incentive. The incentive here for the union is to resist, because if it does not agree, if it has not negotiated a plan, then it's referred to the office of the Employment Equity Commissioner and a plan can be imposed and, again, there's no time line.

During all of this, nobody knows what's going on, nobody knows how long this is going to take or how much it's going to cost. So if you're in a dispute, what you can end up with is something which is unproductive, costly, bureaucratic and creating friction within the workplace instead of what I believe we should be attempting to achieve, and that is improved labour relations.

I do want to say that the role that has been assigned to the Employment Equity Commission and the tribunal will, in my view, not only lead to bureaucratic backlogs, as we have seen at the Human Rights Commission, but in my opinion they've given the Employment Equity Commission a job of policing.

From my experience, enforcement models simply do not work, and I would suggest to this government that it look at what I would call an empowerment model which has incentives and carrots and the kind of support that will encourage and bring along employers and employees to understand that employment equity is good for business, it can be good for business, it can be implemented in a way which will foster a climate for investment and create jobs.

One of the saddest moments for me when I saw this legislation was the reaction from those people who, in the summer of 1990, I knew were ready for employment equity and were waiting for a piece of legislation that would allow this to move forward in a progressive and incremental way. The fact that we've had this negative response from everyone, to me, is a huge message of just how badly the NDP has bungled once again a very important issue, which could have been positive and progressive and good for business and employees in the province of Ontario.

The powers that this legislation gives to the Employment Equity Commission, I think, could create a nightmare, and I'm very concerned about the government handing over powers to yet another agency. Because what this legislation does is it offers no incentives to employers, just penalties. We've seen many examples of incentives that could have been incorporated in the legislation, successful initiatives like the agent for change program, the employment equity incentive fund, the employment equity awards, the community action fund. Carrots work better than sticks.

1600

I told my colleagues opposite that I would take a couple of minutes to suggest some positive alternatives to this government. I really believe we could see some very significant reforms to the Human Rights Commission which would have a great opportunity for dealing with systemic change through various human rights enforcement and education models. Enhancing the Human Rights Commission I believe is one real alternative that could work.

When we look at the overlapping functions between the pay equity office and the Human Rights Commission, I believe the government, rather than setting up yet another layer of bureaucracy, could look at consolidating all of that enforcement and commissions and models, avoid yet another layer of expensive bureaucracy through that consolidation and include employment equity as a part of that coordinated and consolidated equity response.

I think the government could take the whole issue of employment equity and employment opportunities to people who want access if it would take action on the recommendations in the Access to Trades and Professions document that I referred to earlier.

Another thing they might consider would be tax incentives or a contract compliance program, anything which will encourage jobs to be created and where government contracts and support could go to those employers who could then be showcased as examples of how this is good for business. I believe there are many positive things that can be achieved.

I'd like to wind up my comments by saying to the members of the government that bad legislation is worse than no legislation at all. I ask them to reconsider. Bill 79 is not going to achieve your goals and it is not going to do anything except create hardship and an unnecessary backlash in the province of Ontario. I will not be supporting it.

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

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I want to believe that the member for Oriole is sincere when she speaks about employment equity and her desire to see equity among all the people we're trying to include through this legislation, but as I listen to her remarks, I'm not convinced that she's supportive of employment equity for all the people of Ontario.

She says we use contaminated language. I listen to her language and I wonder what there is that is clear. She says this legislation is not clear, that it's cumbersome, it's intrusive, it's bureaucratic. Then I listen to her and I say, "What has she said to me that is clear, that will make me understand that what she's proposing, or her party, is clear or effective?" She gives me the Liberal answer to that. The Liberal answer is, "We support equal access." I presume the Tory members support the same theory. "Equal access" -- that's a fine Liberal thought.

Everyone of course has equal access to everything, everyone will argue. I use education as an example where people say, "What we want to encourage is equal access." Everyone knows students do not have equal access, because they do not come with the same conditions. In addition, the system has within it systemic barriers that fight against certain groups.

What this legislation attempts to do when we say that every employer in all categories must reflect the general population is to do exactly that, because it recognizes that at the moment the workforce, both in this government and in all agencies, does not reflect the workforce. So how do the Liberal Party member and the Liberal Party and the Tories and their members intend to deal with discrimination? Because they admit it exists. But when it comes to the answers, they don't have any. They simply argue, "They should have equal access." That is not the answer. This legislation moves in that direction. That is the answer.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I want to commend the member for Oriole for the excellent presentation she made. She comes from the point of view of understanding employment equity. If there's anyone in this House who has worked so ardently towards getting the equity situation resolved and putting programs and legislation in place, it's the member for Oriole. I want to commend her for her presentation.

It seems to me I could only recommend to the government side, who are saying they don't understand and that she's not clear enough, to take the Hansard and slowly, at your own pace, read it. Read it, because I think this time you'll see how she has expressed very clearly some of the concerns that are placed in this bill that is before us.

She spoke about, very much so, when the study of I Count was put in place, how people did not get the job and how we must approach that to have equity in the workplace.

Patronization is what she talks about and saying that we do not patronize those designated groups. They want fair access and to be treated fairly. They don't want to be given any special treatment. They want to be treated fairly in this situation.

She gave you another example. She gave you an example rather clearly of the restructuring of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, not a duplication of the process, spending millions of dollars to set up something to give bureaucrats a job or some other people you'd like to give a job to, to make sure that restructuring -- to ask the minister -- there are studies done on how to do that. We have not made sure yet how the minister has read those reports. No wonder we have that problem today about reports that are coming out for $10,000 and what have you.

I want to commend her and advise you all to read it very carefully. There's much to be had from her contribution.

Mr Stockwell: I think this legislation and the fact that this government won't say the word "quota" -- I find it so deceitful that it won't do that. It is a quota system. You won't say the word because you don't like the word, but it doesn't make it any less of a quota system.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): That is in your thinking.

Mr Stockwell: No. I read this very clearly. It comes from your Ministry of Citizenship, right out of her office. It says: "Numerical goals: These are the proportion of opportunities for change, new positions created, transfers, promotions etc, the employer plans to fill with members of each designated group. For example, an employer might set a goal of one third of job opportunities in a particular occupation group to be filled with women."

That's a quota. That's what they're filing with your government and you will approve it or not approve it. Then, on a three-year basis, you'll measure the success rate. It's a quota system.

If that's what you believe in, then say it, but to hide behind phrases and terminology like "numerical goals" and "qualitative measures" and "employment equity plans" -- it's a quota system. Just say it. If that's what the member for Fort York believes in, say it. It's a quota system that hasn't worked anywhere and all you're doing is hiding behind these phrases.

Mr Marchese: What works, Chris? Tell me what works.

Mr Stockwell: He's suggesting to me, what works? I know what doesn't work. This doesn't work. You know it doesn't work. It's proven not to work everywhere. So rather than saying, "The quota system doesn't work and we won't introduce it," you change the name. If that isn't the ultimate deceit, I don't know what is. Don't stand here and lecture us about this system and the quota system. If you're going to be honest, be honest and defend it. Don't tell me this isn't a quota system; your own minister says it's a quota system.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I'm not prepared to sit here and take lectures from the opposition either. I think the opposition, both the Conservatives and the Liberals, should take a look at their own constituency offices and find out the types of people who are coming into their constituency offices complaining about the fact that there's no work out there. When they apply for any positions they're interested in, they don't get them, not because they're not qualified, but take a look at the colour of the skin that comes into your offices and take a look at the gender that comes into your offices. It's very consistent.

You obviously aren't paying attention to the people who are coming into your constituency offices. If you were, you will know that this piece of legislation is fair.

1610

You have no right, no right whatsoever, to stand up here and yell at us and lecture us, because as my colleague said earlier, we are doing something. We are not sitting on our hands like the Liberal government did for five years, and certainly the Conservatives have no right to lecture us whatsoever.

Mr Speaker, I can tell you this: In my constituency office, I know that this piece of legislation will address the concerns of many who come into our office.

Let's face it, in my community, and this is no secret, the majority of the people on welfare are visible minorities. Why? Why are they visible minorities? It's not because of the NDP government; it's because of the system that you as Conservatives and you as Liberals have endorsed for ages. We are at least doing something, and I'm proud of the fact that five, six or seven years down the road, it will be visible.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member. I believe the honourable member for Oriole has two minutes to make a response.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know that we no longer go in rotation for questions and answers, but I thought there was an allocation still of two members from each caucus, including the summary by the original speaker. We have had only one speaker in this round.

The Acting Speaker: No, I followed exactly the way we do it, and that is, you recognize those who are on their feet. We started over with the government side because there was no one up at that point in the House. I recognized the first person up. I looked over on this side of the House, and then we just moved around in rotation on that basis.

Mrs Marland: I'm sorry; I've been up on my feet twice, both times.

The Acting Speaker: I apologize then to the honourable member, because I did not see her when I looked towards those benches.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There was a ruling given by the Speaker of the House about three weeks ago. I don't want to challenge your ruling, but I think you should read the ruling that --

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member can't challenge the ruling, I believe.

Mr Stockwell: No, and I'm saying to you, sir, that I think you should read the ruling handed down by Mr Warner, the Speaker of the House, because at that time he ruled that there was no such thing as a rotation, that it's an allotment, and the allotment would be to the party next proceeding in the speaking order, with two and one to one. So I'm not challenging your ruling; I'm just saying maybe it's good if you review that ruling, because it was very clear.

The Acting Speaker: I know of the ruling, I have seen the ruling and I would say to the honourable member that there cannot be two members from each caucus who get up and speak on this because there can only be four members who speak and one response.

I also have indicated to the honourable member that it is up to the Chair to recognize. I did look around the House. If I missed the honourable member for Mississauga South, it was an oversight on my part, and I do apologize for that.

The honourable member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: I'd like to respond to the comments of my colleagues. I'd like to say first to the member, I think, for Downsview, that people are on welfare because there are no jobs. They're on welfare because of bankruptcies. They're on welfare because of the policies of this government. Jobs are being lost, people are going out of business and they're not coming to Ontario to invest in new jobs. That's why people are on welfare.

I also want to tell him that people are afraid. They're afraid that they are going to lose their jobs.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I'm tired of listening to that. If they wanted to do something which makes up the job losses, let them do it --

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Downsview will come to order.

Mr Perruzza: -- and if they haven't got anything, then don't say it.

The Acting Speaker: I said, the honourable member will come to order.

Mrs Caplan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. People are afraid they're going to lose their jobs. They're afraid their children will not have opportunities for jobs. They're feeling angry and they're feeling alienated. Bill 79, employment equity legislation by the NDP government, does nothing to alleviate their fears.

The member for Downsview said it's not what you say, it's what you do, and that is the hallmark of this government. This government says one thing and it does another. Whether you call it deceit or whether you call it contaminated language, they say one thing --

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's twice that she's referred to things that I've said. I haven't spoken in this debate.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member does not have a point of order.

Mr Perruzza: In fact, it was my colleague from Yorkview who spoke in this particular debate.

The Acting Speaker: Please be seated. You do not have a point of order.

Mr Perruzza: However, if she keeps referring to me -- Mr Speaker, if you want to get my comments on the record, I'll do that.

The Acting Speaker: I have said to the honourable member, be seated.

Mrs Caplan: Do I have the time, Mr Speaker?

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The last interruption was not a point of order. I think we should put the two minutes back on the clock, because those interruptions are clearly not points of order. The member can have his chance in his two-minute rebuttal. All he's doing is obstructing what's going on here.

The Acting Speaker: We'll put 25 seconds back on the clock.

Mrs Caplan: As I was saying, the member -- perhaps it was Yorkview; I thought it was Downsview -- said that what's important is not what you say, it's what you do.

When I look at what this government has done in the politicization of the civil service, the appointment of David Agnew, the appointment of NDP right through the entire civil service, it runs contrary to everything that you stand for and say you stand for when it comes to employment equity and when it comes to equal access to employment opportunities based on merit. It is true this government says one thing and does another. It is deceitful. This legislation is not worthy of support and it is not worthy of this government to bring it forward.

The last thing I'd like to say as advice to the government is that you cannot legislate behaviour. The most important thing you can do is to bring people along with you. Creating a backlash in the province at this time will do more damage than good. I ask them to withdraw this legislation.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to say a few words with respect to the Employment Equity Act, 1993. I certainly understand the principle of it, which is to try and encourage people of the visible minorities and women and the disabled and aboriginal people to obtain more rights with respect to employment. I understand the rationale behind that.

But what, for the life of me, I have a great deal of difficulty with, particularly in this time of recession around the world, when we're looking at competition with other countries, with other provinces, among ourselves, among our cities, among people in our own cities, is why, instead of saying what the best qualifications are, we are indeed saying that the qualifications for a job are not how you excel in that job or not what your educational qualifications are but, first of all, the qualifications for that job are whether you're a woman, whether you're a visible minority, whether you're an aboriginal or whether you're disabled. I find it rather remarkable that this is a position that this government is putting forward.

Employment equity: I certainly admire the person who thought up the words "employment equity," because everybody is in favour of employment equity. We all want these people -- there's no question that examples from the past can be given of women, these other areas, where people may have been discriminated against. We already have laws in this country that preclude employers from discriminating against people because of all of those things. That law already has existed and it has existed for some time. We already have those laws.

Now we're going to say, "We're going to hire you." You must hire people, not based on their qualifications but based on those four categories which have nothing to do with the job. It's whether you're a woman that you get the job, or whether you're a visible minority.

What is a visible minority? I have yet to figure out what a visible minority is. I'll be looking forward to someone in this House, in this place -- and if it goes to committee, I can assure you that I, if I have any role in any of those committees, will be questioning members from the ministry to come forward and tell us what a visible minority is. And who is disabled? Am I disabled because I wear glasses? What is disabled? What does that mean? I look forward to hearing more with respect to this piece of legislation.

1620

When we talk about the whole subject of equality, I can't resist referring to a booklet I took when I was in school -- I obtained a copy from the legislative library -- which I'm sure many of you have read, any of you who are interested in politics; that is, George Orwell's Animal Farm. It's a small booklet, and it's very easy reading; it's only got about 115, 120 pages in it. I would recommend that if you haven't read it, read it. It's directed of course to the whole principle of totalitarianism, replacing one dictator with another dictator. That's the principle of it.

It takes place on a farm, the oppression of the farm animals, and it takes place with the dream of an old boar named Major. Major sees a future in which man the farmer, as the oppressor, is thrown out. So they devise a revolution. They indeed inspire the other animals on the farm to drive the farmers and the humans out of the farm, and power gradually becomes concentrated in the hands of the pigs.

You would think that they were the ones who thought this up, and you would think that we would eventually obtain the equality, utopian equality, where everyone is created equal. Any of our religious teachings tell us that we're all created equal. No matter what your gender is, no matter what the colour of your skin is, what your religion is, whether you're an aboriginal or whether you're not an aboriginal, whether you're disabled, we're all created equal and we should all be treated equally in applying for jobs. That's the principle of this quota bill.

The book went on, and eventually the farmers and the humans were thrown off the farm and the pigs took over. Eventually, the pigs started to dress like the farmer. They put on the farmer's clothes, and they were even worse than the farmers. At the conclusion of the book, the pigs ended up as the new oppressors in a sexless society. They killed dissidents and they did all kinds of dastardly things which were far worse than what the farmers did.

There's an interesting principle as to what I'm getting to, because it does get back to that principle that we're all created equal. The result of it was the principle. There was a sign that was finally created on a wall, a single commandment that was created by the pigs who took over: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." We've all heard that expression, and that's to show the futility of totalitarian states.

I'm not suggesting that this government is a totalitarian state, but I am talking with respect to the issue of equality. We're having a government come forward that is going to say, "You're going to hire these people and you're going to hire these people and you're going to hire these people." The qualifications have nothing to do with how they excel in that particular job. It has nothing to do with what their education is, absolutely nothing. The issue is, it's depending on your gender, the colour of your skin, whether you're disabled or whether you're an aboriginal.

The difficulty of all of this, and we've heard a few catcalls across the floor, is that when you start to debate this issue, it's very easy to accuse people of being sexist or being racist, very easy to do that, but the question all of you must remember is that you are now imposing a law, as the pigs imposed laws in Animal Farm, about who people are going to hire, that you're going to have to have a quota system.

The conclusion of Animal Farm was, and this is the very last paragraph:

"Twelve voices were shouting in anger and they were all alike. No question now what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man and from man to pig and from pig to man again, but already it was impossible to say which was which."

I hope some of you will understand the principles of equality that developed from this little booklet that was printed by George Orwell. I believe it was back in the 1940s that he wrote this book -- I can't recall, but I believe it was back in the 1940s, some time ago -- but the principles still stand on it today.

The other issue of course is that the regulations just recently came out with respect to this bill. I believe that the regulations on how the act applies to the aboriginal workplaces and the construction industry will be developed safely, but all the other matters are dealt with in the regulations.

The interesting thing is that employees can now say whether they're a visible minority; they can say whether they're disabled. They're the ones who can say that. That can go unchallenged; no one can challenge them. I suppose that if I fill out the questionnaire I could receive if I am an employee, I could say I'm disabled because I happen to wear glasses because my eyesight is poor and it may well be that I may not be able to perform my job as well as other people can who don't wear glasses; a rather preposterous statement, but it can be made with respect to this questionnaire. And there are all kinds of shades of skin, people today who I don't believe consider themselves visible minorities, but they're sure going to be visible minorities under this legislation.

The difficulty and the great fear I have in this legislation -- I'm thinking particularly of the comments that were made by the member for Fort York that this bill is going to help these people. Well, I believe it's going to breed racism; I really do believe that. I hope I'm wrong. The member for Fort York has suggested that won't happen. I hope he's right. But the problem is that this whole concentration on what is a visible minority is going to be exaggerated to degrees we've never seen.

Mr Perruzza: Kim Campbell just referred new immigrants to the Solicitor General.

Mr Tilson: Listen, you can talk about who new immigrants are and who aren't new immigrants. The problem that we're going to have is that we don't know what a visible minority is.

I'd like to refer somewhat to the issue of the regulations. There's an interesting column in the weekly newspaper, the Eye, which I'm sure many of you read diligently each week. I don't know who writes these things, but it was an interesting observation about the regulations that came out and the disparity that's going to be created. I'd like to refer somewhat to this article and the observations that were made by this writer.

This 24-page list of regulations which was issued and which all of us have defines, for example, what the aboriginal people are, what persons with disabilities are. This group includes "persons with a persistent impairment, physical, mental, psychiatric, sensory or learning, whose opportunity for employment is likely to be affected by the impairment."

Well, that's a very broad definition, and I am sure, just on that subject alone, that we're going to have all kinds of people who don't think they're disabled today but who are going to say they're disabled, particularly white males.

It's the white male who's going to be discriminated against as a result of this legislation, because the quota system says you must have so many of these groups ahead of anyone else. The allegations of reverse discrimination are something that you on the government side must consider before you proceed with this legislation; reverse discrimination.

The article, which is a column in the Eye, is called "The Park," and many of you have read it. It just came out; I think it's the July 1 edition. It talks about these regulations:

"While Equity Minister Elaine Ziemba was calling her proposed law 'the most progressive legislative package of its kind in North America,' Avvy Go, president of the Chinese National Council and a member of the minister's own advisory committee, was so disappointed that she called Ziemba's consultation process a 'sham.'

"Under the proposed law, all employers with more than 50 staff will have to file a report with the government outlining how they will ensure that their workforce matches the workers in their area by sex, race and disability."

1630

I'll be looking forward to see how everyone's going to do that and the bureaucracy it's going to require. Who is going to administer all of these things? Who is going to enforce all of these requirements? Who is going to determine whether someone falls in these different categories? There are newspaper articles galore that I'm sure you've all read: Who is an aboriginal? Is there a certain percentage in your background that qualifies you as an aboriginal? I'll be looking forward to some talks on that.

Continuing on with the article, "...in the Metro Toronto area, for example, an employer would have to make sure that about half of all employees were women, 15% visible minorities and 3% disabled."

The article says: "A laudable goal. But the plan breaks down in the implementation. First of all, employees will be allowed to decide for themselves when they fill out a questionnaire whether they fit any of the above three categories; employers will simply have to accept what employees say."

Does that mean that if I fill out a form and say I'm a visible minority, who's going to question it? I don't think I'm a visible minority, just looking at me, but according to these regulations it appears that's what the case is going to be.

"Because being a member of one of the target groups might help an employee hold on to his or her job in these tough times, this law will breed more gender confusion on the job than there is in some downtown Toronto bars.

"Some minorities who aren't as visible as others will start describing themselves in more colourful ways than in the past. People will be scrambling on to the vis-min-equity train to save their jobs."

Then it gets into an interesting comment. Some of you may have heard of the rock group The Commitments, and this article refers to that.

"Many people will do the same as the mythical Irish rock group in the movie The Commitments, whose manager encouraged them to think of themselves as black 'because the Irish are the blacks of Europe and Dubliners are the blacks of Ireland.'

"If people of Italian or Greek or Arab or Israeli heritage see their job security threatened, why wouldn't they call themselves a 'visible minority,' although they have never done so before?"

That's a very good observation. These people have never considered themselves a visible minority, but if they want to hold on to their jobs, particularly if they are white males, and many of those people will consider themselves white males, the only way they can get a job or hold on to a job is to describe themselves as a visible minority. So the author of this article is quite correct.

It proceeds with respect to these people: "After all, they aren't as white as the Anglo-Saxons...Blacks and Asians who were supposed to be protected by this law will soon have a lot of visible minority coworkers they don't know they had."

Another interesting observation is, this bill is designed to protect these people, specifically the people who have just been referred to, yet we're going to have a whole group more people who don't consider themselves visible minorities. In fact, they are now saying they're visible minorities, so it's a rather strange world that this government is creating.

I'm continuing on with the article: "Why would white men voluntarily fill out a form that might lead to losing their jobs if the place where they work doesn't have enough minorities or women or disabled?"

The article continues: "The good news for the white boys is that they can check off any box on the form: woman -- yes, minority -- yes, disabled -- why not! Employees get to say what category they are in and their answers can't be questioned."

That's the most damning part of these regulations. It may well be that the government in its wisdom will amend the whole process that individuals can say they're one of these groups and no one's around to challenge them. There doesn't appear to be any way in which they can be challenged, and that's a legitimate criticism.

So if we go to committee -- I hope this will. I can't believe this won't go to committee and that this topic won't be explored with the committee: someone says they're a visible minority, or someone says they're disabled or someone may say they're a woman -- all kinds of strange things are in this society today. The fact of the matter is, it cannot be challenged, and I would hope that members of the government who are working on this legislation will pursue that issue.

The forms are confidential once they are filled out. The only exception occurs if you work for a company in a construction trade. In that case, these rules don't apply. As I said at the outset, as I understand it, there's going to be a separate set of regulations which will be developed for the aboriginal workplaces and the construction workplaces. However, the article goes on with a certain amount of tongue-in-cheek comments which I don't think would be appropriate to refer to. But the author, certainly in the first part of this article, raises some very worthwhile points.

I don't think for one minute this government is trying to create racism. I must confess, I got terribly concerned during the so-called race riots in Toronto that happened a year ago. As the result of that, Mr Lewis and Ms Akande were asked to report to this House. One of the comments troubled me, because it even goes one step beyond the issue of the quota system. That was the suggestion that even in our educational system, the qualifications to enter a university or post-secondary institution were these categories. How preposterous to suggest that the qualifications to entering into our places of higher learning should be the issue of gender.

On that issue alone, my goodness, there are stats out -- I don't know where I've put them -- that show in many of the professions today there are more women who are graduating from the professions: I believe in the profession of law and I believe in the profession of medicine. I could be corrected on medicine, but I think in law there are more women. I know I'm digressing from the bill, because the bill doesn't talk about that, but that's another step. If this problem is here, what are we going to do with it? This government has chosen the quota system as the way to solve this problem.

If you're going to do that, then take a look at what's going to happen afterwards. Remember what we're continuing to do. We're continuing to compete in the workplace. We're continuing to compete around the world. I don't believe that people are going to invest in this province, I don't think that people are going to work in this province with this type of bill that in fact breeds racism. Those are my remarks.

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

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): This is always a very difficult issue to address because it is one that I think has a long history. I'm old enough in fact to remember, in the days of good old Toronto, where, in order to be a police officer, you had to be a certain height -- the Minister of Finance would never have met that height qualification -- and you had to be of a religious persuasion.

But I have to say that those things changed. They didn't change by a government bringing in legislation to enforce that type of change; they changed through a number of ways. They changed through immigration, with people coming in of different cultural backgrounds, different religious backgrounds. We in fact saw that this was no longer the situation, and I applaud that.

The problem I've got is it's kind of like -- I hate to say this, because Pierre Elliott Trudeau is my wife's idol. But he tried to bring in French by requiring civil servants and adults to learn French, where they probably had a tin ear and weren't able to do it, rather than the approach that's now taken with our young children, where they learn it by immersion, by choice. I think that we should learn something from our history. We should learn something from the way things happen and not try to make government everything and the be-all and end-all to all people.

1640

As I say, it's very difficult to speak on an issue like this because I have constituents who have come from all areas of the world. I obviously have many women in my riding. I have children with learning disabilities. I would like to see them have an equal opportunity to be able to be employed.

The fear I've got is that this legislation, as was presented by some of the other members, could possibly, and God forbid it does because it will probably pass with this majority, result in racism in reverse.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I would like to compliment my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel for a thoughtful contribution to this debate. It's alarming when you listen to the previous speaker and the comments which went around this chamber and the absolute screams that we got from the government side which would suggest that in some way we were not in favour of embracing equity for all people. It's insulting. It suggests rather that the government has a corner on compassion and consideration.

When you look at the experiment that Toronto is, this great experiment -- in the latest United Nations survey Toronto is the most cosmopolitan place in the world -- and, as an immigrant, I remember when I came here Toronto wasn't the city it is today. It has become a very interesting place because of all the people from all of the different cultures of the world who have come here, and they're working together very well, generally. There are some exceptions.

But when we look back at history in North America, we know of the immigration, for example, of Jewish immigrants earlier this century, and they were certainly challenged in many ways and discriminated against. Thank God, we have got rid of those problems now. They are now leading members of society. It's significant that the Jewish community is not asking for this type of treatment -- they are concerned with equity -- and the Jewish community never did, my colleague the member for Willowdale is pointing out.

There is no party which has a corner on compassion. We support equity, but this bill, unfortunately, we believe, will lead to racism. I thank my colleague for his contribution to the debate.

Mr Perruzza: Very briefly, just in response to some of the comments that were made, this isn't about cornering the market on compassion. This isn't about anyone taking a position where they're holier than thou. This is about taking a realistic approach, a realistic position on dealing with some of the systemic barriers that are out there for some people in our society who have problems gaining access to equity, gaining access to workplaces.

Maybe some of my Conservative friends and I know certainly some of my Liberal friends -- the Liberal from Oriole spoke earlier about this and she referred back to the Judge Abella report and to some of the other things that they were doing. But in listening to some of the comments, there's a recognition that somehow there aren't physical barriers to disabled persons getting access to certain jobs. Wake up and smell the coffee. Yes, there are. There are physical barriers for disabled persons to gain access to jobs. If you don't take the step in order to level the playing field to some degree, they won't gain access to those jobs.

Women have problems gaining access to jobs. There's a lot of sexism out there. It's in your own offices. Just look around and if you don't move on some of these issues, those barriers will be perpetuated and continue to exist, and that's all this bill does.

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

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I was interested in listening to the remarks of the member for Dufferin-Peel and to hear his literary references and other documentation that he presented to the House.

While my view and the view of my party accords with the final view of the Conservative Party with respect to this bill, that we will not be supporting it and we feel the emphasis should be placed on eliminating barriers to access, on providing the incentives, by example, to accommodate the workplaces and so on that will ensure that there is access no matter what race, creed, colour or physical or mental disability, while that is our position and the bottom line remains the same, I want to put before the House that the steps in the argumentation which were put by the member for Dufferin-Peel are not those which I concur with or support.

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

Mr Tilson: I appreciate particularly the member for Downsview, who commented that there is a serious problem in our society. I guess my objection to this particular bill is that you look beyond what the bill is going to do; you postulate as to the results of what that bill will create.

Are these people who are writing these articles and who are saying these things in our media and on our televisions and on the streets in your own riding right when they say that there will be reverse discrimination? Are they right? Are you creating yet another problem, perhaps an even worse problem that has no justification? I think everyone will agree there's a problem, but I believe in all sincerity that the proposal that is being put forward by this legislation is not the answer.

I believe this act will make racism and sexism the law in the province of Ontario. When you think about it, that's what it's going to do if you think of the results. That is the downside of your bill, of the quota bill; it's not an employment equity bill. We should stop talking about the fact that this is an employment equity bill. This is not an employment equity bill; this is a quota bill that says you must have a certain number of people in a particular job based on race, gender, visible minorities, disabled and aboriginals. That's what the law is and that is wrong.

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): I rise to support Bill 79 because it's unfortunately necessary. It would have been my hope, and certainly it has been my hope for a very long time, that we would not have to have employment equity legislation. It would have been my hope that employers and people would look out and see the people who exist in our society who contribute to it and would have said: "Here are people with education, with ability, with experience, so then let's employ them, and once we employ them, let's consider them for promotion. Let's have them move very much as everyone else moves through the ranks to administrative roles and to demonstrate the leadership skills which they have honed in our schools and in our institutions much as everyone else has."

It would have been my hope that this is the way it would be, and yet it has not been that way. It has not been that way in the private sector and it has not been that way even in the public sector. Many people, people who have disabilities, people who are racial minorities, certainly first nations and others have prepared themselves to take their place in this society shoulder to shoulder with everyone else and they have been rejected.

They have applied for positions to get in the door, to get in the mainstream, and they have been, in great numbers, refused. They have continued to work, some of them even training those people who have been brought in initially when they have been employed, only to see those people pass them in promotion, and yet they have continued to work.

1650

This legislation is absolutely necessary, because no matter how we talk and no matter how we educate, in schools or informally, no matter how we speak about the multicultural forces that are out there, and no matter how we discuss the strengths and the abilities of the people in the target groups in this legislation, people continue to mirror themselves in the people they hire and the people they promote, so we come to the point where this legislation is necessary, and normal.

I have always been in a field, and I have read about so many others and worked in others previous to my entering education, where when you wanted to get the very best people, you widened the search. You went out of the city; you went to several cities. You went out of the province; you went to many provinces. You widened the search and you thought, "The more we widen the search, the more people will come in, the more real talent we'll have to screen and the more likely we'll get the very best people."

Well, we are widening the search by this legislation. We are telling employers, because some of them need to be reminded, that the search must include all the people of Canada: first nations, people with disabilities, racial minorities, women; all of those people.

And yes, if we mourn something today, it's that the legislation is necessary, but necessary it is, and so here it is.

If in fact there are those among you who would reject the legislation, please let's do it with some modicum of truth. Let us not say that we oppose the legislation because it encourages employers to employ unqualified workers. That is not true. To say that is to say a lie. To say that in fact is to imply that people with physical disabilities, people who are first nations, racial minorities and women are generally unqualified, that they have not skills or education or ability, and that is not true. Most important in all of this, we must get the very best people, the very best-qualified people, the very best people who have education and ability, and so we are widening the search.

If we refuse the legislation, let us not say it's because it imposes quotas. That is not true. If we have numerical goals -- and Lord knows I work in a profession, or did before, that had many numerical goals as an educator -- numerical goals are the standard by which we can evaluate how much we have succeeded. Every child writes a test and aims for 100. Not every child gets 100, and yet we use 100 as the base by which we compare how much that child has achieved, and that's why we write the score as 75 out of 100, 22 out of 100, 87 out of 100, and that is what a numerical goal is. Every child strives for 100.

If we reject the legislation, let's not do so because we think that there are Caucasian males who will lie. I would suggest that the ethics of that disturb me. Let us not believe that there are vast numbers of white males who en masse will become black women. I have to say that the visual picture of that is comical. But after I stop laughing, I have also to say it is unethical. I would seriously question the ability of anyone, any white male, who identified himself as a black woman. I would have to say that as an employer, I would question his veracity and whether in fact I had initially made the best choice.

If we reject the legislation, let us not do so because, like Orwell's book Animal Farm, the pigs -- and I don't like the analogy -- are going to take over. Mr Speaker, you and I both know that if the first nations had an immigration policy like ours, none of us would be here. We have to look at that too.

Let us not carry this to the extreme. Let us be truthful. We're in a recession. Jobs are tight and money is tighter. When the watering hole shrinks, the animals view each other differently. We're all looking at each other and we're saying, "Who's going to get that job?"

Some people who have been in a very privileged position for a very long time, in spite of the education projects, in spite of our talking, in spite of the multicultural posters, in spite of the human rights ideology, in spite of all of that, are saying, "Heck, I'm going to have to now have my competence, my ability tested against other people." I ask the member for Dufferin-Peel, is he not secure that those who have enjoyed privilege are able to compete? I am certain that those in the target group can compete. I'm certain of it.

I'm certain that everyone in this House really does want employment equity some time. You see, we don't want the compassion the member for Dufferin-Peel spoke of. We don't want that sensitive feeling. We don't want pity. We want and we deserve and we demand equity.

Mr Curling: The honourable member from St Patrick has spoken eloquently with compassion about what employment equity is all about. I completely agree with you. All the things you said are the things I believe in about employment equity. The problem we have, though, is the fact that this legislation that's been brought in has diluted and has lost the focus of what it's all about.

I think that yes, we can all identify with the things you've said. I think your colleagues identify with that. It's how we translate that into proper legislation, so that it's not tokenism, it is not patronization, it is not quotas, so that it is where the people must have real access because of their ability and not because one feels that 50 out of 100 should be black or 25 out of that should be disabled. We talk about merit and we talk about the ability of people to be there. I believe in that sincerely.

Many of those individuals are asking that in itself, that they who have had the qualifications must be assessed in that manner. There is a government that can do that. They must act upon those reports that have reflected the fact that they are qualified. We keep on mentioning Access to Trades and Professions. They are saying they're qualified people.

With all that you said, my honourable member from St Patrick, you're certainly right. If this party, the Liberal Party, is able to make sure that those regulations are amended in order to strengthen that legislation to show that people will be treated fairly, I go along fully with exactly what you said, because people don't want to be patronized in any way but to be treated in the way you had said. I think your comments are quite relevant. Let's get legislation that enforces those types of things.

1700

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I had to rise, because I think I'm like other people in this Legislature who have not had to deal with the type of discrimination that my colleague might have had to deal with. I don't think any of us truly recognize the depth from which she has spoken, but it certainly came out in her talk today. I, for one, am very pleased to see this type of legislation brought forward.

Perhaps it's not been a priority of mine because I haven't felt as deeply about it, I haven't been as affected by it, but let me tell you that having heard my colleague speak, having done the reading on it -- and I mention something I read today, where we talk about: "We are not imposing quotas, but all employers covered by the legislation must establish numerical goals to increase representation of minority groups in their workforces. In setting goals, employers must consider the current level of underrepresentation, availability of minorities in their workforces and the availability of minorities in their geographic area." Those are things that I think every employer should be looking at but perhaps isn't, and this legislation is now saying, "Yes, look at those things."

I also say that I welcome this legislation and I hope every employer deals with it in the cooperative manner we're asking them to do that in.

Mr Callahan: One of the flaws in this bill is that they don't tell us what "numerical goals" means. I think any piece of legislation that's going to govern the lives of people should tell us what "numerical goals" means. It has a whole list of operative statements. The member for -- I can't remember her riding -- talks about the fact that she --

Interjection.

Mr Callahan: No, no, not for St Andrew-St Patrick. I was enthralled by your speech, really, but the one who had the guts to vote against the social contract. I can't remember her --

Interjection: Perth.

Mr Callahan: Okay, Perth. You made a comment that you hope employers will cooperate. Well, there's no question that they've got to cooperate, because in every one of these operative sections the word "shall" is used. The word "shall" is defined in legal terms as being mandatory: There's no question of whether they want to or they don't; they have to. In fact, what we're doing is that Big Brother here -- and that includes all parties; that's not an indictment of the NDP. We're saying to employers, "You have to."

I'll tell you something: I think that's a real mistake. I intend to speak next, hopefully, in greater depth to try to elucidate on what I'm saying, but I think we're really making a very serious error in terms of thinking that we, as a government of whatever political stripe, have the right to tell people what they shall do. I once had a fellow whom I knew very well, and he said to me: "The only place government should be involved is in areas where people can't be protected in the normal society. If they can't do it better than the people out there in the free world, they shouldn't be doing it at all."

Mr Perruzza: Just to respond very briefly, I appreciated the comments that were made by my honourable colleague the member for St George-St David and some of the other comments that were made in response. She made a comment which was responded to by my good friend the member for Scarborough West, Mr Curling. In fact, he in his response completely contradicted what the member for Oriole said about this legislation, a completely different opinion, and a completely different opinion from the member who sits right behind the honourable member for Scarborough West, Barbara Sullivan. So you've got three Liberals: Mr Curling; another Liberal, Elinor Caplan; another Liberal, Mrs Sullivan. All three had a completely different interpretation of or a different opinion about what this legislation would or would not achieve.

Mrs Caplan talked about how they did it in 1987 in their sort of backroom style of equity and said: "We'll put a face to it, because there are some people there who are complaining that they don't have access and can't break through all of the different ceilings. We'll make them happy and set up a process and do that and just give it some words, and that's what you should be doing. But instead, my God, you're setting up a quota system, and who knows where we'll be tomorrow."

Then you had my honourable friend Mr Curling, the member for Scarborough West, stand up and say: "Geez, this doesn't do anything. It doesn't go anywhere. It doesn't achieve what we want it to achieve." Hopefully the member from south Brampton will put it all to bed and he'll lay what the Liberal position is right on the line and on the record here today.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for St Andrew-St Patrick has two minutes in response.

Ms Akande: I hate to repeat, but I think I must. People continue to ask about the numerical goals and to equate those numerical goals with quotas. I have to explain again that numerical goals are the standard by which the employer assesses what he or she has achieved, and it's important to have those standards. It's important for us to say, if we are intending in a direction, whether or not or how far we have reached. We use them in many situations.

The point about it is that if people are intent on achieving a goal, it is extremely important that they be able to assess whether they have done so at the end of the day. It tells them whether they must increase their effort. It tells them whether they must change their hiring practices. It tells them whether the people they have in their human resources are the appropriate people for achieving those goals.

If I can make one point even more clearly than I have, I must speak to the fact that the numerical goals, though they are our standards, are not the same as quotas. They are the yardstick by which all of us will assess how far we've come at the end of the day, and they are necessary, because without them, one would not be able to assess and therefore may not strive to achieve what is expected of them: the reflection of the society in every workplace in this province.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Callahan: As I said in my two-minute comments, this is a very difficult bill to deal with because we are dealing with a very fragile issue. I've been accused of being partisan. Sometimes I rise above that; I hope that happens. I think this is an issue that rises above partisanship.

Not many people know this, but I was born in the United States and came to Canada by choice, so I am an immigrant, if that's what you want to call it. I lived as a young man through the terrible treatment that the United States, particularly in the southern United States, gave to black Americans.

I was enthralled, as I'm sure many people were, including Canadians, by people like Martin Luther King, John Kennedy, but more importantly, Martin Luther King. He was not a politician. John Kennedy, as much as I admired him, was as much a politician as anyone in this House. He would say things, as would other politicians, that were considered to be politically acceptable, politically expedient, and perhaps said more in the vein of trying to get yourself elected or getting on an even level with the people in your community.

I think this is the type of bill, this type of measure, that is not one that should be that type of one-upmanship. I do have to say, though, that in watching what the United States did to black people and the agony that those people had to go through in order to obtain proper rights, the murders that took place in the southern United States, the terrible inhumane activities of white -- I won't use "Caucasian." I object to the word "Caucasian"; it's "white." What they did to these people with impunity in most of the southern United States was unacceptable. I don't think I have to say that. I don't think I have to hear, "Yes, you're right," from anybody in the House. That was the case.

1710

I think Canadians are entirely different in some respects -- and I will qualify that in a moment -- from Americans in that we are prepared, as we have seen, to look at people in terms not of what they look like, be they in a wheelchair, be they blind, be they deaf, be they black, be they white, be they yellow, be they green, whatever. I think one of the hallmarks of being Canadian is the fact that we are prepared to accept people on the basis of a principle that far surpasses any of our years on this earth in terms of accepting people for people.

I think that being the case, the problem we have is we look at the United States and we always seem to be sort of mesmerized by what's going on there. We look at the black situation in the United States. There's no question it was totally unjust --

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Since the government chooses to continue the business of this House in July, I think we should have a quorum present.

Mr Callahan: I would ask the member not to call a quorum, because what it does is it eats up the time.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent to cancel the quorum call? No. Please, is there a quorum present?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is present, Speaker.

Mr Callahan: I've lost my train of thought, unfortunately, but I'm going to try to get back on it. We as Canadians tend to watch so much US television, we're affected so much by US activities, that we tend to overreact in this country. I think Canadians have a very genuine belief in viewing people as they are as opposed to where they come from or what their religion is and so on.

As I said, I think that this is today. But in the past, I can tell you, the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, as a visible minority -- and I really don't understand what that means. I, as a Catholic, ran for mayor in my community way back. I won't tell you when. I had people working for me going from door to door and people would actually say to them, "Do you know what he is?" When they'd come back and tell me that, I'd say, "What do they mean by 'what he is'?"

My wife was never terribly involved in politics, but she'd get calls at night saying, "Are you really a Catholic?" My wife would say yes, and that would be the end of the conversation; she'd hang up.

I have to say today that in my riding of Brampton South, that is no longer the situation. I can remember times, and many of you are probably too young to remember this, when Jewish people were not allowed into a golf club because they were Jewish. What a silly reason not to let people into the golf club. I could see if the guy or the lady had a good handicap. Then you'd say "You can't join the golf club," because you don't want any ringers. But to deny them access because they were Jewish was absolutely ridiculous.

I would challenge anybody in this House or those who are not here and ask them whether they've ever told a Polish joke or a Newfie joke or a Jewish joke, or a whatever joke. When we tell that joke, we think it's funny. We think what we're doing is telling something that's funny. It's funny for everybody other than that Newfoundlander, that Polish person, that Jewish person, that Catholic person, that East Indian, that black person. And our kids are standing there right by us as we're telling that joke and saying, as my kids do, and I'm very proud of them for that, "You know, Dad" -- and I have to confess, I have done that. I've heard a joke that was funny. I've told it, and they'll say, "Dad, that's racist," or "That's sexist."

That tells me that what's happening in our society is we've moved from the step when I ran for mayor, that being a Catholic was a negative factor, to something that has now changed. Our young people are now moving through a better understanding of what life is all about and what human beings are all about in terms of accepting people on the basis of who they are, not what colour they are, not what religion they are and so on.

I think that's really the way that we're going to evolve. We are evolving. We're evolving into a much more humane society. We don't need governments to tell us what to do.

There will always be rednecks. I feel sorry for those people. I really feel sorry for those people. I think those are the people who deserve more of our empathy and our concern than any other people, because they're misinformed. They're prepared to sacrifice the benefit of a true human relationship with another human being on the basis that they're black, Jewish, Catholic, East Indian, whatever.

So what I say to you is, if I felt that legislation was important, if I felt this evolution was not going to take place in a way that would solve this problem for us and might be solved as well through our example for our children in terms of what we are trying to do, then I would suggest that's when government has to act.

In the United States, there was no question that the civil rights legislation had to be brought in. But you had a long history of people who, if you'll forgive me and they'll forgive me, were ignorant. They were people who thought that blacks were people who were overindulging in sex, were mentally inferior, were not entitled to any of the benefits of other Americans, and they treated them that way. They murdered them. They killed them. They didn't even have the guts to do it with their face not masked. They had to wear white, which I always found rather interesting. They would wear a white hood, which is usually the symbol of innocence, and they would murder these people. That's why government had to act.

I don't see that in Canada. I really think you do a great disservice to the people in this country. You do a great disservice to women. Women are doing fine, thank you. We introduced pay equity. I agree with that. I think pay equity has given women an opportunity to perhaps jump-start those people in business who thought that women should perhaps be paid less.

Interjection.

Mr Callahan: That's another issue. The member raises the question of assault of women. I find in our free society that it's incredible that freedom of speech allows us to introduce a video game of slashers, a video game where women are being emaciated, are being treated in an improper fashion. With our kids playing those games, what do we expect? You see the crap that's put on the bookshelves of bookstores in terms of women being treated like they are animals, that they're just here for our benefit, for our ingratiation. What do you expect from your kids?

But, you know, we won't touch that. That's a sacred cow. The minute you try to touch that, you'll have the people who are in -- you know, freedom of speech, the Guccionis and the other people, who make money out of this. They make money out of white slavery.

So I say to you that if you really want to speak out in terms of what's happening to women, then perhaps we should take a different attitude towards women. Perhaps we should project a different attitude. Perhaps we should remember that they're equal partners with men and that in fact in many cases they surpass us.

But what do we do? We find a government that -- and you know, I don't criticize you from a political standpoint, because we introduced employment equity, and, as I've said, I'm not sure that that was right to do, because I don't think government should get involved in this type of thing until we've had an opportunity to evolve as human beings, personally, without the necessity of legislation.

1720

But you're now jumping in. You may disagree with this; you may disagree that this is a piece of legislation that requires quotas, but it does. I think any fairminded person who read this legislation would understand that is exactly what you're suggesting.

I took a look at the employment application. My son Timothy -- and if he's watching, he'll kill me -- gave me a copy of the employment application. I'll tell you, if you had tried to present that employment application 10 years ago, you would have been prosecuted under whatever was the existing facility then. Maybe it wasn't the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

It asks questions like, are you black or white? I think it asks your religion, I'm not sure. Are you East Indian? Are you disabled? Are you whatever? I'll tell you something: If I had to show that application to any fairminded person outside of this country, they would look at it and say: "What have you got up there? Have you got a bunch of right-wing people who are trying to hire people who are of that bent?" I mean, to me it's an embarrassment.

When my son showed it to me I was so incensed by the wording of it that it was almost like in the days of 1945 where when a Jewish person applied to a golf course, they asked: "What's your religion? What's your national background?" That was struck down by the courts even in those days because it was totally innocuous. I have to say to you that the application that emanates from this legislation is absolutely revulsive. I suggest to you that the application tells me that this legislation is in fact a quota system.

I want to say to you, if you had a child who was learning-disabled, a learning-disabled child is not like a person in a wheelchair or a person who's blind, who has a visible disorder. Do you think that person is going to list that he or she is disabled? Yet they're entitled to the benefits under this act of being a disabled person.

Do you think that they're going to admit that they've got a learning disability? Maybe they don't know. Maybe they can't afford to go to a psychologist, because psychologists are not covered under OHIP and a lot of poor people in this province can't afford to take their children to find out if they're learning disabled.

So in fact what you've done by this bill is you have denied these kids the opportunity and, let me tell you, they're legion. You look around your individual ridings and you will find that there are kids out there who have a learning disability, be it attention-deficit, be it something more dramatic like dyslexia. But the more common one is attention-deficit.

These are the kids who are in our correctional facilities in many areas. Yet I learn that your government -- and I'm not getting political, believe me. I'm trying to say that in your correctional facilities they're now getting rid of librarians. That is absolutely offensive. These are people in there who are illiterate. Part of the reason they're there is because they're illiterate, and we're taking away librarians because we consider them to be a luxury. My God, I'd rather have librarians there so they could learn to read than to lie back on the floor and read skin magazines and watch television.

The Attorney General, for whatever reason, and she probably has good reasons, is about to eliminate something like 800 or 900 jobs of women, court reporters. They're going to replace them with this great magic -- and, Pat, you may be next to go -- they're coming up with this great recorder that will allow all of the evidence from trials to be taken by this recorder and typed up by people in a typing pool, probably for five bucks an hour.

How can you legitimately say to the public of this province that you care about women when you bring in that type of thing? It's not even brought in through legislation. I heard about it through the court reporters. I mean, how can you say that?

We're about to bring in Bill 4. Has anybody read it? Does anybody realize that the hard-to-serve, the learning-disabled, the disabled kids, will no longer have an opportunity to go before a tribunal and determine whether or not they have ample facilities in that school to look after them?

What I say to you is, if you want to do things, scrap this legislation, or certainly listen to the public meaningfully. If the things I've said are the things that are told to you, get rid of the legislation. What you say to the people is, you develop an environment in which people are allowed to achieve on the basis of their ability.

I have no problem with disabled people, they have been given short shrift, but I've got people in my community -- the Portuguese community in Brampton is probably the largest community of people culturally in Canada. They have never asked for anything. They've always worked hard, they've achieved and they've gotten results. Italian people in this community have achieved, worked hard and got results. None of us came here originally. The native population, what do we do to them? We sell them booze and we treat them like Uncle Tom. We give them everything. We never demand anything from them or give them a challenge. It's no wonder these people are having difficulties.

Do you think this legislation in any way, shape or form is going to help any of those people? I suggest to you that it's totally inappropriate. Quite frankly, I would prefer to see no bill at all.

I see that one of our members has his young daughter here. I think she would tell you that when she sees a young person in school, she doesn't look at that person and say: "Are you black? Are you East Indian? Are you Jewish? Are you Catholic? Are you Protestant?" She accepts that person on the basis of a young person whom she likes.

Interjection.

Mr Callahan: My children did that too, but you can't blind yourself either. Kids recognize differences. Hopefully, if you can bring them up in such a way that those differences are surpassed and suppressed in terms of what's important, in terms of that human being, you will find I think that we don't need legislation, that we can get on with our way of life without the necessity of government being in the pocket and directing what we should do. I think we'll have a far more beneficial, a far richer and a far more lasting appreciation of one another as human beings.

Mrs Marland: In rising today to speak to Bill 79, An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aboriginal People, People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women, I have a great deal that I would like to talk about. Unfortunately, because we are into the new House rules which limit the debate in this House, in order that this majority government which controls the House rules as well as the House business may pass as much of its legislation as possible, it has really cut off the opposition at the knees. If we do not comply with their House rules, then they use another House rule which in fact limits debate totally, and that is of course a closure motion.

It's very interesting, because what we're dealing with here today, on the surface, is a bill that in fact we would all want to support. It is a policy which I believe there isn't a person who serves in this Legislature doesn't believe in. We all believe in equity. But I want to talk about something greater than legislating equity in a bill. I want to talk about equity of opportunity.

In my opinion, Bill 79 will not effect opportunity for those people today who do not have it. There's a tremendous irony in part I of this bill, which reads as follows, "All people are entitled to equal treatment in employment in accordance with the Human Rights Code."

1730

Now, this point that I'm about to make was one which I fortunately had the opportunity of discussing with a colleague who is a lawyer. He is a person, both on a personal and professional basis, for whom I have a very high regard. He is a partner of Malach and Fidler. I'm speaking of the member for Willowdale, Charles Harnick. To discuss some of these issues with Charles is an opportunity I would encourage any member of this House to have.

The irony is that here we have a government that's trying to pass this legislation where the entitlement of the bill is that, "All people are entitled to equal treatment in employment in accordance with the Human Rights Code." This is the same government that today in this House showed no concern for the fact that the present chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which is responsible, as the arbitrator and final court of appeal, for the Human Rights Code enactment, has now said she supports a report where people accused of racism would be considered guilty until proven innocent.

What a contradiction this is, what a regressive day for Ontario, to know that the newly appointed chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission believes that on the subject of racism, people who are accused of it would be considered guilty until proved innocent. What a complete reversal of the ethic in justice where people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

What a sad thing to think that Bill 79, as it pivots on the Human Rights Code in its entitlement, might be referred for arbitration, and subsequently a decision, to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I could almost accept anyone, any head of any government agency, board or commission, making an outrageous statement that people must be considered guilty before proven innocent, any agency, board or commission but the Ontario Human Rights Commission. That government agency, above all, has a tremendous responsibility, which is paramount, to the rights of every individual in this province.

When we talk about employment equity, it's very interesting when you start to read some of the material that's available from the government. I find the section on the workforce survey very interesting, because here we have a survey that's given to employees and the key to this survey is self-identification. Workers will decide if they wish to identify themselves as a member of a designated group. They will not be required to identify themselves if they don't want to.

Each employee will be given the chance to answer several simple questions. Those questions ask people to identify themselves if they are aboriginal, a person with a disability, a member of a racial minority, a woman. Employees are not required to answer the questions, but they must return their copy of the survey to their employer.

Now, isn't that just marvellous. I wish somebody could explain to me what is accomplished by saying that employees are not required to answer the questions, but they must return the questionnaire. Is this saying that the government is going to be dependent on the individual employees to identify themselves with a designated group? If so, and those employees choose not to be identified as a designated group, how will the government go to the next portion of the enforcement of its bill, which is that of meeting the numerical goals that are also going to be set for everyone except the very small employers?

When we look at the setting of numerical goals -- it has been stated earlier this afternoon that all we're dealing with is quotas -- I want to tell you that there are constituents in my riding of Mississauga South who choose not to be identified in any of these designated groups. They choose to be treated equally, and as soon as you designate them as being different, then they're not treated equally. That's the whole point.

You can't, on the one hand, say to your employees, "Tell me which of these groups you fall into," because what you do by that very action in fact is segregate them more. You're asking them to say, "Look at me. I'm different. I'm one of these designated groups. I'm different. I'm not the same" -- as what? "I'm not the same as the majority. I'm not the same as a minority. I'm not the same as anyone else. I'm different."

That's where I think this bill is unjust. It's asking people to identify themselves as being different. If you talk to any of the groups that are listed in this bill, you will find that the last thing they want is to be referred to as a person with a disability. They don't want to be referred to in these categories.

While we talk about barriers and how barriers can be identified, I think we would do far better to talk about opportunities. This government has so little commitment to opportunities in this province for people of any group, but particularly the people they want to put into these designated groups under this bill.

I give you as an example the 5,000 people who demonstrated on the front lawn here at Queen's Park last fall who, yes, did have disabilities. They had developmental disabilities. Five thousand people came to say to this government, "Don't cancel your sheltered workshop programs." They came to this government to say, "I have a child who when they're 21 no longer has any programs accessible to them." They came to this government to say, "Once my child turns 21, and is no longer a responsibility of the school board system, there are now no more programs available."

This government has the absolute gall to bring in a bill and call it an Act to provide for Employment Equity when it does not have a commitment today to equity of opportunity in employment for any specific group. It's not good enough, and the public will see through this completely, that it's just more words. You can't on the one hand take $4 million out of shelter workshops in this province and on the other hand say, "We're going to require employers to hire quotas of people in certain designated groups."

1740

By the way, if you don't hire, if you fail to meet the quota requirement, the fine under section 38 is $50,000. Now, if you want to really see this province slide backwards in terms of moving to develop equity of opportunity in this province, start fining the employers $50,000 for non-compliance, $50,000 because they are not meeting so-called numerical goals.

It's like this government choosing not to talk about "user fees"; it prefers to talk about "copayments" in the health care system. What a scam. But fortunately, the public understands now that a copayment in the health care system, that a copayment in terms of care for the elderly -- I was at a meeting last night in Mississauga with over 200 people there who were shocked to find out that now, in order to accommodate their loved ones in nursing homes and homes for the aged, they have to pay an additional $330 a month as a copayment. They're not fooled by this. They know what a copayment is. They know it's a user fee. The employers who read the requirements of Bill 79 understand very clearly that a numerical goal is nothing more or nothing less than quotas.

But the travesty of the whole essence of this bill is that the very people they are pretending to help will not get helped, because these people want to be treated equally and have that opportunity because of who they are not as a difference, but who they are as a likeness. If you're really sincere about giving people in this province equal opportunity for employment, then you have to demonstrate it with better wording in a far better-drafted bill than Bill 79; you do not do it by fining employers $50,000 if they don't meet an arbitrary quota that's assigned to them by this government.

I have had it indicated to me by the whip that we are running out of time. It is unfortunate, because I feel very passionately about this subject. I feel very strongly about the fact that those people for whom I speak, namely, our disabled community in particular, which happens to be my personal portfolio for our Ontario PC caucus -- the very thing those people don't want is more segregation and identification by labels. They just want the opportunities.

This bill is asking them not only to identify themselves but it's asking the employer to hire them because of what they are, whether they're in a wheelchair, whether they're on a cane, whether they have a seeing-eye dog, any number of circumstances. They're not being asked to hire because of who they are as individuals in terms of their own ability. They don't want any special treatment; they just want to be treated equally.

How is it that under the Ontario Human Rights Code, where we have a definition that all people are entitled to equal treatment, we have to now pass a bill that sets that aside and starts to qualify and quantify people with special needs into special designated groups?

It's distasteful, it's barbaric, and frankly, I have a great deal of concern and cannot support this bill because it's not in the best interests of those people who need our support and our help the most.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? This, I believe, would bring us to the wrapup of the second reading of Bill 79.

Mr Fletcher: It's truly an honour for me to be able to close second reading on Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act, on behalf of the Minister of Citizenship. It gives me an opportunity to demonstrate my wholehearted support for this important piece of legislation. It also allows me to express my belief that every person in this province who believes in fairness and who believes in equity believes in this piece of legislation.

I've worked on workplace issues for many years. I've spoken to workers from all walks of life who've suffered indignities and injustices. I've witnessed the debilitating side effects of discrimination and racism, and I've worked alongside working people and heard how insensitive employment practices have affected their lives. It was these stories and these experiences that made me determined a long time ago that I would fight all forms of injustice in the workplace.

That is why I'm pleased to be able to stand here today and declare my support for employment equity. There's absolutely no question, in my mind, that this legislation's time has come.

Those of us who've worked on workplace issues over the years, such as health and safety and employment standards, have also recognized that such policies must benefit both workers and employers. Workplace change simply isn't feasible and will not work if it doesn't affect both groups, and that's why I'm able to support employment equity.

I believe it brings real change and real benefits to the workplace for members of the designated groups, to their coworkers and to their employers.

I could never support the replacement of one form of discrimination by another, as some in this House have charged employment equity will do. I could not condone preferential treatment of one group of workers over another, as some have suggested this will do, and I could certainly never accept the hiring of unqualified people over qualified people, as others have said this bill will do.

To support legislation that had any of these results would be to give up everything I have fought for for so long in the workplace, and that just wouldn't be possible for me and it wouldn't be possible for members of my party.

Employment equity isn't about reverse discrimination or preferential treatment or hiring practices of the unqualified, and I think it's an insult to the designated groups and to all working people to even suggest that is what it is. It's about correcting historical inequity.

In the first step towards employment equity, employers will conduct a workforce survey to identify which workers are members of the four designated groups and in which occupations they are found.

Employment equity is also about hiring people because of their attributes and their skills, regardless of their aboriginal status, disability, race or gender. An employment systems review will identify which workplace policies and practices are barriers to full participation by the designated groups, and employment equity is about ensuring that employment practices are fair and non-discriminatory. The end result is a workforce that is representative of the community.

1750

I have to conclude that people who use the arguments I've just outlined as a reason to oppose employment equity either don't understand it or they don't want to. I found when I explained to many working people what employment equity is and why it is so necessary, they clearly grasp why it will be so important in the long-range organizational planning and consequently to our future together. Employment equity is no more and no less than a human resources tool that management can use to organize and address change. Now more than ever we need such a tool.

It's become something of a cliché to say that our best resource is our human resources, but like every cliché, this statement, no matter how much it's been overused, is still true: People are our best resource but only when we maximize their potential, and we only maximize their potential when we treat them fairly. If we exclude any member of the labour force from the workforce, if we hinder anyone's career development, if we underutilize any person's skills for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability, then we are doing a serious disservice not only to those people but to our economy and to our province.

Employment equity is designed to ensure that we maximize the potential of all of our people and our human resources. That's the key component to employment equity, and curiously, most often it is most overlooked by the detractors and yet is one of the major reasons why people like myself support this legislation.

We all profit when employers use equitable employment practices to hire, retain, train and promote their people. We benefit in different ways and we also get very real advantages as a province when the skills of our entire workforce are helped to gain a competitive edge in the global marketplace.

One of the other aspects of this legislation that is another considerable benefit to all employees is that their participation in the workplace decision-making will be greatly enhanced. For the first time in unionized workplaces, employers and bargaining agents will have joint responsibility for employment equity. They will responsible together for working on all of the aspects of implementation such as the workforce survey, identifying and removing barriers and so on. In non-unionized workplaces, employers will consult with their employees, including designated group members, on the same steps.

Joint responsibility will consequently enable employers and employees to participate in issues that affect both groups and which will result in policies and practices that address joint concerns.

As we move into the next stage of the bill's development, the discussion of the legislation in legislative committee, the hearings, it will be important to keep in the forefront of our minds what the end result of this legislation is, fairness in the workplace, and in order to achieve this goal, the legislation must be practical as well as effective.

Let's also keep a clear focus on the need for this legislation, a rapidly changing labour force, barriers that prevent participation of all workers. Let us make sure that we understand how employment equity will address these issues by updating human resources management practices. Then let's keep an eye on the future and how employment equity will bring us all the rewards of a workforce that is able to fill its potential.

The Acting Speaker: I was advised by the officers at the table here that this may have sounded like a wrapup. However, we have to go to questions and/or comments.

Mr Callahan: A very quick one, Mr Speaker. While I was speaking I got a call from a constituent of mine who indicated that the feds have already screwed up unemployment insurance, but this could result in a situation where a young person who wanted to apply for unemployment insurance or welfare would have to fill out one of these applications. If they took the sense that they were objecting to what was in that application, they may very well be denied unemployment insurance or welfare.

The Acting Speaker: Other questions or comments? The member for Guelph has two minutes in response.

Mr Fletcher: I won't take the full two minutes; just to respond that I believe, as I said yesterday, the first step to employment equity is for all people and all places to open their minds, and once those minds are open, then the workplaces will be open. If we can come to that point when everyone can participate fully in our society, in our workplaces, then we will have a society where there is no discrimination, and the objective of this is, as everyone has said -- yes, it is to reverse discrimination.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Because the minister moved second reading, the minister would have the opportunity now of wrapping up.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): I'm very pleased to stand in my place today and to wrap up this very fine debate that we've had on employment equity. I must say to all members of the House today that employment equity, about fairness in the workplace, about making sure that every one of our citizens has an equal opportunity, is foremost in the principles of employment equity and the legislation thereof.

I also want to say that it's very important, as we move through the next stages of debate, whether it's debate in the committee, whether it's debate on the regulations and the discussion of the regulations, that we still continue to work together to make sure that this bill is the most effective and has the best results.

There has been a lot of talk today and in the several days of debate about the various aspects of employment equity. One point that was missed very clearly, and I would like to just take a few minutes to talk about that, is about making sure that the qualitative measures change in the workplace, about making sure that there are provisions in the workplace to treat everybody fairly and equitably.

Yes, goals and timetables are needed to measure if those qualitative measures are working, but the most important thing we can do with this legislation is to make sure that people take the time to look at their workplace, to remove the barriers that exist, whether they're systemic or whether they're intentional, and to start to build towards a more harmonious way of treating each of our individuals in the workplace and to make sure that there's equal opportunity not just for hiring, but also for getting the promotion and training that are required if we are going to see that there is true access to the whole aspect of the workplace.

As I sum up, I hope that we all can sit down and discuss how we can make the bill stronger, yes, to have it more effective and to have the best possible legislation that we want. It's all very well and fine for members of this House to be critical, but let's start to work together to make sure that this bill can really do what we intend it to do, and that's about having a truly equal society, one where people are respected, treated with dignity and treated for who they are and for their abilities and their qualifications, not because of the colour of their skin or because of being a certain gender.

In wrapping up, I extend that invitation to all members of the House. I think that we can really, truly have the best possible legislation and at the same time lead the way in Canada and in North America and show that we can live in a very just and equitable society.

The Acting Speaker: Ms Ziemba has moved second reading of Bill 79. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a 30-minute bell.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I have in my hand a correspondence to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly which reads as follows, dated Toronto, July 15, 1993, from the office of the chief government whip:

"Pursuant to standing order 28(g), I request that the vote on second reading of Bill 79, An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aboriginal People, People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women, moved by the Honourable Elaine Ziemba, be deferred until 5:55 pm, Monday, July 19, 1993."

That will be the occurrence. The honourable government House leader.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): It being almost 6 of the clock, pursuant to standing order 55, I would like to announce the business for the coming week.

On Monday, July 19, we will give third reading to Bill 164, the auto insurance. Following that, we will give second reading to Bills 32 and 34, the vehicle transfer package.

On Tuesday, July 20, we will give third reading consideration to Bill 96, OTAB.

The remainder of the week's business will be announced.

On the morning of Thursday, July 22, during private members' public business, we will consider ballot item 23, second reading of Bill 59, standing in the name of Mr McClelland, and ballot item 24, Bill 60, standing in the name of Mr Johnson.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): It now being almost 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday, July 19 at 1:30 pm.

The House adjourned at 1800.

15 juillet 1993