role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

June 10, 1987

33rd Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L025 - Wed 10 Jun 1987 / Mer 10 jun 1987

PORTUGUESE NATIONAL DAY

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

RONDEAU BAY

POLLUTION CONTROL

PATIENTS' RIGHTS

BRAMPTON BOARD OF TRADE

RIDING OF PARRY SOUND

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ECONOMIC SUMMIT

LENNOX GENERATING STATION

NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS

RESPONSES

LENNOX GENERATING STATION

NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS

ECONOMIC SUMMIT

LENNOX GENERATING STATION

NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS

ECONOMIC SUMMIT

ORAL QUESTIONS

LENNOX GENERATING STATION

UNIVERSITY ENROLMENT

COMFORT ALLOWANCES

LANDFILL SITE

ACID RAIN

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

CARABRAM

APPORTIONMENT OF EDUCATION TAXES

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

VARITY CORP.

RIGHT TO FARM

LEAD LEVELS

PETITIONS

CAMPING LIMIT

LANDFILL SITE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

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

E) The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

PORTUGUESE NATIONAL DAY

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: I rise to ask for unanimous consent in order to recognize the National Day of Portugal.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

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

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

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

We are, of course, all cognizant and appreciative of the tremendous contribution our Portuguese friends have made to the development and growth of our province and country, both in economic and cultural fields. Yet, as important as the economic contributions are, the attention of Canadian-Portuguese children today is focused not on the prosperity and wealth that opportunities in Canada create but on our democratic system of government that allows the people in our multicultural society to celebrate a national literary hero of their forefathers' original homeland as a right.

Indeed, Luis de Camões is an intellectual giant whose footsteps have crossed centuries of time and the Atlantic Ocean to implant in Canada a great heritage of love for literature, poetry and education.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Portuguese community has made a tremendous contribution in a very short period of time to the social, economic and cultural life of Ontario.

I have the opportunity, as do both of my colleagues who spoke this afternoon, of representing a constituency that has a large Luso-Canadian community. We all three know first hand of the success and of the struggle of people of Portuguese-Canadian heritage for recognition and for social justice. A number of issues that affect the Portuguese-Canadian community come before this Legislature quite regularly.

I think, for example, of the struggle for social justice of the people who work in the cleaning industry and of the struggle of construction workers and others in heavy-duty, dangerous occupations for justice from the Workers' Compensation Board. These are all issues that members of all three parties are committed to trying to resolve.

As part of the struggle for recognition, obviously, the Portuguese community will, I hope in the very near future, begin to take its rightful share in the Legislature of Ontario and in our municipal councils. I know, for example, that a number of leaders of the Portuguese community have run in provincial elections in previous years.

For example, our party has nominated an outstanding candidate in the great riding of Parkdale, and I have a great deal of confidence that when the dust settles after the next provincial election, a Luso-Canadian will be able to take his or her place -- we hope more than one --here in this august chamber. I suspect one of those may indeed be the new member for Parkdale.

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

[Remarks in Portuguese]

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RONDEAU BAY

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Anything further?

Mr. McGuigan: Can I start over again?

Mr. Speaker: You have 53 seconds.

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

Interjections.

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

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

POLLUTION CONTROL

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

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

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

PATIENTS' RIGHTS

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

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

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

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

BRAMPTON BOARD OF TRADE

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

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

RIDING OF PARRY SOUND

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

It was some two years ago that I first raised this issue with the then Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine). Since then, I have pursued it by way of a member's statement and questions in the House. I have asked the current Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Peterson) in estimates as recently as February of this year. The minister admitted that it was a very valid point and could see no logical reason the district of Parry Sound should not be included in northern Ontario.

To quote him, he was going to go back and pursue his colleagues with renewed vigour to see whether he could not persuade his relevant cabinet ministers to adopt this line of thinking.

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

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ECONOMIC SUMMIT

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

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

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

LENNOX GENERATING STATION

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

Mr. Hennessy: Only one supporter has applauded.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That is a start.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESPONSES

LENNOX GENERATING STATION

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

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

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

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

NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS

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

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

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

ECONOMIC SUMMIT

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

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

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

LENNOX GENERATING STATION

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

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

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

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

NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS

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

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

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

ECONOMIC SUMMIT

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

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

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

Ms. Gigantes: A centre of excellence.

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

LENNOX GENERATING STATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Grossman: Answer the question.

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Andrewes: No.

Mr. Speaker: No. Thank you.

UNIVERSITY ENROLMENT

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

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is yes.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Question?

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Mr. Grossman: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: What is your point?

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

COMFORT ALLOWANCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LANDFILL SITE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. McClellan: How long?

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

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

lnterjections.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

ACID RAIN

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

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

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

He is certainly going to see the small private sector involved, as I have explained to his leader, who is not here now.

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

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

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

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

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

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Question.

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

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

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

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

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

HOSPITAL FUNDING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

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

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

Mr. McFadden: Yes.

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

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

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

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

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Was that not your question?

Mr. Grande: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Put your question.

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

Hon. Mr. Conway: If I were to go, I might take along a recent

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

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

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

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

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

CARABRAM

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

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

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

APPORTIONMENT OF EDUCATION TAXES

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Conway: Yes.

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

Mr. Speaker: And supplementary?

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

Mr. Speaker: And supplementary?

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Under which standing order?

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

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

The member for Nickel Belt has a new question.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

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

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

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

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

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

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

VARITY CORP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

RIGHT TO FARM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEAD LEVELS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PETITIONS

CAMPING LIMIT

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

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

LANDFILL SITE

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

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

That was signed by some 150 residents.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr68,

An Act respecting the Windsor Youth Marching and Concert Band.

The committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of punting, be remitted on Bill Pr68,

An Act respecting the Windsor Youth Marching and Concert Band.

Mr. Speaker: Did all members hear that report?

Some hon. members: No.

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

I will request that the report be read again.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

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

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

Bill 190,

An Act to amend the Mental Health Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

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

House in committee of the whole.

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

E) Consideration of Bill 154,

An Act to provide for Pay Equity.

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

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

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

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: Order.

To prove a point, I would say --

Mr. McClellan: I still cannot hear a word.

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

All right. Yes, the member for Bellwoods?

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

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

Mr. McClellan: That is the agreement, yes.

Ms. Gigantes: We agreed.

Interjections.

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

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

Mr. McClellan: No.

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

Fine. Thank you.

section 9:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There being none, all those in favour of Ms. Gigantes's amendment to

section 9(1) will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

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

Vote stacked.

section 10:

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Gigantes moves that clauses 10(b), (

c) and (

d) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor: "(

b) the third anniversary of the effective date in respect of all other employers to whom this part applies."

Ms. Gigantes: In the mechanism provided by this legislation for the achievement of the formula called "pay equity", there is a

section of the working population who are women in Ontario who will, as the bill currently stands, have the right to have a pay equity plan determined for their work place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From that determination, it was felt prudent to recognize that in the public sector, the ability existed to make the evaluations and the adjustments and that in the private sector, most large private sector firms did have formalized procedures and plans.

As a result, the legislation contemplated a phased-in approach dependent upon the size of the firm, on the understanding that as each sector in the legislation came on stream the smaller corporations and companies would have the benefit of seeing what transpired with those that came on stream previously, to learn from that experience and to formulate their approach to the necessity to comply with this legislation on the basis of the experience of those that went before.

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

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

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

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

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

The comments the parliamentary assistant made just a few moments ago point very clearly to the lack of understanding that exists over there even in terms of what the process means. The parliamentary assistant is correct that there are some large employers that already have very sophisticated systems in place. Some changes may be necessary in those systems as a result of this legislation. There are also a lot of large employers in this province that have no system in place.

If the parliamentary assistant were to take the time to look at the years that were spent developing those systems in our largest employers, where you have the broadest range of different job categories that you have to start comparing, he might begin to understand that if anything they have the process in reverse in this bill and that the smaller the employer and the fewer the number of employees and different job categories that are involved, the easier the job becomes.

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

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

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

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

Consistently, the member for Ottawa Centre has put forward arguments against the phasing-in of pay equity adjustments, against the phasing-in periods for the development of the pay equity plans and the way in which this legislation kicks in. She is absolutely determined to ignore the facts.

Although I would be the first to concede that it would be desirable if those wage adjustments could take place in one year and that it would be desirable if all the processes within this legislation could be completed in a much shorter period of time, the reality of such legislation would be such a displacement within the work place that there would unquestionably be layoffs and reduced employment within this province.

I do not believe for a minute that this kind of justice is what the people in this province want if they have to sacrifice gainful employment to achieve some accelerated form of compensation without any regard whatsoever to the realities of the work place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman: That word is not parliamentary.

Mr. McClellan: Rhetoric?

Mr. Chairman: No, sleazy.

Mr. McClellan: I withdraw anything that is unparliamentary.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you.

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

Mr. Chairman: Order.

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

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

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

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

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

schedule from five years to four years?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: In fairness to all members --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Shame.

Mr. Chairman: I beg your pardon?

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

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

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

section 23.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman: If the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) does not mind, for simplicity, I will read this. The member has tabled and will be introducing amendments to

section 1 -- and we will deal with that later -- sections 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, clause 37(g), and then

section 37 in its entirety. Is that correct? Do you intent to introduce amendments on those sections?

Mr. Baetz: That is correct.

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

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

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

section 1 --

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

Ms. Gigantes: I believe we have dealt with the Conservative amendment to

section 1 and defeated it.

Mr. Chairman: You are correct.

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

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

I was going to ask for unanimous consent, which would be given or otherwise, on revertin