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

February 3, 1987

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L097 - Tue 3 Feb 1987 / Mar 3 fev 1987

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TELEVISION TRANSMITTER

NORONTAIR

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK

AMBULANCE SERVICES

USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS

TEACHERS' PENSIONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

WESTERN COAL

GASOLINE TAX

NURSING HOMES

DAY CARE

WESTERN COAL

SIÈGE DE COUR

TECHNOLOGY FUND

LEAD LEVELS

COURT RULING

TECHNOLOGY FUND

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

TECHNOLOGY FUND

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

DRUG BENEFIT FORMULARY

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PAY EQUITY ACT (CONTINUED) / LOI DE 1986 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ SALARIALE (SUITE)

ROYAL ASSENT

SURVEYORS ACT

SURVEYORS ACT

NURSING HOMES AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TELEVISION TRANSMITTER

Mr. Eves: I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) an issue which has been outstanding for some time in Parry Sound riding, namely, the installation of an additional low-power repeater transmitter to bring TVOntario to many households in the Parry Sound area.

In a 1983 letter from TVO to the ministry, the then chairman, Jim Parr, wrote, "We are retaining an estimated savings of $330,000 from the Timmins-North Bay-Owen Sound project to be reallocated to the Parry Sound project, which will be used for a repeater transmitter, if necessary, for the Parry Sound area."

This information was confirmed and, in January 1984, it was also confirmed that the Huntsville tower would not be sufficient to give Parry Sound a good signal. It has been proven now beyond a doubt that this transmitter in Parry Sound is necessary. However, just two weeks ago, TVO officials told me they do not have the funds to build the transmitter and hope to negotiate space on an existing tower.

Frankly, the constituents of Parry Sound riding, and I as their representative, would like to know what happened to the $330,000 set aside for this project over three years ago. The need has been demonstrated and the funds should be there. I think the project should proceed without delay. I ask the minister for an explanation of what happened to the moneys earmarked for this project and an assurance that a repeater will be built this year.

NORONTAIR

Mr. Morin-Strom: Last Friday, the province and norOntair announced a call for proposals from other air carriers to privatize some or all of norOntair's network in northern Ontario. This is a proposal that makes no sense to the residents of northern Ontario. We need assurances of more and better transportation links, not the abandonment of such services.

In Sault Ste. Marie, we have seen increased air fares and a noticeable deterioration of service since the federal government and Air Canada abandoned the Sault last October. In recent weeks, I have seen arbitrary flight cancellations and some pretty shoddy treatment of passengers by both CP Air and Air Ontario. Deregulation of the airline industry has not helped any community in northern Ontario. The province's proposal that norOntair be thrown into the takeover game could be disastrous, reducing competition there even further.

Since norOntair was started by the provincial government in 1971, it has expanded to serve 21 communities with nine aircraft. It is an important transportation link, tying together a vast geographic area with a relatively sparse population. The norOntair network would not exist without the $6-million-per-year subsidization of the provincial government. To turn over its profitable routes to private operators would just increase the cost to the province for the remaining service.

I hope the Premier and Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Peterson) will act quickly to bury this ill-conceived initiative.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK

Mr. Cousens: I would like to present to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) today a copy of the presentation I gave last week, on January 29, to York regional council.

The region of York has increased by over 52 per cent from 1979 to 1985. During that time, provincial funding to the region has declined by 38 per cent on a per capita basis. What I would like the Premier to be apprised of through the reading of this report is something of the severe problem we are having with schools.

We need at least 15 new schools a year to keep pace with the growth. We need to emphasize the need for Highway 407, an important thoroughfare in the north Metro and south York region. We need to emphasize the need for more commuter transit. We need more affordable housing. We need more housing for seniors. We need to protect the environment. We need to put more money into our police force.

York region is a beautiful place and a proud place to live, but it is also a place that requires an investment by the province in order for this region to maintain its standard of living. We are investing so much in the province as a whole that the least we can have back is some money from the province to allow us to maintain a style of living that we deserve through our taxes.

In this report, I trust the Premier will see the importance of doing more for the fast-growth riding of York region.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. Foulds: The treatment of the Thunder Bay ambulance services by the Ministry of Health is absolutely disgraceful. Both the employees and the management agreed to voluntary binding arbitration. That award said in part:

"The employer has offered an increase of four per cent for a one-year term. This is equal to the budget imposed by the Ministry of Health. These employees are doing the same work, require the same qualifications as employees of the Ontario public service, other hospitals, municipalities or other private ambulance services. This board fails to see why these employees of Thunder Bay ambulance services should not be paid comparable rates to those paid by the province of Ontario. They perform the same function and have equal qualifications. All ambulance services are funded by the province.

"By restricting funding to four per cent for this year to private operators and granting nine per cent to its own employees, the government is setting a dangerous double standard. It is our opinion that these actions are reprehensible and irresponsible."

Even after this award of about nine per cent, the miserly Ministry of Health has refused to provide anything above four per cent. This has caused the layoff of two employees. This has meant that hospital transfers among the five Thunder Bay hospitals will be severely and harmfully restricted. That means hospital costs will escalate because active treatment beds will become clogged. It is stupid and shortsighted. The Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) should personally step in to grant the funding necessary.

USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS

Mr. Rowe: Although I have been a member of the Legislature for only 19 months, I fully appreciate the need for all of us to take care not to abuse the privileges of those who entrusted us to act on their behalf. We must not abuse or leave the impression of abuse, that we may have taken advantage of their sacred trust. It damages the reputation of every member in this assembly.

I rise in my place today to bring a matter of great concern to all of us on this side of the House. Last week a concerned Ontario resort operator brought this invitation to a Liberal Party fund-raising event to my attention. It states:

"The Honourable John Eakins, Minister of Tourism and Recreation, cordially invites you to attend a fund-raising cocktail reception with the Honourable David Peterson and several cabinet ministers, the Honourable Jim Bradley, the Honourable Vince Kerrio, the Honourable Monte Kwinter, the Honourable Lily Munro, the Honourable Robert Nixon, the Honourable Hugh O'Neil, Eddie Sargent, the Honourable Bill Wrye."

I certainly hope the Minister of Tourism and Recreation did not use any public funds, facilities, services or lists to extend this invitation to all resort operators in Ontario.

TEACHERS' PENSIONS

Mr. Warner: The letters continue to roll in from those teachers who retired a few years ago and who were expecting that the government would treat them fairly.

For some unknown reason, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) continues not to respond to the legitimate concerns raised by teachers who retired a number of years ago. The Treasurer is well aware that the additional money needed to bring the pension of those teachers up to the same level that other retired teachers are receiving is not very much, that the fund has a huge surplus in it and, as we know, the government traditionally has not paid anything towards the pension, since the accumulated capital in that fund, when invested, creates the government's contribution.

What will it take to get this Treasurer to right the wrong which was done a little while back, and provide the support, which is obviously a payment of equity to those teachers who retired a few years ago?

Mr. Speaker: That completes members' statements. Are there any ministerial statements? None?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Oral questions.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The Premier is not present and only five ministers are in the chamber. I suggest we recess for five or 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker: The Speaker, of course, cannot recess for that purpose.

Mr. Harris: If you ask for unanimous consent; if the government House leader agreed, I am sure the House leader of the third party would agree.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent to recess for five minutes?

Agreed to.

The House recessed at 1:43 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WESTERN COAL

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not know the details of those take-or-pay contracts. From what I have been told by Ontario Hydro, my understanding is that certain commitments have been made to purchase coal from other suppliers matched against the requirements of the generating stations. That is what I am told by Ontario Hydro. I have not analysed the contracts myself, but as I have said to the member, I have asked Ontario Hydro to make every single effort to purchase western coal, if possible.

That is why many discussions have been ongoing at a technical level and management level and indeed at a political level as well. I am sorry I cannot tell the member the details of those contracts. I have not personally read them.

Mr. Andrewes: Quite obviously, the Premier does not know the details of the contracts. He certainly left the impression here in the House that those take-or-pay contracts were with US coal suppliers. In fact, that is not the case. The take-or-pay contracts are with western coal suppliers. The US suppliers have contracts with Hydro so that in 1982 and 1983, when the recession was on and when Ontario Hydro's demand was diminished, they were able to show some flexibility in those contracts. In fact, those contracts were reduced by 20 per cent without any penalty.

I ask the Premier: he made that statement; he made it flippantly. It was confusing, it was inaccurate; some might describe it as misleading. It was offered as an excuse for avoiding taking a very strong position on the issue of acid gas emissions and the reduction of those acid gas emissions. Why is he avoiding this issue? Clearly, it provides a reasonable solution to the acid gas emission problem.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not pretend to be a technical expert like my friend opposite. I am just sharing the information I received. If I said something to the member that is incorrect, then I apologize, and I will try to straighten that up. But I am sure my honourable friend would not want to leave the impression that purchasing western coal tomorrow would fix that situation, even though there is a very substantial price differential, as my friend would be aware as a former Minister of Energy.

I would say to him, why did he not buy western coal when he was the Minister of Energy, if he thought it was such a great solution? My honourable friend is not all that credible on this issue. I say to him, why was he not doing something about it?

I can tell him that when I came in, I issued instructions to Ontario Hydro to enter immediately into negotiations and to attempt to enter into that situation. The member also knows that the coal is substantially different from the coal employed presently, and it would require a retrofit.

Mr. Andrewes: I am going to tell the Premier that in 1970, it was a Tory government that initiated the purchase of western coal; it was a Tory government that put the infrastructure in place.

By way of supplementary, I want to ask the Premier whether he agrees with the statement his Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) made to the press, I believe some time over the weekend. It was quoted yesterday. He said, "Whatever the merits of this discussion on more western coal, it is really up to Ontario Hydro's senior management, because the utility is an independent body."

Is the Premier going to allow Ontario Hydro's management to set his agenda on acid gas emissions?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think it is very curious, this remarkable volte-face that the member's party has undertaken on this matter. When the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) comes in, the member can ask him about acid gas emissions. Under the member's administration the facts are rather hurtful in the circumstances.

Mr. Andrewes: Does the Premier want some more quotes? He is getting in over his head.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think we are. My honourable friend is in over his head, and he is trying to crawl out of that black hole his party created, and he helped to create as Minister of Energy.

It was after this government assumed office that the tough control orders were issued to Ontario Hydro, which became, under the member's administration, the second-largest point-source emitter in North America. That is the reality. The previous government created that pollution monster, not us. We are cleaning it up, and we are very proud to pick up the pieces that they dropped so miserably in their 42 years.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier blew it. Now we know why he will not meet with Mr. Mazankowski. It is because he is not briefed on the question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

GASOLINE TAX

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Premier. Last month, in discussing the $500,000-a-day increase in gasoline tax the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) brought in, the Treasurer rationalized it by saying -- and I quote from Hansard -- he was "improving not only the capital construction budget but also the maintenance budget" of transportation as well as "public transit, roads to the north and air facilities."

Given the Treasurer's assurance that he was using his $500,000-a-day windfall -- I should not call it a windfall -- his tax increase of $500,000 a day to improve roads and transportation, I wonder whether the Premier can tell us just how much extra money he authorized be given to the provincial highways program this year?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will refer that question to the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am very glad to have a chance to answer it, because the honourable member should not leave the impression that we allocate our funds in any way. He knows better than that.

I said that among the programs that are funded, we of course have improved the funding for all sorts of things. I mentioned specifically our hospitals, our post-secondary education facilities and development in the north. The question has been asked a number of times.

The Leader of the Opposition should be aware that the 20 per cent ad valorem was replaced with a specific tax of 8.3 cents a litre. This was decided by the Legislature and the member -- and certainly Mr. Speaker -- will remember that in fact the Legislature turned back certain requests. That is within the purview and the power of the Legislature, which it saw fit to exercise.

The tax as it is is estimated very exactly at paying just something over $1 billion for this year. I was interested to note -- and I passed on to the Legislature yesterday -- that those revenues are going down just a small amount, because, I suppose, of the efficiency of the cars replacing those which were relatively gas guzzlers.

We make no apology for this. Our tax policy is based on payments into the consolidated revenue fund, from which we meet the responsibilities entered into by our predecessor government and also fund those initiatives which have been part of our program.

Mr. Grossman: Of course, the Treasurer has kindly made the point we have been trying to make, which is that the revenues are coming under the gasoline tax exactly as he estimated -- just about exactly -- and precisely because he decided to bring in a fixed gasoline tax. Had the Treasurer decided not to do that, then the revenues would have dropped; he would have been taking less from the consumers as the price of gasoline dropped.

The Treasurer said, "It is our responsibility" -- that is, the government's -- "to establish a fair and equitable tax base...and use the money in a fair and equitable way to improve facilities for transportation in the province." Given that those are the words of the Treasurer and that he has used that $500,000 a day for improving transportation, how can he account for the fact that the provincial highways program has gone up by three per cent on the maintenance side and only five per cent on the capital construction side, for a grand total of $17.4 million out of the $183 million additional tax revenues the government is going to get because it fixed the gasoline tax?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We account for it by what we consider to be good management. We have considered the requests from the ministers, including the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton), who has reviewed what has gone before and seen frankly that the budgets for municipal transit and roads had been strangled and that the budget for provincial roads had been totally inadequate. We are improving those transfers.

There has never been the slightest indication that any of our taxes are earmarked, except for two of them, which the honourable member is aware of, that are directed towards recreation and culture. The member knows my view on that, and we can pursue that on some other occasion. I can assure the member that our revenue policies have been successful, which is the word I put on them, and that the funds are allocated towards programs for the good of the community which we are prepared to defend, here or elsewhere.

Mr. Grossman: I remind the Treasurer that this is not a question about earmarking. This is a question with regard to the Treasurer's decisions on how he spends the additional tax revenue that he himself has taxed for. He cannot spread that burden. He decided to change the tax system, which has resulted in an extra $500,000 a day from the motorists. The Treasurer himself in this House has used as a rationalization the fact that he needs that money to improve transportation and roads across this province, and that would be understandable since he is taking the money from the people who use the roads.

My simple question is, given the fact that he is getting $180 million extra per year in gasoline taxes from the motorists and given the fact that he has tried to rationalize it by saying he wanted to improve roads and transportation, how does he reconcile that with the reality that he has decided to put only $17 million of the $180 million into improving the provincial road system?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Using the terminology of the Leader of the Opposition, it is not the "extra" that he is referring to. If he were to compare it to the gasoline tax revenues before his ministry and his colleagues brought in the ad valorem tax which doubled the gas tax, in fact there are many hundreds of millions extra which are spent on programs of a wide variety that are approved by the estimates procedure in this House.

The honourable member says this is not about earmarking and I agree with him, because earmarking is not the policy of this government, it was not the policy of the previous government and I think we were both right in that regard.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I want to ask the minister about our nursing homes in the province. I am sure he will be as astounded as all members will be to learn that in the last two years there have been 149 charges under the Nursing Homes Act and there has been a grand total of seven convictions, with a grand total of fines of $1,707.50. Can the minister explain how it is that in the last two years the enforcement of the Nursing Homes Act has apparently proved so impossible?

Hon. Mr. Elston: There have been difficulties in enforcement with respect to the previous drafting of regulations and the manner in which they have been perceived in the courts of this province. A number of prosecutions had also been held up pending receipt of judgements in higher courts. Those matters affect quite substantially the number of prosecutions that have been successfully brought to a close, and I can tell the member that a number of events with respect to awaiting higher court decisions have also dealt some blows to the informations that had been originally laid in some of those matters.

Mr. Rae: What the minister seems to be saying is that a series of appeals and cross-appeals with respect to one decision regarding the Elm Tree Nursing Home has apparently rendered the entire act virtually unenforceable in so far as nursing home inspectors are concerned.

Can the minister explain why he has not made a serious statement in this House with respect to the unenforceability of a major piece of legislation protecting tens of thousands of older people whom the government has a moral and legal obligation to protect? Why has there been no effort made to bring in new regulations specifically dealing with a situation where whole sections of the act now appear to be unenforceable?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have been dealing with the question of enforceability of the act and we now have before this House amendments which the honourable gentleman knows about. We are also in the process of implementing some of the recommendations which were done as an internal study with respect to our inspection capabilities in the Ministry of Health's nursing homes branch.

We have a number of initiatives which we think will help us do exactly as the honourable gentleman has suggested we should; that is, beef up our inspection capabilities and deal with questions of enforceability of our nursing homes legislation.

Mr. Rae: The minister cannot be allowed to get away with this. In the last year, the total of fines was $407.50. That is the total amount of fines exacted against nursing homes in 1986. He has two prosecutors employed full-time who are being paid $72,000 a year and the total amount of money they are able to bring in in terms of prosecutions is $407.50.

Is the minister seriously arguing that this is an effective record of regulation when one considers that even under the bad old days of the Tories -- we all remember how bad those days were -- in 1984 there were 622 charges and 93 convictions for a total of $19,200. Is the minister standing in his place and saying he is an even worse Minister of Health than the various odds and sods appointed by the Tories before they were defeated in May 1985?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Nobody has said that and I do not claim that record. The record of those people speaks for itself. With respect to the people who decide on the scope of the fines, they are known as judges, as the honourable gentleman knows. They make decisions on the basis of the case material put before them. I do not direct what the fines ultimately are. I can tell the honourable gentleman that there have been, as I said in my reply to the opening question, certain difficulties with respect to enforcement of the act. We are looking at ways in which to enhance the statutes so we can deal with questions of the enforceability of the act.

This government has put a great deal of interest in ensuring that the question of quality of life inside those nursing homes is addressed and not necessarily what convictions can be had for a lack of clearance between the floor and the window sills and things such as that. I happen to believe that the quality of life inside those facilities is more important than those structural problems. We are looking at ways we can enhance the quality of life inside the nursing homes for all the people here in the province.

DAY CARE

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services, another minister who specializes in looking into things and doing even less. I would like to ask the minister a question today about day care. I ask the minister whether he can confirm our understanding that under existing federal-provincial agreements it would be possible for the province to do two things: that it could fund not-for-profit day care centres on a direct financing basis, increasing the subsidy; and it could test for income. Can the minister confirm that there is nothing now stopping him or his government legally from doing those two things?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member is correct.

Mr. Rae: That is the first step. The second step is, can he confirm that his decision therefore not to move at all in the last year and a half with respect to those two issues has cost working families somewhere in the area of between $40 million and $50 million in terms of money that has not been spent by the provincial government that could have been spent, that could have been allocated and that could have helped those families instead of forcing them to dig into their own pockets to provide day care for their children?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: No, I cannot confirm that.

Mr. Rae: The minister had better find out, because I would like to ask the minister whether he can confirm that his decision to delay from January until, at the very earliest, June of this year any form of subsidy and the direct financing of day care centres run on a not-for-profit basis is going to cost working families another $16 million. That is money the minister is not prepared to spend that working families have to spend out of their own families. Does he not think he had better find out every time he decides to delay something for another six months?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The decision by this government to be able to fund the entire system is one that has been described in this House a number of times. I remind the member that the increase of 10,000 subsidized spaces in this province in less than two years has increased the total number of subsidized spaces to all families, regardless of where they put their children, by 50 per cent.

WESTERN COAL

Mr. Andrewes: I want to ask a question of the Premier, who was unaware that in 1970, under the Conservative administration, Ontario Hydro entered into take-or-pay western coal contracts, into establishment of a blending facility at Nanticoke, into the building of terminals in Thunder Bay and purchased the rolling stock necessary to bring coal down from western Canada.

Yesterday, in response to the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), he said the following, relative to Ontario Hydro's coal-fired plants, that they "cannot accommodate that western coal at present without a massive retrofit.'' Can the Premier detail the cost of that retrofit and give us some indication of the impact of that cost on the average home owner's hydro bill?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is quite right. There is western coal coming in now. I believe it is satisfying about -- and I could be wrong -- 20 per cent of the overall requirements. It is blended in, and Nanticoke was built specifically for that application. The problem is that other plants are not in the same position to absorb that at present.

Mr. Andrewes: The Premier cannot provide the details. He was the one who made the statements, so maybe he needs a briefing. A federal report clearly says Ontario Hydro's acid gas emission problem can be substantially dealt with by using greater quantities of low-sulphur coal. The public mood is very supportive of reducing acid gas emissions. I am sure the Premier has done polls that would substantiate that. Why does he not show some leadership? Why does he not step back from this kind of hands-off treatment of Ontario Hydro and instruct it to build additional blending facilities to do the retrofit on the coal-fired plants, so it can undertake using greater quantities of western coal?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I repeat to my honourable friend that is exactly the thrust we instructed Ontario Hydro to pursue some time ago, long before his friend Mr. Mazankowski got involved in this whole discussion. That has been the thrust of public policy. There is nothing new about that. We have been working on it for a long period of time.

There is a differential in cost, as my honourable friend knows, and discussions are ongoing in order to sort out all the problems that exist. I say to my friend today, as I said yesterday, our preference is to buy Canadian, and that will be our approach in the future.

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Premier on the same topic. All of us know that Ontario Hydro's response to Countdown Acid Rain is to substitute nuclear power for coal-generated capacity. Is it not the case that the reason he has been so reluctant and so slow in response to the federal-provincial task force on using western coal is that he has fallen hook, line and sinker for Ontario Hydro's policy of promoting nuclear power over coal-fired generating stations?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I would not agree with my honourable friend. I did not realize Mr. Mazankowski was writing her questions, as well as those of my friend opposite, but I say to her that is completely not the case.

We inherited a utility with some problems. My honourable friend will be aware we are enforcing those control orders because of the single-minded, determined leadership of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and we are solving those environmental problems that were created by the former government.

Mrs. Grier: I would like to inform the Premier that nobody writes my questions. I think Ontario Hydro is writing his answers.

In view of the fact that the select committee on energy, which some members will recall, was told that the contracts with the United States would expire after 1990, only three years from now, we would like to know from the Premier what direction has been given by this government to Ontario Hydro to begin to plan for both the retrofit and the scrubbers that would enable it to use more western coal after 1990?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As the honourable member will know, a very tough control order was issued under operation Countdown, which my honourable friend was responsible for developing. At the moment, no funkier decisions have been made with respect to the capital acquisition by Ontario Hydro; at the moment, those decisions have not had to be made. Whether in the future it brings another coal-fired plant, and if so in what location, those decisions have not been made. At the moment, the capacity is not required. I am sure my honourable friend is not advocating building a coal-fired plant that is unnecessary at the present time.

SIÈGE DE COUR

M. Poirier: J'ai une question pour le procureur général.

Dans ma circonscription de Prescott-Russell, L'Orignal est le siège de cour depuis très longtemps. De fait, l'édifice principal date de 1825. Récemment, des rumeurs ont circulé qui indiquent que justement, il y a une possibilité que L'Orignal soit fermé à

titre de siège de cour. Je voudrais demander au procureur général si c'est vrai, s'il y a matière à ces rumeurs-là.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I want to thank the honourable member for his question. Having visited L'Orignal, I am well aware of the anxiety the residents of that community have and the honourable member has about the future of this community as a court centre.

L'Orignal, of course, is the county town in that county. Under the present arrangements and under the present Courts of Justice Act, it will remain the county town and will perform all the functions associated with the town. I can assure the honourable member that we are not reviewing or contemplating any change in that circumstance, though it is possible that there may be recommendations about regionalization in the Zuber report that we will have to respond to.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Gillies: My question is for the Premier about his favourite computer project.

Mr. Shymko: Which one is that?

Mr. Gillies: The one on the waterfront.

Last week the Premier suggested to the House that Mr. Schwartz and the board of directors of Exploracom were not telling the truth when they said that the Premier had changed the ground rules on their project and introduced the concept of matching funds. He said: "The ground rules never changed. It has very clearly been matching funds."

If this is the case, why did the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) stand in the House on June 23 last year and, when asked if the project was being funded on a matching fund basis, say..."the technology committee, will be meeting during the first part of July and...those decisions will be made at that time"? This is now some three months after the Premier made the commitment to the project.

Who are we to believe? The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, Mr. Schwartz and his entire board of directors, or the Premier?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: One thing is very clear. We will not believe the member opposite in these circumstances; that is for sure. I welcome my honourable friend's recent conversion on this project. Perhaps it shows that people can be trained.

It was very clear from the beginning what was going on at Exploracom. It was unfortunate the whole matter did not come together, either from an operating point of view or from a capital point of view. Therein was the problem. It was very clearly part of the deal that there would be matching funds.

I say to my honourable friend it was not a $17-million project; it was a $35-million project. We were contributing $17 million -- that was the original deal -- and the other

part came from the private sector. How could one not have matching funds if it was a $35-million project? It is quite obvious to me; it may not be obvious to my friend opposite.

Mr. Gillies: I will take it from that encyclopaedic and interesting answer that Mr. Schwartz and the board are correct and the Premier is not.

Let us try him on this aspect of it. Yesterday the Premier talked about the timing between the original announcement and the time the contract was signed with Exploracom by this government. Again, Mr. Schwartz, the board of directors and a lawyer for Exploracom tell me they have not signed any contract with this government. Again I ask the Premier, who are we to believe? Everyone else involved in this project or him? If this contract exists, which we doubt, is he prepared to table it in the House?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is no contract. That is the whole point.

I will explain it to my honourable friend opposite. After the announcement --

Mr. Gillies: So you gave the money without a contract.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If my honourable friend is misinformed about this situation, I am happy to explain it to him. After the announcement, there was some time before the signing of the contract at which point the funds would flow. We were unable to sign the contract because they did not meet the conditions that were set forward at the time of the original announcement.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No contract, no money.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

LEAD LEVELS

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment about lead pollution in the Niagara Street neighbourhood in the south part of Toronto. I do not know whether I should ask the minister or not. I have raised two questions in the House and I wrote a letter to the minister on October 30, which he has not even acknowledged, let alone answered, asking for an explanation as to why officials in the Ministry of the Environment have been telling our residents that there was no contamination or pollution from Toronto Refiners and Smelters. Then we learned in September that the soil lead contamination has gone up by 126 per cent.

Today we learn, from the same plant that his officials insisted was not contaminating our neighbourhood, lead levels in children near the smelter are double average readings and sufficiently high potentially to impair hearing.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. McClellan: Why did the ministry officials provide false, inaccurate and misleading information in 1984, 1985 and 1986 to the residents of my community?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I guess that is the

interpretation the member would place on the information that was provided to him. It was information to which they felt there was an accuracy. They have provided additional information, and information has been forthcoming from the health department in Toronto. I have given an undertaking to the people of that area and another area around the lead smelters that the province is prepared to undertake a program of soil cleanup and to address the matter of the source of the emissions.

Mr. McClellan: Just for the record, the minister has not even done me the courtesy of replying to my letter of October 30. It is now February 3.

Mr. Speaker: And the supplementary is?

Mr. McClellan: In view of the clear hazard now to children in the neighbourhood, despite three years of assurances that there was no hazard to children in our neighbourhood, now that there is clearly established a hazard to children in this neighbourhood, will the minister issue a permanent control order, a regular control order, against Toronto Refiners and Smelters and undertake a soil removal program for residential properties in the vicinity of the smelter where lead contamination exceeds 500 parts per million?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As I have already indicated to the member in my answer to his first question, I have already given an undertaking, particularly in the one instance to the people of south Riverdale, that there would be a removal of contaminated soil in that particular area. I have given the same assurance publicly that it would happen where there is a secondary lead smelter which is the cause of that particular contamination. I have been working with a committee from south Riverdale already and I have had communication with others.

Mr. McClellan: I am talking about Bellwoods.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I know exactly what we are talking about and I have had communication with various people regarding this matter. I have already given the assurance, before the member stood in the House, that there would be soil removal because, obviously, the health and safety of those children must be first in our minds.

As the member would know, there are two aspects to his supplementary. As to the specific level, that will be discussed. I have a committee in effect now which includes residents, the department of health in Toronto and various ministry officials. I will present the latest information to them, in addition to other information, and we will come up with what we consider to be the appropriate level for removal. But they do have that commitment of removal.

Second, in regard to the question of the control order, I will be discussing --

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In the Premier's response to my last question, he indicated that no contract had been signed with Exploracom, nor had he ever suggested that it had been.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: We would like to know who is telling the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Brampton with a new question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is to which minister?

Mr. Callahan: I have a question of the Attorney General.

Interjections.

Mr. Callahan: I think the people of Brampton would like to hear the answer to this question, but apparently the Tories would not. They do not care about Brampton any more since they dumped Mr. Davis.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member take his seat? I am just going to wait until everything has toned down.

A new question, directly to the Attorney General, through the chair.

COURT RULING

Mr. Callahan: Provincial Court Judge Smith in the city of Brampton recently handed down a 192-page decision which, in effect, indicates that provincial court judges are not capable of hearing federal charges. What effect, if any, has that had on the court backlog, not only in Brampton but in other areas of this province?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to thank the honourable member for the question. I recognize his concern because the decision in question was given in Brampton and there was a fear that if the decision remained outstanding and uncorrected, backlogs would be created as cases were adjourned.

The fact of the matter is that an application was made to the Supreme Court of Ontario within a 10-day period. The matter came on before Mr. Justice O'Leary, who allowed an appeal from the decision. The decision is not now in effect and the courts are proceeding to hear cases in Brampton, as elsewhere, in the normal way.

Mr. Callahan: Has there been an application by any other parties to appeal that decision to a higher court?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I think the answer to that question is yes, although I have only read about it in the press and I have not yet seen the notice of appeal.

Mr. Pope: I would have thought the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) would have asked why there is no statement from the ministers today about the Vaughan land deal and the Ontario Provincial Police raids of the last 24 hours.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the member this is question period. Does he have a question and, if so, to which minister?

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Pope: My question is addressed to the Premier and it involves his $17.5-million gift to Exploracom. Have Coopers and Lybrand raised any concern about their report on Exploracom being seen by the public or by any other parties?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Their opinion on that subject was not asked. To the best of my knowledge it was a legal opinion, but because the matter is being litigated, it should not be made public at this moment.

I say to the honourable member, in addition to that, no money changed hands. I am sure my honourable friend does not want to misrepresent that situation, albeit inadvertently.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will just wait, if they want to waste the time this way.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member take his seat?

Mr. Gillies: You have been in Ottawa playing lawyer.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South would like to ask a supplementary, but if the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) does not want to allow that, we will just wait.

Mr. Pope: If the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) wants to give legal advice to the Premier, he should tell the Premier the difference between saying there is a contract and saying there is not a contract and whether that is a misrepresentation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a supplementary to the Premier?

Mr. Breaugh: Come on.

Mr. Pope: Is the member defending all this? Is that what he is doing?

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order that I would like you to hear. I have a number of colleagues here who want to ask questions today. Not only have you allowed members from the Tory caucus to place remarks on the record without putting questions, but also we have listened to interjections. That means my colleagues do not get to ask questions. Would you please have them ask their questions and let other members participate as well?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for Oshawa for reminding all members that if they listened it might be more helpful to all of us.

Mr. Pope: I apologize to the sensitive member for Oshawa, the Liberal apologist. My question is --

Mr. Speaker: No. New question.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr. Charlton: I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. The minister will know that there are presently over 100 assessors who have been shipped into the city of Toronto, who are presently working on the property assessment

section 63 impact study. Some of those assessors are here voluntarily, some against their will. There are now over 20 grievances which have been filed.

The Ministry of Revenue is paying their expenses. Can the minister tell us why those assessors were required here in Toronto, how much this project is going to cost and how many more assessors will be required to complete the

section 63 program in Metropolitan Toronto before it is finished?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I think the honourable member is aware that by resolution of the metropolitan council, the assessment branch is providing an updated impact study at 1984 values. That is ongoing, and we expect it to be completed and in the hands of metropolitan council by March or April. I was quite surprised it was going to be completed that soon.

As to the additional cost, I cannot find that, other than that these people are professional assessors. The honourable member will know about that. The additional costs would of course be those necessary to bring them to Toronto and put them up here in reasonable accommodation.

As to the grievances that have been lodged, frankly I am not aware of those. I will look into it and provide whatever information I can in that connection.

Mr. Charlton: The minister is aware that in some of the 10 regional offices from which these assessors have been taken, half of the assessors from those regions are now in Toronto. The work loads are piling up at home. Supplementary assessments for the municipalities' tax rolls will not get done. Perhaps the minister can tell us what arrangements his close colleague and friend the Treasurer has made to compensate the municipalities for the money they will lose as a result of the delays in receiving additional assessments from the regional assessment offices.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I think the honourable member knows the program of reassessment is ongoing under

section 63 of the act. We have requested our assessment staff -- actually we had a fairly enthusiastic response from many of them -- to move from one municipal jurisdiction to another to accommodate the very special requirements of the reassessments as they come forward. We have tried to plan this in such a way that there will be no serious dislocation in any of the municipalities that have already been reassessed.

I can assure the member that, to the best of our ability, we are going to see that assessments do not fall out of date at the municipal level and that we respond to the requests for reassessment as effectively and in as orderly a way as we possibly can.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Premier again about his $17.5-million gift to his friends. The Premier made two contradictory statements yesterday and today in the Legislature about the existence or nonexistence of a contract. One of them is a lie and one of them is not. Which is which?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me congratulate the honourable member on the eloquent way he phrased his question this time on instructions from the Speaker.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can say to the member there was no contract signed. If I misrepresented something yesterday, I apologize for that, if I said it. I do not recall it, but if it is in Hansard then presumably I did. I thought we had dealt with this question before. If I had been asked about it, I would have said very clearly, "No contract has been signed." Indeed, that was the issue at stake. After the original announcement, a contract was to be signed. At that point, funds would be forthcoming. The contract was not signed because the deal had not come together according to the understanding at the time of the original announcement. That is the whole point.

Mr. Pope: The whole point is that the Premier has been sliding on this issue since last June. We have not been able to get answers we are entitled to as a Legislature about what was going on with $17.5 million of taxpayers' money. We have the Premier saying one thing one day and something exactly the opposite the next.

Why will the Premier not see how transparent his reasons for not releasing adequate information to the opposition are, change his policy and release the Coopers and Lybrand report -- he has no reason for withholding it -- all the documentation on this matter and let the Legislative Assembly and the public of Ontario in on what was going on with his friend Abe Schwartz?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Why my friend continues to misrepresent the facts in this matter is frankly beyond me. He stands up and says there was "a $17.5-million gift."

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If I offended, I apologize.

Why he continues deliberately to be wrong in the circumstances is beyond me. No money has flowed in the circumstances, and he knows the circumstances very well.

It is quite clear what transpired. We made a very difficult decision, that it would not be in the taxpayers' interest to become involved financially, because it would end up a continual drain on the taxpayers and we could not stand that in good conscience.

My friend was frustrated in the first instance and he is frustrated now. We made the best judgement in the interests of the taxpayers of this province.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The Premier of the province clearly accused the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) of misleading the House. He did not withdraw that. He apologized but he did not withdraw it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understood the Premier withdrew. Am I correct?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will withdraw it, but he continues to perpetuate a factual error in the House.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Solicitor General in his capacity and responsibility for the fire marshal's office. On January 16, in a written answer to question 533, which I had tabled regarding the lack of training for volunteer firefighters in unorganized communities in the north --

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Stand up and apologize and admit he is wrong.

Mr. Grossman: We will see what your story is tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Larry, go back to the horses again. You look good there. Greenwood for Grossman.

Ms. Fish: Murray, you know which it is. Is it a contract or is it not a contract?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Go check the horses.

Mr. Warner: Throw all the Tories out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, a number of members are not allowing other members to ask questions. This is question period so as many members can ask questions as possible.

Mr. Wildman: If the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) will permit me to ask a question, I will proceed to ask a question of his colleague the Solicitor General with regard to the lack of training for volunteer firefighters in unorganized communities in the north.

In his written answer to my question, which he tabled on January 16, the minister admitted that 28 out of a total of 98 fire teams in unorganized communities received no training at all last year. His ministry calculated that a total number of hours for training of 4,752 was required, but in fact the fire marshal's office had provided only 474 hours of training, about one tenth of what was required. Can the minister explain why he is endangering the lives of volunteer firefighters and the general public by sending these firefighters with little or no training, without proper training, to drive fire trucks in emergency situations and to try to fight fires to save lives and property?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I thank the member for Algoma for his question. The matter of safety of firefighters is always uppermost in our minds. If he will check the records of the past, he will find more hours have been spent in training these people in the unorganized districts in the past year than we have seen for some time. In our estimates for next year, we certainly will be continuing to provide that type of training. Much of the training is done by the members themselves under the district fire co-ordinator in that part of the province and we heartily endorse and lend them support in continuing it.

Mr. Wildman: Does the minister not understand that in his own written statement he told me that there were 684 hours of specialized fire truck training required and he provided 120; and that there were 420 hours of portable pump training required and he provided 84? Is he proud of that? The question I have is --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: We will continue to train firefighters in accordance with the need and as the funds are available to provide that type of training, as we have done in the past; we will continue to do so in the future.

Mr. Wildman: Provide the funds or resign.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Wildman: You have resigned once already. You cannot do the job. Resign again.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member -- if we have all calmed down now, new question.

DRUG BENEFIT FORMULARY

Mr. Leluk: I have a question to the Minister of Health. During the past month and a half, I have provided the minister with numerous pharmacy drug purchase invoices from Drug Trading and National Drug wholesalers, which have a one-drug-price policy for all purchasers. I have a computerized printout here identifying some 160 drugs, the costs of which were taken directly from these invoices, which were higher to the pharmacies than the prices listed for the same drugs in the formulary.

Mr. Callahan: Conflict.

Mr. Epp: Conflict of interest.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Would the honourable member for York West (Mr. Leluk) take his seat?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was very difficult for any of us to hear because of the unfolding of paper.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now perhaps the member would like to try his question again.

Mr. Leluk: For these 160 drugs, which have been identified from the invoices I have provided to the minister, the costs were higher to the pharmacies than the prices listed for the same drugs in the formulary, including the 10 per cent purchase allowance.

What is the minister doing to correct this intolerable situation so that the 2,000 pharmacies affected in this province are not forced to transfer their losses from these 160 drugs to the cash-paying public through their dispensing fees?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The question of the formulary has been brought to my attention by the honourable gentleman, and I must say that I --

Mr. Rae: Declare your interest.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Declare what? The leader of the third party is declaring something. I was temporarily taken off stride.

Mr. Speaker: Interjections are out of order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I will at this point thank the member for York West, who has been extremely helpful in providing information about the problems that have come up as a result of the printing of the new formulary. As the honourable gentleman knows, we are dealing with an entirely new concept called best available price, which was introduced and passed in committee with the assistance of the two opposition parties, which felt it was a good way of putting together a new program.

The member has brought to my attention and has been very helpful in addressing to us a number of the concerns that have been raised by people in the pharmacy sector of our health care services. I have indicated to him that we are reviewing the material, that we are looking at printing a new formulary and that his information will be of help to us in dealing with the difficulties we all have found are at hand.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: That being the case, I will accept further information from the gentleman as we help erase the problems.

Mr. Leluk: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Indeed.

Mr. Leluk: Although we recognize there are some growing pains with the best available price concept, the problem is not with the legislation; it is with the regulations this government has brought in to these bills. Can the minister assure this House that the cash-paying public will not continue to pay higher prescription prices than necessary because his ministry, by regulation to Bill 54, requires pharmacies to submit purchase invoices for each prescription filled where the cost of the drug is higher than BAP plus 10 per cent? Will the minister immediately revoke this regulation so that the current practice of pharmacies referred to is discontinued?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman knows full well that the question of bringing the two bills into effect will take some time, and it has taken some time for our people to deal with the questions he has raised, but he is asking me to guarantee something I cannot in terms of what happens with the price structure in pharmacies.

As the honourable gentleman knows, what the problem was originally pointed out to be by the auditor was that in fact the taxpayers of Ontario were paying too much money with respect to the delivery of the Ontario drug benefit program. We have introduced Bills 54 and 55 in a form we felt would allow us to handle the criticisms that were levelled at us by the auditor. We did so. The bills were substantially amended, and we now are working to implement those concepts in a manner that will be protective of the taxpayers of this province.

I will give the honourable gentleman the commitment of this minister that we will continue to look after the needs of the taxpayers and that we will do the best we can to deal with the information he has forwarded to me in a very helpful way. For that, I thank him.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

Mr. Andrewes: On a point of information, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I think it should be a point of order or a point of --

Mr. Andrewes: A point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Try me.

Mr. Andrewes: My point of order is this, Mr. Speaker: At 1:15 p.m. today we were told by the government House leader's office that there would be no ministers absent from question period. We have yet to see the presence of the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara), the minister responsible for the youth secretariat, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

[Failure of sound system]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PAY EQUITY ACT (CONTINUED) / LOI DE 1986 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ SALARIALE (SUITE)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 154,

An Act to provide for Pay Equity in the Broader Public Sector and in the Private Sector.

Suite du débat ajourné sur la motion de deuxième lecture du projet de loi 154, Loi portant établissement de l'équité salariale dans le secteur parapublic et dans le secteur privé.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House now is ready to debate Bill 154, in case some of you did not hear that.

Mr. Harris: I believe I adjourned the debate on this bill when we were debating it last week. I was pleased to adjourn the debate at that time. Today I am pleased to turn the debate over to my esteemed colleague the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), who I know is ready to roll.

The Deputy Speaker: Any questions and comments of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris)? I see a multitude of people standing up. Do any of those people wish to ask questions of the member for Nipissing or make comments? I see the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) standing. Is this debate? No. Therefore, the member for Sudbury appears to be next.

Mr. Gordon: I thank the Speaker for concurring that I am next in the debate on Bill 154. Of course, my House leader had something to say about it as well. I think any discussion of Bill 154 --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the member please take his seat? Let us just wait until things settle down a little. Everyone is having trouble hearing you.

Mr. Gordon: I think any discussion of Bill 154 should lay out some parameters as to exactly what the situation is at present for women in Ontario, and we could also say in Canada and North America. It would perhaps be fitting at this time to point to an

article that was written by Judge Rosalie Abella, who carried out a royal commission which dealt some time ago with the whole question of women, equality, pay equity and so forth.

If I might quote from an

article she wrote, she said -- and I think this is the heart of the matter -- "The essence of equality for women now and in the future is that in their options, which may or may not include the selection of a traditional role, they face no greater economic liability than would a man, and that, in whatever employment environment they choose, they receive the same benefit for their contribution as would a man."

This is really the heart of the debate. For too many years, women have faced the problem of being underrepresented in practically every occupational category we could possibly look at or discuss within the framework of what we call the world of work in Ontario, in Canada or in the rest of North America. I will be referring a little later on to some statistics and facts which will highlight that and bring the point of this debate to a clearer description.

In any discussion of Bill 154, I will have to make it clear that from my own point of view and from the point of view of many of my colleagues -- I wonder, Mr. Speaker, are we going to have a debate today in the House or am I going to have to compete with other people?

The Deputy Speaker: Right, thank you. The member for Sudbury is quite correct. There is altogether too much discussion and too much noise going on. Would members please break it up or carry on their conversations elsewhere?

Mr. Gordon: Thank you very much.

I wonder whether many people realize just how difficult it is for women in the various occupations they are in today in this province. I wonder whether many members of the public realize how difficult it is for women to get raises in the firms with which they work. I wonder whether a lot of the members realize how hard it is for women to advance within the various governmental institutions or governments with which they work, or even in the corporate sector.

It is very difficult. One of the problems is that for too many years in our society we have viewed women as being the child-bearers. We have looked upon them as the people who should be in the home and looked upon them as people who should be relegated to that particular role. From my own point of view, one of the saddest things I have seen in my lifetime to date is the lack of opportunity and the prejudice women face in our society.

We hear a lot of talk about pay equity and about equality of opportunity for women, but in actual fact women are having just as difficult a time today as they did 50 years ago in getting jobs, in getting advancements in those jobs and in getting the kind of pay they should have in those jobs.

I have reports, surveys and studies here today showing that to be the case. We just have to look at the fact that today at least 50 per cent of those people who are graduating from university are women. Yet, if we examine the statistics, we will find those women, when they are hired, inevitably end up working in jobs where they are paid less than men who are hired for the same jobs. These are the facts. These kinds of things are still going on in 1987.

That is why I guess at times when I hear some people in our society moaning and groaning about a bill like Bill 154, moaning and groaning about how this is a terrible infringement upon the business world, that it is a terrible infringement even on various government bodies -- municipalities, school boards or whatever -- I just wonder whether these people are living in the same century as I am. I am just kind of wondering whether those people have daughters. I am just kind of wondering whether they view women as human beings the same as they are.

I think that is one of our problems today, that we are still in our society not treating women as persons. We are not treating them with the same kind of equality, with the same kind of outlook as we find men are being treated, and it is not right at all.

I would like to take a few moments to back up the point of view I express today with some statistics that I think help to narrow the parameters of this debate and perhaps will help all Ontarians to understand better the genesis of Bill 154. Actually, Bill 154, as many people know, is the question of pay equity, is the question of seeing that women who work in certain jobs are paid for the value of what they are doing at the same rate as someone who is doing a similar job, be it male or so forth.

I would like to take this time to point out a few statistics to the people who are here. As I mentioned earlier, a royal commission report was done by Judge Rosalie Abella, called Equality in Employment, and the commission was called the Commission of Inquiry on Equality in Employment. The report was brought down in October 1984.

One of the things the judge did was to look at a certain number of what she called designated federal crown corporations. I use these for the purposes of example only. She looked at 11 federal crown corporations. Crown corporations are, as members know, government-owned corporations and really represent a broad range of occupations and activities as carried out by crown corporations in this country today.

These corporations are such corporations as Air Canada. Everybody is aware of what Air Canada does. It flies not only across Canada; Air Canada flies not only in and out of Sudbury. I want members to know too, those members on the other side -- if I might just digress for a moment so that the members opposite will find this more interesting -- that the next time they go up to Sudbury and want to leave a cheque there, I can assure them Air Canada is a very good airline and it would not hurt at all to use it. Mind you, if they happen to use Air Ontario, I would say to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) it too is owned by Air Canada and we have excellent service.

Air Canada was one of those corporations, as were Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., Canada Post Corp., Canadian Broadcasting Corp., Canadian National Railways, De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd., the Export Development Corp., the Federal Business Development Bank, PetroCanada and Teleglobe Canada.

I think all members in this House would say that that was a very representative group of occupations in the country today, and I ask them to remember that these are government crown corporations. We are not talking here about business corporations in this province or in this country; we are talking about the crown corporations. Usually, one would expect that crown corporations would be the most enlightened in their approach to women and to the kinds of occupations women have and the kind of pay they receive. I would like to take a few minutes to point out what happened when the good judge looked at these corporations.

First, let us find out how many people were involved in the corporations. She found that the 11 corporations employed more than 175,000 people in July 1983, and of these, more than 79 per cent were men and 21 per cent were women. She also found in her examination that, taken as a whole, the corporations employ a significantly lower percentage of women than are found in the general labour force, where they constitute more than 40 per cent.

Then she goes on to talk about the variations and the occupational categories. She makes the point that of the 5,052 employees hired by these corporations in the one-year period from 1982 to 1983, 27 per cent were women. She also points out the percentage of women hired as permanent employees in all 11 corporations during the 12-month period, and she says that about one in every three people hired at the middle management level was a woman. The same was true at the semi-professional and technical levels and at the supervisory level.

On the other hand, almost 1,100 people were hired during the 12-month period at the unskilled level, and only 15 of them were female. In the category of skilled work, 195 people were hired, only 14 of whom were female. Moreover, all 14 were hired by one corporation, which was the CBC. In the semi-skilled category, 1,120 people were hired, only 101 of them female. Again, she is making the point that when it comes to being hired in these 11 crown corporations, women are always found to have the lowest numbers.

More than half the women taken on permanently were hired for clerical positions. In some corporations, as many as eight or nine of every 10 women employed were hired for clerical positions, frequently the lowest-paid positions in the corporation. Whatever advances have been made, the 11 corporations still have far to go in providing equal employment opportunities for women.

The judge goes on to say the female participation rate in categories offering the greatest economic opportunities in 1983 was generally low. The male representation in job categories in these 11 crown corporations was as follows: 96.3 per cent male in upper-level management. Where are the women in the upper levels? They are not there. It is 89.5 per cent male in middle management. Again, where are the women?

This report came out in 1983, and we view ourselves as a progressive, enlightened society, a society that makes great advances in many areas. We can go to the moon, we can invent space shuttles, we can invent and use better subway systems in Metropolitan Toronto and we can have better transportation systems between various cities in our country. Yet when it comes to the hiring of women, when it comes to women getting ahead in various corporations, be they crown corporations or private businesses, the women just are not there.

The figures were 92.1 per cent male in professional occupations -- in other words, 92.1 per cent of those in professional occupations in those 11 corporations were male, not female; 83.5 per cent male in semi-professional and technical occupations; and, finally, 59.7 per cent male in supervisory, such as clerical, sales and service positions.

These were the statistics as she found them in 1983. Then she went back and talked about 1978. Let us find out whether things have improved that much. That is one thing we should try to ascertain in this House today. What did she find? She said of these figures, which I just related to you, which were for the 1982-83 period in the 11 crown corporations, "in relation to 1978 this does not represent a significant change from the male representation in 1978 when it was 98.9 per cent male in upper-level management, 93.9 per cent male in middle management, 93.8 per cent male in professional occupations and 89.8 per cent male in semiprofessional and technical occupations."

Quite frankly, it is clear that women today in Ontario and in this country are still being held back by the prejudices of our society. Our society, the culture we live in, has a built-in prejudice and discrimination when it comes to women. I do not see that we have changed that much in our society as yet.

There will be some people who will say: "Wait. Look, Jim, we have heard the various ministers of this government. We have heard people at the federal level talking about women, talking about the great advances that are going to be made in the future, talking about all the wonderful things, all the wonderful services that are going to be there for women."

In actual fact, to change the kind of society we live in today to a society that treats women as persons, that gives women equal opportunity, whether it be for pay, for advancement or to get a job, is going to require the efforts of each and every one us, not only in this House but also in every institution and every business in this province. It is going to require a well thought out and intensive rethink of how we look at women in our world today.

The members might say: "Come on, Jim, are you not stretching it a bit? Are you not being a little hard on us?" I think statistics are quite clear as to where women are in the world today in our society and how hard it is for them.

In case the members think it is not hard, when the average male goes into a company to apply for a job, the person who is hiring, the personnel manager, does not usually ask him: "How many children do you plan on having? Are you married? Are you planning on having a baby? What are your plans? Do you mind travelling? How about being away from Sudbury or from Toronto overnight? Do you think you could handle that?"

Do the members think men are asked those kinds of questions? Men are not asked those kinds of questions when they go in to get a job. But in 1987, right now, when women go in to apply for jobs even though, according to the Human Rights Code, there all kinds of questions that are not supposed to be asked of people, these questions are asked of women.

The members might ask: "Why do the women not complain? How come we do not hear about it in this Legislature?" Let us take a typical female university graduate today, a woman who is going out to apply for a job. Let us suppose she is asked the questions I just indicated. Do the members think she is going to go to her MPP and complain? No way. She wants to get a job. She does not want to be branded as somebody who is a troublemaker before she even gets her first job. That is the way it is out there.

I know of an instance where, in 1986, one of the top companies in the copying field in Ontario suggested to a young lady who was being interviewed for a job that she stood a better chance for a job with that company because of her anatomy. When was the last time any of us went out for a job and it was suggested to us that perhaps we would stand a better chance of getting a job, let us say here in this Legislature or maybe with some crown corporation or some business, because of our anatomy?

That is one of the problems that is faced by women in the world today. I have no sympathy at all for people who write articles talking about the problems that might occur because of this pay equity legislation. I will read members a little comment out of one article. The headline is "Pay Equity Legislation Can Seriously Hurt the Economy and Women."

Before I read it, I would like to refer to another one. This is a very interesting book, for those who want to read it. It is called Working Canadians: Readings in the Sociology of Work and Industry. I recommend it to anyone who wants to develop a little more enlightened attitude towards the problems that are faced by women in our society today.

I would like to read the members a few lines from this book, which came out recently; it re-emphasizes the problems faced by women in the world of work. The editor says:

"The work of women has historically gone unrewarded and unrecognized, largely because they have toiled within the confines of the home as wife and mother. At the turn of the century, only 16 per cent of Canadian women worked outside the home for pay and, with the exception of the two world wars when women temporarily filled the jobs of men who had gone off to fight, it is only since the 1950s that we have witnessed a dramatic increase in female labour force participation. Highlighting this trend has been the employment of married women, to the point where now over half of all wives are holding paying jobs."

In one particular

chapter they point out:

"It graphically portrays how the majority of working women are trapped in low-level, dead-end and poorly paying jobs in the clerical, sales, service and light manufacturing sectors."

They also point out -- and I think this is particularly interesting; certainly it jumped right out at me:

"Remarkably, the same job ghettos have accounted for the bulk of female employment since the early 20th century. This fact underlines the formidable hurdles women encounter when trying to improve their work situations. Clerical work is a good example of a typical female occupation."

With that bit of information, I would like to relate a few points from another

article that came out recently. I read the title a minute ago; it was "Pay Equity Legislation Can Seriously Hurt the Economy and Women." This is what this author says. I am just going to read a few lines. This is the kind of scare tactics that are used by some authorities. They call themselves authorities, but they are really hacks or shills for certain types of people.

It says, referring to the pay equity legislation, "Such legislation poses a threat to individual freedoms." I do declare. Mr. Speaker, did you hear that? This was actually printed. This actually turned up in the Ottawa Citizen. This

article comes from our fair capital of Ottawa. It says this pay equity legislation "poses a threat to individual freedoms." Whose freedom?

We have gone through the statistics on what exactly are the problems faced by women today, in 1987, in our society. This person has the audacity to say it is going to hurt individual freedoms.

Mr. Breaugh: Who said it?

Mr. Gordon: We will get to who said it in a minute. The author goes on to say, "Lurking" -- listen to that word; I wonder whether that person had to go to a dictionary to look up that word -- "Lurking beneath the attractive veneer are serious negative repercussions for business, especially small business, and consequently, bad news for women, the group the concept is intended to benefit." It goes on to say, "Indeed, the pay equity wolf is a proposal for extensive and heavy-handed regulation swathed in sheep's clothing."

One would think that by now an individual would find that attitude very difficult, if he were thoughtful in any way, shape or form and was looking at what women are faced with in our society when it comes to getting jobs, getting ahead and the kinds of advancement they would like to have.

What really points it out is another

article I came across --

Mr. Breaugh: No, wait a minute; who said it?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member will present his speech in the way he wishes without interjections.

Mr. Gordon: Another

article -- which again, lo and behold, turned up in Ottawa, the capital of this great country of ours -- was one written in the business

section of the Ottawa Citizen. The title of the

article was "Trapped by the Glass Ceiling." We all know what pay equity is supposed to do. Pay equity is supposed to attempt to provide more money and equity when it comes to dollars and cents for women who are trapped in what we call the job ghettos in our society.

How are women doing in the other areas of our society? How are they doing in corporations? Are they really getting ahead or are they having a difficult time? This

article points out some of the other features and the other problems women are faced with. For example, it says here, "But for all the changes, women executives still find that their advancement up the corporate ladder is blocked by what they call an invisible barrier or a glass ceiling, transparent enough to provide a view of the chief executive suite but tough to break through."

It also points out what women make. This survey was done in the United States, but the same statistics will apply here in Canada. Let us talk about money. It says: "In the United States, just one per cent of working women earned more than $50,000 last year, compared with nine per cent of men.

Not even one in 10 women earned $30,000 or more compared with one in three men." It says, "It is rare for women executives to get jobs paying $100,000 or more, along with the usual stock options and bonuses that men get." The author points out, "There are several reasons for the impasse, ranging from the male manager's discomfort with female executives to the pressures of balancing work and family life, which increasingly lead women to choose less conventional career paths."

A study was done by management consultant Allan Cox, who wrote the book Inside Corporate America. This book is very interesting because it has a very extensive survey in it. Cox surveyed 1,200 executives in 13 major companies. This is what he found. He said, "Male managers generally agree that women should be promoted but preferably in someone else's department."

As I said earlier in my talk today, this society needs more than a pay equity bill, it needs more than just laws that say you cannot do this or that when it comes to people who are disadvantaged, whether they be women, whether they be the disabled or so forth. What we need in our society is an all-out frontal attack through the various institutions that we have, whether they be educational institutions, whether they be through the institutions of the church or government, to see that there is an attitudinal change within our society and within our culture when it comes to viewing women and how they relate to the rest of society.

Members might think: "So what? Women can wait another 50 years." I can tell them that women are not going to wait another 50 years. Women today are just as well educated as men. As time goes on they are not going to put up with the kinds of discrimination and prejudice they have been facing to date. Any government that does not recognize that is going to be a government in trouble.

That is why this government, I would have to say, and I am looking for it to bring in -- and I know perhaps some of the members of the New Democratic Party will howl and scream, when they hear me say this, "How can you say that?" I am going to say it anyway. One of the fundamental matters that has to be dealt with in future in legislation is the whole question of day care.

Without day care, the 50 per cent of those women who are working today and who have families are not going to be able to look to getting better jobs with the pay that is going to come with it and are not going to be able to say yes to a personnel manager who says to them, "Are you going to be able to travel?" because they know there is not going to be someone there to take care of their children. Those women are going to know that they are not going to be able to develop their potentialities as persons in our society to their fullest.

This is the sad thing, to think that there are people in our society who have the ability, the brains and the talent and are not being given the opportunity. Anyone who looks at it from that point of view is going to say that we cannot do enough to right these wrongs.

Nevertheless, going back to this article, as I indicated, Allan Cox, who wrote Inside Corporate America, went on to say, "In fact, 28 per cent of top management and 29 per cent of middle managers say women are unlikely to be promoted as fast as their male counterparts."

Even if you do get out of the ghetto, even if you do get out of those jobs, those areas where women traditionally are being slotted in, you have many obstacles and hurdles to get by. He goes on to say: "Male executives are often disturbed by the thought of a woman filling their wingtips. Usually, the male is threatened because his identity as a male and his job are intermeshed." He goes on to say: "Most corporate cultures are patterned on male models. The preferred leadership style is still based on the paramilitary mode of the tough, competitive, rational, impersonal, strategic leader."

I think that is something that perhaps should give us pause, because there is more than one way to run a corporation, there is more than one way to run a department of a government. I think that one of the greatest things I find when I work with women is that they bring a conciliatory, co-operative and usually a consensus manner to solving job problems. I think that if we could blend together the two models -- the female approach and the male approach -- not only would businesses and the government be better run, but we would also see that even our health, from the point of view of the male health pattern, would improve dramatically.

I really believe one of the reasons we see so many heart attacks among men is that we tend to fall into what we call the more macho way of approaching problems and tie up our egos in this male way of doing things. As a result, by the time a man gets to be 50, if he has not had one heart attack or some other disease, he is well on his way to something that is going to drag him down. I believe a lot of that comes from the way in which we approach problems in life.

In conclusion, until we recognize the role that women can play as persons in our society, until we recognize that legislation such as the legislation we have before us today is needed and is necessary, then our society is going to be the less for it.

Mr. Rae: I rise to wind up the debate for our party on this very important measure. I want to begin by congratulating my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes), who has done such a magnificent job on behalf of our party, not only with respect to this particular bill but also with respect to Bill 105, which of course is the measure that deals with the public sector, which we have done our best to amend.

The issue of equal pay is one that goes back many years in this legislature. It goes back farther than that in the experience of the working people of this province, but from my time in the Legislature, I can recall the beginnings of a resurgence of interest in this issue in the mid-1980s, given the fact that this Legislature passed, back in 1979, a private member's bill moved by Mr. Bounsall, who at the time was the member for Windsor-Sandwich and who is now a member of Windsor council.

There is a very substantial consensus in the House that there is a need to do something through the process of law to recognize the extraordinary discrimination which exists against women, particularly with regard to pay. It is one of the astounding features of life that it has taken the Liberal government this long to realize that there is this consensus in the House.

One would think that the Liberals' reluctance to move on this issue was related to their fear that there was going to be some sort of reaction from members of the Legislature who would be in opposition to the bill. Listening to the member for Sudbury, as I have done this afternoon, we are keenly aware that there is no resistance in the ranks of the Tory party to this issue. There appears to be a very substantial consensus. What is shocking really is, first, the length of time it has taken the Liberals to move; and second, the very real problems that exist with respect to Bill 154, problems that we are going to be addressing in committee and that I want to touch on.

I want to start by saying that when it comes to the basic question of equal pay, equal pay legislation is, in our view, only part of a broader strategy for equality. Equal pay legislation is an essential tool in the valuation of women's work and in the valuation of work in general -- when I say "women's work," I mean the work to which women have traditionally been consigned and the valuation society has placed upon it -- but it is only part of a broader strategy.

If we do not have a clear declaration and reality in public policy that children will have access to child care and that the child care will be guaranteed to be of high quality, and if we do not have affirmative action programs in place that ensure women are going to have access to jobs which up until now they have traditionally been denied access to, then our equal pay legislation is not going to do what needs to be done.

I simply want to say on behalf of our party that we regard this step as the very least a government should be taking. I want to repeat what I started out by saying; that is it is incredible to me, as the leader of the New Democratic Party, that it has taken the government this long to decide the time is finally right for some moves.

This bill has been much trumpeted by the government and by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who is the minister responsible for the bill. It has been much trumpeted by the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who, on many occasions while in opposition, told everybody how strongly he felt about this measure. When one measures the bill actually before us in comparison with those statements, it is really quite striking how very modest this legislation is.

Let me very briefly stress our concerns with this bill. Our particular concerns are as follows. First, the government seems to be assuming that wages can be restrained in order to pay for equal pay.

Second, the government has introduced a bill that assures it will be at least a decade before a number of women are genuinely receiving equal pay. The length of time that is going to be required to close the gap will take us well into the years 1995, 1996 and 1997. If the Liberal Party thinks it has somehow solved the issue of equal pay with this legislation, it is sadly mistaken, because it must recognize that women -- and indeed an increasingly large number of men -- who are the alleged beneficiaries of this legislation are going to wonder why it is taking so long for the legislation to affect them.

Third, the problem of coverage of the legislation has been dealt with on many occasions by my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre and others. We are not satisfied with legislation that excludes large numbers of women from the legislation.

Finally, we have to find a better way to integrate this legislation with our collective bargaining laws and our collective bargaining reality. That has not been done in this legislation, and we expect it will be done after we have finished amending the process.

I want to issue one final warning to the government. A great many people out there have felt for some time that the Liberal Party has never really been serious about this measure. I think it is fair to say there are a number of footprints in the sand which indicate that is not an entirely incorrect assumption. For example, there is the length of time it has taken the government to bring this measure forward. There were the number of task forces, reviews, committees, task forces, committees and reviews before any legislation was brought forward.

We have the statement by the Attorney General at the time that we amended Bill 105 that it was either his way or the doorway with respect to that bill.

We have a government which, frankly, when it has come to dealing with the reality of a minority parliament, has not shown the kind of respect for the wishes of parliament I expected from a government that has 51 members. We have a continuing sense that this issue is not the highest priority of the government.

One of the problems of our parliamentary system is that while opposition parties can amend, governments can pull bills and control more or less the timetable of legislation. It is not open to us now to attempt to reform that process. I happen to believe it is one of the major problems of the parliamentary system, in that the executive, even in a minority parliament, has quite extraordinary powers in relationship to the number of votes it has received and in relationship to the number of members it has.

I want to say to the Liberal Party today that this is an accord item; this is an area which was negotiated quite specifically and quite clearly between our two parties. It is an area that was discussed not only by our two negotiating teams but also by the Premier and myself. We do not expect or anticipate any further delay with regard to equal pay. We do not expect delay with regard to the legislation, we do not expect delay with regard to implementation and we do not expect delay with regard to amendments which we know are going to be forthcoming from this side and which we hope will be supported by other parties and by other members of the House.

Having said that, I want to indicate that our party will, of course, be supporting this legislation as it goes to committee, that we will be amending it and that we will be improving it. The challenge for all of us is to see this not as an end but as a beginning of a recognition of a fundamental reality of our lives together in the family of Ontario, that men and women are equal, that they are to be treated equally and that they are to have equal access to the good things in life.

Mr. Partington: I am pleased to join this debate on Bill 154,

An Act to provide for Pay Equity in the Broader Public Sector and in the Private Sector. I would like to emphasize the

preamble contained on page 4 of the bill, which states, "Whereas it is desirable that affirmative action be taken to redress gender discrimination in the compensation of employees employed in female job classes in the broader public sector and in the private sector in Ontario...."

We can all agree with the commitment expressed by the government in the opening statement of the green paper on pay equity, namely, that the achievement of equal opportunity and social justice for all Ontarians should be fundamental and unalterable. I agree in principle with this bill, with the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, that when nongender-related factors that influence pay are taken into account, payment for work performed by women that is equivalent in value to that performed by men in the same establishment should be the same.

However, the implementation of the pay equity concept must not adversely affect the economic viability of Ontario's private and public sectors. Accordingly, it is important that this bill be referred to committee, so we may hear from the many associations, individuals, municipalities and corporations, both large and small, which can provide insight into how this legislation will affect their activities, their wellbeing and their existence and what amendments may be necessary to ensure that the act, when implemented, will not only effect pay equity but also will do so in a manner that does not damage but enhances the economic viability and vitality of the private and public sectors.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario, in a response dated May 1986 to the government's green paper, states that it shares the government's commitment that the achievement of equal opportunity and social justice for all Ontarians should be fundamental and unalterable. AMO stressed that pay equity alone is not the answer but that government initiatives also must be coupled with employment equity which seeks to broaden the employment opportunities available to individuals who have not had such opportunities or have not been given opportunities to obtain qualification for certain types of employment.

AMO goes on in that response to make several recommendations, and I would like to refer to four or five of them. In that response, AMO recommends that, for the municipal sector, "establishment" be defined as that which covers all jobs within the municipal corporation, subject to differences in pay outcomes attributed to negotiated versus arbitrated settlements arising from differences in collective bargaining legislation.

In paragraph 6 on page 3 of that response, AMO further recommends that there be established a threshold of a minimum number of employees applicable to the municipal work force such that, above the threshold, the pay equity model would be an integrated model consisting of an employer-initiated pay equity plan and a complaint system, while below the threshold the pay equity model would be limited to a complaint system; and that the government consult with AMO on the actual size of the threshold to be used.

AMO, in this recommendation, is emphasizing that there are many large municipalities that can well move ahead with a pay equity plan, but there are many small municipalities in the province that certainly do not have the numbers, the money or the expertise available to implement such a plan that the larger municipalities have.

In recommendation 7 on page 4, AMO recommends that under both the pay equity plan provisions and the complaint provisions, the employer not be required to commit more than one per cent of the previous year's payroll applicable to the bargaining unit or nonbargaining unit, as the case may be, for pay equity adjustments.

In paragraph 8, AMO recommends that with its existing knowledge and expertise, the employment standards branch serve as the enforcement agency. In this recommendation, AMO is setting out a belief or a recommendation that is shared by the private sector: that is, we have an existing branch, which has expertise in all areas of labour and it is that branch that should be used instead of setting up a new commission, as the bill does, which is unrelated to general labour experience and in fact would constitute the formation of a new bureaucracy.

It is important that AMO be heard in committee, so that its concerns and recommendations may be weighed and taken into account in dealing with and in making amendments to Bill 154.

The private sector recognizes and supports the principle that equitable treatment of individuals is an issue vital to society. The Ontario Manufacturers' Association has stated that equitable access to employment, promotional opportunities and nongender-related compensation are essential in ensuring maximum effectiveness of available human resources. The private sector, however, has strong reservations about the effect that the implementation of the bill will have on small and large business and industry, on our economy and on our ability to compete in foreign markets.

Stan Hiseler, vice-president and general manager of John Deere Welland Works in Welland, Ontario, in a letter dated November 5, 1986, to the Attorney General and minister responsible for women's issues, states:

"Should you choose to continue on the pay equity legislation path, I would urge you to utilize a complaint-based model rather than the employer-initiated or integrated approach. Not only is the complaint-based concept well founded in our common law notions of fairness -- that is, that a person is innocent until proved guilty -- but it would avoid the tremendously expensive burden that small companies will be exposed to and will avoid the unnecessary addition of a large bureaucracy to administer and monitor such a proactive approach."

Mr. Hiseler has pointed out the need in his case in favouring the complaint-based approach and is concerned about the tremendous expense that companies may be put to to hire lawyers, consultants and other experts in order to put together a plan which may not be necessary in the instance.

The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto which opposes this legislation -- at least, it appears to in the brief -- also cautions us about the potential cost and destruction of the current economic system. It starts by referring to statistics on page 9 of its brief; and that brief was a submission on equal pay for work of equal value, dated October 1985, as I indicated, by the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto.

In that brief, the board, for example, indicates that women's income in 1981-82 increased 3.8 per cent more than men's. For the period 1978-82, women's wages increased 1.31 times more than men's. It then goes on to talk about education where, between 1972 and 1982, the percentage of full-time women undergraduates increased by nine per cent and full-time graduates increased by 12.5 per cent.

It further says that the percentage of women receiving first degrees rose from 37.5 per cent in 1972 to 51.9 per cent in 1982, in masters' degrees from 23.7 per cent to 40.4 per cent and in doctorates from 9.3 per cent to 25.6 per cent. The board is indicating in this brief the tremendous advances in women's involvement in our society over those years.

It further indicates that between 1971 and 1981 in the work force women's participation increased substantially, in some cases dramatically: in managerial-administrative, 16.2 per cent to 26 per cent; in social sciences, 39 per cent to 53.5 per cent; in artistic-literary, 28.9 per cent to 40.8 per cent; and in sales, 32 per cent to 43 per cent.

The board of trade goes on to state that all of this means that the wage gap problem is diminishing in the absence of equal value legislation. This can be attributed to two causes. First, any discrimination that did exist in the market is being eradicated by normal human rights and employment standards legislation, as well as changing attitudes. Second, women's attitudes are changing; their priorities are resulting in different career objectives.

Before I finish with the brief of the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, I might say that Judith Andrew, the director of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, in an address delivered to the Corpus Information Services conference in March 1986 stated that Statistics Canada data on proprietorships show that 30 per cent were owned and operated by women in 1981, an increase from 11 per cent in the mid-1960s. This impressive growth continues. Recently, women have been starting businesses at three times the rate of men.

Further, in 1985, 40 per cent of women identified in 20,000 personal interviews were holding managerial-supervisory positions. The board of trade and Mrs. Andrew suggest that the improvement of women in the work place is taking place by natural market causes.

I might indicate, in conclusion that the brief of the board of trade makes two references. I will mention these two only to indicate the board of trade's concern. It says the US Commission of Civil Rights has stated, "We recommend that the federal civil rights enforcement agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, reject comparable work," which is the American equivalent of equal pay for work of equal value, "and rely instead on the principle of equal pay for equal work"; which is similar to the present law in Ontario, which is equal pay for substantially equal work.

In summation, they indicate: "Equal value is questionable in principle. It presumes that the wage gap is caused by discrimination. This is simply incorrect. It assumes that jobs have inherent value. This is incorrect. It assumes that objective job evaluations are possible. This is simply not true. Equal value would involve the expansion of public bureaucracy at the expense of our pocketbooks and our personal liberty."

That is what the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto has concluded. I am sure when the bill is referred to committee they will be able to come forward and, from the private sector's point of view, share some of the many concerns that are held by people in the private sector.

We have heard from the small business community, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which indicates that small businesses, firms with under 50 employees, provide one third of private sector workers and are most affected by the burden of government regulations. The federation reminds us that the number of firms to be exempted from the regulations -- I will pass on that.

The current legislation provides that the act does not apply to businesses or industry with fewer than 10 employees. Of course, the act goes on to provide that all employers in the broader public sector and those employers in the private sector who employ at least 100 employees will be required to develop and implement pay equity plans. Employers with more than nine and fewer than 100 employees may prepare and implement pay equity plans but are not required to do so.

There are those who think the levels are too high and there are those who think there should be no exemptions from this legislation. It is clear to me that the provisions of the act dealing with the various thresholds must be examined to determine whether the elimination of that limit of fewer than nine employees is reasonable or whether the level of nine employees or fewer being exempt from the act should be increased. For example, should it be 15, 20, 50 or even 100?

In regard to firms with fewer than 100 employees which are exempt from filing a pay equity plan, but otherwise complaint-based, should that number be raised and by how much? In regard to those required to file a plan under the act, now set at 100 or more, should that level be raised; and if so by how much?

We need the committee hearings and input from the private sector to arrive at accurate, reasonable thresholds, so that we may create a reasonable balance to ensure that with pay equity we will continue to maintain, as I indicated earlier, a viable, thriving private and public sector economy. Furthermore, input is required into the categories of exemptions under

section 7 of the act.

Finally, the committee must hear representations concerning the suggestions from AMO and most business organizations that the pay equity branch be administered under the Employment Standards Act. We do not need the creation of a new bureaucracy. We do not want a government tribunal without expertise in other areas of employment. I quote from a news release of the Canadian Organization of Small Business with respect to equal pay for work of equal value. The press release states:

"The proposed pay equity legislation, in its item 5, will not be fairly applied by a special government tribunal without expertise in any other areas of employment law or good personnel management. Unlike the employment standards branch of the Ministry of Labour, which must referee and arbitrate provincial employment standards laws with due regard for the respective rights and responsibilities of employers and employees, a special pay equity enforcement agency would operate without reference to other provincial employment laws or the political, social and economic checks and balances that they reflect.

Such an agency would not take long to acquire the reputation for tunnel vision and systematic anti-employer bias which are already far too obvious in the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Labour Relations Board."

That is a statement of the Canadian Organization of Small Business. It is a concern it has and is a reason it would like to see the pay equity legislation, when implemented, under the employment standards legislation and not under a special commission.

Mr. McClellan: What group was that?

Mr. Partington: The Canadian Organization of Small Business.

Before I conclude my comments, I would like to share with the members the views of two of the small business advisory groups that have spent a good deal of time examining the pay equity issue, namely, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Organization of Small Business. Led by individuals such as Judith Andrew and Geoffrey Hale, these organizations have made it clear that our small business sector is being overwhelmed by, in Ms. Andrew's words, "incredible mountains of red tape, regulations and paper burden which plague business, especially small business, on all fronts." Pay equity legislation is seen as increasing this already excessive burden.

One member of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had the following comments to make about the imposition of pay equity legislation. I would like to quote from a letter attached to the previous brief I referred to of Judith Andrew. This gentleman is talking about comparable worth.

"I am almost two years past retirement age. My brother, who is my partner, is seven years past. This is our doing because we enjoy our work, meeting the public that come into our store, and we have no complaint except that during my 40 years behind the counter and my brother's 52 years, we have seen a great many changes. Business has become quite complex.

"We have store clerks, plumbers and electricians in our business, and over the years you would never find any two people in these departments that are worth the same money, even though they might be doing the same work. One you might have to spend some time explaining what he or she has to do and the other just goes ahead and does it without hesitation; both the same job. One might take an hour and the other two hours; both the same job. Most of these previous examples are men, but the same holds true for women."

He goes on to say: "What I am trying to get at is the fact that many people doing even the same job are not comparable. Personality, adeptness with hands, thinking power, appearance, outlook on life, willingness to learn are all intangibles that enter into the lifeblood of any business, big or small, regardless. Wages are not a cure. Most often they are a curse because when a good worker sees a slacker being paid the same amount, it usually adversely affects the work of the better worker. The one who says we are all equal is just whistling in the dark. We never have been and never will be. Brains, ability, circumstances, opportunities and imagination play too much a

part in our makeup to make this possible."

In the concluding paragraph, this gentleman states: "We should try to pay people for equal value, but it is not something that can be legislated. There are too many pitfalls from outside pressures that will make the whole exercise a farce. We still have to leave it in the domain of supply and demand, which unfortunately is not perfect but is still the only way we can carry on business in a reasonable way. As always, the clarity of our members' comments remind all of us working on public policy that even the most attractive ideas, no matter how good in theory, do not always work in practice."

This letter is from what would appear to be a reasonably elderly gentleman who has worked most of his life. He agrees with the principle of treating people equally but is very concerned that the economic system that works so well be maintained. Again, I submit that as a concern that many people in the business community have. They agree with the principle of equality and nondiscrimination but they want the legislation to be implemented in a way that achieves this and also achieves economic viability for their businesses as well as the economy.

Large industry and commerce generally have in place new, rather sophisticated job evaluation systems which have attempted to place true worth on various jobs and, in doing so, have eliminated sex discrimination in their work force. I am told that, regardless of the system in place, there will always be gaps; the rate for a particular job will not attract workers for that job and a vacancy will develop. Whether that vacancy is for skilled surveyors or tool and die makers or some other occupation or profession, the fact is that market forces always play a

part in determining wages.

Except for the temporary skills shortage category contained in subsection 7(8) of Bill 154, it appears that the act has written market forces out of consideration. Clearly, market forces must continue to be recognized in any viable economy. Those appear to be the sentiments of the business community. Many of the large industries that have systems already in place which tend to judge jobs on merit and responsibility in job description and have virtually eliminated sex discrimination will acknowledge that, as perfect as they can be, the gaps will occur. There will be vacancies that require special treatment. Market forces will always play a

part in determining wages.

Before concluding, I will reiterate the views of Geoffrey Hale with respect to certain principles of employment as he sees them in representing the voice of a great many businesses in our society. Although the leader of the third party might disagree, at least he should be prepared to listen to them inasmuch as many of them may be some of his constituents.

The fact is that employment laws should be simple, understandable and easy to administer. They should promote and facilitate voluntary compliance by both employers and employees rather than requiring an army of government inspectors and consultants to enforce the law. They should be fair and be seen to be fair by both large and small employers, unionized and nonunionized employees. This implies checks and balances in which both employers and employees have more or less equal rights and responsibilities under the law. They should reconcile social objectives with the realities of an open and competitive economy.

I am sure that when the bill is referred to committee, in addition to advancing the many valid reasons equal pay for work of equal value is a principle that is supported by all of us and must be advanced, the business community will have an opportunity to make its presentations so that the bill, when it is introduced, will be in a form which will enable business and industry to continue to ensure that Ontario continues in a strong, healthy economic position, not only internally but as it deals with external markets.

In any event, these are benchmarks against which this legislation will be judged and as legislators we must ensure that our pay equity legislation meets the standards of fair play, as Mr. Hale has outlined.

Having said all this, I want to make it clear I believe we can, we will and indeed we must implement a pay equity plan that will achieve equal opportunity and social justice for all Ontarians, fundamental, unalterable, and at the same time enhancing the economic viability of Ontario's private and broader public sector and maintaining the principles clearly enunciated by Mr. Hale.

Ms. Gigantes: I have a comment. After listening to the contribution of the previous speaker, I realize that we have come a long way, because while the attitudes may not have changed, the rhetoric has changed. It is now possible to say, "I am in favour of equal pay for work of equal value but --" That is what we just heard. I am hoping that the work we carry through in committee will not only address the concerns of Geoffrey Hale, his friends and associates, but also the women of this province.

Mr. McLean: I would like to comment briefly on the last speaker's comments. I enjoyed them very much. He made some excellent points in his address.

One of the points he made that intrigued me is that when we are dealing with Bill 154, the pay equity bill, it is not only a male-and-female issue, to my way of thinking, it is also pay equality in the sector, regardless of what one's sex is. Whether you are a taxi driver or a dispatcher, it would determine who is worth the same amount of money.

I want to compliment him on some of his comments when he was relating to those aspects of the bill, and say I enjoyed them thoroughly.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other comments or questions? If not, does the member for Brock (Mr. Partington) have any response to those brief comments by the two members?

Mr. Partington: No.

Mr. Speaker: Any further debate? If there are no other members wishing to participate in the debate, the parliamentary assistant may wish to wind up.

Mr. Ward: I want to keep my comments mercifully brief in order to avoid the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) accusing the government of foot dragging on this legislation.

I want to thank all the members who have participated in this debate and perhaps respond briefly to one of the two points that have been made. First, with regard to some of the comments of the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), the member for Sudbury and the member for Ottawa Centre, I think all of us would agree that this legislation by itself will not result in true economic equality for the women of this province; yet it is indeed a significant step forward. Obviously, the government will have to proceed with employment equity programs and better training for women. Day care is certainly an issue that relates to the ability of women to share equally in the prosperity of this province.

With regard to the member for Brock and his comments supporting the principle of pay equity but having some concerns about the implementation, it is an argument and a notion that I find quite distressing from time to time to hear. Sometimes members of the third party say the workers of this province are absolved from responsibility in this matter and they must not pay to rectify this terrible wrong that has been done over the course of time. However, to hear the member for Brock say that municipalities should not have to carry the burden of achieving pay equity or the member for Cambridge (Mr.

Barlow), my neighbour and colleague suggest that perhaps the private sector should not carry this burden alone, when one looks at the issue of pay equity and the inequality that exists in this province and the gender discrimination that has accumulated over the years, I for one do not believe any one group or any one part of our society can be absolved from the blame.

Certainly, the government has its share of blame; municipalities have their share of blame; and the bargaining agents for the workers have their share of blame over the course of history. Frankly, I believe all of them should share in rectifying this problem. The legislation we have ensures that there is some fiscal responsibility assigned to all sectors of our society.

I believe today is an important step along the road to true economic equality for the women of this province. Today we take one step closer towards achieving that dream. I want to thank all the members who participated in the debate. I am sure we are going to have some difficult discussions in committee, yet I sense there is an underlying spirit of goodwill in this Legislature and that there is truly nonpartisanship or all-party support for achieving the best possible legislation to achieve our goal.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.

Le projet de loi est déféré au Comité permanent de l'administration de la justice.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: Before I call for further orders of the day, I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his chambers.

Clerk of the House: The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour has assented:

Bill 161,

An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, 1984;

Bill 163,

An Act to repeal the Inflation Restraint Act, 1982 and the Public Sector Prices and Compensation Review Act, 1983;

Bill 164,

An Act to repeal the Farm Loans Act and the Farm Loans Adjustment Act;

Bill 165,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act, 1984 and certain other Acts in relation to Adoption Disclosure;

Bill 186,

An Act to amend the Election Finances Act, 1986.

SURVEYORS ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved second reading of Bill 127,

An Act to revise the Surveyors Act.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Today I am pleased to begin discussions of a bill that will continue the updating and improving process for Ontario's Surveyors Act. When I say discussion, I hope it is going to be very brief because we have circulated the bill and I am sure most members on the other side are supportive, with the moving of one amendment which I am prepared to accept.

There h