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

December 18, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SERVICES FOR THE HEARING-IMPAIRED

Mr Curling: I want to speak briefly today about the need for a regional resource centre for the deaf and hard of hearing of northeastern Ontario.

Presently, travel distances for clients of the Canadian Hearing Society in northeastern Ontario can be as much as 800 kilometres, and travel to the society's facilities in Sudbury can take as long as 12 hours in inclement weather. These distances make it very difficult, and sometimes impossible, for the deaf and hard of hearing to access programs and services which may require training periods of up to 12 weeks.

A regional resource centre, with space for short-term residency, would help fill the enormous service gap for the deaf and hard of hearing that exists in northeastern Ontario.

I would like also to take a moment to commend Doris Schwar, Ruth Fulks, Mr Bill Ross, Mr Graydon and Lions International for their work and support of this project proposal.

The Canadian Hearing Society's northeastern life skills and literacy program also deserves special mention. The program provides deaf and hard-of-hearing adults with an opportunity to master American sign language, learn literacy and numeracy skills and interact with both deaf and hearing communities.

These are valuable services; a regional resource centre would ensure that they would be available to all who required them throughout northeastern Ontario. They deserve the full support of the government.

Mr Hugh Doig from Sudbury is also here in the west gallery. I would like to thank members very much.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Arnott: I am rising today to express my profound, in fact grave, concern about the government's radical proposal to amend the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The Minister of Labour's discussion paper on proposed labour law amendments means that the worst nightmare of every small business person has come true. The NDP government wants to make it easy for unions to gain a foothold in the workplace of every business, large and small, and once there, to give them the power to dictate the terms of surrender.

These proposals are unacceptable to the people of my riding. Never before in the history of Ontario has a government been so blatantly antibusiness, so callous and contemptuous in its disregard of the need for ongoing job creation and so blind to the threatening spectre of militant trade unionism. In Wellington county small business people, many of whom work 60 to 80 hours per week, risk their capital. The visionaries, the entrepreneurs, people who strive for excellence, people who create the jobs we need -- the business people of Wellington -- feel besieged by this government.

This government is proceeding with this initiative at the worst possible time in the economic cycle. When business people are looking for a positive expression from this government, any positive expression of confidence in the future, when they are looking for a lifeline, they are being thrown an anvil. The Minister of Labour should announce today that he is shelving his proposed reform of the Ontario Labour Relations Act and extend business people that lifeline.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Johnson: At this time of the year, we as individuals stop to reflect on our past accomplishments, and certainly this government in the province of Ontario is stopping to reflect on its past accomplishments this year. I am very proud to be a part of this government.

Ontario is in the worst recession it has seen in 60 years. This is not the fault of the present government, but it is a situation this government has had to deal with. It has had to make some very serious and difficult decisions. These decisions have made sure that the people in Ontario, those who are most vulnerable, will not suffer through this very difficult time.

These decisions are the sorts of decisions I am not certain other governments would have made. Certainly neither the Tories nor the Liberals have had to govern in a time as difficult as the time we find ourselves in right now. I think this government has managed very well. It has done some things that other governments, I have no doubt, would not have done. As I said earlier, people are not suffering as a result of the very serious and important decisions this government has had to make.

It is true we find ourselves in a deficit situation, but that situation is indeed necessary to ensure that this government survives this difficult recession. We have next year to look forward to. At this point I would just like to say merry Christmas to all those people in the province of Ontario.

FAIR TAX COMMISSION

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I have examined with great interest the document entitled Community Education and Consultation Program from the Fair Tax Commission. This NDP government speaks of "distortions" in the knowledge of Ontarians and of need to "avoid working from incorrect assumptions." These words and the words that follow are very confusing. They are judgemental and perhaps worrisome.

New spin words such as "developmental strategies, animator teams, role-playing, public education methodologies, trickle-up effects, democratization of information, consultative relationships, animation projects, the recruitment of community leadership, participatory research, targeted constituencies, animator coaching" -- I could go on and on. This is all to be tied together by electronic mail, file transferring and conferencing, the cost of which will be staggering.

The people of Ontario to this point have been led to believe the tax commissioners and work groups were chosen specifically because they represent a broad cross-section of Ontarians. May I ask, does the NDP government plan to use this new group of animators to shape and direct the activities of what has been described to this point to the Ontario public as a non-political body charged with reviewing a most vital part of democratic society, the right of a government to tax its citizens? Judgement on this matter, Mr Speaker, I leave to you and to the people of Ontario.

ZEBRA MUSSELS

Mr McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister is no doubt aware of recent reports that zebra mussels have found their way into Ontario's inland waterways and now pose a threat to a substantial number of water treatment plant intake pipes, public swimming beaches, navigational buoys, fishing nets, boat hulls and hydro plant pipes, to name but a few of the areas.

In April 1991 the standing committee on resources development released its Report on Exotic Species in Ontario. This report contained 30 recommendations, including: MNR to implement measures to prevent the spread of zebra mussels from live bait collection, sale and use; MNR inspection of boats entering Ontario to ensure zebra mussels are not being transferred in live bait wells; MNR to work closely with boating and marina industries to ensure facilities and services are in place to reduce the risks of transferring zebra mussels; provincial government ministries to install signs at boat ramps explaining measures boaters can take to reduce the spread of zebra mussels.

It is my understanding that the minister has not implemented any of these recommendations. I would suggest that if he had acted on the resources development committee report, we would not have zebra mussels threatening to destroy Ontario's entire inland water system. Because of the minister's inaction, the people of Ontario have mussels in places they have never seen.

CONSTITUENCY OFFICE STAFF

Mr Fletcher: It is a pleasure for me to rise today and talk about the people who work with me in my constituency office: Heather Johnston, Susan Neath and Mary Westley.

Heather and her husband operate a farm outside the city of Guelph. She puts in a lot of time working in my office, and also working on the farm. Susan Neath, who also works in my office in Guelph, is a very dedicated worker. She has worked with small business many times and is married to a representative from the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. Mary Westley, a single parent, works in my office and takes care of her 17-year-old son, and has dedicated so much time to the office and to the people of Guelph.

Peter Cameron works with me in Toronto. He is an activist and was also a member of the Ontario Public Interest Research Group at one time and is a very good friend of Mr Ralph Nader. Virginia Wilson is an ex-reporter with the Daily Mercury in Guelph and has dedicated more time than I can ever say.

I cannot do the work I am supposed to do without these people. Without their effort and dedication I would be nothing as far as the people of Guelph are concerned. They service not only the community of Guelph but parts of the ministry I am connected with.

I wish them all a very merry Christmas and a very good new year. As I said, without them I would be nowhere.

PAY EQUITY

Ms Poole: Today marks the first anniversary since the Minister of Labour made his big, splashy announcement about the NDP's plans for pay equity.

One year ago today, on December 18, the government announced its intention to extend pay equity to 420,000 women who had not previously benefited from pay equity.

At the time of the announcement the Minister of Labour said, "There will probably be legislation in the spring." He was not too sure of what was happening, but that was the general direction. The spring came and went, and there was no legislation. There was no direction and no new policy announcement. The fall came and went, and today it has been one full year since he made that promise.

Part of the problem was that the Premier himself seemed to be quite confused. He did not seem to understand that his government had not done what it said it was going to do. The Premier's own newsletter misled people by claiming that pay equity benefits had already been extended to the 420,000 women. The provincial secretary of the NDP sent a letter to thousands of people which mistakenly claimed the NDP had implemented pay equity.

Let's be perfectly clear. It has been one year, and for one year there was no action. I would like today to send this candle over to the Premier to mark the first anniversary and say it is about time his government acted on pay equity.

HOME SHARING

Mr Jackson: Almost a year ago, I stood in this House to ask the Minister of Housing to confirm that he was going to continue to fund home sharing programs in Ontario. Many months went by before the money was finally allocated, but for a one-year term only.

Home sharing helps reduce the social isolation that seniors experience living at home, while providing safe, affordable housing alternatives through intensifying existing housing stock. Having started as a pilot project in 1985, the programs link those needing accommodation with participating individuals with extra space in their own homes. Local home sharing agencies co-ordinate meetings and provide follow-up counselling services. These agencies have to date assisted more than 4,000 households to find new and affordable accommodation.

The recent consultation paper entitled The Redirection of Long-Term Care and Support Services in Ontario stated this government's intention to direct resources towards those services which assist the elderly and the physically challenged to live independently and with dignity. Yet home sharing agencies have now been told by the NDP Ministry of Housing that there are no guarantees their programs shall continue to receive further funding.

The NPD public relations road is paved with good intentions. I call on the Housing minister to act on her government's intentions and continue to maintain funding for home sharing programs to prevent the elderly and physically challenged in Ontario from having to experience the personal ordeal of being unable to live dignified and independent lives in our society.

BOB SUGDEN

Mr Christopherson: It is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to offer my congratulations to the newly elected president of the Society of Directors of Municipal Recreation of Ontario, Mr Bob Sugden. Mr Sugden is the first Hamiltonian to serve in this distinguished position.

The Society of Directors of Municipal Recreation of Ontario represents municipal recreationists in Ontario, with a goal to promote, enhance and facilitate recreation as an essential service. On November 9, 1991, the society adopted an action agenda that will improve the quality of life in our municipalities.

The Society of Directors of Municipal Recreation of Ontario is committed to (1) community greening and enhancing natural environments, (2) active living and wellness to combat rising health costs, (3) combating the loneliness felt by older citizens and cultural diversity, (4) building strong families affected by the economic necessity of both parents working and by being single-parent families and (5) beating alienation and delinquency of youth in our cities.

The society is striving to set up an office this year with both public and private sector support. Our Minister of Tourism and Recreation has spoken to Mr Sugden and has indicated a strong willingness to work with the society.

On a personal note, I have had the pleasure of working with Bob for five years, and I am confident he will serve the Society of Directors of Municipal Recreation of Ontario with distinction.

I invite all members of this House to join me in wishing Mr Sugden and the Society of Directors of Municipal Recreation of Ontario success in achieving their important objectives, which will benefit all citizens in Ontario.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MEETING ON THE ECONOMY / RÉUNION SUR L'ÉCONOMIE

Hon Mr Rae: Members of this Legislature and the people of Ontario are painfully aware that Canada has in this year experienced the effects of a devastating recession and its accompanying unemployment, bankruptcies and dislocation. The country is still in an economic deep freeze. Every one of us here is personally familiar with the effect on families, neighbours and friends. Ontario has been especially hard hit; 80% of the jobs lost in this country in this recession have been lost in Ontario. The consequences will be with us for some time, even when the economy starts to recover.

Many of the problems we are facing are larger than the capacity of any individual government to address. There is a clear need for leaders to search for common ground and work towards recovery and reconstruction.

Since early in our mandate, I have been calling on the Prime Minister to convene a first ministers' conference on the economy precisely for the purpose of finding remedies and solutions to these economic challenges. Members will be aware that tomorrow, the premiers and leaders of the territories are assembling in Ottawa for a luncheon meeting with the Prime Minister to begin the process of putting Canadians back to work.

I want to share with the members of this Legislature today my views of what we should try to achieve at tomorrow's meeting.

Tout d'abord, nous devons concentrer nos efforts pour en arriver à une entente sur certaines initiatives spécifiques et immédiates visant à créer des emplois. Nous devons faire tout en notre possible pour que les Canadiens et les Ontariens réintègrent le marché du travail. J'ai discuté avec certains premiers ministres et je crois qu'il est juste de dire qu'ils partagent cette opinion et cet objectif. Ensemble, nous proposerons un certain nombre d'idées à la réunion.

I want to say a few words about one of the short-term proposals that this government will make tomorrow. I have already said we believe we must put in place measures that get people back to work. I will be sharing with the premiers and the Prime Minister a proposal to allow Canadians to withdraw part of their RRSP funds, without paying income tax, for home renovation or for a down payment on a home.

If we can agree to implement this proposal quickly, it will have early, positive impacts on important industries in this province and across the country. Both the Canadian Real Estate Association and construction unions have called for a similar use of RRSP funds to provide immediate economic stimulation.

It is an initiative that would create employment. With about $100 billion in RRSP funds in Canada, even a small infusion of these savings in construction and home improvement would create tens of thousands of jobs.

Other proposals, on capital works, on infrastructure, on getting people off welfare and back into the workforce and on the need for an industrial strategy, will be made as well. We want to encourage a serious discussion of practical steps we can take to make the economy as strong as it can be.

As much as I hope for some progress tomorrow on specific initiatives, it is not simply enough for a dozen elected leaders to get together for a Christmas lunch. There are major economic issues that cannot be addressed at one short meeting. Ontario continues to call for a full-fledged first ministers' conference on the economy to be held early in the new year. Many other governments share this objective. We will be pressing hard tomorrow to persuade the Prime Minister to agree.

In closing, I would like to assure members of the House and the people of Ontario that I will be doing everything I can to achieve a positive and constructive outcome tomorrow. I will want to reiterate that a full-fledged first ministers' conference on the economy must be held early next year.

I regret that Premier Bourassa will not be attending tomorrow's meeting. I will continue to encourage him to attend future meetings. The economic issues that the country must resolve require the participation of all premiers and the support of all the people of Canada.

This is only a first step. I hope the Prime Minister shares my view and that of the other premiers about the importance of demonstrating the collective determination of this country's political leaders to manage and improve the economy for the benefit of all Canadians.

PAY EQUITY

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I have the honour, together with my colleague the Chairman of Management Board, of introducing amendments to the Pay Equity Act of 1987. By doing so, this government is fulfilling its strong commitment to correct the historic and systemic undervaluation of women's work.

These amendments will introduce new methods of comparison not possible under the current act and will clarify current provisions. They will extend the coverage of the act to well over 420,000 women not currently served by the legislation.

The Pay Equity Act has changed Ontario's workplace culture by legislating against the long-standing wage discrimination experienced by women workers. Members know that the Pay Equity Act has worked remarkably well for working women. Considerable success has been achieved under the act by means of the job-to-job comparison method of implementing wage equity.

Last year I announced that the government would consult on the content of these amendments. Over the past year we have met with many groups to refine the government's approach to pay equity. We recognized that other methods can and should be used for attaining pay equity in situations where job-to-job comparisons cannot be made, such as in all-female or female-predominant workplaces.

Therefore, the first amendment I am presenting today frames in law the proportional value comparison method. Proportional value comparisons, like all other pay equity comparisons, must be based on evaluating a composite of skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions. The proportional value method permits comparisons of the relative worth to an employer of female and male job classes in situations where job-to-job comparisons are difficult.

There are many ways of making proportional value comparisons. Large employers may want to use what is known as the wage-line method, while smaller employers can use simpler methods. Whatever method is chosen, the bottom line is that proportional value comparisons must achieve a fair assignment of wages in proportion to the value of work performed by female and male job classes in an employer's establishment.

My officials have estimated that more than 340,000 women will be able to attain pay equity through the use of proportional value comparisons. Most of these women are employed in the private sector. With the enactment of this amendment, and other measures to be announced today, 1.05 million working women will be entitled to benefit from the Pay Equity Act.

The other amendments I will introduce today are of an administrative nature, to refine measures in the original act.

The most important of these will protect pay equity plans when companies are sold, transferred or restructured. Simply put, the purchaser of a business also acquires an existing pay equity plan. This measure ensures that women will not see their pay equity rights vanish or diminish because of workplace transformations over which they have no control.

Another new measure strengthens the role of review officers who investigate complaints under the act. Review officers will now be able to issue corrective orders on a broader range of matters. These new powers respond to needs that only became evident after the act had operated for several years.

No doubt there will be those who say that these difficult economic times are not the time to extend pay equity. Let me respond in two ways.

First, these amendments will not increase the current obligation of employers to devote at least 1% of their previous year's payroll to pay equity adjustments. Many employers, recognizing that some of their women employees would not be covered under the existing act, have clearly accepted and voluntarily added proportional value comparisons to their pay equity plans. We applaud their efforts.

Second, this government has resolved to right the historic undervaluing and undercompensation of work performed by women. The government upholds fairness for women as a right and not a luxury. This is especially important today because recessions hit the lowest-paid workers the hardest.

The amendments I am presenting are only part of today's good news for Ontario's working women. My colleague the Chairman of Management Board has much to add concerning this government's commitment to pay equity for workers in the public sector and broader public sector.

This government has pioneered in this fundamentally important area of social policy. Our progress is unmatched elsewhere. I believe history will record the achievement of pay equity as a landmark accomplishment by this government. It is an accomplishment that will have enormous positive impact on succeeding generations of working women in this province. We are ensuring that as many working women as possible are able to benefit through the amendments being introduced here today.

Hon Mr Silipo: I am proud to join my colleague the Minister of Labour in announcing amendments that will extend pay equity to hundreds of thousands of Ontario women whose work continues to be undervalued and underpaid. I also note the work done on this issue in preparing these amendments by our colleague the minister responsible for women's issues.

The current Pay Equity Act allows for job-to-job comparisons, which will be enhanced by proportional value comparison methods, as outlined by the Minister of Labour. But these two measures will leave some 70,000 to 80,000 women who are in workplaces who do not have male job classes that can be used for pay equity comparisons. They are among the lowest paid workers in our society, because work done by women has traditionally been undervalued and underpaid.

Our government made a commitment to the people of Ontario to right this historic wrong. Today, we are meeting that commitment.

The Minister of Labour has told you about the proportional value comparison method, which will affect many women both in the public and private sectors. I want to tell you about the proxy comparison method and how it will affect women, who are among the lowest paid workers in Ontario's public sector.

Proxy comparisons will be used by broader public sector organizations that cannot use job-to-job or proportional value comparisons because of a lack of male job classes. In the proxy comparison method, female jobs in a female dominant workplace are compared to male jobs in another organization that provides a similar range of services. Regulations on methods for proxy comparisons will be developed in the next several months.

Organizations that need to use the proxy method are generally those that provide health and community services, including home care agencies, some libraries, rape crisis centres, child care centres, shelters for battered women and nursing homes, among others. Many women working in these organizations are not able to use the job-to-job or proportional value comparison methods to achieve pay equity because of the absence of male job classes at their workplaces.

We recognized in last spring's budget that these publicly funded organizations will require assistance to meet their pay equity commitments. My colleague the Treasurer will announce in the near future details on funding that will begin to close the wage gap between male and female broader public sector workers. The funding will be based on a commitment to pay 100% of the cost of proxy for non-profit broader public sector employers.

Resolving pay equity concerns through the amendments we are proposing should ease other pressures on government, which I will now address.

We will be introducing amendments to the Pay Equity Act, the Public Service Act and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. These amendments will enhance the Ontario government's ability to manage the size of its workforce. Decisions by the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal and the Ontario Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal have created the potential for large numbers of workers in the broader public sector to become employees of the Ontario public service.

In many situations where no male comparators exist, pay equity office review officers and the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal have found that a larger organization is the employer for pay equity purposes. In some cases, review offices have found the province to be the employer.

Another means of naming the province as the employer is through the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. This act allows the Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal to decide if individuals are crown employees, which gives them the right to bargain collectively with the crown. The tribunal has also claimed the right to decide whether crown employees are also public servants. This is possible because nowhere in the Public Service Act does it say that appointment to the Ontario public service is solely the right of the government.

The introduction of legislation to implement proportional value and proxy pay equity methods that allow women to find male comparators for their jobs resolves the need for government-as-employer litigation as a means of achieving pay equity.

These amendments will also place an important responsibility, the ability to determine the size of the public service, in the hands of government. The amendments will allow us to manage the size of the public service therefore.

In closing, I am truly honoured to join my colleague the Minister of Labour, and as I indicated my colleague the minister responsible for women's issues, in introducing amendments that fulfil this government's commitment to giving Ontario's working women the justice they so richly deserve.

RESPONSES

MEETING ON THE ECONOMY

Mr Conway: On behalf of the Liberal opposition, I would like to briefly respond to the first minister's statement regarding tomorrow's meeting in Ottawa. We certainly all want to wish the member for York South our very best wishes as he goes to dine with Brian Mulroney and others in the national capital.

I must say I have listened for some months now to the very strident tones of the leader of the New Democratic government in Ontario about what needed to be done, saying he was quite prepared to lead the march on Ottawa because of course the economy was in a bad way and a very substantive adjustment was required. So it was with some anticipation that I came today to hear what specific agenda, indeed perhaps even an agenda for the people of Ontario and for Canada, the leader of the NDP government in Ontario might be taking to lunch and tea with Brian Mulroney.

But what do we have? By all accounts and on the account of the NDP in Ontario, it is going to be very thin gruel tomorrow in Ottawa, because after 14 months, we do not have any of the Agenda for People, and it is replete with specifics about the New Democratic socialist order, but we have merely a proposal from Mr Rae and the NDP in Ontario, a proposal that has been made in several other places across the country, that the federal government ought to take its money and through a change in the RRSP arrangements provide an opportunity for Canadians to apply those funds for home building and home renovations.

Mr Stockwell: Earth-shattering.

Mr Conway: As my friend the member for Etobicoke West says, that is really something less than earth-shattering. That suggestion has been made by a whole host of other people. I ask my friend the leader of the NDP, surely there is more, because if one looks at this proposal, not only is it not his own but it really involves spending overwhelmingly federal dollars. I would have thought the Ontario NDP had some specific proposals of its own, committing itself to domestic initiatives in Ontario, but we have nothing but this suggestion that Ottawa ought to amend its income tax policy to the benefit of the provinces from sea to sea.

I suppose we ought not to be surprised that in the democratic socialist world in which we now find ourselves, sharing is really a matter of the Premier wanting to share his thirst with Brian Mulroney's beer.

That is clever and quite ingenious, but I think the people of York South and Renfrew North and 128 other electoral districts had expected some initiative, some leadership, some specific made-in-Ontario, made-for-Ontario commitments to get this economy moving again. They would have expected that a government so prepared to abandon its pension policy of the past, a government so willing to abandon its auto insurance policy, a government prepared to abandon so much of what it stood for in the past, would as part of this new day have something specific and helpful to take to tea at 24 Sussex Drive.

As Joe Clark might ask rhetorically, "Is this the totality of your commitment?" If it is, the people of Ontario have been bamboozled by our Oxfordian friend.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Offer: I would like to respond to the statement of the Minister of Labour. It was just one year ago today that the government said it was going to extend pay equity. A year has passed without any action whatsoever and there is a statement today without any chance of legislation being passed into law this year.

But this comes as really no surprise to this side of the House. we have a householder by the Premier, who stated months earlier that they have extended pay equity to cover 420,000 women who work in jobs that have not yet been covered. We have a letter from the provincial secretary of the NDP government, Jill Marzetti, who has stated that the NDP government has extended pay equity. Their statements are still wrong, They are just statements. The statement today by the Minister of Labour still does not carry legislation this year. What we are looking for is real action. The government should get on with the job and introduce some legislation. Let's see it become law this year.

MEETING ON THE ECONOMY

Mr Harris: I too wish to respond to the Premier's statement. I too wish to wish the Premier well on behalf of all Canadians as he heads off to Ottawa tomorrow. Let me also say that I agree entirely with the comments made by the member for Renfrew North and let me add a few of my own. After a year of calling for a first ministers conference, after 20 years of having all the answers and after the Agenda for People, that one specific proposal, the changes to the RRSP legislation -- which, I want to be clear, I am not opposed to -- as the member for Renfrew North has pointed out has already been made by all three parties in Ottawa and by the Minister of Finance.

Earlier today, I understand Mr McKenna came up with two. The Premier agrees with Mr McKenna's incentive for new home buyers. I do not know if the Premier will agree as well with Mr McKenna's impassioned plea, his number two item, for a balanced budget. We will see how that discussion goes at 24 Sussex tomorrow as they have lunch.

What really bothers me, and I think what bothers most objective observers of this government, is that it has spent all its money -- it is all gone -- and then some, and now it is suggesting the solution is to kickstart the home industry after it brought in retroactive rent control legislation that threw thousands of construction workers out of work, and after it took a 180-degree turn and broke its word on the Development Charges Act, which can add up to $20,000 to the price of a home.

They are now asking the federal government, which has no money, as they know, to defer future income to help overcome the increased costs of housing that their policies have brought in. Does the Premier think the 200,000 or so workers who have been laid off in the manufacturing sector are going to want to buy a home in Ontario, regardless of whether or not they have RRSPs?

I think of other legislation the government has brought forward that is forcing people out of work, other legislation and directions it has taken which, as I have said many times, are 180 degrees in the wrong direction and that are causing problems, loss of confidence, loss of jobs and loss of any buyers for homes, who want to buy in Ontario but who do not want to be locked into Ontario because they do not see a bright future as long as this government's policies are being put forward.

On top of that, the government's policies are increasing substantially the cost of housing in this province, whether it is the labour proposals, the Development Charges Act or some of the other items it is bringing forward. Yes, this proposal that the federal government wants to do anyway will help overcome some but not all of the increased costs of housing this government has forced on the people who want to buy a home in this province.

Finally, because other members of my caucus wish to respond, I want to say this: I do congratulate the Premier for overriding the Minister of Housing.

In response to question after question from the member for Mississauga South -- she has to represent all of Mississauga, I know that, but her riding is Mississauga South -- about whether housing and construction jobs and home ownership were a priority, the minister said, "No, not a priority for me, not a priority for my government, not at all, not at all." I congratulate the Premier for at least overriding his own government's policy and going to Brian Mulroney and asking him to help compensate for the disgraceful policies of his own government here in Ontario.

PAY EQUITY

Mrs Witmer: I question this government's sincerity to equality for women. First of all, I am extremely offended when it refers to "working women." I would like the government to know that all women in this province work, whether it is inside the home or outside the home. If the government really wants to eliminate discrimination, I think the terminology needs to be changed immediately.

I would also like to draw attention to the fact that they talk about redressing the wage discrimination faced by working women. I know that what is meant here are women who work outside the home. I would like to indicate to them that they still discriminates against women because they have not redressed the discrimination that is faced by the workers in the private day care sector.

JOEY SMALLWOOD

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, I think there is unanimous consent for the three parties to express their condolences on the passing of Joey Smallwood, the former Premier of Newfoundland.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, I know there are not too many occasions when I can safely say that I think I speak for all members of the House. Perhaps this is one, not that I want to preclude other members from speaking on this occasion.

We all woke up this morning to the news of the passing of a remarkable Canadian, the last living Father of Confederation, and it is perhaps only fitting and appropriate that we take a few moments to reflect on his remarkable contribution to the life of his native Newfoundland and to the life of Canada.

Joey Smallwood was a truly remarkable Canadian, someone whose wit, love of life, imagination, drive and sheer ability inspired the citizens of his own province of Newfoundland and came to inspire Canadians from coast to coast.

Joey, as he is known now and will be known for all time, was someone who left school as a teenager, became a journalist, a labour organizer, a political organizer and the leader of his political movement in Newfoundland, someone who led the fight for Newfoundland's entry into Confederation -- a fight which was very closely and hotly contested in Newfoundland in the post-Second World War era -- and who became the first Premier of Newfoundland and then went on to serve as Premier for a great many years.

His life was marked always by controversy. He certainly was not one who resisted a fight. His life was one that was marked by deep commitment, by great and good humour, and by his passion not only for Newfoundland but for Canada.

I never had the opportunity to meet Joey Smallwood, but like thousands of my generation, I knew him from the benefit of television, heard him speak and have had occasion to speak with many who knew him and served with him in public life. Joey Smallwood of course is seen by the people of Newfoundland first and foremost as a Newfoundlander, but I want them to know that we in Ontario see him as a great Newfoundlander and as a great Canadian as well.

On this occasion, at this moment in our history, it is perhaps important that we reflect on the fact that someone like Joey Smallwood can start out in life with a vision and with a dream, can carry that through with the kind of commitment, the kind of courage, the kind of gusto that he had, and that his inspiration is one that came not only to Newfoundlanders but to all Canadians.

On behalf of the government of Ontario and on behalf of the citizens of Ontario, I want to convey to the government and the citizens of Newfoundland, and to the Smallwood family, our deepest condolences on the passing of Joey Smallwood, and at the same time say that at age 90, this is a moment not only of mourning but of celebration, a celebration of a truly remarkable life.

Monsieur le Président, c'est une occasion, naturellement, pour le souvenir, pour la commémoration d'une vie absolument remarquable. C'est une perte non seulement pour la population de Terre-Neuve mais pour tout le Canada. En même temps, nous célébrons cette vie remarquable, cette vie de M. Smallwood, et nous partageons de beaux souvenirs de sa contribution absolument unique à la vie canadienne.

It is a pleasure for me to say, on behalf of the people of this province, that we share in the loss but also in the sense of wonder and awe at the life Joey lived.

Mr Conway: On behalf of my colleagues, I want to join with the Premier and the leader of the third party in expressing our condolences to the Smallwood family and the people of Newfoundland today on the passing of a very famous Canadian.

It was once written that history was the record of the encounter of character and circumstance. By that standard, I think we can say Joey Smallwood was a historical character of very considerable significance.

I well remember, as a young boy growing up in Upper Canada, watching those early days of executive federalism when television was bringing into the homes of Canadians those first ministers' meetings, one more of which we will have tomorrow. I have a feeling that tomorrow's meeting will not live up to the energy of some of those days 20 years ago, and by that I simply mean I remember very distinctly what those conferences were like, with W. A. C. Bennett at one end of the table and Joey Smallwood at the other. It was lively and energetic in a way that politics have ceased to be in our day.

Joey Smallwood was, as the Premier rightly observed, a man of many talents and rich and varied experience. He was, among other things, a pamphleteer of some very considerable success. We do not have pamphleteers in politics today in the way Joey Smallwood was a pamphleteer 40 to 50 years ago. I have always thought that Joey Smallwood, rather like Aberhart of Alberta and Caouette of Quebec, was part of that group of politicians who really understood the mass media in the modern age.

Joey's use of radio during those great Confederation debates of the late 1940s was a model of how to take one's cause to the people. He recruited to politics in Newfoundland a very rich, high-powered and high-quality group, some of whom, I gather, were on the national radio service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp this morning reminiscing about what it was like to have served in government with the late Mr Smallwood.

I certainly want to agree with the Premier in observing today that Mr Smallwood brought to politics a very passionate commitment about what he thought was the public good of the people of his country; that is, the old Dominion of Newfoundland. In these days of the early 1990s, we should recall the nature of that debate and the rather divided opinion surrounding whether that dominion should be brought into the Dominion of Canada. It was a very heated debate, and one can still encounter in Newfoundland people who felt that the debate was wrongly decided.

Those of us in Upper Canada feel, I think, that it was rightly decided. As a result of Mr Smallwood's commitment and statesmanship, this country of ours was truly a dominion from sea to shining sea.

Again, I think it is important to state that Smallwood brought a legacy of real character to politics. He certainly was not without controversy. One thinks of some of his economic initiatives. Much has been written and much will be written as the years unfold. One thinks of what it must have been like in a cabinet where Mr Smallwood took the doctrine of primus inter pares very seriously. That was not always easy for people like Mr Crosbie, who I gather is fulsome in his analysis of that very colourful part of our political past.

As the Premier rightly observed, we do not just mourn today; we celebrate a happy, successful, lively and full life. Those of us in politics today have much to learn from the visionary commitment of the late Joseph R. Smallwood.

Mr Jackson: Briefly, on behalf of our caucus and our leader, I would like to join the Premier and the Liberal Party in paying tribute to the late Joey Smallwood. He passed away six days short of his 91st birthday, a great Canadian born under a constitutional monarchy. As a boy growing up, he developed his own sense of history and belonging to the British nation and yet saw fit to encourage his jurisdiction to become a province and to join the great Dominion of Canada. It is well known that he managed the entire campaign in his province and it was a very narrow and close vote.

History will show that he was the most passionate politician of his time. It is a title he wore honourably and that was richly deserved right up until the stroke which befell him in 1985. I had the rare privilege, unlike the Premier, of having an opportunity to meet Joey Smallwood, and for the record I want to assure him it was not at a Liberal fund-raiser. I can recall he was probably one of the most disarming and electric of politicians I had ever met. His sheer presence, based on the reputation of his ability to debate under any number of circumstances was, as I say, legendary. It was a most memorable encounter.

He was, as has been stated for the record, a most passionate and devoted Canadian. During the debate on Meech Lake he was oft-times quoted by his successor Premier, Clyde Wells. Just for purposes of the House, I might briefly read just a short statement that Premier Smallwood made as his vision of Canada. It is referenced in Peter Newman's book The Distemper of our Times. Smallwood is describing his very first encounter with a fresh, new Minister of Justice by the name of Trudeau:

Joey Smallwood's eloquent but brief description of our country spread equally among 10 provinces commends itself to our attention on the solemn occasion of his passing.

[Later]

Hon Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, I know this is an unusual procedure, but I wonder if I, as a Newfoundlander and as someone who has met him, can have ëconsent to say just a few words very briefly about Mr Smallwood.

Agreed to.

Hon Ms Churley: I grew up hearing about Joey Smallwood. My grandmother, who was about the same age as Mr Smallwood, died a few years ago. I grew up and heard about Joey Smallwood all my life.

Joey Smallwood sat in my grandmother's kitchen in Old Perlican, Newfoundland, and convinced her she should vote for Confederation in 1948. I remember hearing lots and lots of stories about that visit. I also remember growing up and seeing in her kitchen -- she was also a very religious woman -- a picture of Jesus and, next to Jesus, one of Joey Smallwood. In her mind, I think they were equal.

Legend has it that in 1948 -- I am dating myself here -- when Joey was in Old Perlican and I had recently been born, he visited the hospital and, as politicians are known to kiss babies from time to time, Joey kissed me on that day.

I was very moved and very touched, and a lot of memories were brought back to me today. I too send my condolences to the people of Newfoundland and the Smallwood family.

[Later]

The Speaker: If I could draw the attention of all the members of the House for a moment, earlier we had an opportunity for several members to make very kind and generous and proper words about the passing of a former Premier and indeed a remarkable Canadian. We will provide a transcript of Hansard to the Smallwood family, and of course the best wishes from all members of the assembly go with it.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Much to my regret, I have discovered that another cabinet minister of the NDP government has lied. During the past week the constituents of the Ministry of Housing received a letter, which I have in my hand, which begins, "Dear Friend," and the body of which contained the following statement:

"Despite the opposition's efforts to block us, we've been busy following through on our commitments to you over this past year. We've created 5,000 new child care spaces and spent $30 million to raise the wages of child care workers in the private sector." I repeat, Mr Speaker: "the private sector."

These words are lies. They are unfounded and they are not true.

The Speaker: Could the member describe what her point of privilege is?

Mrs Y. O'Neill: Many workers, mostly women, in the private child care sector in this province, in Ottawa-Carleton and my riding deserve an apology.

The Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, it is with some regret that I rise on a point of personal privilege. Last night in this assembly, to confess, I was doing a little bit of heckling of a member opposite, which is normal course around here. In response to my heckling, the member for Burlington South accused me of being anti-Jewish.

I have been in this assembly 20 years and I enjoy rollicking and uncompromising political debate. I have been under the gun lots of time in this House and, partly because of the experience of being here a long time, I do not shake when I engage in debate. But I am shaking right now with anger, frustration and, quite frankly, I feel soiled.

I regret having to say this to the assembly, but I believe that to have allowed it to go by without comment would be in a strange way to passively condone it. I sent the member a note a few minutes ago, giving him the opportunity to withdraw or apologize and he chose to do neither. It is for that reason I have risen at this time.

The Speaker: To the member for Nickel Belt, I do not believe I was in the chamber at the time, nor was it reported to me by any other chair occupant. Indeed, I can speak for my colleagues who have the privilege of sitting as Speaker, that we try our best to maintain a language level in here that does not demean others and is not insulting.

Perhaps the member for Burlington South would like an opportunity to gain the floor.

Mr Jackson: Yes, Mr Speaker. This is a serious matter, and you are correct that you were not in the chamber. The House was not sitting at the time. The Treasurer and I did engage in a conversation which began with questions about the depth of his hatred for an individual member of this House and we engaged in a discussion where I raised the question, based on his comments about the member's wealth, profession and élitism.

The exchange did get heated, but I must say we did not have an occasion to complete that conversation. It would appear we now have. I regret that the statement was made. However, I am pleased that the Treasurer and I have been able to clear the air on the matter and we have discussed it with the member in question to whom he was heckling.

The Speaker: It is now time for oral questions.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Elston: Before I begin oral questions, might I ask for unanimous consent to have the Premier tell us what he knows of the circumstances around the GM plant announcements, since it is of major economic import for Ontario, and we could then have a chance to respond to the information he is privy to that the rest of us are not. May I have that unanimous consent?

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Hon Ms Gigantes: No.

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, let me make it clear I am not --

Mr Bradley: Evelyn says no.

Hon Mr Rae: No, no. I would not want to encourage anyone to say no. I just want to say to the member, I am not privy to any information other than what I have received via Canada NewsWire, which I would think the honourable member has access to as well. There has been some suggestion that I am privy to some other information. I have had no information with respect to this issue other than what has been received.

We are now monitoring Mr Stempel's press conference, and that is what is being looked at, but I have had no private conversations with Mr Stempel. In the only conversation I had with Mr Peapples yesterday, he said Mr Stempel will be making an announcement tomorrow and we will all have to see what it is. If the member wants me to read him the NewsWire report, I am quite happy to do that.

The Speaker: Perhaps now we could start question period.

Mr Bradley: Is there a rule against sticking out your tongue?

Mr Elston: No, that is not my first question.

Mr Speaker, I think perhaps we should get ourselves on the road today, although I must say it does concern me a great deal when upwards of 4,000 people are at risk of losing their jobs and the Premier of this province has no information about what is to occur.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Elston: Let me ask a question of the Premier on another subject. On December 10, 1991, the member for St Andrew-St Patrick tendered her resignation as Minister of Community and Social Services as a result of circumstances with which we are all familiar. Can the Premier identify the standards that allowed him to accept the resignation of that minister, although she declared she had done nothing wrong, but do not require him to expect and accept the resignation of the Minister of Northern Development, who has admitted she lied?

Hon Mr Rae: I thought the member was in fact going to ask me questions about GM. I hope someone is, because the issue is there.

Mr Stockwell: You don't know anything. What's the point?

Hon Mr Rae: We certainly do know some things about it. But if the member is not going to ask questions about General Motors --

Mr Eves: You want us to ask you questions about something you said you don't know anything about?

Hon Mr Rae: No. I am quite happy to respond to the question that was asked.

I would say to the honourable member that the circumstances surrounding the decision of the member for St Andrew-St Patrick are different from the ones involving the minister in question. The decision that was made by the honourable member for St Andrew-St Patrick was a decision that was made by her in light of the circumstances she was facing, which I think he knows something about, and I accepted her resignation with regret.

Mr Elston: It seems unreasonable to me to expect the Premier to leave this topic by merely saying that when a minister decides he or she will resign, he will accept the resignation. In this situation we clearly have someone who said something that was incorrect and that has had a deleterious effect on the character of people about whom she has spoken publicly.

Does the Premier not regard that as an offence that does in fact remove the trust about which he spoke when he spoke publicly about firing the member for Welland-Thorold and the trust he said had to be earned daily as a minister of the crown? Does he not think that loss of trust in this case is enough for him to require the resignation?

Hon Mr Rae: I think in the circumstances the minister's apology is very clear. Judging from what I have heard from citizens across the province and indeed from many people in northern Ontario, the minister is doing a great deal to earn the trust of the people of this province every day.

Mr Elston: It is quite clear now the standard we are now speaking about is the standard line of the New Democratic Party of Ontario when it is confronted with opposition. Whether opposition politicians have materials which show they are doing something wrong to the province or whether somebody opposes a particular program of a ministry of this province, they attempt to do things to undermine the opposition publicly, either by sending the police to offices of opposition politicians or by declaring there is a prosecution in the offing against the people who oppose their position.

Will the Premier not confirm that this is the standard tactic of the New Democratic Party of Ontario and that it is undermining the democratic processes of this province by having a heavy hand around the throats of the free-speaking people of this province?

Hon Mr Rae: The member is quite wrong in his statement that this is the approach of the New Democratic Party. I do not think that is something which has a lot of credibility or believability out there. The notion that a democratically elected government, which is accountable and responsible to the Legislature every day, all the time, responding as frankly and as candidly as we can to the questions that have been posed --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that he ought to be putting this in a little bit more perspective.

Mr Elston: I again have to say that the Premier is not coming forward with a full recollection of all of the things he used to say in opposition.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Elston: I would like to return to the General Motors issue, because in essence the first admission of this Premier that he knows nothing of an event which could parlay into upwards of 4,000 women and men in this province losing their jobs is an admission of an inability to keep in touch with the serious economic implications of the restructuring that is going on in this economy.

I cannot tell members how disappointed we are as individuals that this Premier, having met just a day or so ago, is unable to tell us what he has in his hands that would save the jobs that are at risk in Oshawa. Can the Premier tell us what economic recovery plan coming down the line from his throne speech or his statement in September he has prepared to respond to the difficulties that GM workers are facing over this Christmas season?

Hon Mr Rae: Let's look at this situation. General Motors has announced a major restructuring of the company. It has announced it is going to be reducing substantially levels of employment in both the salaried sector and among blue-collar workers. It is announcing there are a number of assembly plants and a number of power train and component plants across North America which are going to be closed over the next few years.

Mr Elston: Through the mid-1990s.

Hon Mr Rae: Through the mid-1990s.

What we also know is that the assessment the corporation makes with respect to each part of its company has to do with the competitiveness, the capacity and the ability of the plant to produce goods, products and services at a competitive level. That is precisely what Mr Stempel told me over a year ago when I met with him before of any of this was being announced with respect to the assessments.

What I was told by Mr Stempel was this: When you consider the general productivity of Canadian workers, when you consider the health care advantages we have in terms of the differential on benefit plans and the very substantial differences that are there and when you consider the overall makeup of the industry, the Ontario and Canadian plants are competitive. But it is very tough out there and improvements are being made in American plants and other plants all the time.

So I would say to the member that it is now a challenge for all of us, for the workers, for management and for everyone, to ensure that we are going to be as competitive as possible in keeping as much employment as possible in the plants that are here in Ontario.

Mr Elston: Having already admitted to this House that he knows nothing of the General Motors situation with respect to the restructuring and the effect it has on the women and men of this province, can the Premier tell us what he got in return for having given a more flexible funding program to GM that is going to cost the contributions to that pension plan between $500 million and $700 million? Can he tell us what he got for that?

Hon Mr Rae: I am glad the honourable member is the one who is asking the question because he was the minister who brought in the regulations that had the effect of increasing the liability of General Motors in a way that he never understood or anticipated or realized, because if he anticipated, understood or realized it, he would have understood that the regulatory change for which he is responsible had a very negative impact with respect to the company's proceedings and dealings in this province.

It is not a question of what you get for what you are doing; it is a question of saying that this province is prepared to act in good faith. This province is not, by a mistake of a previous government, going to unwittingly and unknowingly cause a corporation an increase in liability far in excess of what it is able to produce.

Mr Elston: I well recollect the interjections of those people during those debates when they said it was not enough. I want the Premier to tell us what effect has his movement on the pension funding requirements had on the pension benefits guarantee fund and the outstanding liabilities that are now resting at the feet of the consolidated revenue fund, now owned by the Treasury? Can he identify the fact that he has just given a guarantee by the province of Ontario against the $500 million to $700 million in contributions that are no longer required?

Hon Mr Rae: If the honourable member is opposed to the approach we are taking, I hope he stands up and says so and indicates what his alternative is, because there is an opportunity. There is now a two-month consultation period, a very specific period in which people can comment on what is being done. I say to the honourable member that what is taking place here is a serious consultation with the workers in the industry with respect to a situation that was created by previous legislation. That is a very substantial problem. The minister is nodding; he knows it perfectly well, because he knows perfectly well that these changes are there.

I say to the member that if he wants to take a look at the proposed draft regulations that are there, they deal specifically with the question of the guarantee fund and the need for that guarantee fund to be better protected in light of other changes that are being made.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Eves: I would like to ask the Premier a question with respect to his standards of proper conduct by cabinet ministers. He said on December 12, 1990: "I think we are entitled to certain standards from our colleagues. I do not like surprises" -- referring to the actions of the member for Oakwood when he was asked by the Premier to step aside and out of his caucus. "We must at all times act in the manner that will bear not only the closest public scrutiny but go further and ensure public confidence and trust in the integrity of government."

On July 2, 1986, with respect to the René Fontaine affair and certain allegations -- and at that time they were just that, allegations against Mr Fontaine -- here is the now Premier's own question, "Does the Premier not understand the problems he has created by not stating quite simply that it would be in everybody's interests if the member were to step aside from cabinet until such time as this matter has been resolved?" That is my question: his question.

Hon Mr Rae: Earlier on this week, the leader of the third party asked me five questions. Then he asked a sixth question, which was:

"We are calling on the Premier today, and I ask him to consider it carefully, to call for a full, open, unfettered investigation by an all-party committee of this Legislature into the entire Martel affair and the related involvements of the Minister of Health and Ministry of Health and the documents. Will the Premier agree with this today so that we can get on with business?"

That is exactly what we have agreed to on this side. That is exactly what we have said. I say to the honourable member for Parry Sound that he knows that. That is exactly what we have agreed to. The member's leader asked me a question and we have answered it in good faith.

Mr Eves: The Premier seems to have had a memory lapse here. He selectively has not remembered that despite the fact that both the Fontaine and Caplan matters were investigated by a committee of this Legislature, the Premier, in his role then as leader of the official opposition, demanded that they both step down while the investigation was going on. There is his quote. That is what we are asking him to do. Why will he not do it? It is the same thing he asked of them.

Hon Mr Rae: With great respect to the honourable member, in the situation we are dealing with today we were asked by opposition parties, specifically by the leader of the third party, "Will you set up a committee? Will you have a committee?" which we did.

Mr Scott: You're afraid to do it.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St George-St David says we are afraid to do it, which is quite the opposite of the facts, quite the opposite of the truth. We have set up the committee. We have given the committee the clear mandate to do it. We have offered the chairmanship of the committee to a member of the opposition, if the two parties can agree on which party should chair it. We have made all that very clear. The members opposite wanted counsel. We have offered them counsel. What they are saying is, "Unless you do things the way the opposition wants you to do it, we are not prepared to let you govern." That is what the members opposite are saying.

Mr Eves: The issue still remains. All those were factors in both those other precedents in this House. The fair thing to do, the proper thing to do is what those two members did; they stepped aside while the investigation was going on. I do not have to remind the Premier of that. We have all kinds of quotes. We can keep on bringing these up.

Another question, the same question the honourable Premier asked on June 13, 1989: "It is the Premier's job to determine what are the ethical standards of members of his cabinet." I want to ask the Premier, does he understand the distinction between a conflict-of-interest law and a standard of ethical conduct that he should be requiring of his own ministers?

Hon Mr Rae: Yes, I do.

MEETING ON THE ECONOMY

Mr Harris: My question is to the Premier. The Premier has been calling for tomorrow's first ministers' meeting for over a year. Over this past year he has been out of step, and quite frankly has been condemned on many occasions by other premiers for his massive spending, for his huge deficit, while others of all political parties, even two newly elected New Democratic governments, have consistently said: "We must have balanced budgets and cut government spending. We must get our own spending in line if we are to have a truly sustainable recovery in this country."

Can the Premier tell me how, after a year of being totally out of step with all the other premiers and ministers of finance, he expects to go to Ottawa tomorrow with absolutely nothing new to offer and with some vague support for a proposal of the federal government and expects he will take a leadership role? How is he possibly going to take a leadership role tomorrow at that meeting of the first ministers on the economy?

Hon Mr Rae: It seems to me that helping to create a climate in which it is possible for it to take place has been a contribution this province has made. I have spent some considerable time talking with everyone, including the Prime Minister, about the importance of this issue for the people of Canada and how it could not be postponed and put off any longer. Without wanting to claim any credit, I think the mood in the country among the premiers has changed over the last month, because of the way in which it has become very clear to everyone that this issue is one that requires direct attention.

I think the proposals we are making with respect to infrastructure, job creation and the RRSP idea -- which we share with others; we are not making any claims that it is unique to any one place -- are part of a constructive mood that we hope is emerging among all the premiers.

I am very proud of our record in this government on job creation in response to the most serious recession that has been faced. If the member looks at the deficit numbers coming in now from Saskatchewan and British Columbia, and looks at the statements made by the Tory premiers in those provinces prior to the elections, we are beginning to see the credibility of this government with respect to job creation and with respect to dealing honestly with the people on what we can do and what it is going to cost and the fact we are able to meet the challenges we set out for ourselves in the last budget.

Mr Harris: The premiers in all the other provinces have taken pains to try to get their affairs in order. This Premier increased spending by 14% and gave our civil service 16.1% in new money last year, totally out of sync with all the other premiers.

For a year, the Premier has been calling for this meeting. Now he has this meeting and today we find out he has a few vague suggestions and absolutely nothing new to take to the table. Some two months ago, I offered him some very specific proposals, 34 pages chock-full of actual proposals, things that could be done. In fact, I have 11 copies of New Directions here. I will ask a page to take these 11 copies over to the Premier. In the absence of having anything specific at all, will the Premier take these 11 copies of New Directions, full of specific proposals, so that he will not be embarrassed and so Ontario can have something positive to contribute to the discussions at lunch tomorrow?

Hon Mr Rae: I will be delighted to share this information with the other premiers, as well as with the Prime Minister. I thought the Prime Minister would already have a copy, but I will make sure he gets one.

With regard to the record of other provinces, I want to remind the member that his good friend and Conservative colleague Grant Devine said he was going to have a $250-million operating deficit -- operating, not capital -- and it is now close to $1 billion. That is the record of the Conservative government in Saskatchewan. With respect to British Columbia, the leader of the third party's best friend, Rita Johnston, told us there was going to be a $400-million deficit; it is now $1.9 billion on operating alone.

We will compare our record of what we have had to do and the challenges we faced with that of any other government in Canada. We are proud of what we have done, we are proud of our Treasurer and we are proud of wrestling with the most difficult recession we have had to face since the 1930s.

Mr Harris: I remind the Premier that my good friend Roy Romanow got elected calling for a balanced budget, and in that aspect he is my good friend. I am not interested in personalities. I am not interested in political parties. I am interested in policies. I am interested in what people stand for. That is what indeed I have been fighting for throughout my political career, and it is what I am fighting for today.

I appreciate that the Premier will take New Directions to 24 Sussex. I will have some comfort knowing that at least there will be something positive -- in fact, 34 pages of positive suggestions -- perhaps on the table, or at least shared there. I want to ask the Premier specifically about one of the proposals, something that might give some hope and opportunity to retailers, to families and to those who have been laid off.

In this document there is a suggestion for an immediate cut in sales tax in Ontario, from 8% to 7%, with the corresponding cuts in the government's own wasteful spending to go with it. Will the Premier put on the table tomorrow his offer -- in order to give a little Christmas present, some hope and some opportunity, to the people of this province -- to cut taxes in Ontario, and specifically the sales tax immediately by 1%?

Hon Mr Rae: Whatever proposals are here, I am sure, will be part of a broad discussion that will take place in the few hours we have tomorrow.

The honourable member wants to cut taxes. I presume what he is saying is he wants to cut the GST as well. That would be part of the proposal. The member wants to cut taxes and he wants to increase some areas of spending -- there are lots of new spending proposals in here -- and at the same time he wants to balance the budget. He cannot have it all ways all the time. It is not going to work when he tries to do it that way.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Scott: My question is to the Premier. The Premier will be with the other premiers tomorrow and it may be that politics will be discussed during the course of it. I am certain some of his colleagues will ask him about the Shelley Martel affair. He will be able to answer: "When I was Leader of the Opposition, I was very tough. When allegations, later unfounded, were made against Elinor Caplan and a committee was going to be set up, I demanded her resignation before the committee went ahead so that she would be out while the committee was under way.

When Joan Smith was at stake, I, as the Leader of the Opposition, got up and tore a strip off her, right up one side and down the other, and demanded and got her resignation. I was a tough Leader of the Opposition."

The Premier will now be able to say: "Now that I've got the levers of power in my own hands, I can say to the people of Ontario: 'Stuff it. I'm running this show.'" That is what the Premier can say to his fellow premiers, but what is he going to say to the people of Ontario about this absolutely abysmal flip-flop that indicates the standards he once had were totally transparent and worthless?

Hon Mr Rae: What I will say to the people of Ontario is what I have been saying to them for some time, and that is that we are working hard at some of the toughest issues any government has faced since the Great Depression. I can assure the honourable member that is the preoccupation of the people of this province, and that is what they expect to be the preoccupation of their government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Scott: There are real questions being raised in this province about the fitness of this Premier to deal with these issues in a democratic assembly as a result of what has happened over the last week or so.

Here is what the member for York South said in 1986 about a mistake made by a member of the previous government: "Fairminded people" -- he includes himself always in that category -- "think it is important that cabinet ministers set standards as members of cabinet. We, alas, live in a world where mistakes have consequences. Does Premier Peterson not understand that he has to live with those consequences and accordingly deal with them firmly?" The resignation of a minister followed.

I want to ask the Premier, what are the consequences of this mistake and when is he going to attempt to restore the confidence of the public in his shattered integrity?

Hon Mr Rae: My experience teaches me that people out there, generally speaking, do not always assume the worst of other people.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I say to the honourable member, as he speaks and shouts at me from his chair and shouts at me when he stands, when he makes the accusations he makes --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for York Mills, come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- when he says that anybody around here goes around telling the people of Ontario they can stuff it, to use the words he uses, all the words he uses when he stands on his feet today, I simply say to him that the member for Sudbury has clearly indicated she is sorry for what has taken place, she has apologized for what has taken place, and this government has clearly offered to both opposition parties a willingness to have an all-party committee deal with this question.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Harris: My question is to the Premier as well. I read his comments this morning in the Globe and Mail regarding General Motors' pension requirements. He said, "This is one very specific thing which this province is looking at because of the need for us to provide a competitive climate for General Motors."

I find it absurd that he can talk about providing a competitive climate for the auto industry or any other industry in Ontario, particularly with regard to the auto industry, at the same time as the members of my caucus have been talking for hours against his gas guzzler/auto workers tax. This is a tax that directly hurts the auto industry's ability to compete. If the Premier is truly serious about helping auto workers, will he withdraw the gas guzzler tax today?

Hon Mr Rae: The tax that was proposed by the Treasurer was then revised after a serious consultation with the industry, during which members of the industry indicated very clearly to us that this was one of the few times they could ever remember a government sitting down and listening and learning from the experiences they were describing and therefore reforming the tax; which treats all cars, wherever they are made, in a reasonable way. It is designed specifically to deal with the problem of excessive fuel consumption and those standards. It is our intention to proceed with it in a fair and responsible way.

Mr Harris: The Premier knows the original tax had that intent. This is simply a tax on cars and no longer has anything to do with the environment. He knows that. That was the concession made. In effect, the offer to the auto industry was, "Do you want us to heavily tax all the cars you make or just moderately increase the tax on the whole lot of them?" The reality is that this is a tax on automobiles. The reality is that the government is driving business out of this province. It is driving GM out of this province. Its policies are forcing day care workers out of business.

Its labour proposals may cost Ontario 500,000 jobs. Its Sunday shopping legislation is costing thousands of retail jobs. Its retroactive housing legislation has cost all kinds of jobs.

As GM and all the auto manufacturing plants in this province are having difficulty, why will the Premier not do one thing -- withdraw and cancel this silly new tax on automobiles -- to help give our auto workers a chance in this province?

Hon Mr Rae: Quite bluntly, I do not think it would have that effect. I do not think it would have the effect the member thinks it would have. I do not think it is having the effect he describes, the suggestion he made.

I want to respond to the

preamble to the question. To suggest that the GM announcement made by Mr Stempel with respect to all of North America is the fault of this government is just a preposterous thought. It reflects no understanding of what is taking place.

If that is what the leader of the third party believes, has he no understanding of what is taking place around North America? Does he not realize there is a recession on all around North America? Instead of coming up with his ideas from the 1920s, from Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover, my friend should get with it. We are in the most serious structural recession since the 1920s.

PIPER AIRCRAFT

Mrs Mathyssen: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. It has been about two weeks since Cyrus Eaton spoke to his officials about the acquisition of Piper Aircraft. I recognize that his ministry has placed a high priority on increasing value added jobs in Ontario in such sectors as aerospace. Municipalities near my riding would like to see Piper come to Ontario. Would the minister give us an update on his negotiations with Piper?

Hon Mr Philip: As the member has indicated, our ministry is actively pursuing viable investment opportunities in this province. However, since public funds are often involved, our investment decisions must be considered carefully and reached only after a thorough investigation of the pertinent facts, and Piper Aircraft is a case in point.

Since the first meeting with Mr Eaton some two weeks ago, high-level contacts between my officials and Mr Eaton have continued. Last week I told this Legislature that I had spoken to Mr Eaton about our interest in Piper, as has the Premier, and another senior-level meeting took place last Friday, with a specific mandate of clarifying some questions we had as a result of a very lengthy business proposal that was given to us. I might add that the proposal included a sizeable commitment of money. We are looking into the proposal.

Mrs Mathyssen: I am pleased to see that despite the fact that Investment Canada chose to exclude Ontario from any discussions with Piper, the minister and his officials are actively pursuing the possibility of attracting this company. On the other hand, the company is under the gun of US bankruptcy proceedings and January 31 has been mentioned by Mr Eaton as a deadline. Can the minister tell the House what his ministry is doing to meet this January 31 deadline?

Hon Mr Philip: Since earlier this week, my officials have been conducting due diligence process. We are looking at such items as the direct benefits, such as jobs, the ripple effects in terms of new markets for suppliers, the sources of funding, the track record of the company involved in terms of funding and its operations expertise, as well as markets that may be available for the craft it manufactures.

We are proud of the progress we are showing. We believe our progress to be superior to that of other jurisdictions in Canada and we believe our evaluation process helps to ensure that we do not enter into deals where we will be liable down the road to the taxpayers for additional funds we are not aware of.

All I can say to the honourable member is that we are acting as quickly as possible without cutting any corners. We invite other proposals from other companies that want to locate in this province and we will work with them in the same manner. Ontario is open for business.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mrs McLeod: My question is for the Premier. I have been following the events of this House over the last two weeks with considerable regret. I have tried to find in the repeated responses of the Premier and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines some evidence that they understand the magnitude of this issue, some sense of the standard the Premier is applying in refusing to asking this minister to resign. I ask the Premier if he will please help me to understand whether there is any standard he is using as a basis for his judgement in this case, and if there is, what I should understand that standard to be.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that the issue here, I think, as we have tried to discuss it as candidly as possible over the last number of days in the House, is that in the course of a conversation with Mrs Dodds, the minister lost her temper and said things which she should not have said.

I am satisfied, on the basis of everything I know about the minister and on the basis of her conduct as a minister -- on what she has done in terms of her capacities, her administrative abilities, her abilities, her hard work, what she has done across northern Ontario -- that she regrets very much what has taken place. It was an error of judgement on her part. That aspect of it is obviously important to me and I think it is important to most people in the House.

Mrs McLeod: As I have been travelling this province over the past year, I have become more and more concerned about the lack of faith people have in the political process and in politicians. I refer to the Premier's own guidelines for the conduct of his ministers wherein one of his fundamental principles is, "Ministers shall perform the duties of office and arrange their affairs in such a manner as to maintain public confidence and trust in the integrity of the government."

Surely the Premier does not believe that repeated apologies for repeated mistakes, and particularly in this case an apology for a fraudulent and slanderous statement made, is enough to wipe the slate clean. The minister has lost the trust of the people of northern Ontario, even the people of Sudbury. I ask the Premier why he will not take this step of asking the minister to step down in order to salvage some sense of integrity for his government.

Hon Mr Rae: We all go around the province and we all talk to people and we all listen to what people have to say about politicians. I think the conduct, the rhetoric, the language and the preoccupations of all members of the Legislative Assembly and of all members of the House of Commons are what is being considered by Canadians and what is being looked at by Ontarians in this regard.

We have been candid in terms of all the events that are there. When there was any suggestion that there was confidential information somewhere, we asked the Information and Privacy Commissioner to be there. The minister apologized several times. She has apologized to this House on several occasions. She has made that very clear.

We have offered to set up a committee. We were asked to set up a committee so that we could get on with business. That is what the leader of the third party asked for and we responded to that. We have made that case very clear. I think what is at stake here is not only, as the honourable member says, the integrity of this government or of me, or the fact of the things that are being said; I suggest that part of what it is now clear is happening is that the people of the province are looking to the conduct of all their politicians and the standards and judgement they exercise all the time. That is how I am going to be judged and that is how everyone in the House today is going to be judged.

Mr Stockwell: The Premier continues to get up and he does not answer the question. My question is to the Premier again, giving him another opportunity, another attempt to answer the questions that are put.

The question is clear, and the Premier can give all the rhetoric he wants but the question still stands. Fontaine and Caplan had to step aside while an investigation was taking place; the now Premier insisted upon this. The Premier is in the same situation. The only difference is -- now listen carefully -- those were allegations. What we have here is a minister admitting she lied and slandered, which is a very substantial difference.

Why is it that the Premier insisted those ministers stand aside and he does not insist upon it for his own minister? I ask the Premier not to mix the question up. I do not want to hear about apologies. I do not want to hear about mistakes. I want to hear the Premier rationalize why he insisted Fontaine and Caplan stand aside while this member does not have to.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for Etobicoke West not only wants to write the questions; he also wants to write the answers. Unfortunately, he may not want to hear some of the things people say on the other side.

Mr Scott: Don't be funny about it. Have you no standards? God, this is unbelievable.

Hon Mr Rae: I believe the record of this government in this area is very clear.

Mr Scott: You're a pigmy compared to previous occupants of your office. You are, absolutely.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St George-St David has called me a liar --

Mr Scott: Bill Davis had more guts than you. David Peterson had more guts than you.

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

Mr Scott: I didn't say you were a liar.

Hon Mr Rae: You said it on a number of occasions.

Mr Scott: I said you were gutless.

The Speaker: Order, the member for St George-St David.

Interjections.

Mr Harnick: You're better than he was, Bob. You're just a better person. You're just a much better person. You're slimy. You are just a condescending, slippery --

The Speaker: First, I ask the House to come to order. I will deal first with the member for St George-St David and then the member for Willowdale. I ask the member for St George-St David, who earlier in his comments made an unparliamentary remark, if he would be kind enough to withdraw that remark.

Mr Scott: What words, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: I think if the member reflects back, at the time when I first rose, there was the reference to former premiers and how you compared this Premier in stature.

Mr Scott: I withdraw that remark if it was unparliamentary. I believe the Premier has not got the moral fibre of those occupants of this office.

The Speaker: Certainly most acceptable.

The member for Willowdale, I would ask him not to use language that is insulting to other members of the House and I would ask him to withdraw the comments he just now hurled across the floor.

Mr Harnick: If I made such remarks, I withdraw them.

The Speaker: Response by the Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only answer in the way that I have answered as clearly as I can to the member for Etobicoke West. He and I may have a difference of opinion. That does not mean we have to rise to the level of adjectival assassination that we seem to have arrived at in the House today.

Mr Stockwell: The question was very clear. I asked the Premier the difference and he is giving me some lecture that we should not get this upset. Does he know why everyone is upset? It is because he sat on this side of the House so sanctimoniously, so holier than thou. He knew all the answers when these issues came up. The question still stands. He sat on this side with a clear agenda. The agenda was that when any conflict such as this came up, they must step down.

I am asking the Premier, what is the difference, besides changing sides of the House, between these issues of Fontaine and Caplan and what he is faced with today? I am asking that question. I am not putting the answer in his mouth. I just do not want to hear about mistakes and apologies. I want to know what the difference is and why this minister can stay and those ministers had to leave because he asked them to. Where is the difference?

Hon Mr Rae: Maybe the difference is contained partly in the question in terms of whether this amounts to a conflict, whether the minister is benefiting at all from anything that has been done, whether there is any economic interest involved here. These are questions of judgement with respect to what has taken place.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mr B. Ward: This is a very serious question for the people of Brantford.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr B. Ward: My question is for the Solicitor General. These are tough times in Ontario and in Brantford. We are all aware of that. The people of Brantford are appreciative of the support this government has shown them. However, they are extremely tough times for the victims of sexual assault in the city of Brantford and Brant county, and that is because we do not have a sexual assault centre. They have had a grass-roots committee form over the years and two individuals are working very hard: Vayla Roberts, the chairman of the Brant county sexual assault committee, and Kim Van Louwe of the social planning council.

However, we still do not have a sexual assault centre in Brantford or Brant county.

My question is, could the Solicitor General give this House an update on any progress that is being made towards establishing a sexual assault centre for the people of Brantford and Brant county?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I thank the member for his question and for his concern with respect to the needs of victims of sexual assault. I know he has been concerned because, to put it mildly, he has been in constant contact with my ministry staff on this particular issue. About three weeks ago the Brant county sexual assault advisory committee was formed. The committee has conducted a needs assessment of the community and developed a proposal for a service.

The hopes of the committee and the people of Brant county were lifted on May 8, 1991, when our government advised a tripling -- yes, a tripling -- of the funding for sexual assault centres. Subsequently, in the course of ongoing communications with my staff, the sexual assault committee developed a startup plan based on the needs of Brantford. On December 12, staff from the ministry met with the committee to discuss the proposal, a budget and a work plan. I am pleased to tell the member for Brantford that the ministry does not anticipate any difficulty with funding for the Brant county proposal.

Mr B. Ward: It has been a priority of mine since my election and I think it is also a priority of the people of Brantford to obtain the funds. I am quite anxious to find out when the funds will flow to the area. Could the minister provide an estimated date when funds will be provided to the Brant sexual assault advisory committee so that it can work towards establishing the centre? I know there is a small obstacle, and I am aware of that, concerning the flowing of funds to an unincorporated agency. I hope we can overcome that small problem as well.

Hon Mr Pilkey: The member indicates a difficulty with the incorporation with respect to that particular group, but I can indicate to the member that the funds will flow very soon indeed. While I cannot give him an absolute date, the meaning of that comment is that it will be in the foreseeable future, in the very near term indeed. It will not be a prolonged circumstance. He will be very happy with the result.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mrs Caplan: In the absence of the Premier, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. On June 16, 1986, amid a series of allegations later proved to be unfounded with respect to my compliance with conflict-of-interest guidelines, he asked me: "Why does the minister not do the honourable thing and step down until the matter has been clarified?" I would like to ask the minister why this same standard is not being applied to his colleague today.

Hon Mr Philip: I am happy to accept any questions directed towards my ministry. That has nothing to do with my ministry. I will refer it to the government House leader.

Hon Mr Cooke: This is the protocol of this place and I think the member for Oriole knows that. We have said in this Legislature time and time again that we are prepared to have this issue looked into.

We had a request from the leader of the third party at the beginning of the week that the matter go to committee. I negotiated on behalf of the government for the last two days with her House leader and the House leader of the third party. We were almost at the point where we had an agreement on how the committee would proceed. The government agreed with every demand the opposition parties made with the exception of one, and it should be very clear to the opposition parties that the government will not be offering the resignation of a minister, but we want the matter to go to committee.

One can only understand that the point the opposition parties have made in the last two days is that they do not want this matter to go to committee because they know they have nothing to prove and we have nothing to hide.

Mr Bradley: I would like to call you a liar right now.

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, is that in order?

Mrs Caplan: I would like to pursue this matter further. The NDP observed in this House on June --

The Speaker: Would the member for Oriole take her seat, please. The member for St Catharines, that is doing something indirectly which you know you are not permitted to do directly.

Mr Bradley: I said I would like to call him a liar right now. I obviously did not call him a liar.

The Speaker: I would ask the member simply to withdraw that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines makes it very awkward because I --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the House come to order.

When we have a difficult issue before the House, language becomes perhaps more focused than what is helpful. I ask the member for St Catharines, in the circumstance of the atmosphere which is currently in the chamber, if he would reconsider his approach to the topic.

Mr Bradley: To assist the Speaker, because I know you want to keep this House decorous or whatever you call it, I will certainly withdraw that.

The Speaker: I appreciate the approach of the member for St Catharines's. If the member for Oriole would place her supplementary.

Mrs Caplan: In supplementary, I will pursue the matter further. I remind the members of the NDP cabinet that on June 16, 1986, the quote was that "only after" the legislative standing committee had dealt with the issues could I stand in all respect and take over my responsibilities once again.

My question today is, what has changed in the NDP standards of conduct between 1986 and 1991, and why is the Premier not demanding that same standard of conduct from his own colleague today?

Hon Mr Cooke: The request at the beginning of the week was for a committee of the Legislature to look at the matter. The proposal was put forward and we negotiated in good faith. I can only come to the conclusion that the opposition parties are afraid to have this go to committee.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr J. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Health. She knows that the Provincial Auditor, the Ontario Hospital Association, health organizations, I and my colleagues in the Ontario PC party, have been telling her all along that hospitals are being forced to randomly cut beds without government direction and without any overall assessment of the health care needs of Ontarians as a whole.

Medical specialists are now giving her the same message, and they are tragically doing so, because they are voting with their feet and leaving Ontario in large numbers. Ontario has lost about 25 orthopaedic surgeons to the United States in the past few months.

I ask the minister what she says to patients who will now be forced to wait in even longer lineups for medical specialists' care.

Hon Ms Lankin: We have dealt with this issue a number of times with respect to the effect of the negotiations between the government and the Ontario Medical Association, the effect of the thresholds, and the member raises some other issues.

First of all, with respect to orthopaedic surgeons, there have been in every year in the last number of years a fair number of orthopaedic surgeons who have left Ontario and gone to the United States. The member suggests the problem is larger. The numbers I have seen thus far do not suggest the number is larger, but I will look into his recent stats that he is quoting.

I can also tell him that in terms of the increase in the number of orthopaedic L surgeons we have in the province year over year, we have a substantially larger core of orthopaedic surgeons in Ontario this year than last year in terms of those who are graduating and coming into the province.

Overall, however, the member raises the issue of management of human resources with respect to physician services. I think it is an important issue. I might come at it from a different perspective than him, but I agree with the importance of the issue.

We are meeting with other provincial ministers of health. This is an issue not just in Ontario. Every province faces this in terms of distribution of specialty, mix of doctors and numbers of doctors. The Barer-Stoddart report focused on a lot of this, and we hope we will be taking action in the new year that will help not just Ontario but all of Canada to manage this important issue.

Mr J. Wilson: At the very time the Minister of Northern Development and Mines was slandering and lying to a crowd in Thunder Bay, that very night I was meeting with doctors in Sudbury on behalf of my caucus colleagues, and in fact with the very doctor she slandered and lied about. Ministry of Health officials were telling the good people of the north that if there is a shortage of specialists, under the grant program they can send their patients down south.

I have news for the minister. There are not enough specialists here any more to deal with the problems of northern Ontarians, let alone the people of southern Ontario. I have a list of 10 medical specialists who have left the Toronto area in the past few months. Dr John Kostuik, spinal specialist, orthopaedic surgeon, left Toronto Hospital and is now at Johns Hopkins. Dr Steve Esses has left Toronto Hospital and is now in Houston. Dr Peter Armstrong, children's orthopaedic surgeon, has left the Hospital for Sick Children and is now in Salt Lake City, Utah.

The Speaker: Would the member place his supplementary question.

Mr J. Wilson: Dr Debbie Bell, children's orthopaedic surgeon, spinal specialist, has left Sick Children's and is now in Detroit. Dr Peter Brooks, reconstructive surgeon, left Toronto.

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary question.

Mr J. Wilson: He is now in Cleveland. I could go on. Dr Bob Jackson, Dr Stan Gurtzbain, Dr Gross, Dr Susan MacKinnon --

The Speaker: Rather than list all the doctors in the province, would the member succinctly place his supplementary if he has one.

Mr J. Wilson: I am succinctly placing it, but it is a very long list and I am doing the best I can.

Dr Susan MacKinnon, a world leading plastic surgeon, just left Toronto and has now gone somewhere in the United States, and there are others. These are not just medical specialists. These are world renowned, top-of-their-field medical specialists in Canada.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. The member was asked several times to place a question and he failed so to do. The time for oral questions has expired. I realize that both the member for Simcoe West and the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hasting indeed have questions and perhaps they will find their way to question period tomorrow.

PETITIONS

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

Mrs Caplan: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We respectfully request that chiropodists continue to be permitted to communicate a diagnosis identifying a disease or disorder of the foot, thus eliminating the inevitable two-tier health disciplines and allowing this profession to serve the people of Ontario in its fullest capacity."

This is signed by 100% of the students of the Ontario chiropody program at the Michener Institute.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr McLean from the standing committee on government agencies presented its 22nd report.

Mr McLean: Briefly, the standing committee on government agencies met to consider the review of intended appointments, pursuant to standing order 104(g). Your committee reviewed the intended appointments of Verna L. Hannaford, member of Orillia Police Services Board, and Frances Adams, member, Village of Lakefield Police Services Board, referred to the committee on Tuesday, November 28, 1991. Your committee concurs in the intended appointments of these persons.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 104(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr104,

An Act to revive The Church of the Torontonians;

Bill Pr109,

An Act to revive Federated Women's Institutes of Ontario, Bay of Quinte Branch;

Bill Pr113,

An Act to revive Hotstone Minerals Limited;

Bill Pr114,

An Act to revive Tasmaque Gold Mines Limited;

Bill Pr115,

An Act to revive Pittsonto Mining Company Limited;

Bill Pr116,

An Act to revive Sunbeam Exploration Company Limited;

Bill Pr117,

An Act to revive Petitclerc Mines Limited;

Bill Pr118,

An Act respecting the City of Hamilton;

Bill Pr119,

An Act to establish the West Nipissing Economic Development Corporation.

Your committee further recommends that the fees and the actual costs of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes be remitted on Bill Pr109,

An Act to revive Federated Women's Institutes of Ontario, Bay of Quinte Branch.

Motion agreed to.

MEMBER'S MAILING

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The member for Ottawa-Rideau earlier rose on a point of privilege in relationship to a letter written by the member for Ottawa Centre to people in her constituency.

I am asking that you investigate this letter since it was produced on Legislative Assembly paper using the office of her constituency and her Queen's Park office. It contains information which is false in relation to some programs that have been introduced, and I am asking that you investigate this. This information contains lies. It is your duty, as the Speaker, to review the use of communications work for the members of the House, and I believe that you should undertake that investigation.

The Speaker: While I am pleased to take a look at anything which is brought to my attention, the member should know that she has not demonstrated any loss of her privileges as a member. At the same time --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I draw the member's attention to another matter, that it is not appropriate to accuse a member in the House of lying. We have gone over this ground on other occasions. It was necessary to make a statement to the House to that effect. Members should know that it is not appropriate, and I would ask the member to withdraw an accusation in the House of a member lying.

Mrs Sullivan: I will withdraw those words and substitute for them the words of another member. Those statements are unfounded and not true.

The Speaker: That is all that is required. At the same time the member should know that while I am pleased to take a look at any material, things which occur outside of the chamber, outside of the precinct, are not within the purview of the Speaker. None the less, I will take a look at the information you have presented.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PROTECTION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ESCARPEMENT DU NIAGARA

Mr B. Murdoch moved first reading of Bill 167,

An Act to revise the Law Relating to the Protection of the Niagara Escarpment and the Surrounding Wetlands / Projet de loi 167, Loi révisant la Loi concernant la protection de l'escarpement du Niagara et des terres marécageuses environnantes.

Motion agreed to.

Mr B. Murdoch: The bill repeals the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act. The bill provides for the designation of a natural area which would be limited to the Niagara Escarpment and its surrounding wetlands. Development in the natural area is prohibited unless approved by the municipality and the assembly. Changes to the boundary of the natural area shall be restricted to those changes that are necessary in order to respect changes in the natural boundaries of the escarpment and surrounding wetlands. The changes to the boundaries must be approved by the municipalities affected and the assembly.

PAY EQUITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉQUITÉ SALARIALE

Mr Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 168,

An Act to amend the Pay Equity Act / Projet de loi 168, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'équité salariale.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The bill establishes two additional methods of determining whether pay equity exists for a female job class, the proportional value method and the proxy method. The bill states the circumstances in which the crown is considered to be the employer of an individual for purposes of the act. The bill provides that when an employer sells the business, the purchaser assumes the employer's obligations under the act. There are a number of other housekeeping amendments.

PUBLIC SERVICE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE

Mr Silipo moved first reading of Bill 169,

An Act to amend the Public Service Act and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act / Projet de loi 169, Loi modifiant la Loi siur la fonction publique et la

Loi sur la négociation collective des employés de la Couronne.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Silipo: This bill provides that individuals become public servants, civil servants and crown employees only by express appointment to such and that only employees of designated crown agencies will be eligible to be crown employees. Similar provisions apply amending the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. As I indicated earlier, the introduction of legislation to implement proportional value and proxy pay equity methods will resolve the need for government-as-employer litigation as a means of achieving pay equity.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR SPONSORED VENTURE CAPITAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES CORPORATIONS A CAPITAL DE RISQUE DE TRAVAILLEURS

The House divided on Ms Wark-Martyn's motion for second reading of Bill 150, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 82

Abel, Bisson, Boyd, Brown, Buchanan, Caplan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cleary, Conway, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Curling, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Elston, Fawcett, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Grandmaître, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Henderson, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Mancini, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, McClelland, Miclash, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Offer, O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Owens, Philip, E., Phillips, G., Pilkey, Poirier, Poole, Pouliot, Rizzo, Scott, Silipo, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 18

Arnott, Carr, Cousens, Cunningham, Eves, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Jordan, Marland, McLean, Murdoch, B., Sterling, Stockwell, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson, J., Witmer.

Bill ordered for standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Hon Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know it is quite out of order for an interjection to take place during a count, but I want to draw your attention to the intemperate remark of the member for Markham with regard to the member for Sault Ste Marie. I believe he used a term which was unbelievably unparliamentary.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. First, the member for Algoma is right. The Speaker should not interfere in the midst of a vote either. Second, however, I did not hear the remark to which he refers.

I ask that the member for Markham, if indeed --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order, please. If the member for Markham indeed did make a remark which was unparliamentary, perhaps he would stand and withdraw that remark.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, in the spirit of the Christmas season, if I was offensive in any way, I withdraw it, although my heart says otherwise.

Hon Mr Wildman: The term was "slime bucket."

The Speaker: In fact, the member has now drawn to the attention of the Speaker and the House the very term to which he took offence, and the member for Markham has in fact withdrawn, which is the appropriate thing to do.

House in committee of the whole.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Consideration of Bill 158,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act with respect to the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Sector of the Construction Industry / Projet de loi 158, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations de travail en ce qui a trait au secteur industriel, commercial et institutionnel de l'industrie de la construction.

The Second Deputy Chair: Would the honourable parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour have some opening remarks on third reading of Bill 158?

Ms S. Murdock: We are proposing three amendments.

Mr Offer: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: On this particular bill I think your opening comment was whether the parliamentary assistant has anything to say on third reading. Are we in committee of the whole House, or are we on third reading?

The Second Deputy Chair: We are in committee of the whole. The honourable member must speak to a specific

section when we go into committee of the whole House.

Ms S. Murdock: Do you want the opening remarks on the specific section, Mr Chairman?

The Second Deputy Chair: Yes, please.

Ms S. Murdock: Which

section are we on, Mr Chairman?

The Second Deputy Chair: We are on

section 1.

Ms S. Murdock: Then I have no comments to make and I will wait to hear what the opposition has to say.

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I am not quite certain whether the parliamentary assistant has amendments to introduce.

Ms S. Murdock: None.

Mr Sterling: She does not have any amendments to introduce. It is quite common that if people have general remarks to make, sometimes they make them around

section 1. Anybody wanting to participate in this debate may make remarks on

section 1.

The Second Deputy Chair: On

section 1, yes, because we will be addressing

section 1 specifically.

Mr Offer: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Our understanding was that as we dealt with this bill, which we recognized must be dealt with as expeditiously as possible -- we have said that from day one -- as we went through committee of the whole House and then into third reading, there might be some opening comments made by either the parliamentary assistant or members of the Legislature so that this piece of legislation could start moving along.

The Second Deputy Chair: It is now in committee of the whole House. We have had second reading and it is customary to address generally in second reading. In committee of the whole we will be addressing the specific items within Bill 158. We are now addressing

section 1 of Bill 158. Any general comments on

section 1 can be entertained now and then we will proceed with the formalities to approve

section 1 or otherwise.

Mr Offer: As I indicated earlier, there are a number of people in the construction industry who are looking very closely at this debate. They have recognized the concern we from the official opposition have had, that the government would not introduce this particular piece of legislation until very late in the session.

Notwithstanding the fact that it introduced this piece of legislation late in the session, we met with a number of people who are concerned about the bill, not about its substance -- they were in favour of its substance -- but rather to make certain this bill could be passed as early as possible.

I had spoken with them. I was aware of this piece of legislation. As the Labour critic for the official opposition, I caucused it with members. I believe Hansard will show it was only myself who spoke on second reading. Not only was it only myself, but we spoke fairly briefly on this bill. We did so because we wanted the bill to pass. We still want the bill to pass. We had great concerns with the way the Minister of Labour, who could have brought forward this piece of legislation much earlier on, failed to do so.

The Second Deputy Chair: We are on

section 1, please, I want to remind the honourable member.

Mr Offer: I am moving to the point I wish to make.

We were ready to move with this bill. The Minister of Labour knew this issue was crucially important. It was not surprising. It was an issue the construction industry knew existed and had shared that information with the ministry. This was the subject matter of a report. The issues were very clear. The way in which the issues could be addressed were very clear.

We waited and waited for the minister to introduce legislation. The minister did not introduce legislation, I believe the record will show, until November. We sit here but four weeks later. Mr Chair, I thank you for your indulgence in my making this point of order. We sat here waiting for the Minister of Labour to introduce that piece of legislation. We waited and waited and the minister still did not introduce it.

Mr Chair, if I may for just one moment, when he did finally introduce the piece of legislation, we spoke very briefly and concisely to the point, in support not only of the legislation but indeed of its passage. Mr Chair, in keeping with the intent and hope of the official opposition for passage of this legislation, I ask, that this matter be now moved into third reading. I ask that the committee rise and report.

The Second Deputy Chair: There is a motion before the committee of the whole that the committee rise and report. Are we reporting progress or are we reporting the bill?

Mr Mancini: Reporting the bill.

The Second Deputy Chair: In committee of the whole it is traditional and customary that we deal with sections one at a time. We have not dealt with the sections.

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I believe the motion is out of order in that we are in the middle of the process. If we rise and report at this stage, we are going to be back in the committee of the whole House tomorrow on the same bill.

The Second Deputy Chair: In view of the fact that it has been moved that the committee rise and report the bill, shall sections 1 to 6 be approved?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

On motion by Ms S. Murdock, the committee of the whole reported one bill without amendment.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Mr Buchanan, on behalf of Mr Mackenzie, moved third reading of Bill 158,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act with respect to the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Sector of the Construction Industry / Projet de loi 158, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations de travail en ce qui a trait au secteur industriel, commercial et institutionnel de l'industrie de la construction.

Mr Offer: I am pleased to rise and speak on Bill 158. This is a very important bill. It is one that was introduced, I believe, by the Minister of Labour not more than four weeks ago. The construction industry is very concerned about this particular piece of legislation, concerned that it will not only be brought forward to this Legislature and fully debated but hopefully passed in the time permitted.

Let me briefly go through what the bill entails. Basically, what we are talking about is three changes to the Labour Relations Act as it applies to the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry.

The first change within the bill deals with extending the contracts from their current length of two years to three years. As was indicated, provincial agreements now run in this sector for a period of two years. This bill proposes an amendment so that those 20-odd provincial contracts would have an existence of not just two years but three years. That is an important change to the status quo. It is important because the sector has found itself almost in a continual bargaining process.

When you have a contract that has an existence of two years, it seems that by the time you have negotiated one end of one contract you are starting the negotiations for the next two-year contract. They have found that does not promote a healthy sector.

Second, it is clear there is no question this would provide a stability that does not exist at this point in time to the ICI sector. That is because we are dealing with two-year contracts that always seem to be in some form of bargaining, one way or the other. A three-year contract adds of course another year, but also adds a great deal of certainty and stability to a very important aspect of our province and to an industry within our province.

The second aspect of the bill talks about the creation of a secretariat. This particular area could use a secretariat that would in many ways form a central body to administer the collection and analysis of construction collective bargaining data and the collection and analysis of other relevant industry data to further enhance province-wide, single-trade bargaining. This is important. This is an area that requires ongoing analysis, ongoing examination and ongoing relooking as to what is happening, why, and how it can be enhanced.

To date, there is not that central body to do that work. This piece of legislation would in effect create a secretariat. That secretariat would be charged with the responsibility of collecting data, of learning more about the whole collective bargaining process, some of the issues and aspects within it, and I believe make for a more healthy, more vibrant, more consultative, mo