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

April 13, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): Two weeks ago I had an opportunity to be at what may have been the largest gathering of concerned citizens ever to assemble under one roof in Northumberland county. The focus of their concern was the preservation, protection and conservation of fish and wildlife in this province.

Their frustration was based on the NDP government's inability and unwillingness to listen to or represent their concerns. In fact, an invitation to this gathering was left unanswered by the government and so there was no government representative in attendance.

The Bob Rae government established an interim enforcement policy on the aboriginals' right to hunt and fish for food, and once again failed to involve all the stakeholders in decisions which directly affect them. By not having all parties at the table, the NDP government has badly damaged the aboriginal people's position and has certainly upset and disaffected a large number of Ontarians.

The root of this problem goes right back to the Premier's decision to appoint the member for Algoma not only Minister of Natural Resources, but minister responsible for native affairs. Surely the Premier must have seen the inherent problem this appointment would have. It has left many in this province asking, "Who is representing non-natives at these talks?"

A strong conclusion of the meeting, and one I concur with, was that the Premier should relieve the member for Algoma of one of these ministerial responsibilities at the earliest opportunity, so that all sides can be represented fairly and equally. Act now, Premier.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm disappointed to report yet another example of this government's lack of commitment to the environmental assessment process.

First we had the Minister of the Environment literally throw out the process on the dump in her panic to resolve the Metro garbage crisis which she helped cause. Now we have the Minister of Transportation telling Newcastle councillor Larry Hannah that despite opposition to the government's preferred route, "The 407 is going through." This is before the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has approved the route and before the environmental assessment process.

Minister, can we have an environmental process that is not prejudged? If you have no intention of listening to the public's concerns, why waste taxpayers' time and money? Can't we once and for all have a government that is honest and open with the people -- not qualities for which this government is renowned.

This arrogance must be challenged. Important environmental considerations must be fully examined. This minister's disrespect for his own government's public consultation process is unacceptable. I call on the minister to apologize now to the people of Newcastle and to announce that he is not prejudging the outcome of the environmental assessment process.

NATIONAL UNITY

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Clearly the single most important factor in bringing Canada, and indeed Ontario, out of the present recession and on the way to recovery is national unity. The international investment community is waiting patiently for Canadians to resolve this issue. It would therefore be counterproductive, especially at this time, to promote hatred against an identifiable segment of our society in the province of Ontario. Absolutely, this should never happen at any time.

Certainly it is within one's right to complain to or petition the government about perceived unnecessary spending. This is understandable, as everyone does not have the same priorities when it comes to government programs. However, to attach a condition to a petition so that it changes its intent -- that is, the perception to promote hatred -- is deplorable.

For a member of this assembly to endorse such a petition is unthinkable. To initiate and circulate such a petition is beyond reason. I am of course speaking about the "bilingual signs" petitions being circulated around the province and read in the Legislature.

I question why any member of the Legislature Assembly would do such a thing. To use such a plot to discredit the government and/or to garner personal political support and obvious notoriety without any real understanding of the consequences suggests incompetence.

I sincerely hope that the perceived promotion of hatred that is evident in these petitions is accidental and not planned. We do not need to encourage any real or perceived divisions among the people of Ontario, or Canada for that matter. What we do need is to be united and to cooperate and work together in order to turn this economy around.

VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Later today I will be reintroducing a bill which the NDP chose to allow to die on the order paper. The bill prohibits persons from walking or running on highways or railway tracks or driving vehicles on highways while wearing headphones.

I introduced it last November following tragic deaths in Ottawa-Carleton and elsewhere in Ontario. The minister said that he would seriously consider the legislation. To date he has done nothing. In the meantime we have witnessed yet another senseless death in Brampton, where a 30-year-old man was killed in February walking on a railway line while wearing portable headphones.

Recently released data show that close to 100 pedestrians were struck by trains in 1991, 55 of which resulted in death.

The time has come to pass a new law in the interests of public safety. I again urge the government to send this bill to committee at the earliest opportunity.

This governments claims to be open and reform-minded, yet it continues to withhold legislative tools from the average government or opposition backbencher. This issue needs to be debated in the Legislature. Enforceability of such a law is not the issue, because the very existence of such a law -- as with seat belts -- will build public awareness and save lives.

JUNIOR HOCKEY

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Now that the National Hockey League strike has ended, I rise to inform the House of another threat to hockey in Ontario.

The Oakville Blades and numerous other junior hockey teams are having their existence threatened by this government and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Provincial governments, through their lottery division, license hockey teams to conduct bingos. In the words of Brent Ladds, president of the Ontario Hockey Association:

"The position of the Ontario government is that this practice should be discontinued.

"The inability of our hockey clubs to obtain licenses will be devastating. The volunteers who operate and raise funds for our hockey clubs are not looking for handouts. They seek only to raise funds to finance their teams.

"The Ontario Hockey Association is respectfully requesting that this government initiate whatever changes and policies are necessary to render our teams eligible for these licences and to accommodate our teams."

It would appear that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will not be content until she has destroyed junior hockey in Ontario. I call on the minister to intervene and to solve the problem, or the demise of junior hockey will be added to the long list of initiatives by this government which are destroying our province. As a former hockey player, I say that would be a travesty.

OPEN HOMES CANADA

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): In the last few days we have had some positive signals from national, provincial, territorial and native leaders regarding our determination that Canada emerge from our current constitutional discussions stronger and united in our commitment to this nation.

I want today to inform the House of a search for that renewal that comes from other leaders in our communities. Last February, a group of London councillors that includes councillor Anne Marie DiCicco and controller Dianne Haskett proposed a project called Open Homes Canada. Open Homes Canada is a Canada-wide exchange to foster unity and goodwill. Londoners wish to open their homes to receive fellow Canadians for a four-day visit on the civic holiday weekend from July 31 to August 3, 1992. In return, they hope to visit at the homes of their guests elsewhere in Canada in the year 1992.

I would like to offer my congratulations to communities with such innovative leaders and support for the success of this program. I would also encourage other communities to become involved in this tangible and very significant extension of building friendships among Canadians.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I rise on a matter that is increasingly becoming a crisis situation, which is the way in which the education system is being handled by this government, and specifically the fact that by the end of this week, the students at the secondary level in the Ottawa Board of Education will have been out of classes for four weeks. What we see now is that the mediator has said the talks are off and that he is making a report today to the Education Relations Commission.

The Minister of Education must now exercise his responsibilities if he believes, as he says he does, in the collective bargaining system. If he wants to see that system continue, he must act now in bringing the parties back to the table to ensure that there is a solution and that those young people will be back in the classroom.

We have a situation as well in the Carleton board and there are others throughout the province. If this government refuses to show real leadership and say what it means in terms of teachers' settlements and to provide real and meaningful direction, we are going to be faced with tremendous problems.

I say to the minister today that it is imperative that he act now and that he bring those parties together. If they have to negotiate for 24 hours over the next several days, that is the approach that must be taken. These strikes must end. The minister must play a role. He cannot sit back, as he has up to this point, and pretend it doesn't matter. It matters, and it matters deeply.

DALE MARTIN

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Today I would like to make it quite clear to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that although I agree that the present OMB appeal process is badly in need of streamlining, I do not feel his plan announced last week will do much to help the situation.

The minister has appointed Dale Martin, a former NDP Toronto city councillor, to "facilitate certain projects." Apart from the fact that Mr Martin has probably never set foot in rural Ontario and certainly will not understand its distinct problems, he has a history of obstructing, not assisting, the work of the OMB.

Therefore, as he obviously has no qualifications for this position, what sort of appointment was this if not one of blatant patronage, something the NDP has always sanctimoniously been against? Exactly what sort of work will Mr Martin do for his $110,000 a year? Who decides what sort of projects should be fast-tracked and why? How is this fair to those who have been patiently awaiting their turn? How is the minister going to deal with those whose projects are not being facilitated?

And what of John Sewell? Mr Sewell, a former friend and colleague of Mr Martin, is presently travelling the province, supposedly rewriting the book on planning in Ontario. Will they run into each other? Why are we paying them both? The minister must answer several questions before this even newer level of bureaucracy can be justified.

WINDSOR CENTENNIAL

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I'd like to bring to the attention of all members of this Legislature today a very important celebration now occurring in the city of Windsor. The year 1992 is Windsor's 100th anniversary as a city. I'd like to share this special occasion in Windsor's history with you, Mr Speaker, members of this Legislative Assembly and of course all the citizens of Windsor and the province of Ontario.

We began with an outdoor New Year's Eve celebration which attracted well over 5,000 people. This is how we as Windsorites rang in 1992. On May 11 our city will highlight its heritage. I'm pleased to say that during that week -- it'll be called Century Week -- the Governor General of Canada will be in attendance.

Our other events during the week will be Education Celebration '92, the MacKenzie Hall Arts Festival and the Century Business Awards for companies that have been in Windsor for 100 years. The festivities will continue with the International Freedom Festival. Together the 1992 centennial celebration committee will join forces with the Freedom Fest and will deliver one of Canada's largest Canada Day parades which is of course coupled with a fireworks display on the Detroit River. Each year, this event attracts well over 500,000 people. As well, Windsor will help to celebrate an even bigger birthday, Canada's 125th birthday on July 1.

Let me say thank you to Pamela Brajak, coordinators' assistant for the 1992 centennial committee, for all this information today. As well, there are brochures available to all the members and to you, Mr Speaker. I urge you to attend the biggest party of all, Windsor's 100th birthday celebration. I'd like to say to all that we hope you join the party.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities and Minister of Skills Development): It gives me great pleasure to announce today details of transitional assistance funding to begin restructuring the post-secondary education sector.

When I announced transfer payments to the broader public sector of 1%, 2% and 2% last January, we were speaking to the new fiscal reality facing our province. As Minister of Colleges and Universities, I asked all members of the post-secondary sector, students, faculty, support staff, presidents and administration, to help Ontario rise to the challenge of the recession in this sector of our common life.

I asked them to work with me and my ministry and to look at how, in the context of a recession, we can best offer accessible, high-quality education in Ontario that will support our province's social and economic needs. To do this, short-term and long-term restructuring task forces were struck for both the college and the university sectors. Short-term restructuring proposals whose implementation required transitional assistance had to be submitted by February 28, only weeks after the Treasurer's transfer announcement.

I am pleased to be able to report that, despite the short notice we were able to give, there was tremendous cooperation from our post-secondary partners. I want to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to those who came through for us and worked so hard on these proposals.

Today I want to announce that colleges and universities will be receiving $39.4 million of the $160 million of transitional assistance available to the broader public sector. Colleges will receive $17.4 million of those dollars and universities $22 million.

I have made it clear to the colleges and universities that transitional assistance funding is not in any way a short-term response to limited resources. It's an investment in change. Transitional assistance is the beginning of a process of longer-term restructuring that will result in the reshaping of post-secondary education, not just in response to the economic restraints of a recession, but in order to better respond to the educational needs of all Ontarians, students, workers and businesses, as we move into the 21st century.

I have also underlined the absolute need for collaboration among stakeholders both in the short term and in the long term.

The measures we are taking relate to academic restructuring, human resource planning and long-term efficiencies or streamlining.

Academic restructuring will include alternative forms of program delivery like electronic classrooms that link students in remote communities with post-secondary institutions and computer-based learning that allows students to learn at their own pace. Initiatives like these help reduce the strain on capital spending and salaries while at the same time expanding access to post-secondary education.

Other measures will reduce duplication of courses and make it easier for students to move from one institution to another and improve cooperation between institutions.

On the level of human resources, we will be funding initiatives around early retirement and staff training and development. What we are doing will contribute to long-term restructuring by offering the greater flexibility institutions require to respond to Ontario's educational needs and to give staff opportunities for redeployment within or outside the post-secondary sector.

Our funding is also aimed at more efficient long-term use of equipment, streamlining of administrative procedures and structures and encouraging collaborative ventures between institutions to economize on business operations and services.

I want to reiterate that we have been working under severe time constraints. That is why the short-term task force on restructuring has recommended going back to the institutions concerned in order to develop more detailed costing of the projects before we announce the precise sums to be awarded to individual institutions. I shall be informing the institutions concerned in this second phase of evaluation by letter later today.

I know the people of Ontario and the other partners in the broader public sector will be encouraged, as I am, by the response of our universities and colleges to the call for cooperation and creative thinking in the face of this recession. The $39 million I am announcing here today is an investment in the people in our colleges and our universities, an investment in the long-term restructuring of Ontario's post-secondary sector. It is an investment in the future of our province.

RESPONSES

TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I am sorry to say it does not give me great pleasure to respond to this particular statement by the minister, even though we were certainly awaiting some good news. The minister has just said he is giving the universities $22 million. Last week, I got a press release from the Council of Ontario Universities. They said in complaint that they were just shortchanged $8 million out of pay equity funding that was promised to the universities.

You take the $8 million of the $22 million and you are left with $14 million. Last October, I would like to remind the minister, the Treasurer took $9.2 million out of the operating budgets of the universities. If you take that $9.2 million off the $14 million, what's left is about $5 million, and I'm not even talking about the historically low transfer increases that were announced not too long ago by the Treasurer. Mr Minister, I really think what you are doing is that you're giving with one hand, but with the other one you're taking it back.

The universities have certainly complained for long now. I think they have a very good cause, even in these tough economic times, to complain about the treatment they're receiving from your government. In fact, your treatment is not only fiscally very poor and very unsatisfactory towards the universities, but they have written to you and they have written to the Premier several times asking for meetings, and each time the Premier in particular has refused to meet with them.

I'm quoting here a letter here from Dr George, the president of the Council of Ontario Universities, where he says, "May I remind you that, on many previous occasions, we offered to sit down with government to explore alternatives" to the current difficult economic circumstances. They appreciate it and they know that, but you even refused to meet with them.

The minister is making announcements about a long-term restructuring of the universities, and frankly I support the ideas he's putting forward. I think the principles he's enunciating in terms of finding new and innovative ways to deliver education in this province and in the universities sector are good ones, and I acknowledge that. However, when I meet the representatives of the university communities, students, administrators, faculty, they tell me the long-term restructuring committee is hardly off the ground.

These are all great ideas, good concepts, but -- I just received this newspaper of the University of Western Ontario today which I will quote from, and it applies to your statement today, "This is just another example of the Ontario government saying one thing while doing something quite different." This is the quote from the university provost at Western Ontario.

With his long-term restructuring, the minister is putting forward some beautiful ideas, but when it comes to concrete actions, they are missing. I am looking forward, Mr Minister, to see that a long-term restructuring committee is established and is working at the earliest opportunity and that you come in with precise announcements as to what your plans are.

You are saying here that even your short-term task force has to go back to the universities and work more with the universities to determine how the $5 million that's left should be spent. How often will you have to go back to the universities in terms of the long-term restructuring you have in mind?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, what this suggests is going to happen in Ontario as well is that we are going to see another increase in tuition fees. You will recall, having been on the campaign trail, as we all were, the promise made that tuition fees would be abolished by an NDP government in Ontario. I know some of those in the Canadian union of students who have been supporters of the New Democratic Party are bitterly disappointed by the fact that not only have tuition fees increased, but the original promise to abolish tuition fees in the Utopian Ontario is gone as well.

We see this stopgap measure being put forward, but I think it really points to the fact that the students can await yet more tuition fee increases from an NDP government.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It's with interest that I respond to the announcement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities today. I think we should all understand that the colleges and universities are probably facing the greatest challenges they have ever faced in the history of the province of Ontario. We went through many years of building and dreams and hopes, and these days, as we talk about training and international competitiveness, the colleges and the universities are telling us that the system is on the verge of collapse.

Today we heard the minister, who within his own cabinet has probably been somewhat successful in coming up with $39.4 million out of $160 million in transition grants. Mr Minister, the colleges and universities and the students across this province will not look at that as real money to be added to a base budget but as something very much less than that. If we take a look at January 21, 1992, when you met with representatives of the universities, they certainly did expect some transition fund money, but on that very day they also realized they were looking at only 1% in transfer payments.

They were very much concerned about the $13 million that was removed last October from the operating base of both the colleges and universities for 1991-92. More recent, and I discussed this with you, they feel there is some $8 million missing to implement the pay equity priorities of this government. No matter which way you look at a total of $39.4 million, the universities getting $22 million and the colleges $17.4 million, in their eyes this is probably something like $18.4 million in real dollars at the very most.

In the pre-budget submission of the Council of Ontario Universities where the council was looking at the 1% transfer payments, it reminded this government and the elected representatives across this province that an increase in operating grants of 1% meant a shortfall of $117 million in grant income. If you take a look at restructuring, we're restructuring $117 million less, and $18.4 million doesn't begin to talk about what we had to work with in the last fiscal year.

Mr Minister, you should also know the implications as presented by the Council of Ontario Universities in the pre-budget submission for reductions in full-time enrolment of students, and this is one I feel most concerned about. They are looking at some 15,000 students who will be denied access to our universities this coming school term. They also advised us of reductions in full-time faculty, with the 1% transfer payments, of some 896 faculty members, and in full-time equivalent staffing we're looking at over 1,125 individuals.

We are looking at fewer people teaching in our universities, advising and guiding our students. They're actually the people who will make a difference when it comes to the competitive environment we hope to be part of.

The problems remain that there won't be money for capital spending, we will see even larger class sizes, the library acquisitions and the books the students told us they needed will not be a reality and, their great concern, the use of part-time faculty will indeed increase.

I can only say that if we're looking at major restructuring of the universities through this Band-Aid approach, I would hope the minister would take a very firm stand within the cabinet of his government and with the Premier himself and say that we need to look at what our universities are supposed to be doing, how important they are to Ontario and whether or not they do indeed deserve a greater part of the provincial pie.

WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services and minister responsible for women's issues): I believe we have all-party consent for a statement in the House about the 75th anniversary of the vote.

I rise today as the minister responsible for women's issues. This past weekend the Committee for '94 brought women from across Ontario to Ryerson Polytechnical Institute to teach them how to get elected. Also this past weekend, but 75 years ago, women in Ontario won the vote. If the timing of these two events is unrelated, their significance is not.

Agitation for votes for women became organized in Ontario in 1876 when Dr Emily Howard Stowe formed something of a women's political underground. While pushing for suffrage, she formed a group whose members camouflaged their organization by calling it the Toronto Women's Literary Club. These women knew their real agenda, if divulged, would be vigorously opposed, and they were right. From 1885 to 1893 this Ontario Legislature saw no fewer than nine private bills to give women the vote; none passed.

However, over the years women's suffrage was coming of age in other provinces, England and many American states. By early 1916 Manitoba had extended the franchise; Alberta and Saskatchewan soon followed. For Ontario the writing was on the wall. With Canada at war, Ottawa found itself having to give women, at least those related to servicemen, a place at the federal polling booth in order to galvanize support for conscription across the nation. Bowing to these pressures from other jurisdictions, the Ontario government introduced amendments to the Ontario Elections Act and the Ontario Franchise Act in 1917.

The legislation passed unanimously on second reading and was declared law a month later.

Casting our ballots opened the door to women's throwing our hats into the political ring. Just weeks after the Ontario franchise decision, Alberta elected the first two women ever to hold office in Parliament within the British Empire. Lieutenant Roberta MacAdams was a nurse who had served in the war. Louise McKinney was a teacher and organizer of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, a vocal lobby group dedicated to banning the free flow of alcohol.

As the move towards full political equality continued, McKinney, joining four other Alberta women, acted to petition Canada's highest court to extend those rights. Her mission this time: to have the judicial committee of the Privy Council strike down the rule, stubbornly upheld by Ottawa, that under British common law, "Women are persons in matters of pain and penalties, but not in matters of rights and privileges." The petition of the famous five made history. The verdict delivered after five years of struggle that women are in fact persons under Canada's Constitution also made women eligible to sit in the Senate. That was in 1929.

This is 1992, and the facts today emphasize that although Canadian women have had the right to vote and to hold office, we are still far from being equitably represented in governments. For example, fewer than one in five of the 1,600 candidates fielded during the last federal election were women. The House of Commons contains 295 seats; women occupy only 40 of them.

In the provinces and territories, women's representation varies from barely 5% in Newfoundland to 20%-plus in Prince Edward Island and the Yukon, and in nine of the 12 major Canadian cities 25% or more of council members are women. Our slightly better showing municipally may be because the costs of local campaigns are lower than those of provincial and federal bids and that less travel means more time and energy for women who are expected to maintain the major share of family responsibilities.

Once in office, can women look forward to positions of power? Around the world, no. In 93 countries not a single woman is part of the cabinet. In Canada the answer is a little different. A greater fraction of women than men in provincial governments become ministers. But to leave it at that would be grossly misleading. The raw number of women in these governments is still embarrassingly small.

So who can forget the public curiosity, surprise and even shock when the Premier, in one of his first acts as Premier, appointed 11 women to his 26-member cabinet? Almost two years later, 10 women continue to serve in cabinet, overseeing more than half of the provincial budget and sitting on major cabinet committees, if not chairing them.

In British Columbia too women comprise nearly 40% of the cabinet, together managing over 80% of the budget and holding such high-profile positions as Deputy Premier, House Speaker and caucus chair.

Above all, in both provinces the ministers responsible for women's issues serve on provincial purse-holding boards. I sit on both the Management Board of Cabinet and the treasury board, while Penny Priddy is vice-chair of the BC government's treasury board.

My point is that in progressive pockets of the country women are well positioned to bring about systemic change. Here our votes count. But systemic change has to include getting rid of competition, confrontation and sheer nastiness in parliamentary politicking because the adversarial approach assumes that moral problems lend themselves to a quick fix. They don't.

Carol Gilligan, a professor from Harvard, argues that men view moral problems as arising from competing rights. That's why the cut and thrust of question period, committee hearings and other stages for legislative one-upmanship comes naturally to them.

Women, on the other hand, view moral problems as arising from competing obligations. That's why we're less interested in winning or losing than in finding a middle ground. Never mind the fact that what I call middle-ground management could prevent legislatures from degenerating into insult factories and ridicule mills. It could also promote agendas that empower everyday people with everyday problems. After all, education and training, discrimination on the job and in pay, child care and elder care, and violence in the home as well as on the streets are universal concerns. These issues need frank discussion, not pompous posturing. They don't end when question period does.

Rest assured that women are no longer organizing literary clubs to grope towards political reform. We're blazing the trail in the public arena. We're holding nomination schools that teach us how to canvass, how to fund-raise, how to team-build and how to win. We're calling loudly and often for caps on campaign spending to ensure that those who are financially disadvantaged are not politically disadvantaged. We're promoting affirmative action in our parties. We're setting up trusts for women candidates. We're challenging media myths about who the qualified candidate is.

We're reminding one another that you don't have to be a deal-cutting lawyer to be Prime Minister; that negotiating every day with our partners, our children, our children's educators, our bosses, our unions and even our grocers is qualification in itself.

We're giving diverse women more than our encouragement, time or money; we're encouraging them to exercise the very vote we won 75 years ago today.

To make the policy, it seems women have to make history over and over again. I only hope that within my lifetime this chamber will celebrate another historic first: an Ontario Legislature composed of as many women as men.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): It gives me particular pleasure to be able to join in a recognition and a celebration of the achievement of April 12, 1917. I think for us to fully appreciate that achievement it's important that we go back to the Canada that was at the turn of the century. It was a Canada, as we all well know, which had a Dominion Elections Act that stated that no woman, idiot, lunatic or criminal shall vote. It was certainly a Canada in which no woman could be elected in federal or provincial offices in government.

As the minister has noted, it was in the prairie provinces that women first won the right to vote, but we had early pioneering efforts in Ontario as well. I think it is important to point to the work that was done by the Toronto Women's Literary Club, which was established by Dr Emily Stowe in 1876. The name was deceiving because the real purpose of that club was to teach women their rights. Dr Stowe herself had been denied the right to attend a Canadian medical school and had been forced to go to the United States to receive training. It was under Dr Stowe's leadership that the club worked not only to win the vote but to establish a medical college for women in Ontario.

In 1915 a new Liberal government came to power in Manitoba with the promise that women in that province would be given the right to vote. Two years to the day after Nellie McClung and her army of women marched on the Manitoba Legislature, women in Manitoba did in fact become the first women in Canada to gain the right to vote. It seems incredible that it was not until 1929 that under the law women actually became persons.

There are some echoes of the past yet today as I read the reservations that a former Premier of Manitoba had about the idea of women having the right to vote. He suggested that nice women would not want the vote. It reminded me a little of the questions I was asked during the leadership campaign about whether I was too nice to lead a political party. You wonder perhaps how much progress we've really made at times.

Women have, as would only be expected, made significant contributions to the political and democratic processes during the 75 years since being enfranchised. That same sense of commitment that kept the suffrage movement so strong has made women powerful advocates of equal opportunity in all areas. Women continue to raise issues of concern to people throughout our society, demanding that issues that have sometimes been too long neglected become the focus for more urgent action.

Women have become involved in the political process at all levels, from the riding level to elected office to political leadership. There has been progress, but it is not enough. As we celebrate the 75th anniversary of women's right to vote, we must recognize that women, who represent 57% of the population, still make up only about 17% of municipal councils and about 14% to 21% of the Legislatures and Parliament of this country. Women in Ontario won the right to vote 75 years ago. We have surely demonstrated our capacity to contribute. We must now ensure that the opportunity to participate is truly equal.

I continue to believe that women will have gained true equality in the political process only when we participate in such numbers that it is only considered natural that we have that participation.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today as we celebrate and look back in history to those who went before us. The two significant occasions we're celebrating today are the 75th anniversary of women gaining the right to vote in Ontario and the 75th anniversary of Louise McKinney of Alberta, the first female to be elected in the British Empire, so it is a very special day.

The formal beginnings of the suffrage movement were in the late 1800s, when life was very different in Ontario and Canada and for women around the world. A number of activists established the Canadian Woman Suffrage Association and a series of similarly directed organizations. Together these organizations advocated justice for women.

Although many provinces permitted women to vote for school trustees and municipal officials, women did not gain the right to vote or to hold office until 1916 and, in some provinces, as in Ontario, in 1917.

Louise McKinney was the first woman elected to a legislature in the British Empire. She ran for office in Alberta and won a seat in the provincial Legislature in 1917. This election was a major achievement for women, considering the times. We admire her courage for committing years of her life to the political process in those difficult times, when she was not only disencouraged for her activities but certainly not admired, even by her friends and neighbours, both men and women. In those times, she was advised that women's place was only in the home and the only job for women was that of homemaker.

Louise McKinney served as a role model for other women and influenced many females to enter politics.

I think it is appropriate today that we speak of two other firsts in Ontario, because this province has shown great leadership in this country. Agnes Macphail from Grey county was the first female to be elected to the House of Commons. She was nominated by the United Farmers of Ontario for southeast Grey. We should always remember our past.

Another first for Ontario, for those members who represent the city of Hamilton, was a woman who is very much alive and still showing leadership to other women in this province. Her name is Ellen Fairclough. She was the first federal cabinet minister, appointed by Prime Minister John Diefenbaker in 1957. For those of us who are active in politics and have had the great joy of meeting Mrs Fairclough, I can tell you that whenever she is asked, she will speak, be a role model and tell us what it was like for her in those times and what we have yet to do as women in politics in Ontario, in Canada and around the world.

Today, some 75 years later, I am proud to be a member of the Ontario Legislative Assembly and I am encouraged that I am surrounded by so many other women who are making tremendous contributions to the quality of life, not only in politics but in their communities and here at Queen's Park.

I should add that we are underrepresented. My two colleagues today have already referred to the fact that the Committee for 1994, which did meet in Toronto this past weekend with a goal of achieving some 50% representation in our federal House in the federal election, was very much encouraged by the non-partisan approach of the speakers. I should tell you that Audrey McLaughlin spoke on Friday evening, I gave some message on Saturday morning, and the new Liberal leader, the member for Fort William, spoke later on in the day.

We were all encouraging, and you would probably agree, Mr Speaker, that we are positive role models for those women whom we encourage to enter this field. I hope we will see significant achievements in the next federal election.

Since 1917, and especially in the last 30 years, growing attention has been devoted to the social and political status of Canadian women. Women today hold senior political offices in countries around the world. The gradual -- and I say gradual -- rise in the number of women leaders and influential parliamentarians demonstrates the difficulty they have in entering the world of politics and remaining there.

The two most significant barriers to women are, first, financial, raising the money -- which is more important, it seems, than ever before; not appropriate, I think, but a reality of the times -- and second, the commitment and choices they have to make in their personal lives and in their families.

I think by supporting each other, men and women, we can encourage other women to be part of this most important political role, that is, to play an equal role in democracy and in the policies of their government.

I am proud to be standing here today and I am sure other members of the House would join our caucus in celebrating the 75 significant years for women in politics.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I am sure all of us who are concerned about the economy of this province want to congratulate the Ford Motor Co of Canada for the sizeable investment it announced this morning in Ontario's workforce.

This announcement comes as a welcome contrast to Friday's announcement of the current unemployment rates. Ontario's jobless rate, as we all know too well, has now hit a seven-year high of 10.5%; 609,000 Ontarians are now unemployed and a million more receive some form of social assistance. It is only too clear that Ontario needs jobs now.

In light of that, I find the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology's statement of April 3 regarding his plans for an industrial strategy to be a little perplexing. Mr Speaker, I should have addressed my question to the Premier; I apologize for not making that clear. If I can indicate the concern I have with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology's statement of April 3, it is that he says the specific initiatives for the industrial strategy can be sketched out now and developed in future years as the fiscal outlook improves.

Does the Premier not understand that the fiscal position of this province will not improve until we get our economy back on track and get people back to work? I would ask the Premier why he and his government insist on raising false expectations about an industrial strategy when the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology clearly has no plans to implement it at the present time.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Only an opposition leader could turn a day on which Ford of Canada is announcing a $2-billion investment in this province, a vote of confidence in the workers of this province, a vote of confidence in the cooperation that has existed and, if I may say so, cooperation that extends back in time to the days when the member for Wilson Heights was the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and when we began to establish this very effective working partnership with Ford, which we have established with Chrysler, with its production decisions in Windsor and in Brampton, and which we are now currently engaged in encouraging other companies to follow suit -- Ford of Canada has announced a $2-billion investment which will create new jobs in the province directly as a result, and I for one refuse to turn that kind of announcement into a bad-news story.

I can tell the leader that right now.

We are working very intensively with our industrial partners. We are working very intensively with the universities and with companies as well through the Premier's Council on Economic Renewal.

First of all, we are dealing with two issues.

First, the budget is coming down soon, and when the budget comes down, it will clearly point to some measures which we know will encourage even more investment in the province. The second thing is that we are working very intensively with the Premier's Council on Economic Renewal as we begin to look, targeting sector by sector, at how we can in fact make progress and how we can restore jobs to an economy that has been seriously affected in the last couple of years.

The solutions are not easy but I believe we are making good progress.

Mrs McLeod: In no way would I want to detract from the importance of the announcement Ford has made today, an effort to make a significant investment to maintain jobs that currently exist. That is why I began my question with that recognition, because we all know only too sadly that it is an effort that has been made by others who have not been able to continue. That is exactly why, over the past two years, more than 77% of Canada's job losses have occurred in Ontario, and it is why Metro Toronto's unemployment rate is now at an appalling 10.5%.

Recognizing the efforts that many are making to maintain existing jobs, I want to keep bringing the Premier's attention back to the people who are out of work right now and continue to ask how his government will provide jobs that are needed today. The Premier continues to talk about long-term possibilities, about the longer view, about the future outlook.

I would ask the Premier again the question I asked last week: In light of the current unemployment rates, in light of all the men and women who need jobs now, what can he point to in his industrial strategy that will actually create new jobs today?

Hon Mr Rae: The partnerships we have created, the work we have done on training, the work we have done with new investment: These are all things that are going to point and that are pointing now to job creation and to new growth.

Second is our commitment as a government to creating jobs ourselves, our commitment to the largest anti-recession program that any government has carried out in the history of the province, the largest public works program that's been carried out by a government -- for which we were criticized by members of the opposition, but if you ask members of the construction trades or people who have been affected by this, municipality after municipality, they will point out that it's our investment that's helped make this difference.

Mrs McLeod: Let me simply bring the Premier's attention back to the question I asked initially, and that was the confusion created by advertising an industrial strategy which his own minister indicates will not really be implemented until the financial situation of the province improves. That raises our concern that the government does not seem to understand that the financial situation will only improve when the economy is back on track.

That leads to a further concern. As the Premier has indicated, the next major initiative of this government will be the budget it is presenting, and we're concerned that the way in which it may see this financial situation improving is through higher taxes. The Treasurer has already spoken about a minimum corporate tax and a land speculation tax, and on Friday the working group for the Fair Tax Commission told the Treasurer of ways to change the sales tax system, but according to that working group if the government implements any of those proposals more Ontarians will lose their jobs in the next year.

Can the Premier assure us that his government will not be considering any increases in taxes that will bring about a further immediate loss of jobs?

Hon Mr Rae: As the Leader of the Opposition, who has such a negative view of our industrial strategy, has gone on the record, let me quote to her the comments of the president and chief executive officer of Stelco Inc, who said on April 4, 1992, "I'm delighted to see that for the first time in Ontario we have a government that is at least starting to deal with an industrial strategy."

Where we work effectively, we are able to do it. I can say in answer to the last question of the leader that she knows full well that it would be inappropriate for me at this time, as we're approaching a budget, to make any comment at all with respect to the question of taxation.

Mrs McLeod: Quite clearly the president of Stelco had not heard the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology indicate that the industrial strategy would not be implemented until some time in the future.

Mr Speaker, I serve notice that we will continue this line of questioning, but not with my next question, which is also to the Premier.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Last year the Treasurer indicated that a transfer payment with a zero per cent increase would result in 5,000 hospital bed closures, 25,000 fewer students in colleges and universities, and that 6,000 classrooms would be closed. At that time the Treasurer was told by school boards that they would need a 5% increase this year simply to maintain their services. The government provided 1%. Last year the Treasurer was very well aware of the consequences of a zero per cent increase. Surely this government must have understood how a 1% increase this year would affect programs and services.

My question to the Premier is, what did he expect the 1% increase in transfer payments to do to school boards and how did his government intend to respond to what it must have known would be a chaotic situation for school boards across this province?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): As the question is about school boards, I'll ask the Minister of Education to reply.

Hon Tony Silipo (Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet and Minister of Education): Certainly we were aware that the 1% transfer payment would cause some problems for school boards; there's no denying that. We've also indicated very clearly, as a result of recognizing that, that we are prepared to work with school boards to try to help them through this period, both with respect to the transition funds that we'll be distributing as well as other things that we believe we may be able to do with respect to the area of capital spending, and obviously with respect to a number of other issues that we're involved in some discussions on now, details of which will follow.

I understand the Minister of Education has now said that boards that restructure will be eligible for some transition funds, although we now recognize it may be as little as $26 million that is available to help school boards. But I would ask the minister whether the actions that school boards are now taking are the kinds of restructuring which will make them eligible for the transition funds, and if that is not the case, will the minister tell us when some clear guidelines will be given to direct the boards as to what kind of restructuring is expected? Is it only those boards that reopen their contracts that will be eligible?

Hon Mr Silipo: No, specifically to the very last question. Let me just say that we expect to be announcing over the next little while the details of the criteria for accessing the transition funds. But let me also indicate that we have indicated and I continue to indicate in my discussions with teachers' federations and school boards that they need to be looking at the question of salary packages and what has been happening versus what we believe needs to happen. We believe that can happen through the kind of normal process of collective bargaining or discussions that can take place at the local level.

We also believe that a number of more specific steps have to be taken at the local level between coterminous school boards to deal with the question of administrative costs, which we believe can be reduced or eliminated in terms of duplication of services. We're working away with school boards to try to help them in those kinds of processes.

Mrs McLeod: I guess all I can do with this final supplementary is to try and come back to some statements that have been made by members of this government in the past for which nobody now seems to want to take much ownership. I go back to January 10, 1989, when in regard to a nursing strike that was going on at that time, the now Premier said, "We have a people issue, we have a government that is not prepared to exercise leadership on this issue and that is a disgrace." The lack of action today is a disgrace.

In regard to various actions taken by school boards, the Minister of Education has just recently said that he finds them irresponsible, yet he offers no alternatives, no guidelines, no clear expectations for schools, hospitals, colleges or universities or municipalities. It was on January 21, 1992, when the Premier said: "We'll be there to help in the restructuring. No one's out there on their own." In spite of all the words the minister has offered us today, school boards feel as though they are very much on their own.

Can the minister please tell us precisely when he will make clear the guidelines that school boards can follow in carrying out the restructuring which this government must have expected them to do?

Hon Mr Silipo: I will reiterate for the leader of the official opposition that we will be making those details known very soon. I will also say that we are clearly not leaving school boards out on their own. We are working with them very closely. As the leader knows, I have now had two series of contacts with people on the Peel Board of Education. We'll continue those discussions through our officials. We believe other solutions can be found there and in other instances where school boards have resorted to cutting programs. We're working with them to help them identify some of those other reductions that can be made.

These aren't things that are going to be resolved overnight. They are things that are difficult. I understand. I've been there. The Leader of the Opposition has been there. We both know what is involved. But we believe that in fact there are other solutions and I think time will prove us correct.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Premier, last week you sat at the constitutional table in Halifax representing the people of Ontario. Tomorrow you will be returning to those discussions in Ottawa. Premier, I would ask you this: If a national referendum is not in the cards, if there is not going to be a national referendum to ratify what I believe is not just the politicians' document but indeed is the people's document, will you commit to hold a provincial referendum for Ontario citizens, a provincial referendum to give all Ontarians an opportunity to ratify any constitutional proposals that go forward?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I appreciate the question and I can say to the leader of the third party that I very much appreciated the help I have had from colleagues who are sitting next to him on either side. I gather the member for Willowdale is going to be with us tomorrow and I look forward to that.

I can say very directly to the leader of the third party that I do not think it helpful at the moment for this province to speculate with respect to the question of a referendum, for the very simple reason that what we are first of all trying to do is to reach a sufficient national agreement with respect to the substance of the reforms that are going to be discussed.

It seems to me that once we have gone through that very difficult question, we can then as a country -- and Ontario will obviously be very much involved in those national discussions -- arrive at a decision as to the most effective way for these decisions to be ratified. But I say to the leader of the third party, given what we are trying to do with respect to encouraging the province of Quebec to come into the discussions and what we are trying to do with respect to reaching a consensus, I think it would be unhelpful, really unhelpful, in terms of that national dialogue, for us to increase the speculation with respect to the question of a national referendum.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): With Bob Rae and Joe Clark in charge, how can we fail? "My name is Joe Rae." "Hi. I'm Bob Clark."

Mr Harris: The Premier has indicated we are now getting down to a lot of behind-closed-doors type of discussions to try -- and I am not saying that at some point in time they do not have to take place. We hope not as much as they did when the member for St George-St David was there, where it was all behind closed doors --

Mr Scott: You used to sit right beside me at meetings.

Mr Harris: -- and he now is so critical of you, but Premier, we appreciate that some will be there.

We also now know that the premiers of British Columbia, Alberta and certainly Quebec are all planning to hold provincial referendums on any constitutional proposals. Premier, by not extending that privilege -- that right, I suggest -- to Ontarians, do you not realize that you are sending a signal out to Ontarians that they, Ontarians, are less able than Albertans or less able than British Columbians or less able than Quebeckers to make an informed decision on their constitution?

I ask you to reflect on this: When you went before the joint parliamentary committee you said, "There are 10 million people in Ontario and they will be heard." Premier, I think the people of Ontario would have greater confidence that will be the case if the ultimate ratification isn't the way it has been in the past, the Premier back to a majority caucus saying, "Do this," and if the ultimate ratification was indeed all the people of Ontario. Will you give the 10 million people of Ontario the right to be heard, as you said you would and as other premiers are doing in their provinces?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, I think the discussions across the country today with respect to the substance of constitutional reform, the issues that are before us, are really at a very important stage and will be for the next several weeks. I would just say to the leader of the third party, and he can criticize me if he so chooses, that I have basically decided that for us to engage in a long discussion about whether or how there will or will not be a referendum, either provincially or nationally, is not helpful.

There will come a time when that question has to be dealt with, and that time, it seems to me, is when we have achieved what I hope will be a significant degree of agreement among the provincial governments and among the native leadership and others. At that point it seems to me we can have a really good discussion about how the constitutional amendments will be ratified, and that is the approach I prefer to take.

I would say to the honourable member that I of course have been giving this, and the government has been giving this a great deal of thought as the issue is being considered in other parts of the country. I think a better way for us to contribute to the debate is for us to focus all our efforts on trying to reach an effective agreement among as many governments as possible. Once that has been done, there will be ample opportunity for us to deal with the question of a referendum, either national or provincial.

Mr Harris: Let me say to the Premier that the Constitution is more than just the federal powers and the provincial powers. It's more than just prime ministers and federal cabinets and premiers and provincial cabinets arguing about who has what power, who has what tax power, who has what responsibility, what obligation. In fact, the Constitution is also a document that belongs to all the people; it belongs to all Canadians.

Mr Premier, I would suggest to you that this document and the lack of trust that followed the Meech Lake process -- a lot of it was centred on the process, 11 people behind closed doors. It happened to be 11 men, which also for some reason or other made it even worse, and perhaps that is true, but 11 individuals.

Premier, there is not one person in Ontario, and I don't think there is one person in this House, who does not believe that whatever you decide will be supported unanimously by your caucus. Therefore, on your ratification process, it is Bob Rae who is going to ratify this document.

I suggest to you that this Constitution goes far beyond the politics of federal-provincial powers. I would ask you to listen to what the people said on Meech Lake, to listen to what they are saying now and to give Ontarians the same right as other Canadians are getting, the same democratic right to be heard and to have a final vote, not a great discussion.

You don't have to take all your attention away from what you're doing. You simply say, "Ultimately, when it's finally decided, we trust the people of Ontario to have enough confidence to come forward and cast a vote for their country." Will you give them that right?

Hon Mr Rae: I can perhaps give an even shorter answer and say that decision is one which this House and the government will obviously want to consider over time, but I think it is premature to make that decision at this point.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Lesson number one: Never ask him a constitutional question.

Mr Harris: Well, I know the Liberals don't like talking about these questions, but I think they're important to Ontarians, I think they're important to Canadians, and I think it is indeed the floor of the Legislature where we should be discussing these important issues. In spite of the fact that the Liberals don't wish to debate them here, I appreciate the opportunity that is given to me to do that.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is also to the Premier. Premier, in December the Minister of Government Services announced with great fanfare your 1-800 NDP chat line. On December 12 he said, "We know the value of public consultation." Well, Mr Premier, I now also know the value of your consultation. It seems that every phone call that your 1-800 NDP chat line received has cost taxpayers $25 and all they got for their $25 was a recorded message. Premier, I suggest to you that these bucks stop with you. Do you think spending $25 per call is an effective way to spend the taxpayers' dollars for the sake of increasing the NDP mailing lists?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, it is not being used to increase any NDP mailing lists, and the leader of the third party should know better than that.

I am advised that there have been 50,000 documents mailed to the public making inquiries as a result of the 1-800 number. I happen to think that it is important for the public to be able to reach their government directly and to be able to get information from their government directly, and that this is part of living in a modern democracy.

Mr Harris: The Premier surely knows that Ontario is reeling from the effects of a recession. In fact, you spent $62,000 in January to go on TV to tell us just that. Then we found out last week that you spent another wad of tax dollars to blow your own throne speech horn, advertising it.

Premier, the taxpayers of this province are sick and tired of paying for NDP propaganda. The document I have from the member for Niagara South says, "The purpose of this 1-800 line was to establish new support bases across Ontario for the NDP." Given that it is $25 a call -- I mean, we can't do anything about this blatant misuse of funds. You can go ahead and do it if you want, but even you should agree that at $25 a call to get a computer it's a total, unmitigated waste of money. Will you stop this abuse of taxpayer dollars today?

Hon Mr Rae: The fact of the matter is that if we had done it the way previous governments have done it, that is, by each ministry carrying out its own individual consultation, which has frequently been the case in the past -- that has been the approach governments have taken -- the cost of 12, 13 or 14 separate consultations would have been far higher in terms of the relationship with government.

The fact of the matter is that a direct communication -- 50,000 people have taken the trouble to reach their government. The government responds very quickly by giving them the information they need, 50,000 documents mailed out. I think the people of Ontario are entitled to know what the government is doing and to give us their feedback as we do that. That is what it's all about.

Mr Harris: I guess the answer from the Premier is, "No, we're going to continue to waste $25 a phone call to spread our propaganda."

I realize that with $189,000 worth of OPP officers guarding the budget, the Premier may not know the answer to my next question, but I am going to ask anyway. Given your government's track record on very expensive spin doctoring, can you tell us now how much you've budgeted, how much you're going to spend to sell your upcoming budget whatever it may say?

Hon Mr Rae: Whatever is done, I can assure the member that what we will do will be based on the simple premise that communicating with the public, letting the public know what is going on and what government is doing, is what we do. If I may say so, it is what the Conservative caucus and the Liberal caucus do. What we are doing as a government is conveying information about laws and programs the public has a right to know about. That is really what it's all about.

CROP INSURANCE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): The member for Prescott and Russell and the member for Bruce have both brought this matter to my attention. It is a matter of grave concern and I would like to raise it with the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

The story involves a farmer in Bruce county, Ellen Lowry. In 1988 she bought, with money from a previous marriage and a previous business, her own farm. Her husband also happens to own a farm, but the two businesses are run independently and separately. They file separate income tax returns and they deal with different banks. But this wasn't good enough for this government.

In 1991 Mrs Lowry attempted to purchase crop and revenue insurance for her business. The local branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food approved her application but it was overturned by officials at head office. Her appeal to the Ontario Crop Insurance Arbitration Board, which contained on it the same ministry bureaucrats who turned her down to begin with, was also denied. Mrs Lowry was told that, unless she agreed to amalgamate her own business with her husband's in order to enrol in government programs, not only would her applications be denied but also those of her husband. Out of necessity and under duress, she signed.

I would like to ask the minister, whose government has billed itself as a great protector of women in this province, is it the minister's view that women should not be encouraged or even allowed to operate their own businesses in Ontario?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I'd like to reassure the member that this --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for St George-St David.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I'm aware of the agricultural support for the member for St George-St David within his riding, but perhaps he would allow the Minister of Agriculture and Food to respond to the serious question posed by the member for Eglinton.

Hon Mr Buchanan: As I was saying, I want to reassure the member that this government very much supports the concept of women having the opportunity to start and in fact run a small business or any business for that matter.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): That's rhetoric.

Hon Mr Buchanan: That is not rhetoric; that is the truth.

In terms of the issue the member raised regarding crop insurance, I must say it's an ongoing concern of ours. It's not just with spousal plans, where both spouses are operating a farm independently. It's also true of other operations where you have rented land, where sometimes there's an attempt by families to split their crop insurance plans.

It causes us some concern. We've tried to wrestle with the concept of how we can offer fair crop insurance and continue to have the plan be effective and useful for farmers. It is a problem, as the member has raised, and it's something that we're aware of. We're grappling with just how to deal with it because we do not have the answers at this point in time.

Ms Poole: The minister has said they are deeply concerned over this issue, but they have not addressed it. I think it is disgraceful that this government, which promised a brave new world for women in this province, would have a policy that is so discriminatory towards women. It is a sad irony that this NDP policy is an issue on the very day that we are celebrating the 75th anniversary of women winning the right to vote. It is obvious that the minister responsible for women's issues has had no impact on changing the attitudes and policies of government ministries.

When the minister investigates the Lowry case, which I would ask him to do, and if he finds out that the facts are exactly as I've stated them today, will he commit to changing this discriminatory policy so that Ellen Lowry and other women farmers across this province receive the fairness to which they are entitled?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Mr Speaker, I wish you would allow me the time that's necessary to explain to the member and perhaps the Legislature how crop insurance works in this province. Under the --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member take his seat, please. Minister.

Hon Mr Buchanan: The crop insurance plans we have in place do not allow father and son to divide either. It's treated as one unit. The reason behind that -- and I would say that this is not a government policy we've brought in; this is the crop insurance plan that has been in place for many years -- is so that farmers, where there's more than one individual involved, will not split their acreage.

It's well known that sometimes farmers rent additional farms and would like to have separate coverage for that. It's very difficult for the plan to operate when you have one farm or one area that's split off and has different insurance coverage, because the land very often is not as productive. So when we have crop insurance we try to insure all the land under one plan so you balance off the loss you might have on one farm against losses on the other farm.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for St George-St David.

Hon Mr Buchanan: It is not a discriminatory policy against women. Father and son are treated the same way.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take his seat, please.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): Bob and Ruth are making notes already. You're gone with that policy, just gone.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): With the cooperation of the member for St George-St David, we can continue with question period. The next member is the member for Mississauga South.

HOMES FOR THE AGED

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, I know you're aware, or you should be aware by now, that 12 beds will be closing at Sheridan Villa Home for the Aged in my riding as a result of the provincial arbitrator's award of wage and benefit increases amounting to 13.3% over the next two years. As well, the equivalent of 13 jobs will be lost at Sheridan Villa and Peel Manor.

The reason for the bed closures and layoffs is that without the provincial money the region of Peel, which runs the home for the aged, simply doesn't have the money. Having received a transfer payment increase of 1% this year, Peel could not pay the arbitration award without making bed and staff cuts.

The Premier and several of his cabinet colleagues, including you, Mr Minister, have called for restraint in wage settlements. Given their restraints and their statements on restraint, the current inflation rate of 1.3% and the 1% increase in this year's provincial transfer payments to municipalities, does this minister think it was right for the provincial arbitrator to grant wage and benefit increases totalling 13.3% over the next two years to CUPE staff at Sheridan Villa and Peel Manor?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I guess the question I have at this point in time for the member who raises the question is, is she suggesting that workers don't have the right to negotiate a contract and to go to arbitration and to arrive at a figure? I think that's a question worth asking. Do we eliminate the whole collective bargaining process?

Mrs Marland: I guess this minister doesn't even hear what his own cabinet colleagues and his Premier have said on this subject. My constituents want to know why, when we have a five-year waiting list for beds in the Peel homes for the aged, 12 beds will be cut. We want to know why people have to lose their jobs so that fewer workers can have higher wages and we also want to know why the NDP government isn't limiting the awards being given by provincial arbitrators.

Mr Minister, I will tell you that when our party was in power in the early 1980s, we were coping with the economic reality of that recession and we introduced two bills to limit wage settlements. The first legislated a public sector wage cap and suspended the process of binding arbitration. The second allowed collective bargaining to resume as the economy improved but required arbitrators to cost their awards and consider the employer's ability to pay.

Will this minister introduce similar legislation to limit wage settlements to the 1%, 2% and 2% increases his government has given the hospitals, the school boards and the municipalities over the next three years?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member knows that trying to deal with the economic situation we're facing is one of the things this government has been doing, and working very hard at. I think the member also should understand that if the route taken by the workers in a situation like this is to go the arbitration route and stay with that position, then they are also inviting whatever action happens in their case.

CONTAMINATED LANDFILL

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of the Environment has a response to a question asked earlier by the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and minister responsible for the greater Toronto area): Last week, the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question with respect to alleged dumping of illegal fill in Hamilton harbour. I am sure, as is the Leader of the Opposition, that all members are aware of our commitment to clean up Hamilton harbour and other contaminated sites. I have the facts of that situation and, with your indulgence, would like to share them with the House.

First of all, let me say that in Hamilton harbour the harbour commission, which is a federal agency, is working on the rehabilitation of two areas. One in the west end is where a breakwater is being constructed as part of a marina. The second one, which is the one that was raised here, is the Windermere basin. The cleanup of the Windermere basin went through the federal environmental assessment review process, in which the Ministry of the Environment provided technical advice and was consulted. That cleanup was approved.

The cleanup involves dredging toxic mud from the basin and dumping it behind earth dikes or berms. The berms are then lined with stone and filters to prevent the contaminants from leaching back into the basin, and the silt is then capped with clean fill, creating new land.

Regarding the site in Mississauga, a company undertook decommissioning of a service station site. That project was carried out in two phases. Phase 1 was the removal last year of heavily contaminated soil, which was treated as waste and disposed of in certified landfill sites. Phase 2, which was the one the member raised here, was almost 3,000 tonnes of soil that did not come from the service station but came from an adjacent residential neighbourhood.

When the investigations and enforcement branch received information of that dumping in Hamilton harbour, we tested that soil. It had been tested federally and was found to be suitable for capping. When we got the complaint last week, we examined it again and have asked the federal government to review its tests and to share that information with us, and it has agreed to do that.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): As a supplementary to the information the minister has provided -- and I appreciate her follow-up on the question we raised last week, and the information she provides certainly is consistent with the report we had received, which was that soils exhibiting petroleum hydrocarbon contamination were removed for offsite disposal -- I would ask the minister, given the information she has currently provided, should we assume, then, that the regulations of the Ministry of the Environment are such that soil which was removed because it was not considered safe for residential land use was indeed considered safe for disposal in Hamilton harbour?

Hon Mrs Grier: As I tried to indicate in my lengthy description of this site, the soil that was used for capping was not going into the harbour. It was soil that had been removed from a residential area, was found through its testing not to have been contaminated and therefore considered waste material, but did meet the guidelines for the rehabilitation of industrial and commercial sites and therefore was approved for capping on that particular site.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Premier. Between 1990 and 1993, some 8,000 employees -- most of them women, I might add -- of Ontario's hospitals will have no jobs, and more than 5,000 hospital beds will be closed. Hospitals have not received consistent and clear guidelines regarding provincial standards on their downsizing. Indeed, some of those hospitals have received mixed messages from your government.

In early March of this year a member of your party charged that "Some of the decisions that have come out of the hospital's board are totally irresponsible." This quote comes directly from a news release issued by the member for Yorkview on March 11 of this year. He was referring to the operations and administration of York-Finch General Hospital.

Mr Premier, I would like to know if this member speaks for the government with these charges. Do you, as Premier, concur that the board of the York-Finch hospital is "totally irresponsible" in the decisions it has made with respect to the management of the hospital and the provision of services to the York-Finch community? Further, Mr Premier, is this simply another in a continuing pattern of unjust accusations directed against health care professionals and institutions, which seems to be a mark of this government?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm going to ask the Minister of Health to answer that question.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health and minister responsible for the provincial anti-drug strategy): I am bit perplexed with the member's question suggesting that the mark of the government has been accusations against health care institutions or health care professionals. In fact, I think we've developed a very good working relationship across the board with respect to providers, professionals and institutions.

The member asked specifically about comments made by a member of the Legislature with respect to a local hospital in that member's riding. The member may have concerns with respect to the hospital. I intend to have a meeting with both the member and members of the hospital board in the future to look at issues that have been raised.

I do not at this point in time have any comments to make about allegations of irresponsibility. What I will say is that right across the board in this province we face a tremendous challenge in the hospital sector with respect to restructuring. I think there have been many hospitals which have grasped the nature of the change and with a good spirit of cooperation have been involving workers in the decision-making around downsizing and restructuring. It is a partnership we hope to promote throughout the hospital sector.

In some areas, hospitals have fallen short of that, and we're hoping that through the establishment of guidelines which we're working on with the Ontario Hospital Association we'll be able to ensure better consistency across the province.

Mrs Sullivan: This question went directly to the issue of the standards of behaviour for members of this government. I want to proceed in my supplementary with further indications of concern that have been expressed to me not only by people at the hospital but by people in the community.

The York-Finch hospital has been appointed by the Department of National Health and Welfare as the only hospital in Canada to participate in international clinical trials of an Excimer laser for use by ophthalmologists in the treatment of glaucoma, corneal scars and other corneal diseases. The member for Yorkview has publicly objected to what he calls "the outrageous cost of leasing an eye laser machine" which, in his judgement, "does not benefit the community."

He directs the president of the hospital in a letter sent on March 11 to reinstate six jobs in an IV team at the hospital and discontinue the lease for the laser machine. He also insists that the president of York-Finch hospital contact him as soon as possible to clarify a number of issues, including the purchase of a microscope. He demands to know how the microscope will be paid for and that the president justify that purchase to him.

By what authority does the member make these public statements and these demands? Is there a new power given to NDP members to intervene in hospital matters in this way? Is this a signal of what we can expect under a revised hospital act? If the member has acted with no authority, as the Minister of Health has indicated, will the Minister of Health and the Premier discipline the member of their caucus, issue a public apology for this unwarranted intrusion into the hospital's administration and the unseemly and incorrect charges of irresponsible management the member has made? I want the answer to that question now.

Hon Ms Lankin: I'm glad the member had that all written out. I'm sure she couldn't have got through it with a straight face otherwise.

Let me say, before the member continues to misconstrue comments I have made, that I did not say that any member acted without authority. Members in this House from all parties take positions with respect to issues in their own ridings. I get letters being lobbied from members of all parties in this House with respect to concerns they have, and I try to respond to all of those issues. Because this member happens to be a member of my caucus does not mean I will not respond to issues that have been raised.

Let me turn to the issue of how hospitals are handling their situations. In fact, the issue of York-Finch hospital has been brought to my attention. The board of that hospital has concerns which I think legitimately need to be responded to by the Minister of Health and the Ministry of Health. I think those kinds of relationships that exist at a local level are of concern to individual members, others in this House as well as members from my party.

I will continue to work with boards of hospitals in the regions to address their legitimate concerns. I am not going to engage in this kind of nonsense here in the Legislature.

CLOSING OF NURSERIES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr McLean: E. C. Drury, Ontario Farmer Premier from 1919 to 1923, must be turning in his grave following your decision to close tree nurseries --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I was having a little difficulty hearing the question. First, could the member identify to whom he is placing the question.

Mr McLean: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources.

E. C. Drury, Ontario Farmer Premier from 1919 to 1923, must be turning in his grave following your decision to close the nurseries in Midhurst, Thunder Bay, Chapleau and Gogama. As you know, Mr Drury farmed at Crown Hill and was responsible for establishing Canada's first massive reforestation program.

Minister, your decision to close the Midhurst tree nursery does not make sense and is unacceptable. It is a well-known fact that Midhurst is the third-largest nursery in the province and has a reputation for producing the best bare root nursery stock in southern Ontario. It shipped more trees in 1991 than any other southern nursery. Minister, how do you justify closing the Midhurst tree nursery, which is one of the most efficient and effective operations of its kind in Ontario?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and minister responsible for native affairs): I appreciate the question from the member because it is a very important one. The member will know that the decision was mine. It was made on the basis not of the numbers of seedlings to be planted but of what kinds of seedlings are required by the program. The 10 nurseries we have in the ministry produce bare root nursery stock. The demand has been increasing over the last number of years, as we've increased the number of seedlings planted in Ontario, for container stock.

That has been true since the former member for Cochrane South, Alan Pope, was the minister. There are a number of private nurseries open that produce container stock.

Because of the demand for container stock, as opposed to bare root stock, the 10 nurseries we had were operating at only 65% capacity this year. If we'd kept them all open, they would've been operating at only 45% capacity next year. The decision to close four means that the remaining six will continue to operate at 75% capacity, which is a far more efficient way to provide that amount of bare root nursery stock still required.

Mr McLean: I find it unacceptable that a minister of the crown who for many years promoted planting more trees is now planting far fewer trees than we ever have. On February 12 you indicated that money this year to plant 23 million seedlings was not there. Approximately 12,000 hectares of harvested land will not be reforested. To make a bad situation worse, there is a rumour that as many as 40 million seedlings may not get planted this year. Does this show commitment to good forest management?

Minister, you have obligations to immediately provide the House with the scientific and technical data used as the basis for your decision to close those tree nurseries. You had no planning. You have no idea of the reason behind the closing of those nurseries. My understanding was that Orono was supposed to be closed. Due to the lobbying of the minister, you changed it to Midhurst. What is the basis on which you closed them?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member has asked a number of questions. I'll attempt to answer the last one first and then deal with the others. The question asked was, why did we close these nurseries? I've already answered that. They were operating at 65% capacity, and if they'd remained open they would've been operating at 45% capacity. The decision was made to maintain a nursery in each region. We could've indeed closed more nurseries, and I'm sure the member wouldn't have appreciated that.

Mr Stockwell: You could've closed them all.

Hon Mr Wildman: No, we could not have closed them all, because we still need some bare root stock.

The member has referred to the number of seedlings planted. The member will know that last year 165 million seedlings were planted, and the same number the previous year, at a cost of about $1 a seedling. We committed $165 million to seedling planting in Ontario.

The fact is that this year, under our constraints, we will not be able to commit $165 million. As the member knows, instead of approaching a surplus the way previous governments have done and simply bulldozing them and not using them, we have attempted to ensure that they will indeed be planted. I am happy to say that 30 million seedlings have been committed under Operation Tree Plant for planting this year. We're going to plant those trees.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a question for the Minister of Housing. Friday night just past I was in St Catharines at a candlelight vigil, a rally attended by hundreds of people. The member for Lincoln and the member for St Catharines-Brock were there. So were people like Betty Ann Baker from Niagara Peninsula Homes -- even her little kid. Jessie Birch was there helping to organize the event. But the largest number of people there were gravely concerned about the fate of the federal co-operative housing program and the fate of co-operative housing here in Ontario.

You know that Niagara has been one of the most successful jurisdictions for co-operative housing. Indeed, there are many examples there. The success story, though, was dampened by the very secretive, behind-closed-doors slashing, elimination of funding for the federal co-operative program in the last federal budget. The budget also reduced the funding for federal-provincial non-profit housing programs.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a question?

Mr Kormos: Yes, I do, Mr Speaker. In December the federal government was still reaffirming its commitment to co-op housing. In my riding alone, numerous co-op housing units are going to fail because of the federal slashing. I'd like to know what this means and is going to mean for Ontarians and, more specifically, I want to know what you're doing in response to it.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The member for Welland-Thorold is quite correct. The announcement made in the federal budget came as a surprise not only to those on-the-ground, community-based and municipal non-profit organizations that have been providing projects for assisted housing here in Ontario but also to the provincial governments which have cooperated in federal-provincial housing programs since the 1940s.

The cost of these cutbacks to Ontario over five years will be 6,700 units, involving about 8,000 construction jobs. We feel strongly about what's been happening and we were encouraged in our action. We got in touch with the federal minister and asked him to meet with provincial ministers of housing. He was not able to make the meeting, but last Friday we met in Ottawa and we are going to carry forward work, hopefully to change the federal government's mind on this item.

Mr Kormos: We've got waiting lists miles long of people who want to get into co-op housing down in Niagara. It's been difficult enough to persuade the government to meet its commitment in terms of the percentage of its funding that goes to co-op housing compared to other forms of housing. I'm telling you, people down there are angry, they're dismayed, they're disappointed. They're mad as hell and they're concerned that not enough is being done. They're concerned also at the fact that the federal minister was a no-show. The federal minister slipped out the back door rather than meet with his provincial and territorial ministers last Friday.

I'd like to ask this minister what took place at that meeting on Friday. What is she going to do to help the thousands of people in my riding and adjoining ridings who need decent, secure, affordable housing, and the workers, quite frankly, whose lives depend upon the constructions of these homes? I want to know what happened at that meeting.

Hon Ms Gigantes: The provincial ministers involved are concerned, and I am concerned as one of them. We are going to have a 21% cutback on federal funding overall for the federal-provincial housing programs this year, and next year it will be over 50%, starting with the base coming out of 1991. That means for many provinces -- fortunately not this one at this stage -- that the critical mass of programs supported by the federal government just is no longer going to be large enough two years hence so that other provinces will be able to consider to keep on moving the housing programs forward.

I have been delegated by the ministers of housing with whom I met to meet Mr MacKay and make to him the proposal that he and the federal government reconsider their commitment to federal-provincial housing programs this year and work with the provinces to try to work out effective delivery mechanisms so the federal government will feel it is getting the most for its money when it helps provinces develop good housing programs.

PETITIONS

GO BUS SERVICE

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I am pleased to table a petition signed by 334 of the many thousands of concerned residents who will be affected by the proposed cancellation of the Lakeshore GO bus service from Hamilton to Toronto and from Toronto to Hamilton, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, object to the proposed cancellation of the Lakeshore GO bus service, Hamilton-Toronto, Toronto-Hamilton. We therefore ask the minister to reconsider the proposal, particularly pertaining to the rush-hour service, as the complete cancellation will force communities to find other ways to reach their jobs and destinations."

ABANDONMENT OF RAILWAY LINES

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition to submit today which has been signed by 1,809 signatories. Those signatures from the counties of Hastings, Peterborough and Victoria. The petition reads:

"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas in the counties of Hasting, Peterborough and Victoria there have been in recent years major abandonment of railway lines;

"Therefore, we urge the Premier of Ontario to declare that all abandoned railway rights of way in the Kawarthas be maintained in public ownership for their scenic, historic and recreational value, with potential for linkage to east-west transprovincial trails."

I submit this petition and I am affixing my name to this petition as well.

GAME AND FISH ACT

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Today I have a petition signed by some 20 constituents in my riding concerning Bill 162. It has been circulated by the Ontario deer farmers' association, which, as you know, has very serious concerns about Bill 162. The bill will, among other things, extend the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Natural Resources to cover all animals in Ontario, not just Ontario's wildlife, and ban the farming of non-native white-tailed deer and possibly all deer farming. I have affixed my signature to this petition as well.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DES PIÉTONS ET DES VÉHICULES

Mr Chiarelli moved first reading of Bill 5,

An Act to provide for Vehicle and Pedestrian Safety / Loi prévoyant la sécurité des piétons et des véhicules.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): This bill would prohibit persons from walking or running on highways or railway tracks or driving vehicles on highways while wearing earphones.

This bill was introduced in the last session as Bill 157 and it died on Orders and Notices. While this bill was dying on the order paper, a young Brampton man was dying on railway tracks while wearing a headset. This legislation is intended to help prevent that type of accident.

PETERBOROUGH CLUB ACT, 1992

Ms Carter moved first reading of Bill Pr26,

An Act to revive the Peterborough Club.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On Thursday I spoke at quite some length on the throne speech and the direction in which the throne speech was taking us. So I'll conclude my remarks of Thursday, because I know there are many members in this House who are eagerly awaiting their turn to be able to participate in this debate as well. Very briefly, I'll just sum up the gist of what I said on Thursday.

The central thrust of the throne speech, of which I am wholeheartedly in support, is to create jobs. It builds on a record of creating jobs by some very direct examples: direct investment in business and the establishment of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. This is a very substantial project because it deals with the issue of assisting people in making the transition from workplace to workplace, from unemployment rolls to the workplace and from social assistance rolls to the workplace as well. I applaud our government's backing of this particular program and its agenda in establishing the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.

I would also like to sum up by talking directly about five examples in my own particular community where the issue of creating jobs, of getting people back to work, is a central tenet of this particular government.

I talked extensively on Thursday about the issue of de Havilland and keeping the jobs of those 3,000-plus people who are currently employed there. As you know, for every job we retain at de Havilland there are roughly four jobs in the greater Metro area dependent on that. There are about 64,000 people directly involved in this particular industry, and as you know, Mr Speaker, de Havilland is one of those companies that is at the top of the pyramid, the top of that structure.

Quite frankly, if de Havilland had been allowed to crumble, as was suggested by the former Liberal Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology in one of the committee meetings I attended -- he was of the view that if the company was not productive, it should be allowed to sink through the drain, to disappear, as it were, and lose those particular jobs -- we would have lost all the jobs that de Havilland creates and promotes.

The extension of the subway was recently announced -- another 185 or between 80 and 85, depending on which numbers you particularly agree with -- extending the subway from Wilson station to Sheppard. This is a major job creator in our community and it is welcome. Again, it applies to and is central to the government's agenda. It is a central tenet in the speech from the throne: to create jobs and get people back to work.

Again, I would like to say that the Minister of Municipal Affairs on Thursday introduced in this House a document which would suggest that the planning process is going to be streamlined to some degree so we can get these jobs that are going to be directly a beneficiary of government programs and government initiatives well on their way, and this is a welcome thing.

There have been several direct investments in York University: the science building, another investment of $19 million or $20 million made directly by this government, an investment which not only creates construction and construction-related jobs in the short term, but also, through the development of an active science faculty, I cannot talk enough about what this kind of technology does for jobs and so on, and there is this government's backing of the bid for the space science university to be located at York.

When our government and the two ministers responsible, both the Minister of Universities and Colleges and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, issued their statements that they would be backing this bid for York University to get this kind of program, it was a welcome thing in Downsview.

Quite frankly, some blame should be laid at the doorstep of the federal government, which sat on the sidelines and did nothing when the tendering for this particular bid began to close, Mr Speaker, because as you know a Quebec university also submitted a parallel bid. In its submission of a parallel bid, the federal government played a little politics, sat on the fence and didn't do anything for either of the two universities. They didn't do anything for the Quebec-based university and they didn't do anything for the Toronto- and Downsview-based York University.

It's good to see they've gotten off the fence and have thrown their support behind the bid. Hopefully this will not be too late, because this is a substantial investment in our people, in our resources and technology, which has been much awaited and much needed here in Ontario and in Canada. We all know that this university is a leader in that area, in attracting that calibre of individual. The calibre of scientists this particular university would attract to Ontario and Canada is almost unprecedented. Again, it's a welcome thing.

I'd like conclude my remarks by simply reiterating that the speech that was read from the throne by the Lieutenant Governor is a welcome statement on getting this province and this country going, because as we all know, Ontario is the engine that drives Canada from an economic standpoint. I think it is universally accepted right across the country that if Ontario slumps and falters, then the rest of Canada will slump and falter, but if Ontario does well economically, if our industrial base, our industrial infrastructure, is sound, healthy and vibrant, then so will the rest of Canada's be.

The statement, the document that was read, points in a good direction and I wholeheartedly support it. I would hope that both the Liberal and Conservative caucuses would support that as well, because there is nothing more important and pressing today in this province and in this country than to get people back to work, to stimulate the economy, to create jobs.

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): I would like to take a few seconds to comment on the member's reply to the throne speech. He would have us believe that the government of which he is a part has addressed the economic problems faced by the citizens of our province. That in fact is not true. We saw very little in the throne speech that in any way addressed the economic restructuring that is going on in Canada, in Ontario and in other jurisdictions throughout the world.

We didn't see any movement on Sunday shopping, which would assist some of our retailers to compete with the cross-border phenomenon. We didn't see any movement, as I said, on Sunday shopping which might save thousands of retail jobs. We didn't see any movement on the reduction of the huge deficit that is being run up this year and in next year's fiscal budget. It is very clear that one of the reasons the Bank of Canada is having difficulty in further lowering interest rates is because of the effect the large Ontario deficit is having on the country as a whole.

This is not just being said by politicians in Ontario; this is being said by politicians of all stripes and people of all economic backgrounds, whether their economic background is of the left or the right or the centre, in different jurisdictions across this province, that Ontario deficits are now having a significant impact on what the interest rate would be on moneys borrowed.

Those are only a couple of points I'd like to remind the honourable member of as he contemplates the lack of leadership that we saw in this most recent throne speech.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I too want to simply add a few comments on the comments of my colleague the member for Downsview.

He has to recognize that he comes from the downtown Toronto area, and certainly some of the problems were touched on. But one of the major problems is that when an analysis regarding pollution was done of six major North American cities, Toronto was the highest in the pollution count, and nothing really came forth in the speech from the throne addressing that pollution problem.

I realize that the member for Downsview doesn't have any farms in his riding, because his is a very densely populated area. However, it was mentioned in the speech from the throne that agriculture was in great difficulty. We are aware of that, but there were no solutions whatever put forward regarding the dilemma that's being faced by some 60,000 farm families.

The concern I have is for when this government starts cutting, and indeed they're going to have to do some cutting. I don't think there is any doubt about that when we see de Havilland, for example, getting $350 million for 3,000 workers to produce airplanes that are losing millions, every one that comes off the assembly line. That doesn't do a great deal for anyone. We in eastern Ontario do not have those highly paid automotive jobs where we understand that at some of the automotive companies they have resisted working an hour of overtime.

Bring those jobs to eastern Ontario. Mention eastern Ontario and I'll tell you, they will not resist working one, two or five hours overtime. Bring on the overtime. They are ready to work. Right now there are no jobs. We're into 20% unemployment, and that's what has to be addressed in the speech from the throne. I am very much afraid that it was very short on any sort of positive news in that vein.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I will respond to my Conservative colleague first since he came up last.

He talked about there being pollution in Metro and no farms in Toronto. I would venture to say that I would compare, acre per acre, the amount of actual crops that are produced in Downsview, because as he well knows just about every household has a very active and vibrant yard where they grow tomatoes and all kinds of fruits and vegetables. If we had to match bushel for bushel what one acre of farm land in Downsview produces against one acre of farm land in his riding, the member would find that they're quite comparable.

He talks about de Havilland and allowing de Havilland to perish because it's a losing cause. It worries me when I hear members in this Legislature take technology and the kinds of industry that de Havilland represents and bunch them up into a Third World kind of economy and say that because this particular industry is not vibrant and productive, it should be allowed to perish, and give us those jobs because we have fewer of those jobs. As he well knows, in Downsview it's a largely immigrant, ethnic, construction-work type of population where unemployment runs between 45% and 55%.

Ask any union local and it will tell you that everybody is at home. I don't quite agree with comparing the two and saying, "Give it to us and take it from them."

My Liberal colleague talked about Sunday shopping, that if somehow we were to open the doors to Sunday shopping, then the economy would continue to thrive and start venturing in that way. Quite frankly, there aren't any statistics on this, but I feel he's wrong because those trips across the border would be made regardless. Get rid of the GST and then we can do something about that.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I want to say what an honour it is for me to respond to this throne speech, but I also want to say what a difficult task it is. At the outset I should say to you how extremely disappointed I am with the contents of that throne speech. There is nothing there. I tried to look as objectively as possible to find areas that we, the official opposition, could work on together in order to make it a better direction in which to be led by the government which is offering this throne speech.

I took the opportunity to look in detail at the present throne speech and at the first throne speech that was offered in this House. Later on I will make some comments about them and tell you where they went in different directions.

What I see a throne speech to be, and I am sure you would agree with me, is a speech of direction, of vision, of areas governments would like to address and of concern. It is a speech where the constituencies of the province would like to be recognized for the struggles they are going through and know the government will address those problems.

As you know, Mr Speaker, we are going through some rather difficult times, in the sense of recession. As a matter of fact, some of the people say to me, "What recession?" The fact is that they have been going through a recession for years and have been hoping that governments would come about and address some of those problems.

I wished too at one stage that I would have maybe an hour or two in which to make some of the comments I hoped would have been in this throne speech, but I don't have that time because other colleagues of mine would like to place their points of view and put some suggestions to the government, hopeful that it would listen. But it is not a government that really listens.

My riding, Scarborough North, is a highly densely populated riding. There are great concerns there: all the things that are expressed in Ontario, things that are of concern, such as the closing down of companies, business bankruptcy and personal bankruptcy, people who would like to advance their education and further their knowledge who have to be denied that because of money and loss of jobs. All those things are happening in Scarborough North. Environmental concerns are not addressed in the throne speech. The Sunday shopping issue is not addressed in the throne speech.

I wonder what direction and what we must look for from a government to which we are looking for leadership and which has placed on us a lack of leadership at a very crucial time in this province. As the member for Scarborough North, I would hope that when I approach the members across the floor for some of the concerns we have, they would at least listen. As the official opposition's critic of the Solicitor General, of employment equity, human rights and race relations, I'll try to spend a few minutes in addressing some of those concerns and tell you about my disappointment.

Before I do so, I just want to make mention of the first throne speech this government put forward. One of the things that jumped out at me was a statement very early in the throne speech. They stated, "My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario," and they're still trying to earn the trust and respect of the people. "My government's integrity will be measured by the way this government is run and our relations with the people we serve.

Our task is to guard against institutional arrogance." Just today, you heard one of the members of the government side exercising that arrogance in regard to the hospital in his riding. They have still to earn the respect of the people in that light.

"We will set clear standards of behaviour for the conduct of ministers." I will not comment on that, because we certainly have seen the kind of conduct by ministers of this government in such a short time. Many times one wants to bow down one's head in shame. Even though I am on this side, I expect better from that government, or from any government of this province, than the manner in which some of the ministers have behaved.

As a matter of fact, Mr Speaker, as you know, today in the House we cannot call anybody a liar. We cannot do that. We are almost at the point that people are admitting they lied. This is really something I have to come to grips with. Even you, Mr Speaker, at times have to look up at the things that some of the members and ministers are saying. We hope that some integrity will come about in the government and that we can get some honesty and solid guidance from the members and ministers of that government.

They said, "We must create a greater sense of integrity in the work of government," and, "We will establish a measure to ensure more fairness in appointments to government agencies, boards and commissions." As recently as yesterday we saw an appointment of an NDP member to the Ontario Municipal Board. It is so blatant that a colleague of mine on this side from Ottawa had to get up and say what arrogance it was to appoint someone who had done his best to retard progress. He is now in charge of making things progressive and moving things ahead.

I presume that if you have an NDP card and stick around long enough, you get an appointment. But all these things were supposed to have gone away. They were supposed to go through a process. But I presume there are certain things that we have to ignore when they are in power.

I mentioned that, Mr Speaker, because I'm telling you that this government's credibility is in great question. However, of course I'm happy to say that there are at least still some members over on the government side who I hope will conduct themselves in the manner they have always done and will not be lost in the morass of the kind of behaviour I have seen there.

I want to address the employment equity aspect of this. The NDP government very much reaffirmed its commitment to employment equity in the throne speech. I was happy to hear that. Two years ago, Mr Speaker, you can recall, the now Premier, when he was the official opposition leader, introduced what we call a private member's bill -- I will refresh your memory, Mr Speaker; it was Bill 172, a good bill -- to enact employment equity legislation in this province.

Of course the Premier apparently seemed to have little faith in his own proposed legislation. I would have thought that having done this preliminary work, when he arrived in the government of which he is now the Premier, all he would have done was reintroduce the bill and then proceed with that. But somehow he found it necessary not to do so. Maybe when he was in opposition he had the strong moral principle to bring employment equity in. Now that he is in government, I presume he's hesitating.

It's important to note, if you feel I am being partisan about this and being cute about it, that the Premier's private member's legislation was supported in principle by members from all three parties. I say that really to remind the members of the government party that people can disagree with the specific form of a proposal made by the government without necessarily opposing the intent of the bill. Many members opposite do not seem to be able to distinguish that difference at times, because quite often, as soon as you disagree with the government, all kinds of names are thrown at you.

We're all trying to find a solution or solutions to the problems facing our province, and let us understand that if someone disagrees with the NDP policy, it is not because that person is by corollary a fascist, as it has been called inside this House; we heard it. If I disagree with this government's advocacy legislation, it is because I sincerely believe that legislation to be profoundly and irrevocably flawed.

I do not question the pressing need for legislative action on the issue. I just want to identify the problems they have. Since it is a government that can listen, I presume, with closed ears, and seems to listen, I hope it would see some of the wisdom we say over on this side to make a better bill. If we disagree with some of the proposals the government has put forward on changing the Labour Relations Act, we are not, as members opposite would say, union bashers. We're not. But as soon as you do that, that's what happens.

I can recall when I put forward my bill, Bill 51, their own member over there sat up looking at the policy, which was rather sound, which is a sterling bill up to today that is the hallmark of how rent review is being exercised. What they did was personally attack me and my accent. It's awful, attacking my accent, not the policy of the rent review bill. However, as the government of the day, we stood in the position and the authority of that office and carried it out in the way it should be carried out. So I'm telling the members on that side too that when we do criticize your bill, we are criticizing it because we believe Ontario can be a better place with better laws.

We over on this side stand committed to ending discrimination and we want enhanced fairness in the workplace. We want all Ontarians to have access to work and to be treated fairly, regardless of colour, class or creed. We all want to be treated fairly.

You see, Mr Speaker, employment equity is about access. I had a letter from a company, Omnibus Consulting Inc. I'm just going to read two of the lines from it, what it talks about, what employment equity is all about. It says: "Employment equity cannot just be seen as a social issue. In this age of reduced Canadian productivity, we must seek out the links between the existence of an equitable employment system and increased productivity."

Another line in this note he sent to me, hoping we would look at the employment equity situation properly, says, "The real creation of an equitable employment system allows for the full utilization of a company's total human resources."

That's what it's all about. It's about access and utilizing our human resources. I want to make it very plain and very clear to the minister and her colleagues over there that we stand committed to eliminating discrimination and enhancing fairness in the workplace. We want legislation that reflects this dynamic and complex society, legislation which works, legislation which will put all Ontarians to work.

I have every confidence in the sincere desire of Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré, the Employment Equity Commissioner, to build upon the framework for employment equity established by the previous Liberal and Conservative governments. I must, however, say that I am somewhat perplexed by the often contradictory signals sent by this government on employment equity.

For example, we have an NDP Solicitor General insisting to the provincial fire chiefs that his government has no intention of setting goals in law for employment equity fire services, while noting that the government did, however, support their voluntary adoption. Still, with the Solicitor General, I know that the employment equity regulation in the Police Services Act sets out specific timetables in law for establishing employment equity plans but does not give any guidelines for the implementation of these plans.

I also note that while the Minister of Education's Bill 125 has an amendment regarding employment equity, there is just one designated group mentioned: women. I say this very carefully too, because of course women have been denied access into the workplace and they've been denied being paid properly and treated fairly. But they are not the only group. I want to say that while the Minister of Citizenship always speaks of four designated groups, there are still many francophones in this province waiting for a satisfactory response from the