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

May 12, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

PORTUGUESE IMMIGRATION

RYERSON POLYTECHNICAL INSTITUTE

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN

CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND

VOLUNTEER AWARDS

PRESERVE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBOURHOODS SOCIETY

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

VISITOR

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

VISITORS

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

LABOUR RELATIONS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

GAMBLING

TOURISM INDUSTRY

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

NORTHERN ONTARIO HEALTH SERVICES

DRIVERS' LICENCES

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

GAMBLING

HOSPITAL FINANCING

GAMBLING

DRIVERS' LICENCES

SPEED LIMITS

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES INFRACTIONS PROVINCIALES

WRONGFUL DISMISSAL RIGHTS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES DROITS DES PERSONNES VICTIMES D'UN RENVOI INJUSTIFIÉ

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES AUX MUNICIPALITÉS

PAY EQUITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉQUITÉ SALARIALE

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): The Ottawa-Carleton region has adopted the following position regarding Bob Rae's social contract, and I quote:

"Municipalities and others are being told they will be part of a solution to a problem created by the provincial government. They are being told they will have to cut services in order to finance the inability of the provincial government to control its expenditures. They are being told that the broader public sector and the people they serve will have to suffer the consequences of poor fiscal management by the Rae government. They are being told that this is non-negotiable. And finally, they are being told by the very people who have mismanaged the public finances of the province how they will absorb these cuts.

"Simply, this is not acceptable.

"Ottawa-Carleton concedes that the province has a financial problem. It wants to know exactly the makeup of the projected $17-billion deficit. It wants assurances that the province is not using savings generated from cuts on municipal cost-shared programs to fund its own initiatives.

"Ottawa-Carleton is not prepared to be told how to do it. It is not prepared to accept inferences that it has a bloated bureaucracy. It is not prepared to have its employees used as scapegoats for the province's profligate spending. It is not prepared to bow to the dictates of the Premier."

That's what Ottawa-Carleton wants to tell Bob Rae.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Over the last decade, government in Ontario appears to have become the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it wrongly and applying unsuitable remedies. That pretty well sums up the state of the Ontario Workers' Compensation Board today. It has been described as a zoo of good intentions run amok, and by all accounts, whether it's from the viewpoint of the employers, workers or government, workers' compensation is in serious trouble.

It has an $11-billion unfunded liability that's growing at a rate of $100 million a month. Skyrocketing premiums are delivering death blows to businesses and making Ontario less attractive for new business, investment and jobs. Meanwhile, the system is seriously failing to address the legitimate needs and aspirations of those it's supposed to help -- injured workers.

Charting positive new directions on workers' compensation will not only get injured workers and employers back on track; it will get the Ontario economy back on track as well, because at the end of the day, instead of more cost, paperwork and bureaucracy, we will have businesses doing business here, more employers employing and more workers working.

Surely that's a goal worthy of all our best efforts -- workers, employers and government alike -- and I have no doubt that with the right direction, with the right vision and with leadership, we can and will get Ontario and the Workers' Compensation Board back to basics and back on track.

PORTUGUESE IMMIGRATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I rise today to recognize an important date in the history of the Portuguese community in Canada, the 40th anniversary of Portuguese immigration to this country.

Forty years ago today, a group of Portuguese immigrants sailing on the Saturnia arrived in Halifax from Lisbon. Since it was late in the day, the port was closed. They therefore remained overnight in Canadian waters and stepped on to Canadian soil the following day, May 13, 1953. Thus began the first wave of Portuguese immigration to Canada.

While the first arrivals were mostly from the Portuguese mainland, by early June of 1953, immigrants from the islands of Madeira and the Azores also began arriving.

The Portuguese immigrants who came to Canada 40 years ago carried mandatory one-year work contracts as a requirement for entering Canada. Upon arrival, they went off to work on farms in the Niagara region and on the railroads. For those working on the railroads, there was the added hardship of being unable to sponsor their families back in Portugal to come to Canada. Having a fixed address was a requirement for sponsorship, and since working on the railroads involved moving around, these workers were unable to meet the criteria.

Today, there are approximately 400,000 Portuguese Canadians in the greater Toronto area alone. My riding of Fort York is home to a large and vibrant Portuguese community.

I want to acknowledge the tremendous political, social, cultural and economic contribution that the Portuguese community has made to Canadian society. It's important to remind ourselves that the foundation on which the community rests was laid by the Portuguese workers who began arriving in Canada 40 years ago today.

RYERSON POLYTECHNICAL INSTITUTE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): On April 6, the government announced that it would introduce legislation to establish Ryerson Polytechnic University, the first of its kind in Canada.

These new amendments to the Ryerson act recognize the continuing evolution of Ryerson. The current Ryerson mandate to provide undergraduate applied professional education will be broadened to include a recognized role in applied research and the future development of both master's and doctoral programs consistent with Ryerson's special mission.

Ryerson is a unique institution with a historic focus on applied learning which has a special importance and is critical to the future of the province. Minister Allen said the government's announcement to recognize Ryerson as a university was long overdue. I agree. Ryerson has been functioning as a university for many years. Ryerson students have paid university tuition fees and met university-level expectations. With the passage of Bill 1, the degrees they obtain and the name of the institution they attend will reflect this.

This year, Ryerson's convocation will begin on June 16. Ryerson expects to grant some 4,000 degrees, diplomas and certificates. If Bill 1 is passed quickly, these students will become the first graduating class from Ryerson Polytechnic University.

I am concerned with the government's delay in bringing this bill forward. As my party's Colleges and Universities critic, I am anxious to speak in support of Bill 1. On behalf of the students and administration of Ryerson, I encourage the government to bring Bill 1 forward so that this year's graduating class can take special pride in graduating from Ontario's first polytechnic university.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement's for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and it concerns his government's funding cuts that could create rural and urban chaos across Ontario.

The NDP government recently announced it was slashing about $110 million in unconditional grants to municipalities, and municipalities will also feel the effects of the $285-million cut to public sector payrolls in a bid to save another $2 billion.

The NDP government is terrorizing municipalities and alarming taxpayers by unilaterally enforcing the $110 million worth of cuts to unconditional grants without outlining exactly how these cuts will be divided among the 839 municipalities in Ontario.

The cuts to unconditional grants will spin off into reductions in day care spaces, fewer housing spaces, many cuts with regard to families and will force some daily hostel users on to the streets. The provincial cuts could also cause major service interruptions for firefighters, police, ambulance services and garbage collection.

Minister, instead of accusing Ontario's 839 municipalities of fearmongering, you and your government should show some backbone by trimming jobs from and rolling back salaries in the bloated civil service, fire the baby cabinet ministers who don't do anything but cost taxpayers $400,000 each, and make a serious attempt at cutting government waste.

LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): The Law Enforcement Torch Run is an international event held to benefit Special Olympics. The torch run has become the largest grassroots fund-raising event for the Special Olympics, involving over 75,000 law enforcement personnel worldwide.

The 1993 Law Enforcement Torch Run will continue to carry the torch, which represents the "Flame of Hope" and the values of the Special Olympics: skill, sharing, courage and joy. From May 29 to June 13, at the direction of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the seventh annual torch run will see law enforcement runners take up the torch as part of the cross-province relay which begins in every corner of Ontario and continues through each day until its conclusion in Barrie. Over 8,000 kilometres will be covered by 7,000 law enforcement personnel from over 120 police and law enforcement agencies.

Personnel from your local law enforcement agency will be collecting donations on behalf of Ontario's Special Olympics. They're hoping to build on their 1992 total of $525,000.

A special northern final leg run will be held in conjunction with the Ontario Special Olympics Summer Games opening ceremony August 26, 1992, in Sudbury, Ontario.

All donations go to the Ontario Special Olympics for the expansion of its programs throughout the province. All costs for the torch run are contributed by law enforcement participants and their corporate sponsors.

I'd like to take an opportunity to thank OPP Constable Gerry O'Dowd of the Queen's Park detachment for keeping this event large and in place in this Legislature.

CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): This year, 1993, marks the 75th anniversary of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. Later this afternoon, we will be celebrating that anniversary at a reception here at Queen's Park.

I would like to relate some of the history of the CNIB, because it is really a story of one man's vision and how that vision has changed the lives of the visually impaired in Canada.

Edwin Albert Baker, who was born in Ontario, was blinded while fighting in the trenches at Flanders during the First World War. Upon his return to Canada after a lengthy convalescence, he discovered that rehabilitation services for the blind and visually impaired were virtually non-existent. In 1918, he and six others founded the CNIB, and he served as managing director from 1920 until his retirement in 1962. Lieutenant Colonel Baker was a visionary whose leadership kept the CNIB on the leading edge of rehabilitation services for the blind, visually impaired and deaf-blind.

I am pleased that members of the Halton-Peel CNIB branch are here in the House today, seated in the members' gallery. All 10 who are here today are workers and volunteers for the CNIB and three of them are clients as well. They represent what Edwin Baker strived for. He wanted the visually impaired to be proud, self-sufficient and contributing members of society.

The services the CNIB provides have given thousands, and continues on the leading edge, an enduring legacy to a great Canadian. I extend my congratulations, and on a personal note would tell you that my own mother lost her sight through glaucoma and through a malpractice incident with an ophthalmologist, and she too has benefited greatly from the services at the CNIB. I congratulate them on being here today and celebrating their anniversary.

VOLUNTEER AWARDS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Recently, the Owen Sound Police Services hosted a volunteer community recognition evening which honoured citizens in our area who have assisted the police in various ways. The force was trying to show the city how much they appreciate the work being done by the legion of volunteers who give their time, their money and their expertise to help.

They applauded those who worked with the Community Watch groups, victim assistance programs, family violence coalitions and Students against Drunk Driving. They wanted to thank those who served on Crime Stoppers, the bicycle safety and crime prevention committees and the alcohol and drug advisory group.

I am proud that the Owen Sound Police Services understands and is encouraging contributions from the public. I believe it is very important, especially now that the government funding is being cut, that the police are opening their doors and using the enthusiasm, the energy and the talents of the community to achieve their common goals.

In addition to the 80 local recipients who received awards, they also gave one to me, as the provincial representative of the government in the riding. It reads, "To the Ministry of the Attorney General for outstanding contributions to crime prevention," and I would be delighted to give it to the minister with the appreciation of the Owen Sound police.

PRESERVE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBOURHOODS SOCIETY

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I'd like to bring the attention of the House to the existence of a wonderful group of individuals, whom I know quite well, working in my riding, who perform some very grass-roots tasks.

PENS is the acronym under which they work; it's the Preserve Established Neighbourhoods Society. It is a group of St Catharines residents who have come together, more by accident than design, to work to ensure that new development is well planned and subject to public comment. With strength in numbers, PENS provides advice and support to residents who are concerned about particular developments in the city of St Catharines. Since being formed last year, PENS has proved it is a force to be reckoned with.

Quite recently, on my cable program, I had a chance to bring to the attention of the citizens of St Catharines the resource kit they have put together, and they have converted their knowledge and experience for the benefit of all. I recommend highly the work they have undertaken and that all have the opportunity to look at the wonderful work PENS has done for one and all.

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): On April 29th, I made an unparliamentary comment toward the Leader of the Opposition. I withdraw that.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would like all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon, seated in the members' gallery west, a former member of this assembly representing Brantford, Mr David Neuman. Welcome.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the 18th annual report of the Commission on Election Finances, which covers the year 1992.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would also like to invite all members to welcome to our assembly this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, members of the regional parliament of Basilicata, Italy: Dr Francesco Mutidieri, Mr Gigi Acito, Professor Nicola Filazzola. Please join me in welcoming them to our country and to our assembly.

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. Yesterday I had an opportunity to meet with more than 100 young people and people who work with youth in this province. I know that the Premier spoke to the same group of people and I'm sure that he was as aware as I was of the tremendous concerns these people have for the future of youth in this province. Clearly, these individuals wanted to hear from the Premier what his government's plans would be for young people and for youth employment. These people were trying to get a sense, a measurement, of this government's commitment to young people, but the Premier refused to answer any questions.

My question to the Premier today is: How would you have answered their questions? Premier, what hope do you have to offer the 150,000 young people in this province who are without jobs?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I would have answered, and did, in fact, in talking to people, state very clearly the fact that the government of Ontario -- perhaps the leader of the Liberal Party chose to conduct herself differently, I don't know; I chose not to give a kind of super-partisan speech, in which I talked about the fact, for example, that the government is now committed to spending $180 million on youth employment programs throughout the year, which is the highest dollar amount that's ever been allocated in the history of the province; that last year's program was a significant breakthrough in terms of new initiatives for the people of the province, and that this year's program will not only match that but increase the allocations for summer employment; and the fact that the government has moved ahead on issues that are of concern to young people, like the minimum wage, that we've moved ahead with OSAP reform, that we've moved ahead with a series of programs which are making a difference to young people.

The fact of the matter is that given the very difficult economic situation it's in, this government is investing more in jobs, is investing more in our services for young people and investing more in training, investing more in apprenticeship and investing more in opportunity than any government in the history of the province. I encourage the young people to stay involved, to stay active --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- to continue to participate and to continue to press for the kinds of reforms that will make a difference to people.

Mrs McLeod: I'm not sure how true that answer will ring for any of the young people who just heard it, particularly when the Premier starts to talk about commitments to post-secondary and opportunities there, with fewer spaces in colleges and universities, with higher tuition fees, with less money in the student assistance program and no grants at all for student assistance. That answer is not going to ring very true with the young people of this province who are looking for opportunities for education.

Beyond that, we, like those young people yesterday, are trying to get answers to some very specific questions about the issues that affect youth. Last week in this House we raised questions about summer employment opportunities for young people, and while the Premier talks about one program under the Jobs Ontario Youth that is creating summer jobs, he will know that there is another set of summer job opportunities offered by the government through the ministries each summer to students.

Last week we raised our concern that the number of positions offered to young people through the ministries would be reduced because there had been expenditure cutbacks. The minister denied that that was in fact the case. It was obvious that the government then realized it had to cover its tracks, because we understand that instructions were immediately afterwards sent to the ministries telling them that they had to hire the same number of students even though indeed there would be $1 million less to pay for the programs. Premier, there's only one way to hire the same number of students with less dollars, and that is to shorten the length of the work experience.

Will you confirm that although the government is going to hire the same number of students in the summer Experience program, they will have fewer hours of work?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the answer overall is that you've got to look overall at the structure of the programs that are in place. I can say to the honourable member, the information that she gave to the House last week was information which was not particularly accurate in terms of the plans that had been made. As to her allegation today that somehow we were covering our tracks in response to her question, I suggest to her that she's suffering from a bad case of exaggerated self-reference.

The government's plans were in place. They were discussed explicitly at cabinet sessions when we looked at the expenditure reduction programs, and the commitment that the government made very clearly was that overall the programs would be maintained, that the funding for those programs overall would be increased, and that we would ensure that at least the same number of students was hired and that if possible, in terms of summer programs, an additional number of students would be hired.

So all those facts are out there, all those programs are in place, and in fact the commitment to youth employment by this government is greater than at any time in the history of the province and is substantially greater than when the honourable member opposite was a member of the Peterson government. We're doing far more than the Peterson government ever did, and I don't recall your voice being --

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- raised in concern or in opposition to the activities of that government at the time.

Mrs McLeod: At some point the Premier might want to turn his attention to certain discrepancies between the information that is provided to us through our inquiries to the ministries and the information which is provided to us in the House through the ministers, so that he can determine just what the facts of the situation are, and we will all be wiser as a result.

I say to the Premier that we will continue to raise questions that give us concern about how effectively the dollars that are currently being spent on training programs are being used, that we believe that many of the dollars that are currently being spent on training programs through the Jobs Ontario Training program could be more effectively used for training people who really need the training.

We have concentrated in the last week on summer jobs because that is such a current issue, and because we believe that summer jobs offer students dollars they need to be able to stay in school, as well as job experience and training that they need to get jobs in the future.

I did make what the Premier might call a partisan speech yesterday, because the Premier keeps saying, "Show us some alternatives." So yesterday we released six proposals that we believe would give young people in this province some hope, some encouragement, at what is a tremendously difficult time, that we wanted to respond to the fact that 18% of our young people are unemployed.

One of those proposals is that some $14 million currently in the Jobs Ontario Training program be redirected to create additional summer employment opportunities for young people. This would support 8,000 more young people in summer jobs.

So I ask you, Premier, as you keep asking us for constructive, positive proposals, will you commit to redirecting $14 million of your Jobs Ontario Training program to create more summer employment opportunities for our young people?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm happy to look at any suggestions that come out of the Leader of the Opposition and more than pleased to look at her suggestions. If her suggestion is that we spend an additional $14 million on youth employment, which would take us above the $180-million amount, which is the largest amount ever, then I say to her that we will look at any reasonable proposal that's made.

I think the member ought to also recognize that the money that's allocated under the Jobs Ontario Training program is money that's being taken up at a rate that is far quicker than anyone had anticipated, many of whom are young people who might otherwise qualify for the kind of training programs which she is describing. The Jobs Ontario Training programs are not by any means limited to people who are over the age of 24. Those funds are available for people at all ages and certainly over the age of 18.

I say to the honourable member, we'll obviously look at the plans which she's put forward. However, all the Liberal rhetoric in the world cannot obscure the fact that this government is investing more in training and investing more in youth employment than any government in the history of the province, and substantially more than was the case under the Peterson government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question.

GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): All the rhetoric in the world from the government benches may not provide us with the answer to my next question. My next question will be directed towards the Minister Without Portfolio but, we understand, some responsibilities for Finance.

The people of Brantford have been absolutely devastated by the government's announcement that the long-awaited relocation of jobs to their community has now been cancelled. The government will be well aware of the chronology here.

In November 1990, the government confirmed its plans to proceed with the Brantford relocation. On April 24, 1992, another review of the relocation program, and the government announced yet again that it would be proceeding with the planned relocation to Brantford. February 12, 1993, the government once again reaffirmed support for the project and promised to begin construction as soon as possible. March 25, 1993, the province paid a reported $1.3 million to acquire land in Brantford for the relocation. April 23, 1993, the government reversed itself and abruptly killed the project.

The mayor of Brantford is here today along with residents from Brantford. They want some answers from the government. There is one question they want answered: Minister, will you tell the people of Brantford why your government has broken its promise to them?

Hon Brad Ward (Minister without Portfolio in Finance): I thank the member opposite for that question. I'm willing to meet with the good folks of Brantford at any time, but based on her question, I think the most appropriate individual to answer it would be the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, and I'm going to refer that question to her.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a very brief point of order, Mr Speaker: The question would normally be directed to the Treasurer of the province. This is the junior minister present today. The Treasurer is not here. Surely it's incumbent upon the junior minister to answer that question. That's why they're paid.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The minister to whom the question was directed chose to redirect the question to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, and there's certainly nothing out of order about that.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The junior minister proceeded to answer the question, said he was prepared to meet with the good people of Brantford at any time and entered into a discussion that appeared to be leading towards some sort of an answer. Then, after giving a little speech to the people from Brantford, he refers the question. I think if he's going to refer the question, he should simply stand in his place and refer it and not make a speech beforehand.

The Speaker: To the member for Mississauga West, indeed he raises a valid point. It is common practice in this chamber that if a minister is asked a question and the minister wishes to refer the question, the minister simply indicates that rather than providing a part of an answer. So in the future it would be helpful if the minister would simply refer it if that's the intention of the minister.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): May I indicate to the members who have raised concern that had the question gone to the Treasurer, he would have referred this question to me because, as Minister of Economic Development and Trade, I have been given responsibility for the $100-million capital fund with which we'll be working to help those communities which have received the bad news about the cancellation of the government relocation programs.

The residents of Brantford who are here who were spoken to by a number of MPs, including the member for Brantford, raised a number of issues which I think are very important and valid ones. There is no doubt that we understand the depth of concern and disappointment of the people in Brantford with the result of the cancellation and relocation. But as I have said to the Leader of the Opposition before with respect to the expenditure control plan and the decisions around it, in spite of some of the investments that have been made around significant savings and operating costs and on capital costs, it was an important part of the package.

We also, out of the money that would be saved, have allocated $100 million from which I will be working with the MPPs and the mayors and the communities involved to try and bring about development activities to replace those jobs that have been lost. In further supplementaries, I would be pleased to give the Leader of the Opposition more information.

Mrs McLeod: Had this relocation project been going ahead, it would have been absolutely appropriate for a minister responsible for economic development to be responding to this question. Cancelling this move had everything to do with losing opportunities for economic development; it had everything to do with shortsighted, last-minute expenditure cut decisions.

When I asked one of the ministers supposedly responsible what the total cost savings would be, I was not even able to get an answer to that question. If it was such a bad decision from an economic perspective, if it was such a poorly thought-out decision in terms of the long-term impact, why then, after a full-year review, did this government decide in February to go ahead with the project? Why did they go ahead and purchase land?

Why was it, Minister, that just days before the project was cancelled, just days, when they asked about the status of the relocation program, the Chairman of the Management Board was quoted as saying, "It's also true that the unions have said it's one of the issues they will bring to the table, and when you are negotiating, things get traded." Given this statement, Minister, will you admit today that your government has traded away Brantford's hope for the future?

Hon Ms Lankin: Let me begin by saying absolutely not.

I would like to respond to the first part of the honourable member's question with respect to if this was such a bad economic plan or so poorly thought-out. We don't say that it was a bad economic plan. It was a pre-election plan by the previous government but it wasn't a bad economic plan, and it was one which we decided, after a great deal of review, to continue to support.

In light of the fiscal situation that the government faces, in light of the attempt to bring down expenditures, we have to really question whether or not we get good value by spending money to relocate an existing job, as opposed to using some of that same money to try to attract and create new jobs. We've decided to use the money in a way now that we think is wiser and in a way that saves us some money against the overall fiscal projection for the cost of relocation.

The decision was taken by cabinet as part of the $4-billion expenditure reduction program. It is not something that was part of negotiations. It was decided prior to the social contract negotiations being commenced and before the union proposals. So I have to say to the member she's absolutely wrong in her assertions.

The Speaker: Final supplementary. The member for Brant-Haldimand.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Prior to the cancellation of its relocation, a billboard had been up by the citizens of Brantford, thanking the Premier for making the right call in supporting the relocation. These people are now wondering who made this call.

They feel betrayed by this government which, despite having thrown total support behind the project a few months ago, is now saying that it does not make sense in tough economic times to take one job from Toronto and locate it in Brantford. However, this reasoning is not being followed by the government consistently, because other relocations will be allowed to go ahead. When Brantford residents demanded to know why the promised move would not be taking place, the clear message given to them by their provincial representative, Mr Ward, and to quote, was, "Stop dwelling in the past."

Brantford citizens desperately need the jobs and the economic spinoff that would result from the government relocation. We have heard from many residents --

The Speaker: And your question?

Mr Eddy: -- that the relocation would have helped Brantford towards recovery. Will the minister give this community and its people some hope for economic recovery and commit today to taking another look at the Brantford relocation project?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think the one thing I would agree with the member on, and I know the MPP for Brantford also agrees with the member, is the devastation that community has felt in terms of the loss of its manufacturing sector, the devastation that is felt largely as a result of the effects of free trade and the GST, the high dollar, the high interest rate. It has had a very severe effect on that community.

If I reflect on the comments of some of the speakers at the demonstration today from the community of Brantford -- a youth who spoke about bringing back hope to that community, a mayor who spoke about bringing back jobs -- I think those are things we can commit to. I think that the $100 million we've established to work with those affected communities allows us to sit down with the MPP, with the mayor and the council and economic development committees, and attempt to bring those same number of jobs, through attraction of private sector investment, to those communities.

If I could just touch on the comments of the mayor, I want you to know and I want the members of the Legislature to know that he indicated support for deficit reduction. He understood that. He indicated he wanted open communications and he wanted to work in partnership with us. That community wants jobs. We're going to work with them to try to deliver that.

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Premier, your social contract discussions and talks started out as a plan to contain the provincial deficit by cutting the public sector payroll by 5%. That was the raison d'être to bring the unions in to discuss the payroll costs.

Both you, Premier, and the Minister of Finance and, yesterday, the deputy Deputy Premier for the day have said that taxes are not on the social contract negotiating table, that the talks are to discuss how to find this 5% cut in talks.

But, Premier, it now appears, because the unions have talked everything but their own payroll -- they've talked taxes, they've talked spending cuts, they've talked everybody else but themselves -- that next week's budget will contain many of these ideologically driven taxes that the union leaders are calling for. It won't matter to the unions how or why they're in the budget; they've insisted that they be in the budget or they're not going to talk to you.

I would ask you this, Premier: Why are you allowing the union leaders to set the agenda for these talks that started out as the wage concession talks? Why are you allowing them to set the agenda, including even the tax increases, what type and how much they should be in your budget? Is this the real cost now of these social contract talks, that the unions will set our budget for us?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): No. The premise of the question is bogus. I would say that the leader of the third party has got it all wrong in terms of the way these things have been determined and how we've worked it through.

As a government, we've had a number of discussions over the months, obviously, in preparation for a budget and in preparation for dealing with the economic and fiscal problems facing the province. We've never made any secret -- in fact we've been stating for some time -- that we regarded the revenue situation and the overall financial situation in the province as sufficiently serious -- the long-term impact, the cumulative impact of federal underfunding, for example, this year affecting us to the tune of some $4.5 billion -- that there really is a need for us to deal with the tax question.

So this government long ago -- we're the ones who put taxes in front of the people of the province. We stated very clearly that tax increases were going to be a feature of the budget. So I would say to the member that that's had nothing to do with the social contract discussions whatsoever, nothing whatsoever to do with the social contract discussions.

The fact that the unions have independently decided to put forward some proposals on taxes, so have a number of other groups --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- so have all kinds of groups and advocacy groups out there in our society; so has the business community, from a very different perspective. I don't think any of us should be surprised that there are a number of views on the table with respect to taxation. All I'm saying to you, Mr Speaker, is that the issue of taxation is not being discussed at the social contract negotiation and that the issue of taxation will be addressed in the budget.

The Speaker: Will the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: We've never made any secret of this. So for you to stand up today and make the kind of allegation that you make is just the worst kind of political rhetoric from the third party.

Mr Harris: No, they don't need to be discussed any more at the table; they've been picked up and dropped right into the budget. This is what I am saying is really not fair and not right. These are taxes that will result in loss of investment. These are taxes that will result in loss of jobs. These are taxes that will result in a downsizing of our private sector.

Premier, my point is this: Union leaders shouldn't be bargaining tax hikes. They shouldn't be bargaining and deciding what services the public should get. That's for the public to decide. They shouldn't be bargaining how hospitals will operate, municipalities or school boards. What they should be bargaining is their payroll costs, and you told them that was the agenda.

Let's deal with these payroll costs and let's put in a perspective what it is you asked them to do. Over the last two years the costs for your own employees in the government of Ontario increased by 19.5%, more than triple the rate of inflation. You said your goal was to reduce those total payroll costs by 5%, leaving a net increase over the three years that you've been in government for the public sector payroll costs in the province of Ontario of 14%, still 6% in excess of inflation.

Now, to date, you've made no progress on how to achieve that. I don't think this is an impossible goal; I thought it was very realistic. And to date, the unions have said: "Hike taxes. Do this. Cut that. We don't want to talk about that."

The Speaker: And the member's question?

Mr Harris: My question is simply this: How have the negotiations been going on cutting back the 19.5% cost of the Ontario government payroll to 15% or 14.5%, as you told us the goal was? How are those talks going?

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the question. Our sense is that for the first time today we're going to have people around the same table, which is I think something which needs to happen, and that we're going to have a serious discussion.

But I say with respect to the really antediluvian position of the leader of the third party -- he says: "Don't ask workers to talk about working conditions. Don't ask workers their ideas on how to improve services. Don't ask workers how to deal with the question of restructuring the public service." That kind of 19th-century attitude towards improving the morale in the public service is exactly the opposite of the direction in which we should be going.

We need to be talking with people, encouraging participation and taking advantage of the best ideas we can come up with. We think the workers themselves can come up with a lot of good ideas on how to preserve services, on how to improve services in the province of Ontario, and I'm proud of the fact that instead of simply telling employees what to do, we're sitting down and negotiating with them in a positive spirit. I'm proud of that, and I think it's a better approach than the Tory approach.

Mr Harris: It wasn't me who said, "Unions, we want to talk to you about how to cut your payroll 5%." It was you. These were your discussions. This is what you said the goal was. This was the reason to bring them together. I understand there are other forums to discuss programs, but you said you wanted to call them in and discuss cutting the payroll back by 5%. And now all we've gotten out of this so far is that you're going to hike taxes in the upcoming budget so you can appease your union friends.

This way of meeting your deficit target, Premier, is going to kill jobs; it's going to kill investment; it's going to downsize the private sector that we so desperately need to increase; it'll halt economic recovery in this province.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business today wrote to the Treasurer suggesting more than $2 billion worth of cuts you can make instead of hiking taxes or further downsizing the private sector. The CFIB is made up of job creators; it's made up of investors. Why is it that you're telling them that you're going to hike taxes to destroy any opportunity they have to create jobs, moving exactly in the opposite direction to the way you should be going?

At the same time, you've not had one minute of any meaningful negotiations on the original goal, which was, how do we roll back a 19.5% increase over three years to bring it back to only a 14.5% increase? How do we explain that not one word of the talks has been on the original purpose, which you said was to cut 5%?

Hon Mr Rae: Sometimes it's hard to know exactly where to cut in, but I'd just say to the honourable member that if you look at the document of April 23, if you want to go back to that, if you look at the document that we put out, if you want to address that question and not address it in a rhetorical way, we talked about the benefits of a social contract intended to preserve jobs and services, intended to empower workers and allow for new work organization, intended to broaden the base of participation, to modernize the negotiating process and keep the public sector affordable.

All those are the factors that are involved in the discussions which we've been encouraging people to participate in. It's been difficult, but I come back to my point: first of all, that the whole purpose of what we're doing is to create jobs; it's in order to keep the recovery going and to keep it alive and to extend it.

That's the purpose of what we're doing in terms of the approach we're taking to the economy, and the approach with our own employees is designed to get everyone to see that there are real tradeoffs and advantages to looking to longer-term interests as we look not to the last 3 years or the last 5 years or the last 10 years but we look out for 3 years and see that if can get to some understanding of the tradeoffs, we'll make the public sector more affordable, we'll make it more efficient and we'll also do more than any other alternative to protecting jobs and to protecting services.

That's the basis of the philosophy and the approach that we set out in the social contract, which the member seems to have missed.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: The Premier said he wanted to cut 5%, and now you don't want to talk about that. It's no wonder the people of Brantford don't believe you or trust you, the way you treat them. It's no wonder the taxpayers don't believe or trust you.

The Speaker: To whom is your second question directed?

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question also is to the Premier. Earlier today I met with the Committee of Local Area Councils, COMLAC, and they have a simple message for you: Stop meddling in their affairs.

Premier, you have a $17-billion problem created through your own mismanagement. The municipalities know you need help with this problem, and they are willing to help you with your deficit problem. I don't know why they are, the way you've treated them, but they are willing to help. But they believe they know how to best manage their own affairs. We all know you have enough trouble managing your affairs. They believe for the last couple of years they've done a better job running their municipalities than you have the province.

Why do you not just tell municipalities how much you need them to help contribute to your deficit problem and then let them deal with it, let them tell you how it is they can help you, instead of you telling them how it is they're supposed to help you? That's the simple message they asked me to deliver to you today.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I appreciate the point, but again, I know the member would like to try to personalize this issue and say that somehow this government or this Premier has a "$17-billion problem." But I would say to the honourable member very directly that if this is the level of the attitude which the member is out there taking with respect to the deficit problem --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: The provincial economy has a deficit problem; the province of Ontario has one and what we are doing is saying to the municipalities and saying to all the transfer partners that are out there --

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: The point that's being made and the one that we're having to share with our transfer partners is that the burden has to be shared. It's the only way we can get out of this. The only thing we can get out of this --

Mr Harris: They're offering to share it.

Hon Mr Rae: Now you're saying on their behalf that they're willing to share it. I would say to you that's my sense as well.

All we're saying is that then means that we have to together make sure that the impacts of the decisions with respect to the transfers are fully discussed and that we're all aware of what the potential impacts might be and that we're sharing as much information as possible and that we're seeing if there are ways in which the impacts might be less severe than if we all worked in splendid isolation. I don't think we should be working in isolation from one another; I think we have to work through together and get through this problem together.

That's the kind of commitment that we're seeking and that's the kind of approach that we're taking. I think it's a wiser approach than to pretend that the deficit is somebody else's problem or somebody else's fault.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: The deficit is a responsibility that now belongs to all of us. We can argue till the cows come home about where it came from.

Mr Harris: I just got through saying the municipalities said it's a $17-billion problem. They acknowledge that it was your mismanagement that got us into it, but they also said this: "We're willing to help out." They're telling you they will help out. COMLAC is not alone in thinking that this government should get its own house in order before it tells others how to run their shops.

This morning the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario presented you with a plan that would save $100 million annually. They identified more than $25 million in duplication. The plan would deliver more effective and efficient environmental protection, on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars it would save. Quite frankly, it's similar to the announcement I made in the last campaign saying that conservation authorities were already dealing with water quantity; why not have them deal with the water quality as well? I'm happy they picked up on it.

Aside from that, what they are saying to you is, you, Premier, are telling them how they should cut back. They think they're a lot better at how they can be more efficient than you are, and their track record -- like municipalities, like hospitals, like school boards -- is a lot better than yours. I would ask you this then, so that they can help, as they want to, with the deficit reduction plan: Will you agree to their proposal instead of what you're telling them to do?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, we're not telling them what to do.

Mr Harris: You are.

Hon Mr Rae: No, we're not. The member puts that forward as a statement of fact. It's quite false.

What I would say to the honourable member is that there are reasonable proposals coming from the conservation authorities. Obviously, we will look at those proposals.

We're interested at looking at proposals and ideas that come forward from other groups in terms of the challenge facing the province. But I would just suggest to the honourable member that to try to sort of trivialize this thing and say that somehow it's all the responsibility of one level of government or another, I think the people of the province have had enough of that approach. I think the people of the province, when they hear certain mayors simply pointing the finger at one level of government or another, that's not a realistic approach. We have a problem together.

If they don't have a problem, it's because the province has been subsidizing and passing on transfer payments for many years. We're now saying we have to share these problems in a more realistic way. That's exactly what we're doing, and I think it's the right approach. And if I may say so, I think it's a more mature approach than the one that's being advocated by the member of the third party.

Mr Harris: I think the mature approach is them saying, "We're ready to help you." That is a mature approach. They're also saying, "Look at the record over the last two and a half years and see who managed affairs better: municipalities, conservation authorities or Bob Rae and the NDP government."

You may not think it's happening, but what's happening is you're telling them how they can help you. They're offering their services. They're saying, "We'll help with your deficit problem, but let us do it."

You know, Premier, just because you've been the last person in Ontario to realize the deficit's a problem, just because your party and your government are the last ones to say we have to cut back -- municipalities, others have been downsizing for the last three years. Many have had salary freezes for the last three years. They should be telling you how to do it and you should be listening, not the other way around.

The Speaker: And the supplementary?

Mr Harris: So my final supplementary to you is simply that. Instead of Michael Decter telling municipalities, hospitals, school boards and conservation authorities how they can help you, will you allow them to tell you how they can help you? It's a pretty simple, straightforward question.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say that we're very interested in the kinds of proposals that are coming forward, and frankly we're very glad that what we've started is a process by which people are participating. But if you want to just contrast for a moment the tone struck by the Ontario Hospital Association in its statement yesterday and the kind of rhetoric which we've heard from the leader of the third party, what does the hospital association say, a group which is being affected very much? We're not denying it for a moment.

They say they're encouraged that the government is coming to grips with the current realities of the province and what they refer to as a "crisis in costs" faced by the broader public sector. The tone of their submission is extremely positive. In their submission they say that in their view "the government's proposals for deficit reduction, including the social contract, are a reasonable starting point for negotiations."

That's what we're hearing from a group responsible for the expenditure of billions of dollars in the province. They say what we're doing is a reasonable approach, a reasonable starting point for negotiations. That's the approach which is being taken by a former colleague of the leader of the third party, a former cabinet colleague, with whom he sat in cabinet for some several months and with whom he sat in caucus for several years and who was himself a leadership candidate for the premiership of the province.

I would much prefer to deal with that kind of responsible approach taken by somebody with the responsibility of Dennis Timbrell than take the kind of irresponsible action that's being followed by the leader of the third party. I'll prefer to deal with Mr Timbrell on these issues.

GAMBLING

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): My question is for the minister of casinos, otherwise known as the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It's interesting the Premier talks about responsible approaches.

Minister, I want to segue on that theme of responsible approach and ask you to explain how you can, with any sense of professionalism, respond to a request for proposal for an interim casino in Windsor that appeared only once, on March 26 in the Windsor Star, and required, nine days later, an interim proposal to be submitted; nine days for a proposal appearing once in the local newspaper. Let's talk about responsibility and integrity and fairness in the process. Try and explain that, Minister.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The project team from my ministry has been working of course very closely with the city of Windsor -- I hope the member will listen closely, because I seem to be getting laryngitis and I don't have a loud voice today -- has been working with the project team and the municipal council, and this is a decision that they came to together in terms of getting the RFP going and getting the ball rolling in terms of getting the interim casino up and running. I believe -- I can check further -- that the date was chosen alongside working with the municipal council.

Mr McClelland: Minister, at the end of the day, you cannot share responsibility for your jurisdiction, for the decisions that you are making, with the municipal council. You are the leader in this project, Minister. It is your responsibility.

Let's think this through very carefully for a moment. There are 24 proponents out there. Some of them will be coming to you in the near future with $300,000. To think for one moment that the system can't be skewed unfairly by having an interim operation up and running, unfairly to their advantage -- bear in mind what I told you earlier. You allowed one ad to run one day in a local paper and gave nine business days for a return. If it wasn't sad, it would be funny. You go on to say, "If the building isn't built, you can build it by July 1." That's how absurd your advertisement is. Be that as it may, it's indicative of the fact, Minister, you're totally without any direction in this.

You received a letter yesterday from the Canada Square group and Ramada Inn group, which are interested in building the permanent facility. They want to put their money on the table and have a fair, honest shot. They say to you, "In the interests of integrity and fairness" -- words that used to be high priorities in the NDP lexicon -- "will you open up the tendering process?"

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

Mr McClelland: Minister, you have not explained nor accepted the responsibility for a decision you made. You are obliged to do so. If you think the dice might not be loaded in somebody's favour by limiting it the way you have, you are naïve, Minister. Do it and do it with integrity and do it fairly and do it the way it should be done.

Hon Ms Churley: This whole process has been handled with the utmost integrity. The request for proposal has been handled with the utmost integrity and is completely aboveboard. In fact, the project team in my ministry has received compliments from around the world in terms of how the project team has been handling the whole proposal, and I would be happy to share that with the member later today.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the Premier and it concerns the devastation of Ontario's tourism industry and the indefinite layoffs of over 60,000 employees in the tourism and hospitality sector under the watch of this supposed labour NDP government.

In a recent pre-budget news release, the chairman of Tourism Ontario, Bruce Stanton, made the following statement: "Our industry offers better consumer value and a broader range of experiences than ever before, but we can't compete with ever-escalating taxes."

My question to the Premier is this: What advice is he giving to the Minister of Finance to encourage him to provide tax relief to Ontario's tourism sector?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'd like to refer that question to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I'm fully aware, of course, having met with Mr Stanton and Tourism Ontario and having read the very thoughtful brief that they've submitted to our government with regard to the concerns of their industry, of the difficulties that they face. I am, and our government is, certainly very interested in making sure that we help to support that industry as much as possible.

We're certainly meeting with them. Actually, I'm just now putting together the minister's advisory committee to deal with our long-term strategy on a tourism sectoral policy, and of course tax policies as with many other factors are issues that we'll be looking very seriously at.

When will the government start to recognize the vast untapped potential of tourism as an economic engine for growth in Ontario?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: Actually, if the member has been speaking with the tourism sector, then he would know full well that in fact our Premier has taken great efforts and seriousness in dealing with this industry. He met personally with the representatives from Tourism Ontario recently and, of course, has discussed those aspects with me that they raised with him. He's met personally with a number of key business people in both the tourism and cultural aspects.

I think the fact that he moved to put together the two ministries of Culture and Tourism in the last shuffle shows very much the seriousness that he gives to this area. The fact that there's tremendous potential to be gained in the synergy between culture and tourism is certainly the kind of thing that I keep hearing from both of those sectors when I meet with them. I think this government is showing tremendous openness to new ideas on how we can market things all the better in terms of the assets this province offers.

In terms of the area of marketing, because of that synergy that is resulting from the Premier's move of bringing culture and tourism together, my staff are in fact developing now an action plan that we'll soon be able to release, including the ability to market this province as a tourism destination, that it has every right to be as the number one feature of this country.

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is to the Attorney General. I have received numerous phone calls and letters from single parents, all complaining that the police are not enforcing custody orders. Through talking to these non-custodial parents, I have learned that they show up on time to collect their children for their weekly visit, only to be told by their ex-spouse that they can't have access to the children. When these people call the police to complain, more often than not nothing is done to make sure that the custody order is obeyed. I've even heard stories of parents, custody order in hand, being arrested by the police at the request of the ex-spouse.

According to

section 282 of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is an indictable offence to harbour a person under the age of 14 with intent to deprive the parent or guardian or any other person who has the lawful care or charge of that person, and with an intent to do so in contravention of a valid and existing court order.

Does a custody order not grant the non-custodial parent lawful care or charge of their children for a set period of time? My

interpretation of

section 282 of the Criminal Code of Canada --

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

Mr Hansen: -- is that parents who ignore custody orders or parents who deprive their ex-spouses of the lawful charge of their children are breaking the law.

Can the Attorney General advise this House and my constituency if anything's being done to ensure custody orders are enforced to the full extent of the law?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I know that the member is very deeply concerned about the issue of access and I think many members of the House are as well, so I really welcome the question.

In response to his question as to whether

section 282 of the Criminal Code is the appropriate way to deal with this, I should advise him that the ministry sees 282 as being concerned with and premised on situations where a child has been abducted, and the provision does not apply to a simple refusal to allow access contrary to the access provisions of a custody order. It really must be noted that

section 282 refers to a contravention of custody orders, not access provisions, which are the situations that you're most concerned with.

Sections 36 and 38 of the Children's Law Reform Act are the appropriate ones. The court has the power to act where a parent breaches those provisions. Indeed, the courts have held parents in contempt of court. Parents have sometimes been jailed or imposed with fines for that contempt of court and that is the appropriate way to deal with these issues.

Mr Hansen: Can the Attorney General advise this House and my constituency what her office is doing to help parents involved in custody disputes resolve their differences outside of the court system?

Hon Mrs Boyd: There are a number of different initiatives that are under way in terms of trying to have alternative dispute mechanisms around these issues, because I think we all know that the constant returns to court are not very satisfactory and certainly are not always in the best interests of children.

One of the primary things we have done is to institute a number of supervised access projects around the province, because these supervised access projects, 14 of them as pilot projects, help people to ensure that access provision is met without the two disputing parents necessarily having to have contact and with the child being in a safe place, so that if there are any concerns about the safety of the child or the possibility that the child might be abducted, those fears are laid to rest.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: We certainly find that is resolving a lot of the conflict between parents.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to the Minister of Health, if I could have her attention. Madam Minister, on Monday my leader asked you how communities in northern Ontario can expect to receive adequate medical services when your government's expenditure control plan proposal will prevent doctors from practising in the north.

Madam Minister, you replied, and I quote: "There are many opportunities for...young physicians...on other than a fee-for-service basis. There are community health centres, there are HSOs, there are public health units which are anxious to have doctors," in their services.

Madam Minister, you must know that northern Ontario currently has 9% of the province's population, yet only 5.5% of its physicians. Minister, we add to that the geographic barriers that residents of the north face in travelling long distances to see a doctor.

My question is, Minister, can you tell us which community health centres, health service organizations or public health units in the north will be given extra funds by your ministry in order to employ the graduating class of 1993?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): No, I can't give that kind of a specific answer today, but I can tell the member that there are a number of communities in the north that are actively seeking practitioners. It is certainly our hope that in our discussions with the Ontario Medical Association -- and I would emphasize that the proposals have been put before the Ontario Medical Association -- it has chosen to release them. I hope they will soon come and sit down with us and discuss that whole series of proposals.

It is certainly my expectation and hope that from that discussion will come a better way of providing services where they are needed, and I include many areas of the north as being areas where in fact doctors are required.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): My colleague the member for Kenora has really laid out the factors of why the ministry has traditionally, basically classified northern Ontario as an underserviced area. He's given you the stats and the population figures, but your ministry now only says that five regions and counties in Ontario are basically underserviced, and you've now eliminated the north from that program.

You admitted today in your earlier response, and your other officials have said, that at least 60 to 70 family physicians are needed in northern Ontario, but you've cut the very program from underneath them to attract those people out there. Don't you know that the new program is stopping the ability of towns like Matheson and Kirkland Lake and Englehart not only to hold on to and retain their physicians, but to attract newly graduated physicians to come north and practise and provide good health care to northern Ontarians?

Hon Mrs Grier: I want to say to the member and to his colleague that I think their characterization of the proposal we have put forward is doing a disservice to northern Ontario, which has recognized that the kind of differential scheme we had proposed might in fact overcome many of the difficulties that northern Ontario has had in finding practitioners.

There are about 50 communities, small towns, in northern Ontario that are actively seeking practitioners. The designation of underserviced areas by counties does not take that into account because there are no counties in northern Ontario. The member opposite knows that.

What we have to do is discuss with the Ontario Medical Association a better way of defining where need is and where professionals can be helped to locate, and that's precisely why that proposal is put on the table and precisely why it is my hope and expectation that the Ontario Medical Association will enter into constructive discussions with us as to how to solve a problem that has existed for a very long time and that all of the other formulas for resolving have failed to address.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. When interviewed yesterday about the question of graduated licences, you were asked why you couldn't implement the program quicker. You said you want "to get all of the bugs out of the system. We're heading towards it as fast as possible."

You're not, Minister. I'm asking you directly today, why don't you bring in legislation for first and second reading before the House rises for the summer, and then we can have the legislation passed as soon as the House comes back in September?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The opposition was a party to the draft proposed legislation vis-à-vis graduated drivers' licences. The Insurance Bureau of Canada was also a partner. The loyal opposition was also a partner, and we've agreed unanimously that in terms of due process we will involve all the participants and, more importantly, the people of Ontario. It's called fine-tuning. It means doing something right.

Then -- you've guessed it, Mr Speaker -- we come back to the Legislative Assembly, to this place, and we go through the political process, the process of legislation, and while we're doing this, parallel to doing this, what we do is reform the system, which impacts on 350,000 new entrants who will be joining the 6.5 million people who already have a licence in good standing.

By way of conclusion, sir, we're moving as quickly as possible. We're cognizant, we're sympathetic to the need of the marketplace to have graduated drivers' licences as soon as we can humanly deliver.

Mr Turnbull: That is what is known as bafflegab. When there was a private member's bill introduced in this House to stop young people betting below the age of 18, it was through in a matter of weeks. You were very quick in bringing through legislation which killed jobs in this province. Why can't you bring through legislation?

I can tell you, there's no trick to drafting this legislation. Nova Scotia already has legislation. You and I, Minister, can sit down this afternoon and we can make a few additions and deletions and bring it forward as draft legislation together. We can get on with talking about it, instead of waiting a year, and over a thousand people will be killed in the meantime.

Get on with it. Will you bring in legislation before the House rises and have it debated for first and second reading?

Hon Mr Pouliot: In 1991, 1,100 people lost their lives on the roads of Ontario. In the same year, 1991, 90,000 Ontarians suffered injuries due to collisions. Again in 1991, 213,000 people were involved in accidents. This is a massive endeavour. The very people -- and I say this with the highest of respect, for they had positive participation, positive input, helped us set the course -- they are the ones. Collectively, we all said: "Let's go to public hearings. Let's do it right, so we don't have to go back with amendments and correct and so on." This is a massive endeavour. It's a step in the right direction. A few more months and we'll be there, and we'll be there for ever.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The minister has totally failed to answer a very simple question. I'm not satisfied with this answer, and I'm putting him on notice that I'm bringing the late show on this. This is not satisfactory.

The Speaker: I trust the member will file the necessary document at the table.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Last Thursday, the member for Leeds-Grenville, Mr Runciman, rose in the House on a question of privilege. The member indicated that his privileges had been violated because certain ministers had yet to respond to questions he had placed in the course of oral question period on two separate days in the previous week. The ministers had apparently taken the questions as notice.

In response to the member's concern, let me say that standing order 33(a), which provides that a "minister may take an oral question as notice to be answered orally on a future sessional day," does not require the question to be answered within a specified time, nor does it provide for an enforcement mechanism.

On a separate matter, the member indicated that members' privileges have been violated by virtue of a meeting between the Premier and a senior ministry official. The member went to some effort to research what is often referred to as the convention of responsible government, but I have to say that his submissions do not constitute grounds for intervention by the Speaker.

I say then that no prima facie case of privilege has been established on the matters raised by the member for Leeds-Grenville, but I do thank him sincerely for the way in which he brought this matter to the attention of the House and to the Speaker.

PETITIONS

GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We strongly protest the unfair and differential treatment our community has received at the hands of the Rae government. After extensive review and consultation one year ago, the Rae government confirmed the computer and telecommunications services move of 280 jobs to downtown Brantford. A few weeks ago, the site was purchased and the project sign erected. On April 20, Brantford MPP Brad Ward told the community not to worry, the commitment was still good. Then on April 23, without warning and without explanation, the CTS move was cancelled.

"We protest this deception. Thousands of Brantford area workers lost their jobs when our two main industries closed for good a few years ago. Today, our community still suffers from high unemployment. We do not have a university. No significant federal or provincial department is located here. We were counting on CTS as an important part of a comprehensive strategy for recovery for our community and its downtown. Money has been spent, much work and planning has been done. We call on Premier Rae to end the betrayal and honour the deal.

"We, the undersigned citizens and residents of the Brantford area, urge Premier Rae to honour his personal commitment solemnly made to our community to relocate the computer and telecommunications division of the Ministry of Government Services to Brantford by 1995."

It is signed by just under 2,000 residents of the Brantford area, and I affix my signature to the petition.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's signed by 86 signatures, and I would affix my name to it.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers;

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all of the units at Bruce A. Furthermore, we support the expenditure of the required money to rehabilitate the Bruce A units for the following reasons:

"In comparison to other forms of generation, nuclear energy is environmentally safe and cost-effective. Rehabilitating Bruce A units is expected to achieve $2 billion in savings to the corporation over the station's lifetime. This power is needed for the province's future prosperity.

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities."

In addition to labour, business and political groups, this particular petition, which has over 15,000 signatures on it, is supported by the signators here who are from Scarborough, Pickering and other areas in the greater Toronto area. I have affixed my signature to the petition.

GAMBLING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This petition is signed by about 24 names, and I am happy to sign my name and lend support to this petition.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr David Winninger (London South): I have a petition signed by 409 individuals petitioning the government of Ontario to provide funding to allow Victoria Hospital in London to be consolidated into one operation on the Westminster site in the interests of patient care, and I've affixed my signature thereto.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is practised; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos, despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and very questionable initiative."

I affix my signature to this.

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): I have a petition to present on behalf of the residents of Kitchener and Kitchener-Wilmot. In the interests of using time as a dynamic, I'll dispense with the whereases. It states:

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that the appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from people opposed to casino gambling. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally portrayed itself as having a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has claimed to have a historical concern for the poor in society who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

As I'm in agreement, I have signed this petition.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition from my riding of Dufferin-Peel as a result of the number of motor vehicle accidents involving young people in my riding. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the recent death and injury of five youths within the riding of Dufferin-Peel has deeply disturbed the residents; and

"Whereas these deaths might have been prevented if legislation concerning graduated licensing had been in place; and

"Whereas we would like to prevent further deaths and injuries to our new drivers and young people,

"We would like to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to bring forward legislation to introduce graduated licensing within the province of Ontario."

There are 26 signatures on this petition from Grand Valley and the town of Orangeville, and I have affixed my signature to this petition.

SPEED LIMITS

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here:

"That the Ministry of Transportation be advised that the council of the corporation of the town of Uxbridge objects in the strongest of possible terms to the recent increase in allowable speed through the portions of Goodwood which are actively used by residents and requests that the ministry remove the signs and return the speed limit to 50 kilometres."

This petition was passed in the form of a resolution by the council of the corporation of the town of Uxbridge on the date of March 8 this year, 1993. I'm very concerned about this and have signed this petition.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all of the units at Bruce A. Furthermore, we support the expenditure of the required money to rehabilitate the Bruce A units for the following reasons:

"In comparison to other forms of generation, nuclear energy is environmentally safe and cost-effective. Rehabilitating Bruce A units is expected to achieve $2 billion in savings to the corporation over the station's lifetime. This power is needed for the province's future prosperity.

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

This is part of a petition of over 15,000 signatures. These particular signatures are from the Cottam, Harrow and Kingsville area. I attach my name.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas credible academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This petition is signed by 62 people who primarily live in the city of Woodstock and the village of Princeton.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers;

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

This is part of a petition of hundreds of signatures from the good people of Brampton North.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's first report.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'm very happy to make the report on behalf of government agencies and to congratulate the appointments of the people therein.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES INFRACTIONS PROVINCIALES

On motion by Mr Callahan, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 11,

An Act to amend the Provincial Offences Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les infractions provinciales.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): You have a brief statement?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): The Provincial Offences Act took us a long way in terms of making it easier for people to deal with matters under the Highway Traffic Act. This gives them a third option. This allows individuals to go in to a justice of the peace, rather than setting a trial date, and seek to have the matter reduced to a lesser charge. If the justice of the peace and the authorities consider it appropriate, it can be done there.

The purpose of doing that is to avoid the present practice of matters being set for trial and at the time of the trial the person coming in and in fact just pleading to something lesser and clogging the trial lists of our courts. I would submit that this will go a long way towards reducing those trial lists and ensuring the trial lists are dealing with just trials and the trials are held on the days they're set for.

WRONGFUL DISMISSAL RIGHTS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES DROITS DES PERSONNES VICTIMES D'UN RENVOI INJUSTIFIÉ

On motion by Mr Callahan, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 12,

An Act to protect Persons from Losing their Legal Rights on being Wrongfully Dismissed / Loi visant à empêcher que les personnes victimes d'un renvoi injustifié ne perdent leurs droits reconnus par la loi.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Callahan, would you like to make a brief statement?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): The purpose of this bill is to ensure that anyone who is told that their job has been terminated is not coerced or required to sign any type of document waiving any rights they may have. More often than not, people who have lost their jobs and perhaps have a remedy in terms of being wrongfully dismissed are offered some type of compensation or in fact are told that if they don't sign it they won't get a recommendation for another job.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that no person would be entitled to sign any documents that could be used against them in any claim they might have for being wrongfully dismissed without receiving independent legal advice.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES AUX MUNICIPALITÉS

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 7,

An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management / Loi modifiant certaines lois relatives aux municipalités en ce qui concerne la gestion des déchets.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): It was agreed that we would have a deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 7,

An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management. Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1512 to 1517.

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

Mr Hayes has moved second reading of Bill 7,

An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management.

All those in favour will please rise and remain standing, one at a time.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise, one at a time.

Nays

Arnott, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, McLean, Miclash, Murphy, O'Neil (Quinte), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Stockwell, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 62; the nays are 38. I declare the motion carried. Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed. Which committee?

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Mr Speaker, I'd like to move that Bill 7 be referred to the standing committee on resources development.

PAY EQUITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉQUITÉ SALARIALE

Ms Murdock moved third reading of Bill 102,

An Act to amend the Pay Equity Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'équité salariale.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We'll wait just for a moment until members leave the chamber; then we'll proceed.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): It is indeed a pleasure for me to move third reading of Bill 102, the Pay Equity Amendment Act. This is a measure of historic impact for the working women of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.

Ms Murdock: I want to repeat that this is going to be of historic impact for working women of Ontario. By passing this legislation, the honourable members will make pay equity attainable for another 420,000 working women in this province.

The major amendments in Bill 102 provide new tools to achieve pay equity: proportional value and proxy comparisons. These measures, pioneered in Ontario, will strengthen our provisions against wage discrimination.

Members will recall that Bill 102 received first and second reading last fall, and in January it was the subject of public hearings by the standing committee on administration of justice. The committee concluded by reporting it favourably for third reading.

At this point I would like to thank the member for Eglinton and the member for Waterloo North, as well as the member for Wellington, for all the hard work they put into the committee and the cooperative nature that they contributed to the committee work.

During those hearings Labour minister Bob Mackenzie repeated his conviction that history will record the achievement of pay equity legislation in Ontario as a landmark accomplishment of our times. Indeed, much has been accomplished; however, much remains to be done. Recent figures from Statistics Canada show that the average earnings of working men still exceed the average working earnings for women by more than 30%.

Let us consider a few more statistics. As of last September, there were more than 2.1 million working women in this province, just over 45% of the workforce, and at least 600,000 of them have achieved or have begun to achieve pay equity, which very simply means working for wages that represent the real value of their work.

With final passage of Bill 102, the proportional value amendment will make pay equity achievable for at least 340,000 more working women, and the implementation of proportional value comparisons will be retroactive to January 1 of this year. Another 80,000 working women in the broader public sector will be able to benefit from the proxy comparison amendment beginning January 1, 1994.

The original Pay Equity Act of 1987 offered only one method for achieving pay equity, job-to-job comparisons, and that too, in its own right, was landmark legislation. While that measure was welcomed on all sides as a good start for pay equity, there was a consensus that the 1987 act passed in this House would require future modifications, and in time the need for improvements became especially obvious in workplaces that lacked male job classes for comparison purposes. Ironically, workplaces that were all female or predominantly female were the least able to use the job-to-job comparison method that existed in the 1987 Pay Equity Act.

Bill 102 responds very well to those situations and ensures that many working women will benefit from pay equity legislation. As the Minister of Labour announced earlier this year, in addition to Bill 102 the government has undertaken a more immediate measure, the pay equity down payment program.

The members may recall that the $50-million pay equity down payment program was designed to provide immediate help to some of the lowest-paid women in Ontario's broader public sector. These women are, for the most part, the workers who will benefit from the new measures contained in Bill 102. The down payment program has added as much as $2,500 to each person's annual base salary.

Through the down payment program, many thousands of workers have received a meaningful start towards the achievement of pay equity, and I am pleased to report today that less than two months after the minister's announcement, close to $30 million has already been distributed to a range of workers in the broader public sector, including workers in women's shelters, public libraries, immigrant services and community mental health programs.

At lunch-hour today, the member for Lambton was telling me that her community living program people received $250,000, and that's in the city of Sarnia. So it is moving and it's moving very quickly.

In the coming months, the rest of the down payment funds will be paid out for the child care workers and other homemakers. In future years, most of these workers in the broader public sector will be able to use the proxy comparison method that will become law under Bill 102.

Bill 102 also contains ground-breaking administrative provisions. For instance, when a company or a business is sold, transferred or restructured, its pay equity plan remains protected and in place. In this way, women will not see their pay equity rights vanish or diminish because of workplace changes over which they have no control.

I want to point out that during the public hearings in January, presenters asked for specific improvements in Bill 102, and I'm happy to report that several effective measures have been added. For example, there was a request that procedures for enforcement of orders issued by pay equity review officers be improved, and that has been accomplished under the amended Bill 102.

Another provision of Bill 102 encourages parties to settle pay equity disputes without resorting to lengthy and expensive legal proceedings. It does so by introducing the use of pre-hearing conferences and by providing for pre-hearing settlements.

Bill 102 does not increase the current requirement that employers devote 1% of the previous year's payroll to the achievement of pay equity. I can't help but reinforce that, that the proxy provision under Bill 102 does not go to the private sector -- it only applies to the public sector.

In asking the members of this House to pass third reading of Bill 102, I want to recall that there was a spirit of all-party consensus that was present in this House when the Pay Equity Act was passed in 1987.

In closing, let me say that these new measures, pioneered in Ontario, will add strength to Ontario's provisions against the historic and systemic wage discrimination that working women have endured for far too long.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments? Further debate? The member for Eglinton.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): It gives me great pleasure to rise today in this Legislature and talk about an issue that is very dear to my heart; that is, the equality of women and what a difference pay equity makes to that.

I know there are some people in this Legislature and in the province who question the need for pay equity, and first of all, I'd like to address that particular question. Then I plan to go into a bit of the history of pay equity and how we got where we are today, to talk about Bill 102 and its predecessor, Bill 168, and what Bill 102 does, and then to talk about some of the concerns expressed: the concerns about cost, the concerns of the business community, concerns about proxy, some of the concerns expressed about delay and about the weakening of maintenance.

But first, I'd like to talk about whether there is a need for pay equity, and the parliamentary assistant touched on this particular issue.

There are those who believe that women are simply being impatient by not just waiting, that slowly but surely the problem will rectify itself, but I fear the statistics show something very different. If we look at the Statscan statistics for 1989, when they look at the distribution of earnings for working females, they find that 70% of women earn under $30,000 -- 1989, a mere four years ago. Of that, there are almost 34% who earn under $10,000, there are 12.4% who earn between $10,000 and $15,000 and 12.7% who earn between $15,000 and $20,000. You can tell from those particular statistics that as far as women have come in pay and in reaching equality, we still have a long way to go.

There are other statistics I'd like to share with you, and these are even more recent statistics from 1991, and again, from Statistics Canada. It was based on who earns what and it looked at women's incomes both at the higher-paid level, the professional level, and at the bottom-paid workers.

"A big leap in women's incomes was the big story in new data released by Statistics Canada yesterday." This was an

article based on April 14, 1993, so you can tell, very recently. "Figures from the 1991 census show women's incomes rose sharply compared to men's in the late 1980s even though there's still a big gap between what both earn. Statscan said the average income for women in 1990 had risen about 14% since 1985 compared to the average income for men which remained almost unchanged. Statscan's data shows, however, that the average salary for men was almost $30,000 in 1990 compared to about $18,000 for women.

"'Women made strong inroads in high-paying occupations,' Statscan said in its report, indicating women represented about 20% of the earners in Canada's top-paying jobs compared to 14% in 1985. And women's increased earning power also helped widen the gap between what single-income families earned compared to families with two wage-earning parents, the agency reported. But Statscan also noted that women still dominate the country's lowest-paid occupations, making up almost 75% of all earners in the 10 poorest-paying occupations."

They gave some examples of the top 10 -- judges and magistrates, physicians and surgeons, dentists, lawyers, senior managers, other managers, air pilots, chiropractors, engineers and university teachers -- and of the top 10, 80% of those occupations were held by men. They gave the bottom 10 -- livestock farm workers, sewing machine and textile workers, general farming and horticultural jobs, crop farm workers, bartenders, cleaners, service station attendants, housekeepers, food and beverage service and child care workers -- and of the bottom 10, 75% were women. So you can see that we have improved, but there is still a long way to go.

The latest statistics have shown that there is a rise in what an average woman earns compared to the average man. In 1987, I believe it was in the vicinity of 67 cents on the dollar. Now women are all the way up to 70 cents on the dollar. Part of that has been through programs that have been aggressively pursued, such as pay equity. But again, I think the statistics clearly show that we haven't achieved the equality we would like.

I'd like to read just a portion of an editorial that was in the Globe and Mail, January 1993, because I think it perpetrated a few myths. I won't quote from the entire thing, but I think it's important for members to hear what's being said:

"The subject is the much-ballyhooed wage gap between men and women, documented annually by Statistics Canada and eagerly lapped up by the nation's newspapers and television news shows. Faint praise is in order this year, however, because three ingredients that are central to understanding the wage difference -- education, hours worked and marriage -- received at least passing mention in some of last week's coverage.

"It was reported that women's wages rose to 69.6% of men's in 1991, from 67.6% the year before. But what does that mean? For starters, it does not mean, despite the" -- let me try to get this word out --

Ms Murdock: Obfuscatory.

Ms Poole: Thank you. The parliamentary assistant said it right, I hope, Hansard. Try again: the "obfuscatory efforts of those" -- I think that means sort of like misleading and not getting us in the right direction; anyway, despite the efforts of those who know better, "that women are being paid nearly one third less to do the same jobs. Crunch the numbers a bit further and other interesting facts pop up. Education, for one thing, matters. Women with a university degree earn more, not less, than men with lower levels of education.

When one considers that a majority of those enrolled in Canadian universities are female -- 55.3% of full- and part-time university students are women -- it's hard to imagine a future in which the wage difference will not continue to narrow."

Well, I was just outraged when I read particularly that last paragraph, because they're comparing women with a university degree and saying, "Isn't it wonderful that they're earning more than men who don't have a university degree?" Well, surely that's not where we're at. So I wrote a letter to the editor, which they did publish, and I'd like to read that on the record:

"Your editorial of January 21 concerning the 'much- ballyhooed wage gap' is misleading in its simplistic analysis and selective use of statistics. I agree with you that education, hours worked and experience are important factors in determining wages. But when you are making comparisons, it is important to compare apples to apples. For instance, your editorial stated that 'Women with a university degree earn more, not less, than men with lower levels of education.' I am dismayed that you would find this either surprising or relevant. Of far greater relevance would be a comparison of the wages of university-educated men and university-educated women.

"Consider the following Ontario employment statistics from 1989. Amongst whites, women with a university degree earn 66% -- that's just over $31,000 -- of the income of men with degrees, who earned on average $48,000." That's comparing apples to apples, Mr Speaker. "Women from racial minorities with degrees earned 56% of what men from universities earned.

"You also ask: 'Why is it that many married women work only part-time or adopt less time-consuming and less well-paying full-time careers? Are they forced to by their husbands, by circumstances, by entrenched social attitudes? Do many, for a whole variety of unquantifiable reasons, freely choose this path, thinking it best for their families?'

"One significant answer the editors have ignored is that unfortunately, in all too many cases, women still bear the primary responsibility for child care. They do not 'freely choose this path' necessarily, but are forced to by lack of options. I do believe that education and the recent profusion of women into the professions will have a positive effect on the wage gap in the future.

"However, I fear that without enlightened child care policies, a reasoned pay equity approach significantly closing the wage gap will for ever remain an elusive goal."

I wrote that letter because I think it's very important that we not perpetuate some myths that are out there. While we have made progress, we still must work to ensure that women are paid appropriately. We must also work to ensure that women are not stuck in what I call pink ghettos, where their work is undervalued.

According to a Globe

article that was just in the paper this morning --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Considering the importance of this discussion, I think we should have a quorum present.

The Deputy Speaker: Table, would you please check if there is a quorum.

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

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Eglinton.

Ms Poole: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the member for Etobicoke West for bringing to the House's attention that pay equity is an important issue and that it is important for as many members as possible to participate in this debate.

As I was saying, it really is encouraging to see more women going into the higher-paid jobs and it's also encouraging to see that attitudes are changing. Last week, I went to a Women's Awareness Week that was held at Sporting Life and I was addressing a group of 9- and 10-year-old school children. I decided to talk to them about stereotypes, about boys and girls and what types of jobs they could go into and what they wanted to do with their lives.

Do you know the interesting thing? For the first three young girls I asked, "What do you want to do when you grow up?" their answers were, one wanted to be a teacher, the second wanted to be an orthodontist and the third wanted to be an engineer. I thought, "That is really, really good." There was also one later on who wanted to be a mother, and I thought that was marvellous as well, because we need women who would like to stay at home, we need fathers who would like to stay at home, and if they have the financial capacity to do that, that's certainly to be encouraged.

But what I found remarkable was that these young girls didn't see the barriers in their way, and I think that's half the battle. So we are gradually making progress, but as the statistics show, the progress is very slow and women's work is still undervalued.

I thought I would let you know what type of women it would be who would benefit from pay equity. Obviously, there are many in the private sector who benefit from pay equity, but there's a specific list of those in the public sector who would benefit from legislation extending pay equity to them.

They're people like the visiting homemakers, home support services, those working in homes for the aged, children's aid societies, shelters for battered women, child care workers, those who are working with the physically handicapped, those working in elderly persons' centres, Indian friendship centres, credit counselling, children's mental health, children and youth services, developmental services, children's boarding homes, nursing homes, community mental health centres, public health units, laundries, community health centres, residential psychiatric services, district health councils, rehabilitation and child treatment centres, labs, small hospitals and libraries.

The women in these occupations are not well paid, and those are ones that are particularly targeted to improve their wages and bring about pay equity.

I had an interesting experience last fall. It was actually before the introduction of Bill 102. It was while we were still on the assumption that Bill 168 was proceeding. I had a women's issue outreach tour across the province, and I went to a number of communities, some larger, some smaller. I went to London, Waterloo, Kitchener, Windsor, Ottawa, Timmins, Oshawa, just to name a few.

One of the questions that I asked the women when I visited these various women's groups -- some of whom worked in battered women's shelters, some of whom were business and professional women's club members, some who worked for the YWCA -- was:

"We have pay equity before the Legislature right now and there seems to be two distinct views on it. One is that now is not the time for pay equity because business is struggling, that it is extremely difficult for business to implement this when they're trying to simply survive, and there are concerns about the bureaucracy involved;" on the other hand, the arguments for pay equity as I advanced them earlier, in terms of improving women's lot in life as far as wages are concerned.

The interesting thing was that when I asked the question, "Should we pass this pay equity legislation?" they would say, "On the one hand, this really is a tough time for business and I'm not sure we should really be putting this onerous burden on them at this time." I said, "So you think we shouldn't pass pay equity?" and they'd say: "Oh no, no. On the other hand, if you don't do it now, when are you going to do it?"

The interesting thing is that a number of these groups such as the YWCA, the children's aid societies, a number of people in the business and professional women's clubs, were in the throes of either implementing pay equity themselves or anticipating doing it under the new legislation.

So I said to them: "Well, yes, I'm the same; I see the concerns from both sides. But I need an answer. If you were the Liberal critic for women's issues and you had to stand up in the House and say how you were going to vote on this, what would you do?" And they said, "We really are reluctant to say 'Stop pay equity,' because we are afraid that if we stop pay equity, it may never start again." So there was that willingness to proceed, even though they recognized that there were problems.

Now, Bill 168 is not the bill we have before us today. It is significantly altered since that time. I haven't been back, because I've been in the Legislature, to ask them how they would change their opinion, or if they would change their opinion, given the changes in Bill 102.

But I thought it very interesting that women themselves are very anxious about pay equity legislation. They really want it, but they, at the bottom line, also are very concerned about their jobs. They would want to ensure that they still have jobs, and if it is going to make it so onerous for their particular business or their particular agency that it can't continue to operate, then obviously they are concerned about what pay equity would do.

So it's not only men who say there are two sides to pay equity and some concerns expressed; women are expressing that same ambivalence, where they think pay equity is a very supportable notion -- and I think many men believe that as well -- but they worry about the timing.

I guess for me this has also created a dilemma. The reason I have supported the extension of pay equity is because how can you say it's the wrong time? Are we saying that there is a right time for equity and a wrong time for equity? Is there a right time for fairness and a wrong time for fairness? In my own examination of where I would stand on this bill, when we were looking at Bill 168 and when we had second reading on Bill 102, I came to the conclusion that there is probably never any perfect time to bring in a program like pay equity.

It is somewhat easier in boom times and it is certainly more difficult in depressed times such as we're undergoing right now, but in the bottom line, there is not a wrong and right time for fairness and equity.

But that being said, we still have to examine the legislation that is before us today and determine if this is the right way to do it. Is this the right way to extend pay equity? Is it going to bring fairness and equity? Is it going to do what women want it to do? That's something that I plan to explore with you today.

Just before we do that, I'd like to just refresh with members the history of pay equity in Ontario. I think members will remember the NDP-Liberal accord back in 1985. One of the areas in which the Liberals and NDP reached accord was the fact that we both believed in pay equity, and there was an agreement that the Liberal government would proceed with pay equity in its first term in office.

That's why the Liberals did keep that commitment and they brought forward the Pay Equity Act in 1987. I'm very proud of that legislation. It wasn't perfect, it wasn't without its drawbacks, it wasn't without its growing pains, but as a woman and as a Liberal I am very proud that Ontario is the only jurisdiction in North America which requires the preparation of pay equity plans in both the private and the public sectors, and I'm not ashamed for us to take credit for that achievement.

The Pay Equity Act, 1987, brought pay equity to approximately 1.4 million women out of the approximately 1.7 million women who were working for employers who were covered under the act. Right from the beginning we recognized that there was a deficiency, that there were women not covered. But we felt that it was important to go ahead and take that major first step, and that major first step was to allow job-to-job comparisons. The drawback was that you couldn't have the job-to-job comparisons where there was no male comparator within the establishment. So that is something, as I say, we were aware of at the time and that we made a commitment to redress.

The Pay Equity Commission released a report that had been commissioned in October 1989, in which it recommended two new methods of achieving pay equity. There were two new comparison methods that they recommended. One was proxy and the second was proportional. Now, the Liberal government was very supportive of the proportional method, but we did have a number of concerns with the proxy method.

First of all, we thought it was very problematic to try to compare one establishment with another establishment, for a number of reasons. One is that you're comparing payrolls, for instance, involving extremely sensitive matters and confidential payroll information; the second is the complexity of it; and the third is that it really did not mesh with what the true purpose of pay equity was, as defined. "Pay equity," as it was defined, was to bring equity into the same establishment; that was one of the

definitions of pay equity that was used.

So proxy was not something that we looked on favourably, although we did support the proportional value method at that time. The proportional value method, which allowed businesses or