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

June 25, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROVINCIAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LA CONSULTATION POPULAIRE À L'ÉCHELLE PROVINCIALE

Mr Turnbull moved second reading of Bill 30,

An Act to obtain the Opinion of the Public on Questions of Provincial Interest / Loi visant à obtenir l'opinion du public sur des questions d'intérêt provincial.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for York Mills has 10 minutes for his opening remarks.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I am pleased to present my private member's bill, the Provincial Public Consultation Act, 1992, for debate, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of all the citizens who are demanding a more active role in our democracy, more than just a vote on the election ballot. My bill allows for the referendum question to be placed on provincial election ballots by either the provincial government or private citizens who obtain the signatures of 15% of eligible voters on a petition.

A referendum is a vote of all eligible voters in a jurisdiction on a proposed question on a matter of public policy or law. In ancient democracies, like the Greek city states and the Teutonic tribes, each citizen had the right to express an opinion and to vote on each and every decision affecting the state or tribe. As countries got larger and populations increased, this practice became impossible and had to be discontinued. Modern technology now allows this process to be reconstituted in the form of a referendum.

If citizens in countries like Switzerland and the USA can assume more political responsibility, I believe Ontarians can equally well. The information explosion in the past 40 years, combined with increased education, means our citizens are ready and able to use referenda successfully. Citizens who have to live with the effects of legislation should at least be allowed to have their say on it.

A new-found enthusiasm for direct democracy in the form of referenda is spreading right across Canada. In June 1991 the Quebec National Assembly passed a bill which empowers the Quebec government to hold a referendum on constitutional matters. In October 1991 elections held in both Saskatchewan and British Columbia, referendum questions were placed on the ballot. It is indeed time that Ontario offered its citizens the same rights and privileges.

Turning to the need for this bill, the first point is citizen mistrust. The mood of the citizenry is one of anger and mistrust. Voters are tired of the undue influence upon legislation by individuals and organizations representing so-called special interests. It is apparent that many Ontarians are feeling a sense of frustration at their inability to affect the policies of government. I believe this is responsible for the growing lack of respect for our political system and for politicians in general. Parliament and government are in danger of losing the respect and trust of the citizenry. If respect for government is lost, respect for law and order can also be lost.

Citizens want legislation which is more responsive to their wishes and the needs of the majority. They want government which is more accountable to the voters. Too many times all three parties take the same position on controversial pieces of legislation, for example, on separate school funding and the French Language Services Act, and those citizens opposed do not feel that their point of view receives a fair airing.

I quote from an address by Allan Gregg, the president of Decima polling company, made at a gathering of bankers and academics last year: "There has been a wholesale loss of faith in government. The population is not willing to let the government manage a two-hole outhouse." Gregg told the group that in 13 years of polling he's never seen Canadians so cynical, rudderless and full of hopelessness.

I hope my bill will address those concerns and show that Ontario legislators are open and willing to listen to its citizens, encourage public participation and trust voters with more responsibility in the decision-making process.

My second point is the sense of alienation. Many of my constituents have expressed dismay at the effectiveness of the opposition in influencing a majority government determined to pass legislation. I know many of my caucus members and fellow legislators from both other parties have also expressed the same sentiments. All too often the opinions of the legislators are ignored and bypassed by cabinet, with little or no consultation with the public. This bill may lessen the sense of alienation the public has from its government.

The results of a referendum may well support passage of the legislation, but citizens would have an opportunity to express their opinions in an meaningful way, and they would have proof that the majority of the population supported the idea. Following a referendum, everyone has an obligation to support the majority decision.

NDP members should know that one of their gurus, Ralph Nader, believes that referenda can politically activate people who ordinarily would not be part of the political process. A referendum results in active citizen participation in the political process. If we are trying to buy people back into the political process, then this bill will help.

My third point is that it leads to the acceptance of legislation. Presently government does not need to consult with the people before passing far-reaching or controversial legislation. However, if ideas of government or even all three parties lack public support, they lead to public resentment and resistance. A referendum would lead to a full airing of both sides and give the government an opportunity to garner support for its position. It will mean greater public support and acceptance of controversial legislation.

On the question of support, I wish to read from a press release prepared by the Citizens' Initiative and Referendum Committee.

"We...support David Turnbull's Bill 30 and its clear vision of the direction of much-needed reform of our Canadian and Ontario political systems.

"David Turnbull's Bill 30 will hopefully find support from those MPPs who trust the common sense and goodwill of Ontario's citizenry.

"To be against David Turnbull's advances in Bill 30 is to be against trusting the citizenry and against fuller living for the citizenry.

"There is a tremendous amount of unused talent in the citizenry of Ontario and Canada. Let's bring out the best in that citizenry."

I would like to thank the Citizens' Initiative and Referendum Committee for its fine words of support. Just this week they brought to the leaders of the three parties here at the Ontario Legislature petitions containing the names of almost 2,000 voters who want the right to have referenda.

Individual voters should have the opportunity to make their voices heard on issues of importance. The demand for this type of citizen involvement is growing and will, I predict, become such a groundswell that any government that ignores it does so at its own peril.

My referendum bill is non-binding because the courts are likely to declare unconstitutional legislation which states that a referendum automatically becomes law when it is approved by the voters in a referendum triggered by a signature drive, which is the American model. Such a bill would constitute a new legislative process in which the Lieutenant Governor played no role. In the past, the courts have held that this kind of legislation alters the Office of the Lieutenant Governor and therefore violates

section 92(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

However, a bill which provides that when a ballot question is passed by the electorate in a referendum -- the government is required to submit legislation to the Legislative Assembly implementing the proposed measure -- is likely to be acceptable to the courts. Also constitutionally acceptable would be a bill providing for a reference to the electorate of legislation already passed by the Legislature.

To stop frivolous use: The common concern I have heard from those opposed to allowing referendum is that it could be used frivolously by special interest groups. I have taken several steps to guard against this: the 15% requirement of voters' signatures on the petition requesting a referendum is the highest of any jurisdiction that allows citizen-initiated referendum; the results are non-binding on the Legislature; and to be considered successful 60% of the voters must vote one way on a question in which at least 50% of those eligible vote. I believe these requirements will eliminate the likelihood of trivial questions ending up on the ballot.

In conclusion, I am not suggesting that my bill is a cure-all for the problems of our democracy or that it will solve citizen alienation, but it can help. It is a vehicle requiring the government to be more responsive to the feelings of the electorate. It can help people by having more responsibility given to them.

The Acting Speaker: Each party will now have 15 minutes to participate in Mr Turnbull's private bill number 30.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): First of all, I'd like to say that I was here last Thursday to debate this bill and the member for York Mills didn't come to work that day. I'm very annoyed. This bill today should have gone to 132 on the list. It's really thrown a wrench into my bill that's coming up because I've been backlashed, and I want to let the people of York Mills know that the member didn't show up.

The Acting Speaker: Order. We're here to debate Mr Turnbull's private bill number 30. I would appreciate it if the honourable member could address his remarks to the Chair. Thank you.

Mr Mills: The member's bill calls for a referendum question to be placed on provincial election ballots either by the provincial government or by private citizens who obtain signatures of 15% of eligible voters on a petition.

At first blush, or should I say first flush, the idea seems to be sort of sensible until you stop and give it a little thought. The member maintains that the public will feel less alienated from government if they have the right to referendums. He goes on to say that the public feels the opposition parties have too little influence on a majority government and that there is too little public consultation.

Having followed the political scene in Ontario for many years before I was elected to the Legislature, I used to have great sympathy with the thoughts of the member for York Mills during the reign of the Progressive Conservative Party. In those days, and I can speak with a great deal of knowledge, to get the ear of that government under the reign of the God Emperor himself, William Davis, you either had to have an inside contact or know someone with rank within that party. Anything less would have been talking to a blank wall. That's true.

Today things are very different. We have a government that is open to all the people of Ontario. We have consulted with more people in Ontario than any other government of our time, all this in spite of the opposition's cynical attitude towards the consultations which this government has done in unprecedented numbers.

Effective consultation has taken place on many important issues and has resulted in improved legislation and policy. We have consulted on the custody and support legislation, we've consulted on rent controls, on health care issues, and we have consulted and will continue to consult on the Ontario Labour Relations Act regulations and so on, on many more important issues. We have heard from people from all walks of life and from various circumstances. Consultation with the voters of Ontario has become second nature to this government.

Our representative system of government in Ontario has the advantage of decision-making by a select group of individuals who are chosen by the public to show responsible leadership and to protect the interests of the communities which they represent in this Legislature. The system allows the decisions we make to be made by those who have the time and the inclination to develop a much fuller and deeper understanding of the complex issues of the public agenda and the difficult choice of options in finding solutions.

The member's bill begs the question of what's wrong with it, and that question needs to be answered. The danger of all referendums is not that they will be used frivolously, as the member has suggested, but that they could be used by special-interest groups to force very substantial and serious policy changes that would be contrary to the public interest. They allow for a mass appeal to the lowest common denominator, appealing to the most fickle of public opinion, which can be manipulated by advertising and public relations techniques that oversimplify and distort issues and options.

The outcomes of referendums depend less on a thoughtful, well-considered and well-informed expression of opinion than on the manipulation of marketing and polling techniques, timing, exact wording of the question and the shifting context of recent events.

It's easy to appeal to common public fears and prey on ignorance in dealing with issues such as government spending and taxes, the fear of being a victim of crime in seeking changes to the criminal justice system, and misinformation, prejudice and misunderstanding regarding social assistance. We have had many examples of just that in recent weeks: prejudice with respect to immigration, refugee and language issues and the carefully orchestrated negative public perception of unions as demonstrated in the campaign against the amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

If the member's bill were to become law upon third reading and subsequent royal assent, we could have referendums placed on provincial election ballots which are totally out of keeping with the traditions we hold very dear in Ontario. These traditions centre around tolerance and respect for others of different customs and cultures. It's not very hard to imagine the kind of referendum items that could be brought forward by 15% of the people led by a special-interest lobby group that would result in very ugly and divisive campaigns and possibly very harmful outcomes. The prospect to me is alarming.

In closing, I would not be fair in this debate if I did not concede that there may be occasions when a referendum is a useful tool of public consultation. It is a tool that must be wielded with great caution and, I believe, very sparingly. With those thoughts, I will conclude by saying that based on what I've said and my perception of referendums and, lately, some of the things the leader of the Reform Party has said which are frightening as they pertain to referendums, I will not be supporting this bill as put forward by the member for York Mills.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I rise now to speak to this bill. I was quite taken aback by the thoughts brought forward by the member for Durham East, who usually is quite measured in his interventions. I think what has been lost on the honourable member, and perhaps others who are concerned about referendums, is the fact that what the member for York Mills has done is struggle with the whole issue which surrounds this chamber today, that is, how do we convince the public that this is a place of open and reasoned debate, measured activity designed to reach the public good?

The concern expressed by the member for Durham East about the manner in which the former Progressive Conservative administrations operated in terms of consultation is a speech which was perhaps well made in days of opposition. It might even be extended by some unsympathetic person to the way the former Liberal administration worked in its days in office, and at a time when the New Democratic Party's administration is but a memory, somebody will extend to it the same kindness with respect to the adequacy of its consultation.

By and large, what happens is that the people who are in charge of government, either at the executive level or at the bureaucratic level, attempt the best way possible to garner what they believe to be sufficient evidence to support their cause before they move. I am generous enough of opinion, experienced enough in both the role of opposition and in government, to understand that there is today a complexity of our society which precludes us from reaching a large degree of consensus among all the people of the province.

What happens when we face particularly difficult times, as we find ourselves now facing, is a sense that: "Nobody is listening. The people we elect cannot be seen to be listening if they don't agree with us, because I still feel as a citizen of this province that nothing is benefiting me that goes on in the provincial chamber." It's that difficulty --

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Oh.

Mr Elston: The member for Huron doesn't even understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that the people are feeling pressures that don't seem to be addressed here in this chamber. The sense I have is that each administration -- Tory, Liberal or New Democrat -- will do the best it can with its consultations. I don't believe for one moment that there is any administration that has precluded consultation. The style may be completely different, and I'm prepared to admit that; I don't disagree with that.

But the consultation has occurred, and while our way may not be taken at a particular time as an interest in the public -- you may decide, for instance, not to support an amendment to the building code which allows me as a farm person to use ungraded lumber. I may lose that day and I feel, after it's all been debated here and in the committee to which that bill is now going, that nobody listens because my way has not been heard, because when I'm under pressure and I need relief, I don't take kindly to hearing the word no.

This is nothing more here than a council chamber, a council chamber for 130 ridings in this province where we as members represent to the best of our abilities the views from our constituents, and at times of extreme stress, which is what our province is now under, at times of extreme stress for the country, which is what we now feel, the people who are unhappy with the problems of the day would like to find some place to be heard, but they know not how to do it. "I can write a letter," they say, "I can telephone your office," they say, "I can write to the Premier," they say, "But does anybody hear? Does anybody really listen?"

What is so difficult for me to accept in listening to the remarks from the member for Durham East is that he has passed that whole concern by in expressing his concern about referenda and merrily strides beyond the issue which the member for York Mills is trying to address: It is struggling to find a way to have us look like and be like the people want us to be, that is, open for debate, accessible to debate, movable in listening to the arguments. For me, that's all this bill as a private member's bill represents, an attempt to find some way to say to the public, "We want to provide the very access that you are longing for."

It is not a ticket for any special-interest group to use to get its way, because in our society, the complexities of our interests, the dynamics of our province and of our country are such that we cannot be moved by a single-interest group against the will of the majority, referendum or no, and in particular when a referendum is not even binding.

While I accept that the member for Durham East does not like the idea of a debate around referendum, I think it would have been more wise had he provided for us a sense that he understood what the member for York Mills was at least trying to address, that is, the frustration of the citizens of our province and of our country with all elected officials and all our institutions.

That is why I will support this bill, not because I'm a fan of referendum necessarily, but because I believe if I'm elected to represent the people in my riding, I am elected to find the will of my riding and then to speak in that regard with respect to particular issues if I'm allocated the time.

That would take me into a whole series of issues around what is happening with the rules here, but I won't at this stage. I only say that now the complexities are such that I cannot foresee referendum being the end of sort of consensus. I don't see this bill, if taken into committee, as being sort of the ticket for special interest to override all of us, because, in the end, each of us, as representatives of our constituencies, make decisions about how relevant a particular special interest is to our own area and what benefit it has. It is the role we play as backbenchers, the only executive function we practise.

We make a decision with respect to what we see the interest being in terms of the public good in our areas, and sometimes we're influenced a little bit by our partisan allegiances.

I believe in certain things. I believe in the enterprise we practise in Ontario where people can make profit. I believe in the fairness of the distribution of that profit to the people who live here in the province. I believe in the way in which we assemble government funds and try to distribute them rationally. I even would suggest that my friend the member for Nickel Belt is engaged in that exercise now, although we may have some difficulties with the amounts of money he's giving out and the places he's putting those.

I don't think there's a great deal of difficulty with the concept that is being practised here in this province, but I come at it from a different perspective than some of my friends on the other side who perhaps are not as convinced as I am that the development of businesses that are profitable to earn money to pay to employees and to reinvest in our economy is the right way to go. I'm not a fan of total central control of our activities. I would even say that the New Democratic Party here, although espousing a number of those principles opposed to my view, is very soft on the totally centralized economy.

The whole reason for the debate this morning is not to have the member for York Mills's vote carry so that a business lobby can defeat the Ontario Labour Relations Act or so that Sunday shopping can be defeated by the union organizers who don't like it or so that somebody can't come in here and defeat the marketing boards in agriculture.

Interjection.

Mr Elston: The member for Durham East says it's all about money. Referendum may be well financed, but the signatures on the bottom line cannot be bought. The will of this chamber, in my view, cannot be bought. The members in this chamber, any one of them, cannot be purchased, and it cannot be possible when referendum is not binding to have, as indicated by the member for Durham East, money buying my consent. I believe fully it is not possible to buy any one of the consents of any one of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, in the Conservative Party or in the Liberal Party. It cannot be that this referendum bill would allow that to occur.

In the end when it's not binding, you see, the decisions ultimately reside with me and with my friend the member for Simcoe East, a member of immense experience both provincially and municipally. It cannot be that it would be binding, or at least binding to the extent that the member for Simcoe Centre would make a decision against the public will merely because there is a referendum well orchestrated.

Mr Speaker, I think it's interesting for me, in any event, to consider what might have happened had we had a referendum on Sunday shopping, or maybe we should have had a referendum on the labour bill itself. You know what would happen. I would think that if you really sat down and looked at what would happen on Sunday shopping, it would not have passed a referendum in the 1990 election, at least by the experience I felt in my constituency. In fact, a number of the New Democrat members were elected with substantial help from the anti-Sunday shopping lobby. Isn't that interesting? I think it's interesting.

Having said that, and thinking that the election of 1990 would have told a whole group of the New Democrats that they should not have Sunday shopping, where are we today? We are today with wide-open Sunday shopping done totally without a referendum.

What what was it? What sufficiently well-financed lobby was it that changed their view? It wasn't a referendum. It wasn't the member for Welland-Thorold. My God, everybody knows what he says about Sunday shopping and everybody knows what he says about his party. It was not a referendum, but it was a sense that the will of the public good has moved the party away from its position in 1990.

What would happen, Mr Speaker, if we took the honourable member for York Mills's bill out to committee and actually went out and talked to some people about the idea that there was another way to get to their members? I'm using what I would say is the common expression in my riding: "What does it take to get to you people?" -- not to get you, but to get to you. "How is it that I know you really do express the concerns I have?" I'm doing what a lot of members do regularly: I am writing replies to letters. Some of these were form letters, but letters from people in my constituency, some from Welland-Thorold, some from Scarborough riding, some from Oshawa --

Mr David Winninger (London South): Any in London?

Mr Elston: Actually I had one from London. These were all people who are concerned about Bill 162, the Game and Fish Act, which of course causes difficulty for the people all over the province who are engaged in the practice of hunting. These are people who for years and years have enjoyed hunting and who are owners of hunting dogs.

They are concerned, and they want to know that we're going to have something to say about the Game and Fish Act, which of course we will. I understand from my colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin that it will probably find its way to a public committee someplace, so we can make sure there are some amendments which will address the concerns of the women and men who comprise the list of contributors to the opinion-making around Bill 162.

They want to know that there is something real that comes out of these letters. All I can say is that the member for York Mills has touched the right key. He probably has not touched the right solution in a whole series of minds, but he's touched the right key. We, as private members, have to understand what will make our roles here more effectively felt in the ridings, and that the voters can sense when they go to the polls in the next election that their vote will count for more than just the election of a person on that date and that it will have a continuing and abiding influence on the member. If it isn't just letters that can be sent, maybe the referendum is a tool that would help.

I've got more to say. I regret to say that my time has expired, but I support the idea that, as members of this Legislature, we ought to struggle very hard to find more ways to let our people know that their expressions of concern are heard and that they count.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Mr Turnbull's private member's bill number 30? The honourable member for Simcoe West.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): It's my very great pleasure to rise this morning and speak in support of my colleague for York Mills's private member's Bill 30,

An Act to obtain the Opinion of the Public on Questions of Provincial Interest, known as the Provincial Public Consultation Act, 1992.

I also want to commend the former speaker, the Liberal member for Bruce, for what I thought was a very well reasoned and supportive debate this morning. It flies in direct contrast to the previous NDP speaker, the member for Durham East, Mr Mills, who, I would say, has either totally missed the boat on this or totally missed the boat on what in the world he's doing here on behalf of his constituents from Durham East.

I think we must get past the day, and I had hoped that long gone was the day when members of this Legislature or the Parliament in Ottawa would, as members of the governing side, take decisions from Monday to Thursday while they're at Queen's Park or Ottawa and then go back and lecture their constituents on weekends and tell them what's good for them.

That has been the style of Bob Rae and Brian Mulroney, and I tell you, Mr Speaker, that style is no longer acceptable to the people of Ontario. They do not want us to go back on weekends and tell them what's good for them because we've taken closed-door decisions or the government's taken unilateral decisions here at Queen's Park or in Ottawa.

This bill is designed to give the public a greater voice on the issues of the day and, in the process, restore its faith in politicians and in the political process. We inherited a good political process from our ancestors, and I dare say that process has been abused from time to time because of members like the member for Durham East who show a clear arrogance and a clear misunderstanding of what their role is as members of provincial Parliament. I think the member for Bruce expressed very eloquently what the purpose of this morning's legislation is and what the purpose and role of the member of provincial Parliament is, which is to speak up on behalf of your constituents.

I always say to my constituents that you either have faith in the collective wisdom of the people of Ontario or you don't. If you don't, you shouldn't be here because they're tired of being lectured to and told what's good for them by members who feel that somehow they're superior to the will of the people. That's not acceptable.

This bill would allow for a referendum question to be placed on provincial election ballots by individual citizens or the provincial government if 15% of eligible voters sign a petition. I want to take a moment, on behalf of my colleague the member for York Mills, to explain some of the guts of this bill.

If at least 50% of the electors vote in the referendum, with 60% voting the same way, then a minister of the crown is required to introduce a bill into the provincial Parliament here that proposes to implement the results of the referendum. However, the act does not bind the minister or any other members of this Parliament to vote on the bill in any particular way. The bill this morning provides specific provisions that guard against the tendency to use referendums for frivolous purposes. I think my colleague the member for York Mills touched upon that in his remarks.

The 15% requirement of eligible voters is the highest of any jurisdiction that permits citizen-initiated referendums. Again, the results are non-binding on the Legislature, but the important part of the bill and the process as outlined in the bill is that the minister of the crown must introduce the outcome of the question of that referendum into this Parliament so the people have the opportunity to have their legislators debate that important issue on their behalf. Mass participation is guaranteed in this legislation by ensuring that referendums are endorsed by a minimum of 60% in an election in which at least 50% of those who are eligible to vote cast their ballots.

There are three types of referenda in use throughout the world. One is constitutional, and some political jurisdictions have constitutions that require that if certain measures are to be adopted by the government, they first must be approved by the people before they take effect. An example of this is a constitutional amendment itself. The government has exclusive power to decide the contents and timing of the amendment, but the referendum determines whether this amendment becomes part of that country's or that jurisdiction's constitution.

Two is an advisory referendum. An advisory, often referred to as contingent, referendum is one where the government decides that a law passed by the Legislature will only become law once it is ratified by the voters. An advisory referendum is called to solicit the views of the electorate on some matter. Again, however, the result is not binding on the government.

The third type is commonly referred to as the initiative. This type of referendum enables the voters to vote on a measure before it becomes law. It differs from both the constitutional and the advisory referenda because the decision to hold a referendum originates with the electorate and not the government itself.

For the benefit of all members in the House I want to briefly touch upon some of the background with respect to referenda throughout the world, in the United States and in Switzerland particularly.

All members are aware that the US has a long history of both government referenda and citizen initiatives. Currently 23 states and the District of Columbia use the initiative, while 25 states and also again the District of Columbia use the straight referendum.

In the past 20 years the initiative has become increasingly popular in the US. In the November 1988 elections there were more than 200 initiatives on the ballot in 41 states. In California alone there were 29 initiatives on the ballot. Thirty-five per cent to 45% of the more than 1,500 citizen-initiated ballot measures have won approval in the US, which is a remarkable track record.

Arguably, I think that all members and citizens would agree that the most famous modern-day initiative was Proposition 13 in California. This 1978 initiative slashed property taxes by half and forced significant cuts in the size of the public service.

I want to just touch upon some of the remarks made by the member for Durham East by simply pointing out that the results in the US indicate that the initiative is a politically neutral instrument -- ie, no one's special interest, either individual or group, has benefited specifically from holding referenda. Forty-three of 96 initiatives, or 43%, that were introduced by Liberal or left-leaning groups were successful, while 41 out of 91, or roughly 45%, of initiatives introduced by right-wing groups have met with success in the United States.

In Switzerland, direct democracy has deep historical roots. As early as the 13th century some Swiss provinces routinely made decisions by popular assent in citizen assemblies.

Any amendments to the Swiss Constitution approved by the federal government must be submitted to a popular referendum. One hundred thousand citizens, or 3% of the Swiss electorate, can trigger a referendum on a proposed amendment by affixing their names to a petition which contains the text of the proposed constitutional amendment within 18 months of the amendment's publication. The Swiss Parliament cannot change the proposed text in the constitutional amendment; however, Parliament can propose a counterproposal, which often leads to the withdrawal of the original initiative by the sponsor.

All constitutional amendments proposed in a referendum, including the counterproposal, must gain the support of a majority of voters nationally as well as a majority of the voters of the cantons or provinces. This latter provision ensures that large urban cantons do not steamroll the wishes of smaller rural cantons. In some Swiss cantons a referendum is required for all laws passed by the cantonal Parliament, with the exception of certain pieces of financial legislation.

I want to briefly touch upon a local example here in Ontario of how ballot questions have worked or, in the case of the current government, have been failed to be listened to by the government.

Last November in the municipal elections in my riding several municipalities put a referendum question on the election ballot. The question was simply, "Do you favour restructuring," a huge issue in my riding. An overwhelming number of residents voted against restructuring, but the NDP government is moving ahead with restructuring anyway. Ninety-four per cent of the voters in Sunnidale township were against restructuring. Eighty-five per cent of the voters in Nottawasaga township were against municipal restructuring being forced on them by this provincial government.

Although this municipal referendum afforded my constituents an opportunity to participate directly in the electoral process, the NDP government refused to act on their wishes.

I took the results of those referenda questions to my riding and I introduced not one but two private member's bills in this Legislature in an attempt to ensure that the people of Simcoe county and particularly my riding of Simcoe West were listened to by this government. Promises made by Bob Rae when he was in opposition and now as the Premier that he would consult and listen -- the problem we have is that this government may consult but it doesn't know how to listen and therefore follow up with action that's appropriate to the wishes of the people, because all it does is consult. I think it misuses the term "consultation" and doesn't truly act on the wishes of the people.

That's reflected in the two bills I brought forward. One would have given a greater say for municipalities that did not want to be forced to restructure, a fairly simple principle but the NDP government voted against it. The second one, and this is the irony of ironies, was an attempt to move a boundary line in the town of New Tecumseth back over to Highway 27, where it had been prior to the restructuring in 1990. The Liberal government forced that restructuring, that boundary line, which was ill-conceived.

When we debated my private member's bill some three weeks ago today in this Legislature, the Liberal members, including the former Minister of Municipal Affairs who had drawn the boundary line back in 1990, got up in this Legislature and said: "I'm sorry; we made a mistake. You're right, Mr Wilson, your constituents are right and we're going to vote with you to put the boundary line back where it should have been. Sorry we made the mistake."

The irony of ironies is, for some reason that is totally mind-boggling to me and unexplained to my constituents to this day, that side of the House, the NDP, voted as a bloc against my private member's bill, which the Liberal government at the time had forced upon the people of my riding. Now in opposition the Liberals were agreeing with me to help correct the mistake of the past. These mindless NDP individuals over there were whipped by Dave Cooke, the government House leader and Minister of Municipal Affairs --

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I resent the member calling me a mindless individual. That's unparliamentary.

Mr Jim Wilson: Mr Speaker, it was a rather sweeping accusation, but I'm glad one member caught on to whom I was referring to.

I'm very angry about this. I have consulted with my constituents and I have taken action in this House. I'm being stonewalled by a government that pays lipservice to consultation but refuses, when given the opportunity in a very fair way -- I met with Mr Cooke, the government House leader and Minister of Municipal Affairs, with a delegation last November. He was very courteous, he was willing to listen at the time, but he wasn't willing, when it came down to the crunch, to have his members agree with us and support my resolution.

I am very supportive of this morning's resolution. I think it'll bring some common sense back to government. I do not understand why the NDP government is once again not supportive of my colleague from York Mills, because he truly is trying to get you people to listen to the people of Ontario. I respect him for that and I know his constituents respect him for sticking up on their behalf.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Listening to the so-called debate has left me with some doubt about how I will vote on this. I certainly came prepared to support the bill of the member for York Mills because I thought it did make some interesting suggestions that should be looked at. However, with some of the support he's received from his colleagues I must say my support has been called into question. That's in part because you have to look at where the support is coming from and I guess make some evaluation about the worthiness of the measure.

However, I will at least go into the reasons why I came here expecting to support the bill. At least the member for Simcoe West has given us the textbook case for referenda, and if he'd stuck with that I think then it would have been a lot better for the bill of the member for York Mills. Again, it's hard to think of moderation and to suggest this is a moderate case when it's been argued so intemperately by the member for Simcoe West.

However, I will say that the member for York Mills does enjoy esteemed support from someone no less than Thomas Jefferson, who was the third president of the United States and said, "I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but the people, and if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take the power from them but to inform them by education."

I think that is of course one of our enduring ideals in Ontario. It certainly was reflected as recently as the convocation at Queen's University where an honorary doctorate was being conferred on John Polanyi. His opening remark to the graduates was, "Education is the hope of the world." So we can see that education is a very important element, and in fact I think referenda can play an educative function in our political life.

I don't see it either as supplementing the Legislature but complementing it. It's certainly the experience in the United States, and I don't think the member for Simcoe West has mentioned this, but it adds up to only around 1% of the bills that pass through the legislatures that have the referenda initiative. So I think there is a place for it and, as I say, this educative element is very important. When we think of the individuals who are deciding on referenda across the province, we have to remember them in the life they lead in the province. That's where their opinion on the referendum will be coming from.

That again is important: the education and where that comes from. I'd like to point out that measures we are proposing to amend the Ontario Labour Relations Act speak very directly to this because workers, in their relations at their workplace, gain a lot of education from being in a union because that way they're able to take a much greater role in the running of their workplace and have to contend with items such as health and safety and retraining. In that sense I would expect the member for York Mills to support initiatives like the amendments to the Labour Relations Act because they do speak very directly to that educative element.

Another example is Action Canada Network, which also educates the people of the province on the issues of the day. I think his proposal that there be a referendum to address certain issues allows that education to be used in debating the issues that face us as a province.

The member for Bruce suggested that members in the House need some help in representing their constituents. I'm not sure that's the case. We certainly have a lot more help in our staffs. The resources that the people of Ontario provide us to do our job, I think, are certainly ample and are a great help in making that representation. Even the resources we have here at the Legislature in our very fine library, for instance, allow us to find out the information we need to carry out our jobs. That is certainly over and above what the ordinary citizen would have.

Again, it comes back to the kinds of functions we set up in society to make sure that people can be informed on the issues that we're debating. Certainly the school system itself is very important and that's why we as a government are taking that so seriously: to make sure that the resources are there and the curricula we will need to educate the population in a changing environment will be there.

On these issues I think the member for York Mills would agree that it's very important to have an educated population to make these decisions, but I do see a place for the referendum as being both an element of education, because people will debate the issues -- I think he certainly has put very tight restrictions on it. The idea of 15% needed to bring the referendum into the Legislature is very important and a very high figure -- almost a million people would have to sign that petition -- and then it has to be debated in the Legislature.

So I think there are some very strong restrictions there, and I think it will serve a function, as I say, of complementing rather than replacing the representative Legislature.

I want to close by saying that democracy has been called a system that allows the people to make their own mistakes. Again, that's an educative function and it will be a help in the governing of the province.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I want to compliment the member for York Mills for presenting this bill. They are of course very difficult issues, and frankly, while there are many difficulties with referenda, like my friend the member for Kingston and The Islands, I generally support it.

There are some problems. I'd like to just briefly outline one. There is the issue, for example, of Sunday shopping which we will be voting on soon, I believe, in this House, and I think probably this issue will pass here. Most people, were a question posed to them, "Are you in favour of Sunday shopping; are you in favour of convenience?, would say, of course, yes. But were the question instead posed in a different manner, "Are you in favour of Sunday working? most people would say no. If it were posed in a balanced manner, it would probably have to come out with a much clearer mix. These are difficult questions. How questions are posed is an essential issue.

I will probably be supporting my colleague's bill.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for York Mills has two minutes in summation and response.

Mr Turnbull: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe I have three because I think there was a little over a minute left on the clock before.

I want to thank the members who have contributed to this debate, and specifically I would like to, first of all, comment on the member for Kingston and The Islands and some of his debate.

The whole question that we're debating here is how we can complement, as he correctly said, the government legislation that is driven out by the government. As we know, very few private members' bills ever see the light of day and that's unfortunate.

The people of Canada are concerned that their political institutions are not responsive to their needs. I lived for two years in Switzerland and I saw, in living colour if you wish, how a democracy can work supported by the will of the people through reference to referenda.

I have not made this referenda legislation so that it will be on an ongoing basis other than at general elections, simply because I don't believe we can afford that at the moment, but my dearest wish would be that we could have this passed today and referred to the justice committee for examination. I recognize that there may be improvements that need to be made to this and that all sides should have their opinions thoroughly aired, but I would point out that this can work very well in restoring the confidence of the electorate.

I do not presume to believe that it will do everything to restore the electorate's confidence; however, it will go some way in that direction. I think that when one looks at the kinds of issues that are passed through referenda items in the US, it's interesting that about one third of all references to the people get passed in legislation and about half of them are so-called left-wing measures and so-called right-wing measures.

Indeed, it is an expression of the general wish of the people and I think that is a very healthy direction. I do encourage all members to vote yes to this bill so that we can send it out to committee for a thorough examination of it by all parties of all areas of the political spectrum. I think that kind of airing would be most useful to furthering democracy in this province.

With that, I thank all members who spoke in support of this.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. We will be dealing with Mr Turnbull's bill at 12 noon.

AGNES MACPHAIL DAY ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LA JOURNÉE AGNES-MACPHAIL

Mr Malkowski moved Second Reading of Bill 35,

An Act proclaiming Agnes Macphail Day / Loi proclamant la journée Agnes-Macphail.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member has 10 minutes in which to participate in the debate and will have two minutes to wrap up. All parties will have 15 minutes each for participation in the debate.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I am very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the proclamation of March 24 as Agnes Macphail Day.

On March 21, 1991, I talked about the Canadian Constitution as a shattered mirror and how we were reassembling all the pieces to make sure that Canadians are reflected in that mirror. One important part from that mirror is missing, and I think that

part is the recognition in this bill of those people who fought for social equality and social justice. I think we're putting that piece back into the mirror to honour those people who went before us and their contribution to these causes. Without those people's contributions most of us would not be in the House today.

Many people in my riding who I have met over the past two years have told me wonderful stories about the life and work of Agnes Macphail that she did in my riding, and I felt this was an important issue. Agnes Macphail was the first women and quite a pioneer. The 50th year of her election will be marked next year in 1993. She was elected as a member, an MPP for York East, in 1943-45 and 1948-51. She was the first elected woman. There was another woman elected, Rae Luckock, and they were the first two women in the Ontario Legislature. Agnes Macphail represented my riding for two terms.

She was also the first woman elected in the federal House of Commons. Before 1919 you are aware that women were not allowed to vote on the Legislature. After that time they were given the vote and Agnes Macphail was one of the first women elected to the House.

The proclamation of March 24 as Agnes Macphail Day, I think, is very timely, because it is the 50th anniversary of her election; it will happen next year. What is really important is that compared to the national level, Agnes Macphail is not as well known here in her home province of Ontario. They have taken the initiative to recognize Agnes Macphail as a symbol. My counterpart, Alan Redway, the federal MP for Don Valley East, has already moved that she be recognized on a Canadian postage stamp to celebrate the 100th anniversary of her birth on March 24, 1890.

The leader of the federal New Democratic Party will be honouring her with an unveiling of a plaque on her former office door in the House on Parliament Hill. She will also be re-introducing a few of Agnes Macphail's motions which still have not passed, the issues of international peace, of disarmament and support for agricultural and social reform.

Agnes Macphail was a very brilliant and skilled orator. She fought for women's rights. She fought for youth, disabled groups, the poor, for farmers and for people within the criminal justice system. I think the honourable members need to know of her life and her times. A few weeks ago the honourable member for Simcoe East, Al McLean, spoke about her birth in Grey county and the many, many progressive issues that she championed during her political life.

I think it is very important to do more than just recognize Agnes Macphail for being the first; I think she was also one of the best. She was one of the best orators in North America and was very popular. She spoke very eloquently on social justice. I think we need to honour Agnes Macphail because she fought for social justice and two of her greatest victories were equal pay for women and the provision of pensions for old people. She also worked on the abolishment of torture within prisons, and she worked to give farm families an adequate and better way of life.

She had two great victories here in the Legislature. The first was equal pay for equal work for men and women, and she also established old age pensions. Those were two of her greatest achievements.

There are many other other social justice issues, one being the reduction of torture within the penal system. She was also involved in the establishment of the Elizabeth Fry Society. She was very active with different groups that focused on social justice. Being a champion and a great symbol for those people who had experienced oppression, she tried to increase their standard and quality of life.

She also worked as a country school teacher, and then was led to positions of national and international recognition. She was picked as one of three Canadian delegates to be a representative at the 10th assembly of the League of Nations in Geneva. That assembly focused on disarmament. She talked of disarmament and of international peace and became a world leader of international peace.

We also want to honour her for the things she attempted that have still not been won today; for example, international peace and understanding and disarmament. Those goals are still worthy of attainment. They are even more critical today than in her time. We need to continue to fight for them.

She has become a symbol for people. Many people who have been oppressed are inspired as they look to Agnes Macphail who stood up and spoke out for people to fight for the right to equality.

I am sure Agnes Macphail would be watching our government members to see how we are following in her footsteps and dreams to try to improve the current situation in terms of introducing our legislation such as employment equity.

In York East some people who have participated in our committee have asked to be involved to have Agnes Macphail recognized.

Charlotte Whitton called Agnes Macphail "the most important woman in public life that Canada has produced in the 20th century." What an inspirational role model for our youth.

I would like to thank the Agnes Macphail committee -- Moira Armour, John Ridout and Susan Hughes -- for their support for the introduction of this bill.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): It seems but just a few hours ago that we were debating before, but now we're debating a bill that would allow March 24 to be set aside as Agnes Macphail Day. I am delighted to support the member for York East, Mr Malkowski, in this endeavour because, as he said, Agnes Macphail was not only the first; Agnes Macphail was the best.

In 1919 there was a momentous occasion in Canadian history, that is, there was a passage of amendments to the Election Act that granted women the right to hold office at the federal level. It wasn't till 10 years later in 1929 that we were recognized as persons, but prior to that, in 1919, we at least could hold office federally.

The first election following that was 1921, and Agnes Macphail was the first woman elected in Canadian history. She was the age of 31. At that time, it was a very difficult thing. She was criticized by the media and by her male colleagues for everything from her dress to the fact she didn't wear a hat to the fact that when she was speaking in the House she was extremely aggressive; this was tolerated in men, but not in women, of course.

She ran in several subsequent elections and she won in 1926, but in 1940 Agnes Macphail, much to her bitter disappointment, was defeated by her own constituent. But the loss in the federal Parliament was the provincial Parliament's gain because Agnes Macphail ran provincially in 1943. Along with Margarette Luckock, she became the first woman elected into Ontario's Parliament.

As the member for York East has mentioned, she was very involved in prison reform and was a founder of the Elizabeth Fry Society of Canada, which helps women on their release from prison. At that time, prison reform was considered to be a women's issue. I'd like to tell you a little anecdote about Agnes Macphail on prison reform. Once, when she was in the course of checking out conditions in prisons, she showed up at the doors of Kingston Penitentiary. She was told that no ladies are allowed. To this she responded, "I'm no lady, I'm an MP." Agnes Macphail was admitted, and prison reform was as good as won.

As was also mentioned by the member for York East, she was the first Canadian women to be a delegate to the League of Nations, but she rejected pressure to sit on committees dealing with welfare, women and children -- you know, these women's issues -- and she successfully insisted on becoming the first woman delegate to sit on the disarmament committee.

As most members know, she was very active in support of Ontario's first equal pay legislation.

She was also known for her sharp wit. Once, a heckler wanted to know why she didn't get herself a husband. She shot back, "How do I know he wouldn't turn out like you?" Another time on the campaign trail, she was heckled by a man seated in the back row. "Don't you wish you were a man?" he shouted. "Yes," she replied, "Don't you?" So she was certainly well renowned for her wit and her sharp retorts.

She said a couple of things that I think are very interesting to women who have been fighting the battle for women's equality. In an autobiographical note, she wrote: "One of the outstanding features of this age is the number of intelligent women who do not marry. I have talked to hundreds of these fine, alert and very capable women in business, the professions and the arts, and their reason was the same as mine: The person could not be subjected."

One time in Parliament, she said: "When I hear men talk about women being the angel of the home I always, mentally at least, shrug my shoulders in doubt. I do not want to be the angel of my home. I want for myself what I want for other women: absolute equality. After that is secured, men and women can take turns at being angels."

When she was defeated from the federal Parliament, I think she had feelings of disillusionment and bitterness. One time, after her defeat, when she was in the Ontario Legislature, she told the Legislature what a short thing fame was. She said: "I had a letter returned from Ottawa, I think it was yesterday, which said, 'Not known here.'" But we will remember Agnes Macphail, and through this resolution we will remember her for some time to come.

I'd like to close with something she said of herself. She said: "It is well for us at times to be idealists, not to be scoffers and doubters, not to be cynical, but to believe that all the people of the world, regardless of colour, regardless of the country in which they live, are fine people, and if we treat them as though they are, they will treat us in the same spirit. It is well for us sometimes to go to the hilltops, and when we do as individuals and, in great moments, as nations, we see a fairer world. The fairer world is no dream; it can be made a reality if each of us takes the matter seriously and works toward that end."

I'd like to close with words of Charlotte Whitton, the long-time mayor of Ottawa, who sent a sheaf of lilies to her funeral. The card read, "To Canada's Woman of the Century." Many would agree that she still deserves that tribute.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I am pleased to be able to rise today to speak in support of the member for York East's bill,

An Act proclaiming Agnes Macphail Day.

As members know, Agnes Campbell Macphail was born on March 24, 1890. At that time, her family lived in a three-room log cabin on a 100-acre farm near Hopeville in Proton township. Some time later, they moved to Artemesia township, both of which are in my riding of Grey.

Her ancestors were the sort of people I spoke about in December when I introduced my resolution which asked this House to declare April 6th Tartan Day in Ontario. I am grateful that the House chose to agree to my motion, because by doing so we can now honour the contributions made by people like Agnes Macphail's family.

Like so many others, they emigrated from Scotland and soon chose Grey as a place to settle and to work the land. Agnes Macphail is descended from people who never doubted that rewards come from hard work. They were governed by a strict moral code and relied heavily on their strong religious faith. They also believed in community service, and they instilled these values in their children. They were social, friendly people who helped their neighbours in times of trouble and who rejoiced with singing and good conversation when times were good. Thus, they exemplified those who settled the county and those we are proud to have in Grey today.

As a small child, Agnes attended SS No 4 Proton, a local one-room school house like the one I went to in Sydenham township, and she worked on the family farm. In his book, Agnes Macphail and the Politics of Equity, author Terry Crowley tells us that through these chores, she realized early that while a farm was a joint enterprise, it was a partnership where rewards were distributed unequally. She undoubtedly gave some indication of the path her life would take when she said that, "In farming, women break 50-50 with the men, but if this is true, it is $50 to the men and 50 cents to the women, and I doubt that this is overstating the case."

With the understanding learned at a young age that she was equal to any man, and with dreams of becoming a teacher, she persuaded her family to let her travel to Owen Sound Collegiate and Vocational Institute to further her education. This is the same school that I am proud to have attended and where I was president of the student council, which they call head boy.

After achieving her goal, she taught children in several locations in rural Ontario for 10 years. Among these schools was SS No 14 in Egremont township, or Boothville as it was then called. It was during this period that Ms Macphail became interested in national issues and involved in community affairs. By writing a letter to the Owen Sound Sun, she attracted the attention of John Ross, the paper's editor, who was interested in extending the participation of women.

He introduced her to the United Farmers of Ontario. This was a populist rural movement with which she could personally identify and with which she completely agreed. It was a movement which stressed mass involvement and advocated more direct accountability by officials to the voters.

She realized that even though the agriculture sector was vital to the well-being of society, it was vastly underrepresented in Parliament. Sometimes I think that not much has changed. In my view, rural Ontario still supports the large cities, yet the large cities and this government do not always understand that and, worse, do not seem to care.

But Agnes Macphail did. Even though there was a great deal of opposition from some of the less enlightened voters in what was then Southeast Grey, who couldn't believe that there were no men left to run the county, she was nominated by the United Farmers of Ontario to be the Progressive Party candidate in the 1921 federal election.

It was difficult to be the only woman in Parliament. She recalled that at first she was intensely unhappy because many members resented her presence and made her feel uncomfortable. But she soon developed the courage to match wits and better her detractors. As a true populist, political labels mattered little to her. She believed, rather, in the people that politicians represented. In fact, she sat as an independent for most of her years in the capital.

Agnes Macphail is a true daughter of Grey. Terry Crowley tells us that no matter how far Agnes travelled, she kept returning to her birthplace. In fact, after she won the election and became a member of Parliament, she bought a house of her own in Ceylon, a small village near her birthplace and her family home. In that, she is like most Grey natives who never really lose touch with the county. I believe that if Ms Macphail were alive today, she would still feel the same way about Grey. I am sure she would delight in its natural beauty and enjoy all the recreational activities the area has to offer.

She would enjoy the lovely beaches along Georgian Bay, the Blue Mountains, the beautiful walking trails and the scenic drives throughout the whole county. And I think she would be proud of the small industry which has sprung up since she left. Her own area is home to several furniture companies and although they are suffering, they are struggling to survive. She would approve of the fine artistic and cultural groups in the county and the volunteer and service organizations which continue the sense of community that she loved.

History tells us that she excelled at athletics, so I am sure she would attend games and cheer for many of the championship softball, hockey, lacrosse and other sports teams we have in Grey.

I'm also sure she would still sympathize with the plight of the farmer who, these days, is not always making ends meet. She would also understand the concerns of the land owner who is feeling the suffocating intrusion of this government with some of its policies and legislation.

I think she might be a little ashamed that the offspring of her party, which cared so much about the rural community and their property rights, would be the ones to force an ANSI program, areas of natural and scientific interest, the new amendments to the Game and Fish Act, the proposed Trees Act, the wetlands policy announced yesterday, and the Niagara Escarpment plan on the people she once represented.

I cannot believe, and I am sure she would not either, that Agnes Macphail's party doesn't understand that those who own and who work and who know their land should have some say as to what happens to their property.

I am sure that she would feel at home and even assist groups like the Grey Association for Development and Growth, which has formed largely because it believes government has lost any contact with the people. For better or for worse, they think they have to take matters into their own hands in order to have legislators listen. She would empathize with the feelings of isolation and the futility they feel in having big government never taking their concerns into account, for she rarely missed an opportunity to express the farmer's point of view.

But I think that she would be pleased that she is remembered in Grey, and in Hopeville, where a statue has been erected to her memory.

In 1990, on the anniversary of her 100th birthday, the Split Rail Festival in Flesherton honoured her by making Agnes Macphail the theme of its weekend festivities. Along with many historical displays which celebrated her life, school children in Grey were invited to participate in an essay contest about Ms Macphail. I feel this was particularly fitting in that education for our young people was one of her earliest interests.

I was delighted to be able to arrange a tour of the Legislature and to host a lunch at Queen's Park for the three winners of the contest, Dove Gowanlock, Laura-Ann Blakey and Sarah Reinhardt. I would now like to read the first prize essay written by Dove Gowanlock of Flesherton:

"Why Should We Remember Agnes Macphail?

"I think that we should remember Agnes Macphail, because she had ambition and courage. She showed these two qualities when she ran for Parliament, by going out and trying a new, different and very unheard-of job for a woman in that time.

"She set the example for the future generations. Her success only makes another reason why she should be remembered. Agnes Macphail should be remembered because she was born and raised locally, so coming from a rural community, being a politician of any sort wasn't to be expected. I'm sure her being the first female MP was quite a shock.

"Her loyalty is another factor. She was loyal to her job. For example, when she was visiting persons, she was told 'no ladies allowed.' Her reply was 'I'm no lady, I'm an MP.' I'm sure this quality was a major asset to her career.

"Finally, she set a good example. She showed how ambition and work could achieve the impossible. I feel she should be recognized for these reasons and more.

"At the funeral of Agnes Macphail, the long-time mayor of Ottawa, Charlotte Whitton, sent lilies and a card saying, 'To Canada's Woman of the Century.' Now you see how important she was. So where would we be without her?"

That was the winning essay in the contest.

Agnes Macphail had many of the character traits which we in Grey still admire. She was honest and straightforward and spoke from the heart. She was a very successful politician who was re-elected four times to Parliament in Ottawa and twice to the provincial Legislature. She was noted for her championship of farmers and women, but her interests were far broader.

She was a compassionate human being who fought injustice wherever she found it. She was the first woman to be a delegate to the League of Nations, the first woman to sit there on the disarmament committee and one of the two women first elected to the Ontario Legislature. She was the founder of the Elizabeth Fry Society of Canada, which helps rehabilitate female inmates and was largely responsible for the establishment in 1935 of a commission to investigate Canada's prisons. She fought for old age pensions, hospital insurance schemes and other social legislation for the disabled and the unemployed.

A crusading feminist of her day, her commitment to the cause was never separate from her other beliefs. She always contended that women's equality was simply a matter of fundamental human rights. When told that politics was no job for a lady, she replied that she was no lady, she was a human being. She scoffed when she heard men say that a woman was the angel of the home. "I always, mentally at least, shrug my shoulders in doubt. I do not want to be the angel of any home. I want for myself what I want for other women, absolute equality. After that is secured, men and women can take turns being angels."

Through her statesmanship and courage, she made it easier for those women who would dare to follow her into public life. I am sure she would be pleased that so many women are now involved in some area or other of politics, but I think she would agree that while progress is being made, we have a way yet to go.

Agnes Macphail was known for her wit and sarcasm which could level her opponents when she chose to do so. Her years in politics left her with few illusions, but she never lost her delight in the process or indeed in life itself.

I would like to congratulate the member for York East for bringing this legislation before the House this morning. Grey has produced many talented, dedicated and supremely able people who have entered all walks of life. In politics we must not forget, among others, Dr Mackinnon Phillips, WP Telford Sr and Jr, WS Middlebro, IB Lucas, Senator Brunt and Senator Jenner, Garfield Case, Roland Patterson, Vic Porteous, Walter Harris, Colin Bennett, Farquhar Oliver and, more recently, Gary Gurbin, Wally Downer, Percy Noble, Gus Mitges, Ross Whicher, Eric Winkler, Eddie Sargeant, Bob McKessock and Ron Lipsett.

But Agnes Macphail stands out. She was an inspiration to all who know of her, and even to those who are still learning about her today. Agnes Macphail makes us proud.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Agnes Macphail is someone for whom each of us who is a woman in this House must have great respect. We know how difficult it is now to function effectively in this House. How much more difficult it must have been then. Too often today there is still the traditional gamesmanship, the traditional maleness of the rules which, it seems, are there to be played with.

Women by necessity generally deal with life in a very straightforward manner. Women the world over deal daily with the basic necessities of feeding, clothing, nurturing their families and also earning a living with little time for games. One small example: How often do you see women involved in hockey, football or baseball? Things have to get done, when children are crying, without delay.

I am reminded of a eloquent

summary of reality for women. Women make up half the world's population, perform two thirds of the world's work hours, receive one tenth of the world's income and own less than 1/100th of the world's property, and this comes from the United Nations report of 1980 at the beginning of the decade for women.

If this is the way life is today, it is hard to comprehend how many more barriers there must have been in 1921. For a 30-year-old woman to run for office in rural Ontario must have been totally incomprehensible for some. In fact the headline in the local newspaper the day after her election victory read, "Are There No More Men Left in Southeast Grey?" That says it all. Total denial.

To have the courage to run, to convince people to actually campaign for you, to undoubtedly have putdowns and be ridiculed, Agnes Macphail has earned our respect. Yet running for office was probably nothing compared to what she must have faced after that brief day of victory in 1921, to walk into the halls and the chambers of Ottawa. That must have required the utmost of strength and conviction. Of course she must have worked twice as hard and accomplished twice as much to earn her place and begrudging respect.

The outstanding record of her accomplishments includes her efforts in agriculture, in peace, in pensions and reform of the penal system. In 1943 she was elected to the provincial level as a CCF member for East York, and as was said at her funeral in 1954, "There has been little good social legislation of the past 30 years in which she has not had a considerable part."

Mr Speaker, 1993 will be the 50th anniversary of Agnes Macphail's election to the Ontario Legislature, and East York, together with MPP Gary Malkowski and MP Alan Redway, wants to honour Agnes Macphail. I ask the House to join me in endorsing their efforts.

When I walk down the second floor east hallway of the Legislature and see the row upon row of pictures of male legislators, I get a feeling of what it must have been like back then for her. To achieve equality, I believe women must participate on an equal basis in the economic and the political life of this country. I ask every one of us to consider what this country might possibly look like if we in fact had, or when we in fact have, half of the federal Parliament women, half of the provincial Legislature women and half of our municipal councils as women.

I thank Agnes Macphail for taking that long trip to Ottawa back in 1921 and coming here to Queen's Park almost 50 years ago to start us down that journey to equality.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Mr Malkowski's private member's bill?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm please to rise in the debate this morning and speak very briefly. Much has been said which is historically accurate and factual, and I believe that Ontario and Canada have been blessed by leaders such as Agnes Macphail and others. For those of us who stand in their place, those of us women legislators who admire and respect the ground-breaking achievements of women like Agnes Macphail, I believe that today is a good opportunity for us as we review the history of the role of the women in politics in this country, and particularly in this Parliament in Ontario.

We know that Agnes Macphail was born in 1890 in a three-bedroom log cabin in Grey county, and we've heard quite a lot about her wit. We know that when she passed away in 1954 she was considered not only an important woman in public life, but also one of the most important women that Canada had produced. She was not only the first woman elected to the Canadian Parliament, but also the first Canadian woman to be a delegate to the League of Nations and the first woman to sit there on the disarmament committee. She followed that by being one of the first two women elected to the Ontario Legislature.

We've heard much about her this morning, and in the few minutes that I have I thought I might share a humorous aside with my colleagues here in the House. Not so long ago in question period when the Minister of Government Services referred to me as a lady, my mind immediately went to Agnes Macphail's comment in a similar situation when she said: "I'm no lady; I'm an MP."

I know how the women members of the government caucus felt when the minister made what most in this House would consider an inappropriate comment, although outside this House it would not be considered quite as inappropriate. I know that many of us thought of Agnes Macphail and her quest to be absolutely equal with her colleagues in the political arena, her colleagues right across this country.

I thought, if I would, in just expressing my support for this kind of recognition, recognize that these are the sorts of issues which are not partisan. In fact this Legislature has produced some outstanding women. I notice today in the newspaper that Bette Stephenson has been awarded the Order of Canada, and I think that is a fair and fitting tribute to a woman who was an outstanding member of the provincial Legislature, a cabinet minister in this province, a member of the Progressive Conservative Party and a leader in the medical profession in this country.

I note also Margaret Campbell, member of the provincial Legislature, the only woman in the Liberal caucus, the first Liberal woman member, as a personal role model of mine, could also be well deserving of a day of recognition. Perhaps we will have the opportunity in the future, since the precedent has been established to recognize outstanding Ontarians, outstanding legislators, to recognize some of the achievements of people like Margaret Campbell who, I believe, deserves tremendous tribute because of the outstanding ground-breaking work she did in the area of family violence.

I stand in support of recognition of the contribution of Agnes Macphail. I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in the Legislature this morning. She is deserving of tribute today as she was deserving of tribute during her lifetime and upon her death, and I am pleased to support the motion.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): I'd like to begin by giving a very sincere thank you to my colleague Gary Malkowski, the member for York East, for introducing this bill to recognize Agnes Macphail through proclaiming March 24 Agnes Macphail Day and calling for a building to be named after her.

As Canadians we're very shy to claim our heroes, and Agnes Macphail indeed is a Canadian hero, a hero for all Canadians, for all Ontarians, as well as for all women in this country.

Agnes Macphail fits the classic definition, even, of hero. She dared to go where no woman before her had, and she did so in a manner that few women or few men have.

Canadians know, and the United Nations has clearly now recognized, that we live in the best country in the world and are fortunate to do so, and it's Agnes Macphail who was one of the leaders in helping to make this country great. It's Agnes Macphail who helped to lead some of the fights for the things that are what the United Nations cites as some of the things that make this country great: the medicare, the social justice.

Some of us also celebrate the things that make us different from the United States, and some of those are the very same kinds of things that Agnes Macphail fought for. Her political goals, her political gains were for the feminism, for the equality, for the social gains that helped to define Canada as we know it today.

Agnes Macphail was a true Canadian hero, and this bill gives us an opportunity to celebrate her for all women, for all Ontarians and indeed for all Canadians.

I'd also like to point out that Agnes Macphail did all of this and dared to do it without the support, in fact, that most male politicians have. I don't say that in a begrudging kind of fashion; I say that in recognition of a real reality. As a single woman in politics there were a lot of sacrifices she made to be able to do the work that she did, and a lot of extra hardships: the realities of things like having to cook your own meals, having to do your own laundry at the same time as doing the hard work of some of the best of the men of the time.

There were a number of the firsts that she went through that have been shared by a number of the colleagues who have spoken before me in the House today: first as a woman member of Parliament, first as one of the first two women members of provincial Parliament in Ontario, being one of the first women to represent Canada internationally at the League of Nations, and the first woman to sit on the League of Nations disarmament committee.

Indeed, all of these things made her a tremendous role model for Canadian and Ontario women, and I'd like to point out that she did these things at a time when it was still a popular belief that women have no place in politics. Indeed, the attitudes of the time were so challenging that another prevailing attitude at the time was that women and children should be seen and not heard.

I think it takes great courage and great heroism for a person to rise above those kinds of attitudes. She worked at the time for the social and economic improvements of us all, but she also is the only woman in the legislatures of our country, for most of her parliamentary years, who spoke as the sole parliamentary voice for a majority of the population -- for 52% of the population who are women -- so indeed, she often was the voice that would say, when policies were being discussed, "What about the women?"

One of the examples of that was in the federal House when the question of relief camps was raised. She challenged the Minister of Labour: "If men are not capable of taking care of themselves during periods of stress and unemployment, does Parliament think that women are more capable of taking care of themselves? If they are not, what provision has the government made, or what provision does it propose to make, for a single, unemployed woman?" Apart from a token woman on the National Employment Commission, the minister was forced to admit that the matter had not been considered.

Agnes Macphail is the role model for most of us women in Parliament who have to ask the same question still today, "What about the women?" She was one who was also very able to point out some of the contradictions that still today we need to point out, contradictions like the fact that in her time, in spite of the economic demands of the war at the time, child care centres sprouted up all over the place in spite of and because of the war effort. Women's participation in the employment market not only suddenly was there in great numbers but in non-traditional jobs.

She pointed out the contradictions that once the war was over those child care centres were closed down. Once the war was over, tax deductions were changed to make it less profitable for married women to participate in the workforce, and in fact the government even resorted to a barrage of propaganda to force women back into their homes, into the family life where it was felt they belonged.

Agnes Macphail worked on so many fronts to end discrimination against women in our country, against the sexism of child rearing that ends up causing a lot of the inequalities that exist as well. She worked to assist women in Quebec in their longer battle for women's suffrage there.

As has been pointed out in this House, she had tremendous wit, humour and insight in exposing a lot of those contradictions so she was one of our earliest women to gain prominence in making comments like: "Women have, in an unusual degree, the gift of intuition. However, in women it's called jumping to conclusions,

whereas in men it's called genius."

Another example of her wit that related very much to her social and economic politics was her reference to pointing out the imbalances of unbridled capitalism, where she said that capitalism reminded her of the elephant who cried, "Every man for himself," as he danced among the chickens.

Agnes Macphail's actions and her life changed our country. One of the ways it changed our country was by helping to bring to life one of her main contentions: that women's place is wherever she wants to be, as is man's.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Mr Malkowski's private bill?

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I stand in praise of Agnes Macphail. I don't stand in praise of her as being a woman because I know today if I stood here she would say that this is what she has fought for as a person, because I know she has done more for people than she has done for women, singularly, or for men, but collectively for people of this province, this country, this nation and this world.

Great people are always adopted by all political parties and ideologies. Agnes Macphail, as you heard, who ran for the Progressive Conservative Party at one stage and was a member, was also a member of the CCF and embraced the beliefs of the CCF and also much of the wonderful Liberal ideology that we of the Liberal Party embrace. Agnes Macphail also embraced those. So great people are adopted by all political stripes.

That is why it is so easy for us to debate or to talk in praise of Agnes Macphail. In my constituency there is a school named after Agnes Macphail in her honour, and I know that principal Iris Schickler, students, staff and parents carry that name with great honour.

We also know that at various times she was extremely active, as was said here, in the United Farmers of Ontario. Many times she was challenged about some of her beliefs and stood up very proud in defending them. It is rather ironic that today Agnes Macphail would be mentioned, because today the debate of how we express ourselves in Parliament and how we conduct ourselves in Parliament will be a continuous debate -- previous to this day and beyond. She was one who would not be restricted to the discipline of partisanship if she felt that it restricted the expression of the belief of the people.

I think it is -- I was going to say "unfortunate" -- but I think it's rather fortunate that it is so, because we all will be very mindful of her belief and what Parliament is all about in expressing those things.

I would urge all my colleagues, as we name this day, not to remember her as a woman and the first woman to be elected federally and as also one of the first women to be elected provincially, but as an individual who believed in the things of democracy and the issues that were neglected day to day and that one can so express it and we should not be muzzled or restricted in doing so.

There are many, many issues out there and constituencies that need to be expressed in the House here that somehow don't get on the floor. Also, she said there are ways in which people would like to express these things in Parliament that don't take five minutes or 10 minutes; some people would need some time -- an hour, two hours, three hours -- in order to do so.

If I would speak on behalf of Agnes Macphail, because as I visit the school I get the feeling she represents something that is bigger than the individual, greater than the individual, that cause she carried forward, she would say: "No, let it be expressed. We have not yet arrived where we accept all, where we accept women as equals, we have not arrived where we accept minorities as equals. Don't restrict the time for people to bring those issues forward, to be expressed in Parliament. Do not muzzle that." I feel that way about Agnes Macphail and I feel that if her vision and her belief are to be carried on, we should not do that in dishonour of her name.

I praise the member for York East who brought this forward and we commend that. I said how easy it is for all of us to embrace that day of Agnes Macphail but to remember it in the right spirit -- not as a woman, not as a member who was elected in York East, but as a person who believed in the rights of people regardless of partisan rulings. I stand in praise of that and I support that.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Mr Malkowski's bill?

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): It's a great pleasure for me to rise and stand in support of this motion. I think it's most appropriate, as we come up to the 50th anniversary of Agnes Macphail's election to this Parliament, that it is the member for York East who is bringing this motion forward. As Agnes Macphail broke through many barriers and started a new course for women's involvement in politics, the current member for York East has started a new course for involvement in politics by other members, members of the disabled community, and has set a good role model for them to become involved in the process. I think it's very appropriate that he has brought this forward.

I also think it's appropriate to recognize her significant contributions to this country. We don't always recognize people who have made outstanding contributions. I know the member for York North wants to recognize one in changing his riding to York-Mackenzie and I think that's very appropriate.

I note with great interest, as one who represents a rural riding, that Agnes Macphail's career in politics started out in a rural riding, in the riding of Grey, and that she was an advocate for farmers and rural people and rural women as well. I think there are many women in our rural communities today who continue that through groups such as Women for the Support of Agriculture and other organizations, including the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

I also want to take this time to note that mention has been made of Charlotte Whitton. I believe Charlotte Whitton was the first woman elected mayor in Canada, but the first actual woman mayor happened to be in the city of Woodstock -- Bernadette Smith back, I believe, around exactly the same time. I want to make note of that fact: that there were strides made in Oxford as well for women to contribute.

I think what we need to look at in terms of the recognition of this day is the type of contributions that have been made. What can we learn from someone like Agnes Macphail and her outstanding contribution to Canadian society? We can learn that as an individual you can make a lasting difference.

We can learn that you can go forward, that you can make progress on those issues and you can make progress by not listening to the naysayers, by having courage, by having determination, and by of course always, as has been mentioned in comments by other members, doing your homework, doing your research and being one step above the naysayers who sometimes just like to say no for the sake of saying no. She has made a significant contribution to our province, to our country and I think it's important that we are here to recognize her.

As a male member, I must tell you that in my 18 months here I appreciate the great learning experience I have gone through. I always thought I had some understanding of the issues that many women face in many of our communities and as members of this place. I want to tell you that my learning experience has been incredible in the last 18 months. I thank my fellow members of my own caucus, I thank the many women in my own community and I thank many of the special women in my life who have taught me that we need to continue to go forward.

Agnes Macphail started something, but I think, as we recognize this day, we all need to remember that while progress has been made, we still have a lot further to go to truly make women equal in this province and country.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for York East has two minutes in response and

summary.

Mr Malkowski: I was very inspired to hear the comments from the members of the opposition and from our own government side, and the comments seemed consistent in terms of recognition of Agnes as a true symbol of a person breaking the barriers and of a champion of social justice issues.

The member for Grey talked about the experience as the only women, and I find I have a very similar experience as being the only deaf MPP and many barriers we need to overcome. There were several members, from Eglinton, from Scarborough West and from Oriole who talked about what a great inspiration Agnes was and what an inspiration for equality in terms of equal pay for equal work. She is a symbol of feminism within the community, not only for women but for all different groups, for agricultural groups, for the poverty groups, for disability groups, for people who are within the correctional system, that you can achieve your goals.

The member for Niagara Falls was talking about the equality of men and women, and I'm sure that in comparison to the number of two women who were in the Legislature, and the number of women who we have, over 25, I'm sure that we will attain Agnes Macphail's goal of equality of men and women.

I would also like to thank all the members of the House for becoming aware of how important it is to recognize and honour the proclamation of Agnes Macphail Day, and how we will continue to remember her.

The Acting Speaker: The time for private members' public business has now expired.

PROVINCIAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION ACT, 1992

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now deal with Mr Turnbull's motion.

All those in favour of second reading of Bill 30,

An Act to obtain the Opinion of the Public on Questions of Provincial Interest, by Mr Turnbull, will please say "aye".

All those opposed will please say "nay.

In my opinion the ayes have it.

The vote will be deferred until after we deal with Mr Malkowski's motion.

AGNES MACPHAIL DAY ACT, 1992

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Malkowski has moved second reading of Bill 35,

An Act proclaiming Agnes Macphail Day.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

PROVINCIAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION ACT, 1992

The House divided on Mr Turnbull's motion, which was tied on the following vote:

Ayes -- 30

Arnott, Bradley, Caplan, Carr, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Elston, Eves, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, Jordan, Kwinter, Mancini, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, Murdoch (Grey), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Runciman, Sola, Sterling, Turnbull, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

Nays -- 30

Christopherson, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Ferguson, Frankford, Hansen, Harrington, Huget, Klopp, Kormos, Lessard, Malkowski, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Perruzza, Rizzo, Sullivan, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Waters, Wessenger, Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): In this case, the Chair will support the motion by Mr Turnbull. I declare the motion carried.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I would ask that this be referred to the justice committee for consideration.

The House divided on whether Mr Turnbull's bill should be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 28; nays 32.

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: How is it possible that during the vote for this very important matter, the member for Durham Centre and the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings had the audacity to vote in favour of the bill, but when the Speaker asked whether or not --

The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order.

Mr Mancini: -- we should refer the bill to the justice committee, those two members had the audacity to vote against such a motion. What hypocrisy.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. It now being past 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed at 1219.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement today is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Mr Speaker, you were here last night when I spoke about the difficulties being faced by the mining industry of this province. As well, you heard me make reference to the Consolidated Professor mining project in my riding which is having some difficulty in getting its operations under way. Just imagine this: construction costs of $53 million; generation of $25 million on an annual basis into the region's economy, and 175 jobs to an area which has experienced some of the highest unemployment in the province.

What's holding all this up? What is preventing this development, this influx into the economy in my riding? Let me tell you, and this will not come as a surprise to a lot of the members in this House: This government cannot make a decision.

Well over a year ago, the president of the company, representatives from the neighbouring first nation and I were assured by the Premier that he would ensure that the Minister of the Environment would assist in working out solutions to the problems encountered by this company. Obviously someone is not listening or communicating because we are approaching a point where the company is ready to abandon this project. The reason is that it cannot get an answer from the government and, more important, it cannot get an answer from the Minister of the Environment.

In closing, all I can ask is that I hope this government does not let this development, one so important to my riding, slip through its fingers.

SIMCOE COUNTY FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture will be holding its annual farm tour on July 8 to give members of the provincial Parliament and the federal Parliament an opportunity to meet with local commodity representatives and listen to their views and concerns about agriculture in Ontario.

The Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture is made up of volunteers who serve as the voice of farmers in Simcoe county. The federation represents family farm concerns to governments and the general public. It has a long and proud history of advocating in the interests of Simcoe county's farm community.

I would urge all members who have been invited to attend this unique learning experience to hear presentations by the Federated Women's Institutes of Ontario, the Pork Producers' Association, the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, the Soil Crop Improvement Association, the Simcoe county milk committee and the Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture.

The $36-million decrease in his ministry's operating budget is a concern to farmers; that there were no new income assistance programs announced in the last provincial budget; the detrimental effects on the agriculture industry of the Ontario labour relations reform legislation.

The minister must convince his cabinet colleagues to include farmers in his government's long-term vision of the future. The government has the obligation to collaborate with the farming community to ensure productivity and fair distribution. I say this because a province that cannot be reasonably self-sufficient and secure in its production of food risks losing a precious measure of independence, security and prosperity.

NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE BICENTENARY

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I rise today to remind members of this House that Niagara-on-the-Lake in my riding is celebrating its bicentennial this year.

Members may recall from their history lessons that Niagara-on-the-Lake, formerly called Newark, was named the first capital of Upper Canada by then Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe. It was in Newark that Upper Canada's first Legislature was established.

Next week, from July 3 to 5, the old town and the village of Queenston will play host to a variety of activities including fireworks, parades and mock battles. In short, it promises to be a fun-filled four days steeped in the history of another era.

The highlight of this week is July 4 when several hundred re-enacters set up camp and present colourful displays of late-18th-century garb and military artefacts. Six tall ships will sail from Toronto and anchor at the docks along the Niagara River. Native re-enacters will also be mingling with the crowd, answering questions about traditions and heritage.

But that's not all. The celebrations move closer to home this fall when our Legislative Assembly visits Niagara-on-the-Lake on September 17 to hold a special open-air session. I know the town has spent many months planning for this event and eagerly anticipates the full participation of all members.

I invite everyone to take a step back 200 years into the past and visit Niagara-on-the-Lake this summer and this fall.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I recently received a copy of a letter which was sent by Scarborough's mayor, Joyce Trimmer, to the Minister of Revenue on June 18, 1992.

This letter goes over the numerous attempts -- including leaving at least half a dozen unanswered telephone messages -- made by the mayor to have a meeting with the minister rescheduled. This meeting, originally scheduled for May 12 and then abruptly cancelled due to "circumstances," was to have been held to discuss market value assessment, which is an issue of great importance to Scarborough residents. To quote Mayor Trimmer:

"I respectfully suggest that it is inappropriate to have to go to such lengths simply to secure a meeting with you on a topic of major concern and importance."

I am certain that all members of this Legislature, Mr Speaker, including yourself, who represent ridings in Scarborough, will join me in urging the minister to keep her commitment to meet with Mayor Trimmer on this very important matter.

Let me emphasize that this is not a single time we have seen this happen. Consequently, we are having very much difficulty getting ministers to meet, and I know it's not the Premier's intention and that he would like his ministers to meet especially mayors who represent all people, and especially in a great city like Scarborough. I would urge you, Madam Minister to meet with the mayor.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise today to speak to the House about the 15 dump sites within my riding of Dufferin-Peel. I have heard from literally thousands of Caledon residents who cannot believe this government would even consider a massive landfill site for this area.

What should I tell a person who discovers that the farm that has been in their family for 100 years could be expropriated for a dump?

This morning alone, I received another 40 letters from citizens who want action. They have a common theme: Don't ruin prime agricultural farm land and the natural beauty of Caledon with garbage from the greater Toronto area. It is unnecessary; it is immoral; it goes against everything that this government has been promising in terms of a progressive agricultural policy.

I will deliver these letters to the Premier, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture and Food so that they can read them personally. I urge the Premier, I urge the Minister of the Environment and I urge the Minister of Agriculture to listen to the people of this province. Reconsider your plans to destroy Caledon. Repeal Bill 143. Replace it with an equitable system that restores the process that the people of this province deserve: full environmental assessment of all possibilities.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to inform the House of a very serious issue that is developing in my riding of Lincoln. As I have told this House on numerous occasions, there is a proposal by the Ontario Waste Management Corp to build a giant toxic waste facility in my riding to incinerate all hazardous waste for the province.

In a recent study, the California Environmental Protection Agency estimates that residents living near the facility will face a risk of developing cancer 1,000 times greater than other Ontarians. This is outrageous. The study shows that the other studies conducted for the environmental assessment hearing neglected to include the effects of human exposure to breast feeding, showering and eating fish caught in nearby waters. Besides putting all the people in Niagara at risk, the effects could be much farther-reaching, as Niagara is the only area left in Ontario where tender fruit is grown.

The facts are on the table. The Ontario Waste Management Corp's own studies show that this monstrous plan will contaminate the ground water, making it useless for future generations, and this study shows that the people in the area will not be able to enjoy living in a healthy environment.

This proposal should be stopped now, before it's too late, and we must begin to look at the alternatives and the 3Rs if we truly want to solve Ontario's waste management crisis.

SEMAINE FRANCOPHONE

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Monsieur le Président, depuis vendredi dernier, la communauté francophone célèbre la Semaine francophone en Ontario. On a eu des pique-niques, des soirées de cinéma, de la musique et de la littérature. Bref, c'était une semaine de fête pour la communauté francophone. C'est dans ce contexte que j'aimerais faire quelques observations sur le gouvernement d'aujourd'hui, vis-à-vis la communauté franco-ontarienne.

On attend depuis 1990 des actions concrètes du ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones. Le ministre déploie toute son éloquence, mais ses mots sont vides de sens.

MEMBER FOR WELLAND-THOROLD

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): It gives me great pleasure to rise today to congratulate a colleague and member of this Legislature, the member for Welland-Thorold, Mr Peter Kormos, who has won a very prestigious award. Mr Kormos has been recognized by the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, and I'd like to read from a letter I have from the Association of Trial Lawyers to Mr Kormos. It states:

"It is my pleasure to formally share the good news that you have been selected as a recipient of the ATLA Amicus Award of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. The award is presented as warranted for outstanding contributions to the civil justice system and preservation of victims' rights.

"As an ATLA member and steadfast pioneer in the fight to preserve the right of innocent accident victims to be adequately and fairly compensated for their losses, we are honoured to notify you of your selection for this award."

If I might have just a few more seconds, I know that everyone in this House is feeling the same way I am and very proud of Mr Kormos's accomplishments. Although they are not always accomplished on the conventional path, Mr Kormos is recognized probably far and wide in this province as being the one and only person who sits in this government who represents the rights of innocent accident victims and is in fact fighting for those rights and on behalf of those thousands of people.

I convey my congratulations to Mr Kormos. I wish him well, and I tell him to keep up the good fight.

EVENTS IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise in the House today to inform members of a number of events that took place in my riding of Hamilton Centre on Sunday, June 14, 1992.

In celebration of Canada's 125th anniversary, most events were tied to the National Neighbourhood Party. As part of the Neighbourhood celebrations, I attended the Fairleigh Avenue street party and the Church of the Ascension party on Forest Avenue, which drew enthusiastic crowds. On the same day, Hamiltonians took

part in the celebrations of the 25th anniversary of Dundurn Castle's restoration. These festivities also highlighted the joy people of Hamilton take in Canada.

Another important event that I know many members have taken

part in was the Decoration Day service in remembrance of Hamilton's war heroes. Along with the hundreds of war veterans, Hamilton MPPs marched in the Veterans Day parade and placed a wreath at the cenotaph.

This weekend also marked the closing ceremonies of Lusofest, which I attended with the honourable Minister of Citizenship, Elaine Ziemba. Members are familiar with Lusofest from my June 10 statement to the House in which I outlined the activities surrounding Lusofest.

All of these events had a common theme: the importance of building on our national pride. While we often criticize our neighbours to the south for their flag-waving enthusiasm, we should occasionally stop and consider the benefits and feelings of satisfaction Canadians can get from boasting about our own great country. We should do it more often.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the 17th Annual Report of the Commission on Election Finances, which covers the year 1992.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would also appreciate members' attention to the fact that this is the last day for the service of our current pages. They have, I think you will agree with me, served the members and the House with distinction over the past five weeks, and indeed I think they deserve our heartfelt praise for their hard work. I would invite you to join me in thanking them most warmly for their dedicated service.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): This afternoon I will introduce an historic piece of legislation, our government's employment equity bill.

Before I do this, I would like to acknowledge the hard work and the dedication of my employment equity commissioner, Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré, and the hard work and dedication of a group of a people who came together in my technical advisory committee.

Those people are Judith Andrew from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; Tom Corcoran, Ontario Chamber of Commerce; Julie Davis, Ontario Federation of Labour; William Frakes, Unilever Canada Ltd; Amy Go, Coalition of Visible Minority Women; Irene Harris, Canadian Union of Public Employees; Ian Howcroft, Canadian Manufacturers' Association; Beverly Johnson, Ontario Public Service Employees Union; Michael Lewis, United Steelworkers of America; Judy Maddocks, Royal Insurance Canada;

Charlotte MacFarlane, Association of Municipalities of Ontario; Carole McGregor, Disabled People for Employment Equity; Handel Mlilo, Alliance for Employment Equity; Peggy Nash, Canadian Auto Workers; David Onyalo, Canadian Union of Public Employees; Judy Rebick, National Action Committee on the Status of Women; Robert Richardson, Alliance for Employment Equity; David Williams, National Grocers Co Ltd, and also Helen Cooper, who is president of AMO.

Today for me, this is a moment of tremendous pride. I'm privileged to have worked on this important initiative with many committed business, labour and community leaders. The employment equity legislation will open doors for many and will add a wealth of untapped human resources to our workplaces.

I would like to take a moment to quote from the last throne speech: "Ontario's people are its greatest strength.... Using the talents and abilities of all our people will help us compete in a global economy. Simply put, employment equity makes good economic sense."

This government believes in investing in people and investing in Ontario. I am honoured to say that we are following through on our commitment. We are proud to be the first province in Canada to introduce mandatory employment equity legislation.

The simple fact is that employment equity makes good business sense, and it's fair. It encourages employers and employees to work in partnership, to tap the skills of highly capable people who have been excluded in the past. Employment equity involves comprehensive and cooperative strategies to level the playing field in the working world. It's about reaching out to all Ontarians to hire, train and promote people according to their ability to do good work. It's practical. It's grounded in workplace realities and it seeks results. Any business with its eye on the bottom line will hire and promote from the widest possible pool of candidates.

This legislation is rooted in extensive public consultations. We have listened to the people of Ontario and we have listened well. Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré, Ontario's first employment equity commissioner, held meetings across the province and received more than 400 submissions from business, labour and community groups. I'm pleased to announce that the commissioner's consultation report is being released today to complement the introduction of legislation.

In early May I set up an advisory group with representatives from business, labour and designated groups. In fact they are here today, as I mentioned earlier, and I want to say personally that this group will continue to play a key role in developing the regulations. It will be a rigorous process to be chaired by the commissioner. Our goal is to develop effective and cost-efficient rules to make employment equity work for Ontario's employers and employees. We aim to present the draft regulations as we go into second reading of this bill.

Before I go into some of the key elements of the bill, I'd like to reiterate that employment equity is about partnerships. It is about results. As one designated group member put it eloquently, "Employment equity is making a difference between our reality and our dream."

The legislation targets four groups of people who have suffered profoundly from systemic discrimination in our society. They are aboriginal people, persons with disabilities, racial minorities and women.

My ministry will convene a working group to consider special employment equity measures for persons with severe disabilities. We will also develop an action plan to coordinate government-wide initiatives involving education, training and access to transportation.

Francophones will continue to be a designated group in the Ontario public service employment equity program. Aboriginal people, persons with disabilities, racial minorities and women who are also francophones will be covered by this legislation.

This government is also committed to responding to the concerns of the gay and lesbian communities by reviewing anti-harassment provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

An employment equity workplace will benefit all workers. The principles of employment equity as established in this bill represent a statement of public policy and, as such, we hope the spirit of these principles will be embraced in all workplaces.

Because we welcome the chance to set an example for all employers, this government, the second-largest employer in the province, will be the first required to comply with the legislation.

This fair, rational and practical bill recognizes the different needs and capacities of different-sized workplaces and so provides for flexible timing and implementation. The bill therefore establishes simplified requirements and longer, phased-in time frames for smaller businesses.

This legislation will cover about three quarters of all employees in Ontario. We believe this proposed coverage is fair and effective.

In recognition of the Statement of Political Relationship with the first nations, we will conduct government-to-government discussions to develop requirements for aboriginal workplaces.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of partnerships. Employers and employees will work together to coordinate employment equity measures.

An independent employment equity commission will be established to administer the legislation. An employment equity tribunal will have the power to ensure compliance with this legislation. We aim to eventually bring all our equity initiatives under one combined system.

To conclude, employment equity is about fairness in the workplace. It is also about a new vision for Ontario. It is a vision of social justice succinctly put by the Premier's Council on Health, Wellbeing and Social Justice:

"We see an Ontario where people value the dignity and self-worth of individuals, where systemic discrimination and barriers are eliminated and where society celebrates human diversity and strives towards a common purpose."

I am proud that this proposed employment equity legislation will be a landmark to this new vision of Ontario. It is a turning point. Together with all our partners, we will take on the challenge.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Three weeks ago I brought before the House a package of reforms to the Ontario Labour Relations Act to improve workplace relationships and foster a more productive and cooperative approach to labour-management relations.

I also stated at that time that further amendments to the act were pending. Later this afternoon, I will introduce legislation to promote greater democracy, freedom and local control in the relationships between internationally based parent unions in the construction industry and their Ontario-based locals.

Ontario-based construction locals have long expressed a desire for greater control over and involvement in their affairs. I am proud to say that this government is responding positively to those concerns.

Right now these local unions need more say in how internal union jurisdictional issues are resolved. They need a fair voice in the collective bargaining process and they need protection from sanctions imposed by their parent international unions. These Ontario locals often have little input into the administration and use of their funds for employee benefit and pension plans to which their members have contributed.

These circumstances have developed over time and can be traced to the unique nature and history of trade union organization by craft in the North American construction sector. For example, under the Labour Relations Act designated trade unions hold bargaining rights for any tradesperson who wishes to work in the construction industry. No avenues currently exist to change these bargaining agents. Yet in every other industry, decertification would be possible.

The Labour Relations Act has an entire

section dedicated to ensuring stable collective bargaining in the construction industry. Members will know that the province has long maintained an active interest in this area. Several positive precedents have been achieved between employers, the unions and the government in regulating this sector.

Today I am building on those precedents. These amendments will bring a sense of balance and fairness to the relationship between locals, their members and international pa