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

September 26, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Ms Harrington moved resolution 22:

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for her presentation. Following the completion of the remarks of the member who has moved the motion, the debate will proceed with members of the various parties speaking in rotation. Each recognized party in the House is allotted a period of 15 minutes to debate the item of business. Debate will proceed in clockwise rotation among the parties until the time allotted to the parties has expired.

The mover of the motion may speak a second time during this period in the time provided for her party. The mover of the motion has two minutes in which to reply. The time remaining for each party and for the member who moves the motion to speak initially to the motion or reply to the debate will be indicated on the Legislature timer display.

Ms Harrington: Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to put forward this resolution to the House, which is both timely and far-reaching.

At the end of my presentation, I would ask the House for consent to omit clauses 1, 3 and 4 because, since this resolution was written last June, I have decided I want to deal basically with the big picture without focusing on specific parts of this.

This government was formed last October with a very strong mandate and a commitment for social change, equality and social justice. We have seen many examples of that over the past year. We have seen the rights and services for disabled people improved, self-determination for native people initiated, protection for tenants legislated and proposed labour reform has been started. I believe our agenda has moved ahead considerably. But even more than that, I believe that in one year there has been a significant change in attitude in Ontario and I really want that to continue.

If members remember back almost a year ago, in the throne speech we made a commitment as a government, and I will quote that exactly to you. It says the government will "deal resolutely with violence against women and children. It is time now for society to come face to face with this reality."

Now, one year later, I want to refocus that commitment. That is exactly why this resolution is here before us so that all of us, I hope on all sides of the House, can work together to make sure that goal is clearly accomplished. This past year has been a time of transition, and as we have said in this House, a time of coming to grips with very difficult economic realities. There are huge challenges and I would like to set this resolution in the context of what we face right now.

We as a government must evaluate and control the huge spending increases that have taken place in the last decade in health, education and social services. On top of that challenge, we have the massive restructuring of our manufacturing sector that is taking place around us whether we like it or not. The very heart of Ontario's economic machine is changing, and if that were not challenge enough we face a third challenge, Ontario's role in the new Constitution for Canada.

In these times of personal stress and economic strain everywhere in the province, we cannot leave out progress towards equality for women. Will it be seen as unimportant when the government's efforts must go to economic renewal? That is the question. Will women be seen as a drag on society or as a vital part of the economy in which they can help Ontario grow? I believe it is important, now more than ever, to bring women as full partners into the economic life of Ontario, so I would ask us all here to come to that face-to-face reality we talked about in the throne speech knowing that it is a very difficult, ugly and sensitive subject, that reality of violence against women.

I believe there are actually two realities, first of all, the reality of newspaper headlines which we all know about: 18-year-old Nina DeVilliers disappeared while jogging near her family's recreation club. The dismembered body of Burlington teenager Leslie Mahaffy was recovered encased in concrete from a lake. In January, 29-year-old Dr Carolyn Warrick was beaten to death virtually within view of security cameras in the basement of her Bay Street condominium building just one block from Queen's Park.

I remember that night of January 27 because it is my son's birthday and I live in the building right next to Carolyn Warrick's. My family was visiting that night and we had ordered in Chinese food while she was being murdered.

There is another reality besides the headlines. The other reality is the one we do not hear about. Maude Barlow is a woman who speaks to many high school audiences about women's issues. One engaged teenaged girl said to her, "My father beats my mother, my uncle beats my aunt, my grandfather beats my grandmother; I didn't know there was any other way."

On an August holiday weekend in 1990, I went to the local police station with a young woman I will call Ruth to help her deal with a complaint against two police officers. We had to take along her six children who were under the age of eight. Her husband beats her. She has been forced to flee to the local women's shelter before. Although ordered to pay support by the court, he refuses to pay. The support and custody enforcement office has such a backlog that Ruth's file has been on record for five years and has not yet been processed. She is trapped in the welfare system in Ontario Housing. She is a victim of frequent violent assaults. She has no feeling of security from police protection.

What happened in this case is very similar to many other cases, and I would like to add that where Ruth lives, what has happened to her has affected many of her neighbours as well. Women have become demoralized, discouraged and rendered powerless because they are poor. They live in public housing because they are women. When women are victimized and powerless, they rarely fight back. In this particular case, she declined to take any further action on her own behalf to follow up on the complaint. These women simply endure.

I would put to this House that this is a waste of human resources. Besides, as everyone in this province will tell you, it is a drain on our tax system. What is violence against women? Let's just state it clearly: it is a soul-destroying subordination, a loss of control of one's life, a loss of dignity, a feeling of entrapment, and the horror of living with constant violence. In the first reality of the newspaper headlines, people can say these are just isolated cases of psychotic killers, but with a second reality we cannot say that.

I would like to close this portion of my remarks by looking at the lesson of Montreal. On the evening of December 6, 1989, students were given their end-of-term papers in a quiet classroom in École polytechnique. A killer separated 14 young women from the men, called them feminists and shot them.

Anger and grief followed across Canada. Canadians struggled for the meaning of this act. Is it symbolic and symptomatic of our society that it fears or possibly hates women? Is there misogyny in our society?

Here is one analysis by the Canadian Auto Workers. What if a gunman walked into the middle of a bargaining session, asked management to leave, called the others a bunch of workers and executed them? The question of political versus personal would not arise. In Montreal it is not simply a personal act of madness. We must examine our collective conscience about the attitudes of society and we, as the leaders of this government in this province and on all sides, must be the first to do it.

Sexism is a deeply rooted refusal to acknowledge value and incorporate women's reality into the philosophy, practice and organization of society. When women's perspectives are undervalued, then it is easy to have violence, injustice, exploitation and the silencing of women, if condoned. Let's have the courage to speak out against overt and covert sexism, starting with the simple jokes and pinups in the workplace and going all the way to the laws of this land.

Ms Poole: I am very pleased to rise today to support this sensitive and thoughtful resolution by the member for Niagara Falls. There are two reasons why I am delighted to speak to this resolution. One goes to the fact that I am the newly appointed critic for women's issues for the official opposition, but perhaps more important is the passion I have for this particular issue and our attempts to find resolutions to it.

As a woman and as a Liberal, I am particularly proud of the steps our party took while we were in government to change the public's perceptions about violence towards women. Because of that commitment, more and more people have finally realized that wife assault and sexual assault indeed are crimes.

I am sure all members remember the powerful TV commercials on wife assault that our government produced. These ads made it very clear that wife assault is not a private family matter; it involves all of us. There is no excuse for it and it is a crime.

In addition to the massive public education campaigns, we took concrete, immediate steps to help victims of wife assault. The decision to give priority status to victims of wife assault who apply for public housing is just one example.

In January 1990, we began an ambitious program to address the issue of sexual assault. Almost $30 million was allocated over five years to expand services to victims of sexual assault, to improve the justice system's response to the crime and to encourage public education and prevention.

I am delighted to see that this government today has expanded upon this commitment and that today $14 million is being committed to these programs. However, if one looks at $14 million in the context of the $52 billion we spend annually with our provincial budget, perhaps that puts it in perspective. No matter how much we do, there is much more left to be done.

I believe the extent of violence against women truly is one of the most serious challenges facing our society today. Women do not always think about the threat of violence as they go about their daily lives, but the threat is always there. Action to stop wife assault and sexual assault is crucial if women are to move towards full equality. If you cannot even feel safe in your home and in your community, where can you? How can you reach your full potential as a person when operating under these circumstances?

Rarely a day goes by that we do not hear reports of sexual and physical assaults against women and girls. Unfortunately, those assaults that we hear about are only the tip of the iceberg. According to one study, almost 87% of sexual assault victims do not report the crime to the police, and a further 12% tell no one at all. The crimes that we hear about actually make up only a small fraction of what is going on.

Most studies of this problem come up with the same finding. One in four women is sexually assaulted at some point in her life. Half of these women are assaulted before the age of 17. I find those statistics absolutely frightening, and to those people, those naysayers who think these are gross exaggerations, I say study after study is showing they are indeed facts. Every 17 minutes there is a sexual assault committed in Canada; 90% of the victims are female and 99% of the perpetrators are male.

The number of men who have been sexually assaulted is lower. Estimates vary from roughly one in five to one in seven. However, these assaults largely occur to males under the age of 13, to children. Women, on the other hand, are sexually assaulted at any age. In approximately 95% of the cases of sexual assault of men, the offender is also male. But regardless of the different rates of risk, the effects of sexual assault on female and male adults and on children are extremely serious and can be equally damaging.

Every woman in our society can be at risk of assault. Contrary to what most people think, there is no one type of woman who is assaulted. The vast majority of women who are assaulted suffer at the hands of somebody they know. In fact, at least one woman in eight in Canada, it is estimated, is assaulted by her husband or partner. What is truly appalling is the finding that a woman is hit by her husband or partner an average of 30 times before she even calls the police.

As shocking as these statistics are, it is easy to believe they do not really apply to anybody we know. But I think if we look closer to home, we will find that may not be true. We have 28 women members of this House. Think of it. According to most statistics, that means seven of us have been or will be sexually assaulted at some point in our lives.

Violence against women is widespread and systemic. It cannot be solved by simply checking the offenders into alcohol treatment programs or group therapy or by instructing women in the art of self-defence. They are valuable tools, of course, but they do not get at the underlying reasons for violence.

I really welcome the resolution the member for Niagara Falls has put forward. It is time that we assessed and reviewed the policies we have put in place to see if they are truly effective and to see if they are really working.

For instance, take a look at the vast array of ministries involved in programs relating to violence against women and sexual assault. There is a myriad of programs, in the ministries of the Solicitor General, Health, Community and Social Services, the Office of Francophone Affairs, Northern Development and Mines, the Ontario women's directorate, the ministries of Education, Colleges and Universities and Correctional Services.

On the one hand I think it is extremely positive that so many ministries in our government have been taking steps to sensitize them to the problem and to make sure their ministries respond to it, but on the other hand perhaps it is time we assessed whether the interministerial approach should be re-evaluated. For example, the Ministry of the Solicitor General is currently responsible for 21 existing rape crisis and sexual assault centres. I have always wondered why this was the purview of the Solicitor General's office as opposed to Comsoc, and perhaps that is something we should be looking into.

I believe that item 2 of the resolution by the member for Niagara Falls points to the crux of the issue: What are the causes of violence against women and how can this legacy of violence be stopped? Looking after the immediate needs of victims obviously has to be of the highest priority, whether it means providing shelter, emergency assistance, counselling, legal assistance or helping the victim make a new start. However, the only way we can ultimately put a stop to the legacy of violence is to attack the problem at its source.

When I was preparing my notes for today, I tried to list the various reasons why men commit acts of violence against women. I think part of it is the sociological implications: how boys are raised; their attitudes towards having to be tough and macho; their affinity for bodily contact in sports such as football, hockey, boxing and wrestling. There is another thing that I believe; that is, that it is the reinforcement of traditional sexual stereotypes. When people say to me, "As a woman member you are making a fine role model for your daughter," I say, "Equally important to me is I hope I am making a fine role model for my son." That is where the hope really lies, with our children.

Excuse me; I have been battling a cold all week. This issue was of such importance to me that even if my voice sounds like a cross between Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny at times, I did want to speak to this.

There is a well-known song by Harry Chapin which some members may have heard of. It is called Why Little Girls Grow Crooked, Why Little Boys Grow Strong. There are a couple of lines in there that talk about how girls are taught to reach the shelves, boys to reach the stars, and how girls are taught to take the messages while the boys take the calls. I am glad to say that much of that is changing, but there is still a lot of work to do in that area. It all goes back to what the member for Niagara Falls referred to about the gender power imbalance and control. It goes to cultural attitudes; it goes to the increasing pressures in our society and how we cope with them.

Violence against women is a difficult issue for all of us, whether we are male or female, but one concern I have is that by its very nature it tends to polarize men and women. Just think about it: the victims are women and 99% of the perpetrators are men. My heart and sympathy go out to any woman or child who has been a victim of violence. I can understand why the trauma of a violent experience might make a woman who has been brutalized by one man distrustful of all men, but maybe the rest of us do not have that same excuse. There are things we can do.

It has been quite disconcerting to me that a number of men have approached me in the past months -- these are men whom I consider to be allies for women in our fight for equality, very sensitive men who are the last to condone violence -- and they are saying they feel like criminals. With the barrage of figures on sexual assault and violence against women, men are feeling increasingly vulnerable because some members of their gender are committing these crimes.

I have three stories I would like to relate to the members which I think illustrate the point.

The first is at a conference in Banff, Alberta, and the members may remember reading about this in the newspaper. A leading feminist from the United States was visiting, and in her remarks she said the ultimate way to deal with violence against women is, "If necessary, we will take to the streets with guns ourselves and shoot them down." I cannot condone that. Violence against violence is not solving the problem.

The second relates to the tragic massacre at École polytechnique in Montreal almost two years ago. There was a lot of grieving in the period following those massacres. Maybe I should say, first, that I am a feminist and I am proud to be so, but to me there was some shame in my heart when at some of these vigils women denied men the right to grieve with us.

The final story I have to tell would, I guess, be funny and humorous if it were not so sad. It relates to the program "Wife Assault is a Crime." I think the members will remember the ads several years ago -- very effective, hard-hitting ads. Several of the ads were geared towards victims, and women as victims. At the end of the ad it would say: "Help is waiting for you. If you are a victim of sexual assault or wife assault, please call this 24-hour toll-free number and we will get help to you."

On the other hand, they had another set of ads that were geared to the perpetrators, the male offenders. The ad, in a very effective way, put across that wife assault is a crime. At the end of these ads, there was a statement, "If you are a male perpetrator and you need help, please write Queen's Park," and they gave the address. To me, it does not make any sense. You have an ad telling somebody that if they have done this they are a criminal, "but please write to us so that we can indict you with your own words."

My point, which I am not sure I am getting across, is that we have to look not only at the victims, which has to be a priority in dealing with this, but also at the perpetrators to make sure they get the counselling necessary so that these crimes do not recur. They cannot write Queen's Park. They need help as well.

My final point is that men and women must work together. It does not do for any of us, feminists or not, to blame all men as a sector. What we have to do is recognize the men -- and many of them are in this House today -- who have fought beside us, women, in our march towards equality. The important thing is to work together. When it all is said and done, the important thing is to solve the problem of violence against women.

Mrs Witmer: It is a pleasure to participate in the debate on the motion put forward by the member for Niagara Falls.

It is absolutely essential that a thorough and complete review of this issue of violence against women be undertaken as soon as possible. I can assure members that this is a priority not only for myself but also for the PC caucus and for the members of the general public as well. Women and men -- and I think it is extremely important that we do include the men -- are more concerned than ever today about violence against women and they are more anxious than ever to stop this legacy of violence.

Indeed, in the recent Take Back the Night rally in Kitchener-Waterloo, approximately 500 women and children marched in the largest rally ever. They marched to express their outrage against sexual violence. The participants were as young as seven years old and as old as 72.

Why were there so many women and children at this rally? They indicated that they joined the march because the killings and the court decisions of this past summer left them feeling fed up. They indicated that they were there because they are angry. They can no longer walk on the streets of our cities and our towns without inordinate fear.

Yes, if you take a look at the polling, it shows that violence against women is uppermost in the minds of women. Violence and the fear of violence are depriving women of their ability to achieve equality in this country. It is a violation of a fundamental human right.

Although most violence against women has been invisible and unrecorded, the truth is slowly coming to light. The K-W sexual assault support centre received 221 crisis calls in the month of January this year.

However, the biggest problem still remains underreporting. Many women are afraid to go to the police because they feel the police response will be negative and that they will be further victimized by the courts. Fortunately these negative police attitudes are changing. However, more must continue to be done to increase the understanding of rape victims' needs and feelings.

Although the true numbers of women who are victims of violence may never be known, the estimates today paint a shocking picture in Canada. They indicate that over 90% of sexual assaults involve female victims. Did members know that 50% of women are afraid to go out after dark in their own neighbourhoods and at least one in four women will be sexually assaulted in her life?

Unfortunately it has consequences for the children, because children who witness the assault of their mothers have problems similar to children who are themselves physically abused, and sons of batterers are 10 times more likely to beat their wives than those who have not witnessed this behaviour. Unfortunately, violence breeds violence.

It is time, as the member has said, to examine the root causes of violence against women. There is presently very limited research on the underlying causes of violence against women. It is known that male abusers do grow up believing they are the ultimate authority in the household. They learn very early in life that to show any emotion whatsoever is a weakness. They are to be strong and aggressive.

As well, violence against women is linked to economic inequality between the sexes. The economic consequences of going out on their own have deterred many battered women from leaving an abusive partner. Women who leave an abusive situation often face the prospect of poverty. This must be eliminated.

This government must raise the profile of women's issues. It is of utmost importance to our caucus and we have tried on several occasions to introduce legislation that will assist victims of violence. It is unfortunate that our initiatives have been rejected.

This government must combat the attitudes and the stereotypes that encourage and excuse this senseless violence. They must ensure that the brutal people who commit these crimes are held accountable. They must provide help to the innocent victims.

Yes, I welcome this thorough review and this assessment of the provincial policies and the practices. Women cannot achieve equality in our society unless violence against women is eliminated, and I would encourage all men and women in this House and men and women throughout this province to join in that fight to truly, once and for all, eliminate violence against women.

Mr Mills: It is a pleasure for me to take

part in this debate here this morning and perhaps offer a different perspective on it.

As some members may know, I spent over 20 years as a police officer in Canada and investigated and had the opportunity to look into many cases of violence against women. I remember the first time this unfortunate chore fell upon me was in the 1950s. In the 1950s we all had that chromium kitchen set. I remember going to this house, and I can see it in front of my eyes as I stand here today. This person had torn the legs off the chrome table and thrown them through the kitchen wall like darts. The lady had a huge lump on the side of her face.

In those days, we called those domestic disputes. The action for the police was, believe it or not, that we provided protective custody for the husband overnight, waiting for the victim to go in the morning before a justice of the peace to lay an information so that we could proceed in the courts with an assault case. But, as members know, the wives did not do that. They were frightened. They did not go forward because they knew that once they did that and the summons was issued, the man would be free to go home and beat the daylights out of his wife and she would leave and have nowhere to live.

Unfortunately that blight on society in the 1950s is also a blight on society in the 1990s. All forms of sexual assault against women, whether it be violence, whether it be sexual, whether it be degrading material or making women perform lewd acts, has got to stop. I think our government is really committed to doing that.

What bothers me most is that in these economic tough times, when we are looking at programs and where we can best spend our dollar, the government is committed to spending over $14 million in 1991-92 to educate people in what I consider is a basic obligation to treat other human beings in a respectful way. It is a sad measure of society when we have to spend all of this money to teach people to behave right. I think that is absolutely a sad measure of what goes on in Ontario today.

I could stand here and speak of the initiatives of the Solicitor General's office, and there are many. We have provided core funding for sexual assault centres. We have expanded 10 sexual assault centres. We have crisis counselling, diverse community outreach and regional sexual assault centres, and perhaps above all, we are trying to educate policemen in a way to respond to the needs of victims of violence, and particularly women. I know that the Ontario Police College at Aylmer now has a course specifically geared to educate police officers in this very delicate and sensitive issue.

I thank the member for Eglinton for her comments, particularly about the fact that she feels some of the things we do at the Solicitor General should be in Comsoc. I have some empathy with that decision, because it makes a great deal of sense to me. I would be pleased to take her concerns to the minister and maybe we can generate some discussion.

I could go on and on at length. I have a deep empathy with this situation through my experience, but in deference to my colleagues who also want to partake in this debate, I will leave it at that and thank the other members for their participation.

The Acting Speaker: I believe the Liberal official opposition has used up all of its time. Further debate on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus?

Mr Jackson: Let me start my brief comments this morning by saying those who have watched the work I have done in this House for the last three sessions would be aware that this is the one issue which I have persistently and consistently been discussing before this House. I see the member for Cambridge is here. He is very much familiar with the four or five private member's resolutions I have tabled in this subject area.

What I am about to say may offend a few people, but I believe it with all my heart. If there were ever issues in this country and in this province that do not need studying, they are the issues contained in this resolution. Never before in the history of this province have we had a cabinet that had within its membership more people who understood at first hand this issue, and yet we are being told today that we need further study.

I could use up the next eight minutes just reading into Hansard the lists and the titles of all the studies that have been done on domestic violence, incestuous violence, violence against children, offences against women. Yet we are told today somehow that we need to study this. I can assure members that we do not need to study it on this side of the House, and I am at a complete loss today to understand why the cabinet of this Premier needs to study this issue.

I hope to lay out a couple of concerns with this resolution in terms of the kinds of things we are about to study, first, "the rights of people accused of assault to function in a manner that could be considered dangerous to members of society."

On the one hand, for example, we have heard a policy initiative from this government that Comsoc is considering opening up some of the regulations in the Young Offenders Act. Yet on the other hand, we know that we are putting back out on to the street violent criminals, even though the crime occurred at a juvenile stage, but they are now being released as adults. They get the right to reject any kind of therapy, any kind of support. We know that is a serious problem, and I raised the issue of the young lad who was released out into the community of Oakville and Burlington after murdering his entire family.

We are going to study "the causes of violence against women and how the legacy of violence can be stopped."

We had enough information on this whole subject. It has been the subject of two resolutions in this House in the last seven years that I have been here. I can tell members that when I was working with my colleague Richard Johnston, I put forward a resolution that in education we have to start reforming the program needs of children so that we do not develop inappropriate models for our children, because a lot of it is based on not only public through the media, but also through some of the educational programs that are in our schools.

We resolved two and a half years ago that the ministry had a 14th goal, that education develop an awareness of those stereotypes and assumptions that contribute to the unequal position of women in contemporary society, and I can tell members that when I have asked the subsequent Education ministers about the resolution I tabled, we have had no meaningful action on that agenda item.

Violence in our schools is a serious problem. Do we have a task force looking into that? We have received all the reports from the teachers' federations on this. It is occurring today in our schools.

We have all the numbers. I can tell members that in my community the government told them to apply for a shelter. I have a letter on file, because I am going to use the M word. Theresa Greer, the executive director of Halton Women's Place, said this NDP government has misled them. There is a copy of the letter, and it is a matter of record that this government has been dancing around for over a year on a women's shelter for Burlington. In Burlington we are taking families from Peel, from Fergus, from Guelph and a few from Hamilton, and Burlington people and Oakville people cannot get inside their own shelter because of the backlog. We do not need to study this issue.

With regard to the area of court reforms, members are aware that I have been fighting to get Ontario to act. This is the last province in Canada to have a victims' bill of rights. All members of the House stood up and said they supported it in principle, but the NDP government decided, "No, we're not going to proceed with victims' rights."

A question on the Orders and Notices paper was just responded to by the Attorney General. It is unfortunate that the member for Rainy River is the Attorney General, because he tells us that at this time the ministry is not proposing to create a bill of rights for victims of crime in Ontario and he says there are limitations caused, in part, by insufficient resources. Is that not a crying shame? We cannot provide the badly needed support for these women and these children because we do not have the badly needed resources.

If it is not a priority, if violence against the person is not a priority for this government, it cannot be anybody's priority. We control the purse strings in this province. We are the only ones responsible for reforms, meaningful reforms, really changing things in this province, because we control the money. All the volunteer efforts in the world out there in the field are going nowhere unless we can provide those shelters.

That is why, as it has been stated earlier, it is our number one social policy concern. It has been for the last four years and it will continue to be, if you listen to those families or if you listen to a Franca Capretta. This woman had her husband grab her by the hair and take her out to her front lawn and beat her with a steel pipe. She spent more time in the intensive care unit of an Ottawa hospital than her husband spent behind bars. That is our criminal justice system in this province.

Every province in this country and the national government have said the only way to change our criminal justice system is to set a victims' bill of rights into our Criminal Code, yet Ontario does not have the resources at this time.

The real tragedy is that we have one of the best cabinets to understand the needs of women we have ever seen in our history and yet we have second-class programs relative to the priority that is made in other provinces.

There are so many other things I wanted to mention. The victims' bill of rights is not going to be proceeded with during the term of this government. We will now be five years behind the last province that brought in victims' rights legislation. The Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres is concerned that this government has not seen fit to provide the stabilized core funding other provinces have given, because those centres should not live from hand to mouth for their funding every year.

Finally the member for Oakville South and I are here today to say simply that our communities are fed up with the idea of study. Our communities want reforms now. We have buried two young teenagers this year, Nina DeVilliers and Leslie Mahaffy, and our community has said enough is enough. All children are at risk, all women are at risk and we had better get on with the business of these reforms, not studying them.

Mr G. Wilson: I am certainly pleased to join this debate that has been initiated by my colleague and joined in by members from the other two parties. In particular, I want to mention the critic for women's issues, the member for Eglinton, for her very moving and factual account. She certainly raised a number of issues that lead to some insight into what we will need. The member for Waterloo North also raised some matters that will help us in our deliberations. The member for Burlington South certainly added an edge to the discussion at this point that I think is also needed and bears some looking at.

I want to say first, from a personal perspective as a husband and the father of two young daughters, that I am certainly very aware of the concern about violence against women. It is a daily issue -- the question of locked doors, for instance, and the safety of going to school and the concern about after-dark hours. It is closer to home in another way, in that I live in the building where Dr Carolyn Warrick, mentioned by my colleague, was murdered. That was a very gripping and tragic event that certainly focused the attention of all of us on the need to deal with this issue.

I agree with the member for Burlington South that our government is well positioned to offer a lot of leadership in this role. My colleague who was the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues and who recently resigned, the member for Scarborough West, certainly showed a lot of leadership on this issue, based on a lot of experience. I know her support is still there. Certainly the minister now responsible for women's issues, the member for London Centre, will still have that kind of leadership.

I want to say, though, that the issue of money has always been a concern and it cannot be left entirely to governments. It depends on the organizations we have in the community that deal with shelters and counselling services. Certainly they have done it in the past, and with our help they will do it in the future. We all have to recognize the participation and the contribution they have made up to this point and that it has to be supported.

I want to look at something very definite, also from my own experience, and that is the role of unions in highlighting the issues of all workers in general but certainly women in particular. Through organizing, women are able to try to boost their economic security. It is certainly something mentioned by, I think, all three of the opposition members. I look forward to their support in helping unions organize, because if that is the route we want to take, and in my experience it has been a very real benefit, then we will want to see more women organized in unions to push for greater economic equality. But unions provide more than economic equality. They also provide a voice.

Looking at the issue, it certainly is one that is very deep. The member for Burlington South seems to think that after a year we should have this thing put on the shelf as being solved. It is deeply rooted in our society and it is part of the socialization of both boys and girls in our society to accept the roles that have been traditionally allotted to them. This is the thing we have to work against.

Again, unions are very important in this role in fighting for the economic equality of women and also giving them a voice in fighting for the things they find important for our society -- indeed that are important to both men and women -- things like child care, pay equity and safety in the workplace and in the home.

Another point that should be raised is that trying to create a safer society for women -- that is, the fight against violence against women that happens so often in the home and is disguised -- by bringing it out into the open, in a way that is effective and that depends on women coming forward, can be accomplished through organizations, which can be not only the voluntary organizations in our community that governments can support but also through unions. I think that is another point in their favour.

Finally, by removing the threat of male violence against women, it not only helps society in that it relieves that burden on women, but it also brings men into the 20th century. It is a crime. It has to be recognized as such. It also frees them from that kind of mentality. With those remarks, I would like to turn the debate over to the other members.

Mr Owens: I am not going to say it is with any kind of pleasure that I stand up to address this issue today, because this issue brings me, and I am sure all members of this House, absolutely no pleasure.

I find myself in a very strange position today in that I have to agree with the member for Burlington South. We have the evidence. We know what the problems are. We need to start action.

Our government has been probably the most proactive of any government in the history of this country in terms of assigning money and going out to take action on this subject, but still, as the member for Burlington South mentioned, we have had to bury a Nina DeVilliers and we have had to bury a Leslie Mahaffy. This issue is not getting any better.

We as a Legislature have to start by setting an example that we have zero tolerance for this issue. The statistics that have been recited here and many more that we could talk about are absolutely appalling. One in four women will be sexually assaulted before they reach adolescence. To me, this is absolutely and completely appalling.

The one issue I will disagree with the member for Burlington South on is the need to construct shelters. I understand we have an acute need for a place for people to go at this point but I can assure him that by constructing more shelters, by constructing more rape crisis centres and not dealing with the root cause of the problem, we are simply institutionalizing violence against women. To me, that is inappropriate.

We need to get to the root cause of the problem and we need to deal with it. We have talked about two particular people today who have recently died at the hands of men. I am sure that later on this fall, when members of this Legislature attend the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses lobby, this group will bring to our attention many more whose names have not made the paper.

Again, the bottom line is that we need to start looking at changes in laws. We need to take a look at the position of women in the criminal justice system, at how women are treated, and at how children are treated. Do we make this system accessible to these people?

This government is currently undertaking a witness protection program for children to encourage the reporting of abuse. We are undertaking a protocol that is modelled on a project conducted in Duluth, Minnesota, where perpetrators of violence against women are automatically charged. What has been found is that by charging people the rate of recidivism drops immensely.

As a legislator, and I am sure other members in this House share the feeling, when the Supreme Court of Canada released a decision dropping the rape shield defence, I was saddened, because no doubt not having this protection in place will certainly have a chilling effect on the reporting of sexual assault and sexual abuse.

In my mind there is absolutely no relevance in a person's sexual history prior to an assault taking place. It does not matter what the person was involved in prior to the assault. The fact is an assault has taken place. That is a criminal activity and any other evidence should not be a factor. This has unfortunately been dropped.

I read recently that people from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association are now backpedalling on their position that this was a good thing, that all civil liberties should be intact. Unfortunately, between the time the federal government can introduce legislation and get it passed, the numbers of victims who will have to pass through this process cannot be estimated and the amount of damage that will be caused is inestimable. Again, I refer to the chilling effect this kind of decision has on the reporting of assaults.

As the member for Scarborough Centre, I and a committee are working hard to establish a women's legal clinic to deal with victims of sexual assault, domestic violence and incest survivors, but again, the bottom line is that we can establish clinics all over the province, we can establish shelters all over the province, we can establish shelters all over the province, but until we deal with the systemic issues, the power relationships between men and women, this problem is going to continue.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Niagara Falls has two minutes to summarize.

Ms Harrington: First of all, I must say that this is not a resolution which asks for a study. This resolution wants an assessment of the provincial policies and their effectiveness. The ministries' programs now have a three-pronged approach: first, services such as counselling and shelters; second, work within the justice system to stop violence against women; and third, education and prevention programs. We want to assess those programs and see if they are working and see if we can do better. Whenever there is an educational program, the demands for counselling and shelter services escalate so quickly that we cannot meet the need.

For me, I want to reiterate how I feel and what has been said, I think, by one other speaker; that is, that it is a vicious cycle. In true reality this is it, the vicious cycle: violence against women makes women unequal in society, and because women are unequal in society there is violence against women. It just perpetuates itself. Inequality is shame, fear, guilt, powerlessness. It is a cycle that affects the richness of our lives, it affects the economic health of this province and it is ultimately passed on to the next generation. We all know that children witnessing violence become most likely users of violence.

In Niagara Falls we have a shelter and it has a button that says, "You can't beat a woman." Does that not sound nice? But in Canada you can; you can beat a woman, too often with impunity. You can beat a woman, and the police, if they charge you at all, will charge you reluctantly, very often, and you can do it again and again. Women who seek shelter go there after 35 assaults, usually.

I would just like to end by saying this is an issue of power in our society and control in our society, and violence is, I think, parallel to slavery in our society. It was accepted for thousands of years and it was abolished, I believe, if history is correct, in a few decades. Inequality of women, violence against women, has been accepted in part of our society for thousands of years. Surely this can be the decade when we do something about it.

EMPLOYEE WAGE PROTECTION

Mr Kwinter moved resolution 19:

That, in the opinion of this House, given the horrendous negative effect the policies and proposals of the New Democratic Party government have already had on the investment and job creation climate in Ontario, and given the deliberately antibusiness proposal by the federal Conservative government to introduce a payroll tax to fund its wage protection program, thus making successful workers and employers pay the costs for their unsuccessful counterparts, the present government of Ontario should at no time introduce a payroll tax as a means of funding the employee wage protection program.

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94, the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation and will have two minutes to wrap up.

Mr Kwinter: Events have overtaken this resolution in some respect. When this resolution was introduced into the order list, it was felt that this was a serious problem. Now it is a very critical problem. What we have is a situation where the heartland of Canada, the industrial heartland, the economic heartland, is under severe siege.

Many of these events are not of any one individual's particular doing or any one government's particular doing; it is accumulation of various global effects, things that are happening. But the impact is being felt in Ontario far more severely than anywhere else in Canada, and there is a very good reason for that, the reason being that we in Ontario are the manufacturing, business and financial centre of Canada.

Some of our colleagues across the country are not happy when they hear that. They think that somehow or other Ontario is boasting. It is not a boast, it is a fact: 42% of the economic activity in this country takes place in Ontario, the bulk of the manufacturing is here, 75% of all the securities traded on the Canadian stock exchange in total are traded in Toronto, and it is the home of five of the six major banks in Canada. Whether one likes it or not, this is where a great part of the economic activity in this country takes place.

Now, that is good news and it is bad news. The good news, of course, is that it has given Ontario a standard of living that is the highest in Canada. It is no secret that the engine -- I do not mean this to be a pun -- that drives the economy of Canada is the automotive industry, and most of it is located in Ontario. The spinoffs of that industry filter through small-town Ontario, because there are small machine shops, there are small suppliers, people who supply the automotive industry. That is where the well-paying jobs are, that is where we get the bulk of our export activity, and it is critical to Ontario's economic wellbeing.

What has happened to change that? The thing that has happened, of course, is that we are now into a global economy. Where traditionally our competition came from our neighbours to the south in the United States or from western Europe -- the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy -- that has changed. We certainly still get a great deal of competition from those areas, but there are new players emerging virtually every day.

Many of the members, and I have said this before, are old enough to remember that if they ever gave somebody something made in Japan, they would be embarrassed if he turned it over and it said, "Made in Japan." That was synonymous with cheap and shoddy goods. Now, of course, the Japanese have come on to the scene. They started out in electronics. They moved into the automotive sector, so much so that for the first time in history the number one selling automobile in the United States is the Honda Accord.

We have pressures from Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Mexico, coming on the scene; Brazil, some of the eastern European countries. All of these things are bringing pressure to bear on our competitiveness. When we ask if we are competitive -- unfortunately, there are those who think that is a buzzword. When we are trying to be productive or competitive, that is the buzzword for bashing labour. I want to suggest that has nothing to do with it at all. It is a fact of life.

You can rail to your heart's delight about the fact that you have to protect jobs, but you only have to protect jobs as long as those jobs are relevant, as long as they are producing things that can be sold. There is not much sense in producing something if it cannot be sold, and there is not much sense in producing something if it is overpriced so that in the global competition someone else is selling that product at equal quality but at better price, or at better quality and better price, which is also a possibility.

So my concern -- and I do not want to single out this government alone, because I have to admit that when we were in government we fell into some of the same things. There is always an incredible demand for more service and more money. The easiest thing to do, and this is what disturbs me particularly from the government side, is to fall into the trap of feeling that business does not pay its share and saying, "Let's add this on because they have a responsibility."

When I sat on the committee that toured the province listening to people's comments on the budget, I was quite disturbed at the number of people who appeared and said: "We've got to get the corporate welfare bums. We have all these corporations that are not paying any taxes and we've got to do something about it."

The misinformation among those people is frightening, because there is an attitude that business is out there just having a free ride, and it is not. They may not be paying any profit taxes if they are not making any profits, but they are paying taxes. They are paying workers' compensation taxes. They are paying dividend taxes. They are paying sales taxes, in many respects. They are paying employee health taxes. They are paying corporate concentration taxes. They are paying a wide range of taxes that help create the kind of infrastructure, support the kind of municipalities that look to these businesses, because without them, the tax base for their citizens would just be too onerous.

At the end of the day, some of them may make a profit and they will pay a tax on their profit. Others do not make a profit and they do not pay any tax. It is no different from an individual. If you do not earn a certain income, you do not pay any tax. What we have done consecutively over the last few years is, we keep increasing the number of people who do not pay that tax.

When we talk about an employee wage protection plan, I do not think there is anybody who would not argue that a person who works and earns an income should be entitled to have that income; no question about that. And if a company fails, there is a feeling that there should be some kind of wage protection plan to pay for it. The problem I have with that is the same problem I have with several other plans that are similar to that. What the government is doing is saying to the successful company, "You have to pay for the unsuccessful company."

We have the same thing exactly in two other areas. When you deposit money in a bank, we have the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp, and we also have in Ontario, in the credit unions, OSDIC, the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corp. If you put $60,000 into your bank account, it is insured. If you exceed it, you are at risk. What happens is that the ones who have to pay the insurance for that are the big banks that in theory will never go bust. The chances of the Royal Bank of Canada going bankrupt, I would say, are quite remote.

Notwithstanding that, they must pay an insurance premium on every dollar they take in to pay for that. But who are the beneficiaries? They are some of the weaker institutions, the ones that are poorly funded, poorly managed, that go out of business, and the big banks have to pay for it.

We have a situation with the pension protection act as well where, if you have a pension plan, you must pay a certain amount of money into it to protect those people who have pensions, and if the company goes broke, it cannot pay for them. The problem we have with that is that it absolutely discourages people from taking pension plans, and we have a situation where most people do not have a pension plan. The reason for that is that companies will not do it because the cost is too onerous.

It is exactly the same thing with a payroll tax that is used to fund an employee wage protection package. What you have is another deterrent. It is another reason why someone will say, "I'm going to go to another jurisdiction. I'm going to set up in New York or Quebec or British Columbia or wherever," and I say that because of what I think is a very precarious situation, we are in severe danger of losing our competitiveness.

Mrs Witmer: I am pleased to see that the honourable member who introduced the motion this morning has been radically transformed and recognizes that payroll taxes such as the employer health tax are not appropriate.

Ever since the government introduced Bill 70, I have been extremely concerned that this program would eventually be funded by a payroll tax. Indeed, I am very afraid that this payroll tax is going to be introduced in next April's budget because it is in April of next year, 1992, that the first 18 months of Bill 70 end, and at that time, of course, the government does have the opportunity to make whatever changes it wishes if the legislation passes as it is.

Certainly in questioning that I have done to both the Minister of Labour and the Treasurer in asking them about the prospect of a future payroll tax, neither the Treasurer nor the Minister of Labour has given me any assurance whatsoever that there will not be another tax imposed on employers in this province.

I feel that it is important to remind this government that payroll taxes -- and this has certainly been well documented and well demonstrated in the past -- do reduce our competitiveness. They do severely impair job creation, they do hurt economic growth and they do put a squeeze on small business, and we have to remember it is the small business community that creates most of the jobs in this province. Not only does it put a squeeze on small business; it also has a very punitive impact on businesses in this province.

I believe that the current recession has clearly demonstrated that this government must not introduce a single new measure that will in any way, shape or form impair Ontario's competitiveness.

I think we need to remember that businesses in this province already sustain a much higher total tax burden than similar businesses located in Quebec and and British Columbia, so, "Why would you stay in this province?" is the question that many business people are asking today.

I am concerned that the cost of this fund is going to escalate because the average claim has escalated. In April they told us the average claim was $3,254, and in July we learned that the average claim was $4,200. Thus, in the future, businesses in this province may well be levied for an enhanced fund, because Bill 70 is going to give the minister the power to change the maximum amount of compensation and also the terms of the package without the need to bring the legislation back to the House for full public consultation and scrutiny.

I would like to share with members the concerns of some of the members of my community. This past week I had an opportunity to meet with the members of the Waterloo economic development strategy committee. We have many businesses in Waterloo and Kitchener that are failing and that are concerned about their future. There was one small business person there who employed 35 employees. They have enjoyed prosperity in this province. They are a high-tech industry that is continuing to grow. They now export 80% of their products abroad and are managing to compete globally.

However, because of the increase in taxation, this individual has indicated that any further expansion will be south of the border. I have to tell members this is a message that I am hearing from employers throughout this province. They are downsizing and they are not creating employment opportunities because they are very fearful of the economic climate and the increased possibility of taxation on the employer.

During the public hearings this past summer we heard some very grim testimony from many groups about the impact of Bill 70 and particularly the introduction of this payroll tax as a means of funding. I would like to share some of their concerns with members. Before I do that, I would like to add that I think it is extremely unfortunate that the NDP government, as a result of the public hearings, did not introduce a single substantive amendment.

The Canadian Manufacturers' Association indicated to us that no employer tax or payroll tax be established to fund the program in the future. To do so would be detrimental to the economy of Ontario by making it even less competitive, resulting in fewer jobs for Ontario workers. Almost all jurisdictions with which we compete offer a far more competitive tax environment.

From the representative of Mother Parker's Foods Ltd: "You must realize that another payroll tax would send a great deal more small businesses straight into bankruptcy and put even more individuals out of work."

From the More Jobs Coalition: "We would like to state that the More Jobs Coalition is firmly opposed to any initiative which would add an additional payroll tax on the already heavy burdens employers must bear."

From the Ontario Chamber of Commerce: "No employer taxes should be introduced to cover the cost of payments made in accordance with the bill. These are social benefits that should be drawn from the consolidated revenue fund."

From the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada: "We cannot support financing the program by means of a flat payroll or corporations tax. Clearly any additional cost of doing business will negatively affect the industry's ability to compete in the North American marketplace."

From Steve Yeoman, Bates and McKeown: "In the aftermath of the GST and the employer health tax and the Ontario budget deficit, small business in the province of Ontario cannot afford another tax."

These are the types of comments that we heard this summer, and there is one from the Information Technology Association of Canada: "A payroll tax will drop with a thud on the scales when weighing in against the investment case for Ontario. You should recognize that it is not only the cost of doing business in a given environment that investors will measure."

Finally, from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business: "The regressive character of payroll taxes makes them much more burdensome to the small business community than to large corporations."

As the Premier rightly noted when he was Leader of the Opposition and criticizing the then government's decision to impose the employer health tax on the province's employers in lieu of OHIP premiums, "Payroll taxes are a tax on small business and a tax on jobs." It is obvious that the Premier no longer considers that to be the case, but he did indicate that payroll taxes are a tax on small business and a tax on jobs, and we would certainly concur with that statement.

In conclusion, I would urge this government to reject the introduction of the payroll tax. I would remind them that we no longer have a healthy tax advantage here in the province of Ontario. I would remind them of the 32 tax increases that were introduced by the Liberals, including the EHT.

At a time when there is economic insecurity, at a time when we have many people throughout this province suffering great hardship because of lost jobs and at a time when the neighbours to the south of us are actively recruiting businesses and encouraging them to move, I would encourage the members of this government to do everything they possibly can to stem this tide. I would urge them to focus their efforts on the creation of jobs and doing everything possible to do so. I do not see this happening.

I can assure them that another payroll tax is going to create more hardship. It is going to contribute to more job losses for workers. Unfortunately it is going to be the final nail in the coffin for the businesses that are presently struggling to survive in the very uncertain economic climate that has been created in this province.

Ms S. Murdock: What was interesting so far in what I have been hearing is that it seems as if this payroll tax is already in place and a fait accompli, which it is not. I would like that clearly on the record. There is no doubt that the funding of the employee wage protection program seems to be a topic of great concern. It was during the hearings this summer and it obviously still is this morning and again this afternoon, when we debate Bill 70.

Throughout the public hearings and in the written submissions that the committee received, groups expressed their views as to who should pay, and the options presented by all groups that appeared before us were basically only three. One, of course, was that we leave the situation as it exists now, presently, in a status quo and workers who have earned wages and benefits, not social benefits but actual wage benefits and other benefits that they have earned, do not get paid. For us that was not an option. We are not willing to do nothing.

The second option that was presented to us by most of the groups was basically that we do what the federal government is doing. Anything that the Conservatives in Ottawa are doing is not something that we would generally follow anyway, but certainly taxing the employer or taxing solvent businesses to pay for their unsuccessful counterparts was not the way that we thought we should go at a time of recession. It is true that businesses, as has been so eloquently stated by the members opposite, are overburdened at this time. Our general feeling and our sense of responsibility is that we cannot go with in that option, certainly while the province of Ontario is in such hard times.

The third option we had presented, and this was in the employee wage protection program, was the consolidated revenue fund paying for it. In that instance, the arguments that we got in committee this summer were basically why should the taxpayer pay for employers who have gone out of business or who have left the province willingly and it is not fair that the taxpayers should pay that.

If we listen to all of those arguments then it ends up that we are back where we started again. No one is paying. The employer who has gone bankrupt or who has left is not paying the worker whose wages have been earned. If we do not take it from the consolidated revenue fund and we do not do a payroll tax, then the worker is the one who is penalized. Interestingly many felt, from all sides, and that is both management and labour, that taxpayers should not be responsible for the debts incurred by a few, and yet all agree that the workers should not be penalized.

There was no one who said that people who earned money and worked for it should not be paid what they were owed. Generally the feeling was that successful employers should not be penalized either.

Right now the plan is that the program will be funded by general revenues, and the member for Waterloo North certainly has said that as of April 1992 that 18-month funding program is going to be completed and a decision will have to be made. There are no plans to impose a payroll tax. I should make that very clear; there are no plans. That is not to say it is not going to happen, but this resolution today is, I think, very presumptuous, because in no way could I agree to make such a decision as suggested in this resolution in the bottom line, that the "government of Ontario should at no time introduce a payroll tax as a means of funding the employee wage protection program."

Personally, I think it would hamstring any future decisions made by the Treasurer, even though the amount of the payroll tax for the employee wage protection program would in all likelihood, at least by our estimation, be almost infinitesimal and be impractical as to standing by itself. The method of payment to workers is either by the fund or a tax and either one of those is not a decision for me alone to make, nor should we have to do this in terms of a future basis.

My personal recommendation -- I said this in committee so I am not speaking out of turn -- is not to go by way of increased taxes. I have no difficulty in stating that, but as we have learned only too well in the past year, you never say never. That is what this resolution is asking me to do. I would not presume to do that.

I thank members for allowing me to make that statement.

Mr Phillips: I am pleased to join the debate and support my colleague's resolution. I was struck earlier this week when the Premier, I think in the very first piece of business when the House came back, said, "Renewing our economy must be the central focus of our work as a province." I very much agree with that. I think all of us have to work towards that.

The problem I think people in the business community have as they watch us proceed with this is that our actions often speak louder than our words. The very first thing that happened was the Treasurer saying that our spending is essentially out of control. "Out of control" may be strong words, but essentially out of control. Not our revenue. The stuff that the business community out there is generating seems to be coming in on track, but it is our spending that is out of control.

The business community that is struggling mightily -- believe me, it is tough out there, as we all know -- says, "My gosh, as we are trying to cut our expenditures, keep ourselves alive, somehow or other the government's spending is out of control." We will hear more about that next week, but that is one thing they worry about.

The second thing they worry about is just taxes. Here we have, with the wage protection fund, the threat -- the previous member from the government said, "We are not planning it at this time." That worries business. "At this time" worries them. As they are looking ahead at where they are going to invest, how much confidence they are going to have, that is another cloud on the horizon, "not at this time."

Certainly, as they look at that threat, they look at hydro rates going up 12% this year, and the announcement from Ontario Hydro is it will be 12% the following year and then another 12%. That is like a 40% increase in hydro rates. To a business person trying to survive in this economy, my gosh, that is frightening.

It is not just this that they worry about; it is the collection of it. The Treasurer has said in his budget, "We are going to have to raise taxes substantially." As a matter of fact, he says, "We are going to have to raise taxes at the rate of about $5 billion, new taxes, in order just to keep our deficit at about the $8-billion level." For the business community that is unbelievable: $5 billion of new taxes.

I know the government members often say, "We'll just tax the corporations, these rich, fat corporations." Let me tell members two things. One is that if we look at the federal government's Fiscal Monitor, here is what it says: "In the first quarter of 1991, corporate profits were 65% below their pre-recession peak and nearly 50% below the same quarter in 1990. As a result, corporate tax collections declined 24.9% in the first quarter of this year."

The second thing I would say about corporate taxes is that we think there is a lot of money there. What per cent of the provincial revenues do members think comes from corporate taxes right now? It is about $3 billion of about $45 billion. It is a relatively small part. There is not a huge windfall available in increasing corporate taxes. I know it sounds neat, but there is not a huge windfall to be found in increasing corporate taxes.

That is the first point I wanted to make. The business community, looking ahead at how it is going to invest, create jobs, create the kind of economic activity we are looking at, is extremely frightened. They partially welcomed the Premier's opening remarks this week about focusing on the economy. Then they look and see what we are doing -- spending out of control; $5 billion of new taxes coming on the horizon; the fact that corporate taxes are already falling on them substantially; a hydro rate increase of at least 12% this year and 12% for the foreseeable future -- and they are worried.

My colleague, in his resolution, pointed out the economic morass we are in right now, and we all know that, but I was looking just the other day at the plant closures, not plant closures that have taken place in the past but the plant closures that are planned. As members all know, the Ministry of Labour produces these statistics. Here we have two pages of what are called complete closures. These are not downsizing, these are not partial closures, but complete closures coming. Why are they coming? Because businesses in this province are having difficulty competing in the new global economy.

If members want to deny that we are going to have to compete globally, they are living in the past. We are now in the real world. As a province and as a country, we are going to have to compete globally. This is testimony that our industry is having trouble competing globally, and a payroll tax would simply add to that.

The third thing I would say is that the unemployment rate continues to be unacceptable. We have heard from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology that he is creating new jobs, yet we see these layoffs occurring. We see the unemployment for the month of August. We have in this province right now 525,000 people unemployed. That is up dramatically, as I think all of us know, from a year ago. A year ago, Ontario had the lowest unemployment rate in the country. Now every single province in the west has a lower unemployment rate than Ontario does. What is happening? We are not having the economic renewal in this province that we require.

I very much support the resolution my colleague has put forward. I think all of us must recognize that the economy is in serious difficulty. There are the things the province is doing right now: spending out of control, the threat of substantial new taxes coming in the future, the lack of an economic program. As a matter of fact, in the first year of this government, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology did not announce one single proposal that would increase employment in the province.

I waited patiently for the minister to get up in his place and say, "Today we have reached some sort of an agreement between the union and the company" to do this and to do that. Not one announcement of new jobs and new job creation in the province.

We are at, I think, a crisis. That may not be too strong a word. We have a government that has no economic plan, and as my colleague said, the thought of adding another tax to an already very burdened business community would just drive another nail in the coffin.

I appreciate the opportunity to bring my thoughts to the debate.

Mr Carr: I am pleased to participate in the debate. I am going to start off by apologizing to my friend who moved the motion, because I am going to be fairly critical of both him and the government he was a part of.

I think the member mentioned earlier in his comments that they fell into the same trap. I say to him that the previous government, which he was a part of, did not fall into the trap; it jumped in with both feet when it comes to taxes. From being a province that was taken from medium in terms of taxes, they made us the most heavily-taxed province in Canada, the most heavily-taxed jurisdiction in all of North America.

I say to my friend again, because he may have been speaking at the cabinet table, that the cabinet decisions that came out, where he sat, were a big part of the reason we are in this predicament right now. They introduced 33 new taxes during their period of time. They taxed people who were in business. They taxed individuals. They taxed everybody. Anything that moved in this province over the last five years, they taxed, and as if that was not bad enough, even though they taxed them, if they did not tax them to death, they regulated them to death.

The member sat at the cabinet table. I suspect if the truth were known, he was probably fighting for business and industry, but the fact is that in the results that came out of a government he was a part of, they were the worst offenders of all the provinces in Canada.

In my own area, 500 jobs were lost at Tridon. My colleague the member for Burlington South and myself met with the Canadian Auto Workers. We sat down with them. They said: "We had a good relationship with the company. We tried to help to control costs." The company said, "We had a great relationship with the workers." The thing that they said cost those jobs, the final straw, was the employer health tax. Five hundred jobs were lost in Burlington and Oakville as a direct result of a tax levied by the Liberal government of the day. The member who introduced this motion was part of the cabinet, around the cabinet table, and part of the decision that cost well over 500 people jobs in my riding.

When the debate started, all the things came out and they said it was the free trade agreement, and it was this and that. Both sides, both the union and the president of the company, said it was the employer health tax that was the final straw. I sat down with them and said: "Why don't you come out and say it to this new government of the day? Why don't you come out and say that it was the employer health tax?" He looked at me and he said: "Gary, I would do that. Even though we're selling back into this marketplace and corporate relations are very important, I would do that if you honestly and truly believed this government would listen to me." I sat there and I could not tell him he could.

As a result, with all the reasons about why the company left that are out there, all the misconceptions, the employer health tax which the Liberals introduced had a direct result in the loss of 500 jobs in my riding.

That is why I am a little bit sensitive about what is happening when this government then introduces a resolution and talks about employer payroll tax funding. That is why there is cynicism out there in the public, because people who sit around the cabinet table have direct authority. Then when they are out of government, they tell you what you should be doing. What we need are people who are a little more consistent in their application.

Again, I do not want to be too critical of the member, because I think if the truth were known he was probably fighting very hard but, unfortunately, if you are a cabinet minister you have to live by the results that come out of those discussions. I am very critical of that.

I was reading through some of the material last night from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. It has put together resolutions, about 111 pages, very easy to read. They talk about everything, including the environment. As members know, the chamber has about 65,000 members, 165 boards, and has been around since 1911. One of the statements it makes on page 65 is that it does not believe any of the funding for the wage protection fund should come from another payroll tax.

I would encourage those members who are going around the province saying, "We're listening to business, we're listening," to read page 65 of the report. That might be very helpful in other matters as well, because it is very important material of what business is saying about some of these taxes.

What we need to do is address the problem of the job losses, not have the short-term fixes of trying to find money to assist workers. What we need to do is have long-term plans that will probably be implemented down the road and will keep the jobs for the people of the province. That is what the people wanted. I support it, but I think it is a very cynical motion by a party that is very cynical.

Mr Johnson: I, too, unfortunately am plagued with a cold that many of the members have, and I hope my voice does not fail me.

I have to say right at the beginning that I cannot support this resolution because I do not think we would want to make it an absolute that the Treasurer could not at some point in time -- although we know that at this time it is not necessary -- levy a tax that may or may not be understood to be a payroll tax. Because of that, I just cannot agree with this resolution.

The member made some interesting comments at the beginning of his remarks. It is true that in the world, a global economy is taking effect and having a disastrous effect on the province of Ontario. It is true, maybe because of its geographic location, maybe because of its population, that Ontario is a dominant factor in the economy of Canada.

As the global economy grows, I think we have to look at what kind of effects this is going to have on Ontario. A global economy in theory is probably not a bad thing, except that many things are not constant. For example, in other areas of the world, they do not have environmental laws and environmental protection like we have here in Canada or in Ontario. They do not have the health or safety factors taken into consideration for their employees. We know these things are costly to some degree. We also know that wages in other areas of the world are considerably lower than they are in this province.

Ontario is a great place to live. We have many social benefits. I think we have, if not the highest, one of the highest standards of living in the world.

The member for Wilson Heights also mentioned a theory -- I am not sure it is entirely his -- that jobs should exist if they are relevant, and if they are not relevant they should not be here. Of course, that brings to my mind a concern for the farmers in Ontario, because he mentioned that if you worked for a reason that was viable, that was a good purpose for employment and that would make the job relevant.

Well, certainly in the global scheme of things, we see that the farmers in Ontario are suffering because of the global economy, because prices are down, because in other areas of the world they can produce their produce much less expensively or at much less cost than we do here in Ontario. Although in theory I understand what the member was getting at, I think that if practised completely we would have no farmers in Ontario. We would be importing all our food, and I think it is really important that we supply our own people with our own produce. I guess there is a cost involved in that.

The "horrendous negative effect the policies and proposals of the New Democratic Party government have" -- I find that a little offensive. I find it offensive because at this time, a year after we have been in government, as a result of many things, not the fact that we have been in government for a year -- I cannot help but speak about the free trade agreement and other things this government had no effect on. If businesses are leaving Ontario to go to the United States, which seems to be a comment heard often in this House, I think it has a lot to do with the global economy and the free trade agreement.

The suggestion that the free trade agreement was going to make a more level playing field for business, I do not think has been true. In fact, as a result of the global economy and the free trade agreement, we see many businesses leaving to areas of the world, in particular the United States, where they think they are going to have advantages and may in fact have advantages, so they are leaving. But that is not the fault of the government.

Certainly the net result is these moves have created some problems the government has to deal with, that is, the job losses we have and the fact that business is leaving. We have to look at these problems very seriously and try to do some things that will help the people who are unemployed, help the business. We have to deal with business, most certainly. We have to talk with business and we have to do things that will encourage them to stay.

I want to say again that the global economy and the global marketplace, which we are becoming involved in, are unfortunately having very negative effects on Ontario. Therein lies the problem, not the fact that we are the government. These things started some time last year, and there has been a snowball effect. It has just carried on and we have seen more and more businesses leave.

I also want to say that in the actual statement of the resolution, I find some things there offensive.

I want to conclude by saying, as another member said, that as it would be a kind of tie to the Treasurer, never being able to introduce a tax that either would be perceived as a payroll tax or would be a payroll tax, I certainly cannot agree with this resolution.

Mr Mahoney: I am delighted to rise in support of my colleague the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology on this very well-thought-out resolution and to suggest that it is not premature at all, as has been suggested, because the reality is that we believe, frankly, that the decision has already been made.

The honourable members opposite might find it somewhat of a surprise to be sitting on the back benches and not being told by the Treasurer or the Premier or the cabinet what their long-range plans are, but the first year in government would seem to indicate, to me at least and I think to the public, that all of the decisions in relation to the future decisions of this government are made out of the corner office by one person, who then simply dictates what should happen.

I want to take a moment to congratulate the member for Wilson Heights. I know, as his former parliamentary assistant and as the advocate for small business in this province while I was with his office, that he did indeed fight, as one of the members said, at the cabinet table and in caucus and everywhere in this province on behalf of business. I think business had a sense, as long as the member for Wilson Heights was in that job, that it had a champion who understood its problems and who was prepared to go to bat for it. Unfortunately, that cannot be said of the current government.

We had a minister who was asleep at the switch for an entire year. He has now been replaced by another minister, and I hear that the travel agents who book all the flights out of MITT got extremely excited when they heard the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale was now going to be booking all the trips for MITT, because we all know that the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale certainly is a citizen of the world. I think the travel agents recognize that their business and their fortunes shot up dramatically with the Premier's announcement.

I want to say why this motion is so important. The decision has already been made to fund this program with some form of employer health tax. There is absolutely no question, so members should not be shocked when the Treasurer walks into their caucus room in the not-too-distant future and says: "I've got a can for you to carry. I've got a message for you to take back to your constituents, and it is that we're going to fund Bill 70" -- in all its ramifications and its 107 new employees at an annual cost of some $5 million to implement NDP policy -- "on the backs of the business community through an employer health tax." There is absolutely no question that is going to happen to the members.

But the real problem they have to face and understand is that an atmosphere of fear and mistrust has been created out there. Regardless of what the honourable member from the third party would like to say about the record, he should take a look in the mirror and take a look at nationalization of things like Suncor, Minaki Lodge and many other things before he throws stones. I, for one, do not think the public in this province wants to go back to the days of the pink Tories, who thought they could solve all problems by taking taxpayers' money and buying corporations.

But I will say this: There is real fear out there. Those members, those men and women, can shout at me all they want, but the reality is that businesses are going down the highway and leaving this province in record numbers. If the members want to tax them, they had better tell the Treasurer to hurry up, because there will not be any left to tax. There will not be any left. They are leaving because of fear and mistrust of this government.

The real issue here is, how do you protect jobs? That is really what we are talking about.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: The member's opinion of how to protect jobs is to pass legislation that says, "Your job shall be protected." That is the mentality --

Mr Sutherland: No.

Mr Mahoney: It is, I say to the member for Oxford, it is the mentality of socialism in his party.

His Premier gets up and says, "We've got to deal with business." I just heard the honourable member say, "We want to support business." They do not believe the government, and everything it has done up to date, I say to the honourable member for Cambridge, would indicate that they have no reason to believe it.

The government can talk in those terms. The Premier can get up and open his arms wide. He can go and speak to the chambers of commerce and pretend he understands their difficulties, but they know different. What he understands is that he has all the government members snapping at his heels, saying: "We want more for this and more for that. We want you to spend here and spend there. We don't want you to build roads for logging, or do we?" I am getting mixed messages all over the place. "We don't want you to put in an employer tax, a payroll tax for this," yet we think that is going to happen.

I understand. It must be a riot to be in the government's caucus room on Tuesday mornings, because I am sure the battles are very fascinating. I do not know if the Premier still sits through all of that. I would think he is probably too busy. As he does not even come into the Legislature any more, I doubt he spends a whole lot of time in caucus.

The Premier has government members buffaloed. He has them thinking that life is good in a Bob Rae Ontario. He has them thinking that everything is going to work itself out.

Let me give government members some numbers. In Bob Rae's Ontario we have had 31,787 permanent and indefinite layoffs just in 1990 alone. In 1991 the figure already is 15,320. What do we see happening? They do not understand. If you want to support the worker, then you have to ensure that the company can survive. If the company goes out of business, where is the worker going to get a paycheque?

Mr Sutherland: No kidding.

Mr Mahoney: The member does not understand that. The New Democrats think that the way is to give more power to the unions, to give more authority to the unions to take over. That might be true in Kapuskasing where the business is gone. I do not know what they are going to do with Algoma where the business is gone. Believe me, the real secret here is to allow a company to open its doors on Monday morning and make a profit on Friday afternoon, but I know the word "profit" is not in their vocabulary.

I beg government members at caucus to fight the Premier and the Treasurer. They have already made the decision to bring in a payroll tax. Government members should fight it. It is the only hope for this province.

Mr Klopp: To the honourable member for Wilson Heights, I apologize for not being here for his whole debate. There were other pressing issues I had to deal with, being on the government side now and trying to correct a lot of things that have slipped over the years.

In fact, one of the problems I had with this whole motion today was that it seemed so hypothetical, assuming there is a decision already made and talking about the future. It has been stated by the minister that this payroll tax, if there ever is a payroll tax, is not going to be put in place for the first year or so, or whether it even will be done at all.

But with all the problems, as my honourable colleague mentioned, with the farm situation, to have to come here today to speak on this issue, I think there are better kettles of fish to fry. However, it is the opposition's day and it wants to bring this up. That is their job.

Hearing some of the comments this morning that we are scaring away jobs, that we are hostile to business, if business people read this today from the opposition, and I am sure it will get passed around, they are going to say, "Oh golly, this government must be doing that," and the first thing they are going to do is go back to the notes they had, those who showed up at our committee meetings, where it was said very clearly that no decision has been made on that and there will be consulting if any changes are made to it.

I heard some comments from other members that we do not get listened to in caucus, that the decision is already made. I guess they are basing that on how they ran their government. All I can say is, if that is how they ran their government, that is the way they did it. I feel sorry for them.

Mr Lessard: That's why they're on that side of the room.

Mr Klopp: Maybe that is why they are on that side of the room. Maybe they will learn from it. We have learned every day since we have been here. We are also big enough to consult and even to change our position on things, which we have done. But to hear the comments that the decision has already been made and that is why we have to hurry up with this motion just does not hold water.

I do not think the people out in Ontario appreciate this kind of debate, because there are more important things to talk about, like farm issues, like the fact that the wage protection bill should be passed. One of the arguments is that it creates a problem for business. I do not think it does. I think, in fact, business, especially when it gets so high up in some areas, does not look at a lot of factors. One of the factors is that if workers are laid off and they do not get their money, then they do not go to the bank and pay their bills, or that money does not get flowed into the system, which creates more problems.

I support the wage protection bill. I cannot support this motion at this time because it is unnecessary.

Mr Kwinter: I want to thank all the members of all parties who participated in this debate. I want to clarify a situation that I detect from the comments that were made by the government side. Thursday mornings are private members' business. Private members can bring in any bill they want to, and they debate it. It is not an opposition day per se. It is private members. The members can agree or disagree with what I have to say, but they are not debating with us as the government and them as the opposition, or vice versa. I think it is important.

But I also think it is important to know that this is a very serious matter. The heckling that comes from the other side, and I noticed it in conversations we have had in the hearings, is that they always pick out one person who is supporting them, and that is their model, whether it be a James Frank or a Siemens. They say, "What about them?" But the point is, what about all the others?

We have an

article in the paper today talking about, "Ford Boss Slams NDP Labour Policies: 'Potential Disaster.'" That is another signal going out, not by some political hack but by the president of a major automobile corporation, who is saying there are problems. All that is happening is that when the member for Sudbury stands up and says, "Well, we certainly can't tax the people for it, we certainly can't tax the workers," that really means the decision has been made. The decision has been made that, when it comes down, we are going to have to tax those businesses that are still in business.

That is what I object to and that is what I feel is going to create a situation where we are going to lose more and more business in Ontario and also impact on our competitiveness.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Ms Harrington: I would ask the House at this time for unanimous consent to amend the resolution, as I explained in my introduction, by deleting sections 1, 3 and 4. What I explained was that since last June, when this resolution was originally written, I have decided to deal not with specifics but with the whole question of violence against women.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Niagara Falls has requested that her resolution be amended by deleting sections 1, 3 and 4. The member will be aware that standing order 94(j), under the heading "Private Members' Public Business," states, "No amendment may be made to a motion under this standing order." I will therefore determine if we have the unanimous consent of this House to allow these deletions or these amendments. Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYEE WAGE PROTECTION

The House divided on Mr Kwinter's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes -- 25

Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Harnick, Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Marland, McLean, Murdoch, B., Offer, O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poole, Sterling, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson, J., Witmer.

Nays -- 27

Carter, Christopherson, Cooper, Drainville, Farnan, Frankford, Harrington, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, Malkowski, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., O'Connor, Owens, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The House recessed at 1216.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ARMENIAN INDEPENDENCE

Mrs Caplan: The 20,000 members of the Armenian community in Metropolitan Toronto, many of whom live in my riding of Oriole, have been closely watching the political events in their homeland. Last Saturday, September 21, 1991, they witnessed an historic achievement when citizens of the Soviet Republic of Armenia voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence from the Soviet Union. This is the first time in its 71-year history that a referendum on the question of independence was held.

On Monday of this week, as a result of the referendum, the Parliament of Armenia declared independence. Armenian leaders will now be negotiating a new arrangement on defence, foreign policy and monetary matters with the Council of Presidents of other independent countries.

Armenian Canadians are jubilant and justifiably proud of this first step towards self-determination. They are anxious to learn even more. Mr Aris Babikian, from the riding of Oriole, will soon be travelling to Armenia to see at first hand what independence will mean. He will be reporting back to the Armenian community in Metropolitan Toronto.

I know I speak for all the residents of the riding of Oriole and probably on behalf of all of the constituents in Ontario and members of this House when I say that we extend our best wishes to the people of Armenia for a prosperous and peaceful future.

WELLESLEY FESTIVAL

Mrs Witmer: I would like to take this opportunity to inform the members of this House of a very important event that is happening in my community this weekend, and that is the Wellesley Apple Butter and Cheese Festival. This is an annual event in celebration of the excellent apple and cheese products that are produced in the Wellesley area.

The day-long festival includes such events as a pancake and sausage breakfast, a farmers' market where apple butter, apples, cheese and baked goods can be purchased, apple butter and cider mill tours, craft demonstrations, a horseshoe tournament, a model boat regatta, antique car and tractor displays as well as a quilt auction. There are also many activities for the children. This festival has always been a highlight for our family and especially my own daughter, who has grown very fond of the apple fritters one can purchase there.

I would like to take this opportunity to extend a very warm welcome and an invitation to all members in this House to come to Wellesley this Saturday to join us in the festivities and to take home with them some of the exceptional cheese and apple products.

MEALS ON WHEELS

Mr Mills: As members may know, this week is being recognized across Ontario as Meals on Wheels Week. It gives us all a chance to pay tribute to the thousands of volunteers across Ontario who give up some of their free time each week to help their neighbours. In my riding of Durham East, the town of Newcastle is this week paying tribute to its volunteers. There are 11 Meals on Wheels routes running through Newcastle, Newtonville, Mitchell Corners and the hamlet of Orono, where I make my home.

People on these routes depend on 150 volunteers to bring them hot, nutritious lunches three times a week. Meals on Wheels gives us a chance to recognize the contribution being made by those unsung heroes, who for 52 weeks of every year quietly make a real difference in the lives of people around them.

I stand in the Legislature today to thank publicly all those volunteers in the Newcastle area and across the province who participate in this program, and I ask all members to join with me in extending a warm "Well done."

COMMERCIAL FISHING

Mr Brown: I rise in the House today not to point blame or take sides, but rather to call for co-operation and communication. Not everyone thinks of the north channel of Lake Huron as a commercial fishing location, but let me assure the members that it is. One commercial fisherman, Mr Brian Nyman, had his nets lifted by members of the Sagamok first nation. The nets were returned later. He is obviously concerned about the implications of these actions and is not satisfied with the answers he has received from the Ministry of Natural Resources staff.

He has attempted to communicate with the minister responsible for native affairs, the Minister of Natural Resources and his member of this Legislature, the member for Algoma, without success. We confirmed this morning that he has made approximately one dozen calls to the member for Algoma and his concerns have yet to be dealt with. One member of his staff accepted a call from Mr Nyman over a week ago, but has yet to respond.

The minister and this House must realize that a potentially unpleasant situation is developing along the north channel. This situation can be defused by the minister communicating with the parties involved. The minister must do whatever he can do to foster a better understanding and greater co-operation before this situation gets out of hand.

MEALS ON WHEELS

Mr Turnbull: As my colleague from across the floor has already pointed out, September 22 to 28 has been proclaimed Meals on Wheels Week across Ontario. During this special week we are reminded of the thousands of elderly, convalescent and handicapped people who rely on hot and nutritious meals delivered daily to their homes by many dedicated volunteers. Without this service, many of the recipients would not be able to stay in their homes alone but would need to move into institutions. This would place an extra demand on our already overcrowded care facilities.

Meals on Wheels has been operating in this province for almost 30 years. Based on current statistics, in one year in Ontario 43,000 volunteers delivered over two million meals to 66,000 recipients. We are all aware that the numbers of seniors in our communities will continue to grow in the years ahead and the provision of adequate and appropriate home support service such as Meals on Wheels will become increasingly vital to our society.

Meals on Wheels Week is a time to acknowledge the contribution of many volunteers who make this regular commitment to helping others less fortunate than themselves. Without the time, energy and caring of these thousands of volunteers, it would be impossible to provide Meals on Wheels and many other equivalent important programs. They deserve our appreciation and thanks. Yesterday I rode with those people and helped deliver to houses, and it is indeed a wonderful service that seniors can do to help other seniors.

PURCHASE OF HYDRO PLANT

Mr Wood: It gives me great pleasure and a sense of satisfaction to know that the workers at Spruce Falls ratified on September 7, 1991, the new employee Tembec 60-40 ownership plan by a vote of 87%. The Premier and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and I spent many hours and days consulting with the former owners of the business, Ontario Hydro, labour and municipalities to reach this agreement, which will save up to 800 jobs in Kapuskasing and surrounding areas.

The deal provides money for modernization of the mill, which will provide for the economic stability of the region for the future and create 150 construction jobs. This historic agreement is an example of how the government is listening to the people of the north in providing creative, workable solutions to the problems we face. By working co-operatively with all the stakeholders, I know our government will continue to listen to all the interests and carry on the strong, decisive leadership that it has shown in the past for future economic renewal in the north.

MEALS ON WHEELS

Mrs Fawcett: As has already been mentioned by two of my colleagues, we are grateful to the Meals on Wheels program in Ontario. This community program provides any individual who would otherwise do without with a nutritious, well-prepared meal and a valuable social contact. In my riding of Northumberland, for instance, these meals are delivered by volunteers who are seniors. Great pride is taken in helping those less fortunate than themselves. Their contribution is both meaningful and appreciated. This program is co-ordinated through organizations such as Cobourg and District Senior Services, Brighton Meal on Wheels, Port Hope Red Cross and Campbellford and Colborne Community Care.

Recently I have noticed TV ads promoting the Ontario Lottery Corp and the community support programs to which they provide funding. One ad shows a person receiving a meal from a Meals on Wheels volunteer. Meals on Wheels is funded in part by the Ontario Lottery Corp through the Trillium Foundation.

This foundation provided Meals on Wheels with $34,500 for the fiscal year 1990-91. However, in that same year the Ontario Lottery Corp spent $187,400 in the production of this particular ad. That figure does not even include the cost of airing the ad. It is a colossal mismanagement of taxpayers' funds to pay five times more money to promote a grant than the actual amount of the grant. This government must look at integrating Meals on Wheels with its long-term care proposal.

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

Mr J. Wilson: The Coalition of Unregulated Practitioners, an organization encompassing thousands of unregulated practitioners, is extremely concerned with the regulated health professions legislation. The concern centres around what is known as the diagnosis clause.

Under this government's legislation, it will soon become a serious criminal offence, with a jail term or a fine of $25,000, for anyone except medical doctors, psychologists and a few other regulated health professionals to communicate a diagnosis identifying a disease or a disorder.

As Canon Bob Cuyler of the Coalition of Churches pointed out at the press conference here this morning, "Often when a responsible pastoral counsellor, social worker, chaplain, parole officer, etc, gives an answer to the question 'What is wrong with me?' the answer involves identifying a disorder as the cause of symptoms."

It is more than just a little ironic that just over a year ago the NDP was sponsoring the coalition's press conferences, and now the coalition complains that it cannot even get the ear of the minister and that it has not entered into meaningful dialogue with this government.

The Minister of Health believes that the courts will rule in favour of unregulated professionals. This matter should not have to go to the courts. Unregulated professionals should not have to spend exorbitant amounts of money in our court system to correct this government's mistakes. Passing a piece of legislation riddled with holes does not and should not fall under the Minister of Health's job description. I would like the minister to bring forward amendments to correct these injustices.

FALL FAIRS

Mr Sutherland: As we are all aware, this has been a tough year on the agricultural sector and on many rural communities, but I rise today to give credit to the many wonderful volunteers who work for agricultural societies in our province and who of course are the main sponsors of many of the fall fairs.

As we know, fall fairs instil a great sense of community pride as they have the people come together, both the many volunteers who help organize them and the many people who participate in the many events, whether it is displaying the products they produce, garden produce or corn, or the many calf- and cattle-showing displays that occur at fall fairs. They give many people in small communities, particularly rural communities, a great sense of community pride.

I want to encourage all those members who have not attended one yet -- I am sure most have -- to try to get out to some of the few that still have not occurred, and I extend congratulations to those many dedicated people in agricultural societies across this province and the many in my own riding who have provided so much entertainment and sense of community for so many years.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

POLLUTION CONTROL

Hon Mrs Grier: Today I would like to bring the Legislature up to date on the latest developments in the province's water protection program.

I am pleased to announce that the Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement: Issues Resolution Process -- Final Report is now available from the Ministry of the Environment. This report establishes the principles of our program to prevent and control industrial discharges into our waterways. We will now use these principles to move into the most important stage of the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program. In consultation with industry, environmental groups and others, my ministry will establish regulations to limit industrial discharges into Ontario's water.

For the last several months, ministry staff and I have been evaluating the MISA program, where it is working and where improvements are needed. We want to ensure that MISA: (1) reflects the government's environmental priorities and aligns with other environmental initiatives; (2) contributes to significant reductions in total chemical loadings on the environment; (3) promotes behaviour compatible with environmental values such as conservation, stewardship and efficiency; (4) contributes to the government's priority of economic renewal and the greening of industry.

As with all our programs, consultation has been central to the establishment of procedures and criteria to be used for MISA regulation development. During the past two years, ministry staff have reviewed submissions from a wide range of interested parties, including municipalities, environmental groups, industry and academia.

The report I am tabling today incorporates our decisions on these submissions and sets out the pollution prevention and control measures we will take to achieve the goal of virtual elimination of specific persistent toxic contaminants from discharges to Ontario waterways.

We will: (1) set effluent limits for a list of sector-specific contaminants; (2) prohibit effluent which kills fish; (3) establish a zero-discharge list of specific persistent toxic substances; (4) require industry to establish reduction targets for other toxic contaminants which although not targeted for elimination, need to be reduced to the lowest possible levels.

In the first phase of the MISA program, monitoring regulations were designed for nine industrial sectors encompassing more than 300 direct discharging industries. The monitoring for all nine sectors was completed in August 1991. The results of 12 months of monitoring for the petroleum sector were released in July 1990, and the six-month monitoring results for the pulp and paper sector were released in February 1991.

I am also releasing today the results of the second six months of monitoring in the pulp and paper sector and the 12-month monitoring report from the iron and steel sector. We anticipate that the results from the remaining five sectors will be released by the end of this year.

The findings of the monitoring phase confirmed the need for a review of the MISA program principles. In the Issues Resolution Process document, we have resolved 16 outstanding issues. These solutions will serve as the framework for developing limits regulations under MISA. While most of these issues are highly technical, we intend to incorporate three overriding principles which signal a significant shift in policy for the Ministry of the Environment.

This government is committed to:

1. Pollution prevention: This means we must focus industry's energy on getting things right at the beginning instead of attempting to fix them at the end. End-of-pipe solutions have, by and large, only resulted in increasingly onerous burdens on the public purse for cleanup dollars.

Prevention means that industry must overcome its reliance on end-of-pipe technology, introduce closed-loop systems within plants to prevent the discharge of contaminants into the environment, substitute raw materials to avoid the generation of harmful byproducts or waste, and introduce process changes and redesign products to minimize the amount and degree of hazard in the waste stream.

2. Stopping the transfer of pollutants from one environmental medium to another: We recognize that we live in a closed ecosystem in which activity in one environmental medium can influence quality in another. For example, water pollution is caused not only by direct discharges, but also indirectly when airborne contaminants, such as acid rain, fall in our lakes and rivers or when leaking industrial landfills and the spreading of toxic sludge affect our groundwater reservoirs.

3. The third principle is zero discharge of specific persistent toxic chemicals. As part of our pollution prevention strategy, we are adopting a zero-discharge approach to achieve the virtual elimination of the most persistent toxic contaminants. This means we are developing a list of specific persistent toxic chemicals to be banned from the discharges of all facilities regulated by the MISA program. The revised MISA will contain the requirement that the effluent must be non-toxic to fish.

I am pleased to say that we are improving the MISA program in a manner consistent with our overall environmental policy and with our commitment to involve all stakeholders -- business, industry, labour, environmental groups and the general public -- in developing strong, consistent and meaningful environmental regulations.

We are now entering the phase where, based upon the

definitions in our Issues Resolution Process document, we will consult with all affected parties to design regulations on an industrial sector-by-sector basis that prevent and limit discharges. Our initial focus is on the more than 300 direct discharging industries, with the municipal sector to follow.

We are hopeful that by the spring of 1992 we will have draft regulations for several industrial sectors available for broad public review. We look forward to co-operation from all members of society as we move to prevent further toxic contamination in Ontario's waterways.

This government believes that environmental health and economic health go hand in hand. An effective MISA program will not only protect Ontario's waterways for all who depend on them, but it will also stimulate economic growth in the pollution prevention business and keep our industries competitive. Our waterways are a precious resource which must be preserved for our children and future generations. This next stage of MISA, with its shift in direction towards pollution prevention, will help ensure that we leave to them a legacy we can be proud of.

TVONTARIO

Hon Mrs Haslam: In May, the government instructed the Provincial Auditor to undertake a special audit of the Ontario Educational Communications Authority, TVOntario.

Today I have received a copy of this audit. It is now being reviewed to ensure that it meets Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act requirements. Following that review, I will make the audit available immediately to my colleagues the member for Etobicoke-Humber and the member for Mississauga South. It will also be available to any others upon request.

TVO is an important cultural institution in Ontario. Its health and effectiveness is of utmost importance to this government. TVO is an integral part of the province's educational system and furthers the development of Canadian culture.

My officials and I will be reviewing this report in the coming days. I intend to come back to this House after a thorough review of the report and outline what steps TVO and my ministry will undertake to address this audit.

I want to take this opportunity to reiterate this government's unequivocal support of TVO, its mandate and programming. We value the institution and believe it is important to the people of Ontario.

RESPONSES

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mrs Sullivan: I am pleased to respond to the statement from the Minister of the Environment relating to the MISA program. The unfortunate thing about this statement is that it is approximately one year behind when it should have been made, and I suggest it is one year behind because the minister has become the minister of garbage and has left the key issues of water pollution control behind.

In doing that, she has created uncertainty in industrial and municipal sectors. Capital investment programs have been postponed or set aside while the minister has fiddled and faddled with words on these whole issues.

Last November, regulations for the petroleum refining sector should have been in place. They are not here. This fall, regulations for the pulp and paper sector should have been in place. They are not here. Where are these things in her announcement and when can we expect them?

In her postponement of decisions on these issues, I want to ask the minister, how many tons of toxic pollutants have been poured into Ontario waterways while the minister has sat on her butt? In opposition, the minister said the process must be speeded up. What we have seen from her is a little change from the Mackenzie King routine of postpone, postpone, abstain; we have seen postpone, postpone, postpone.

Where are the process changes she will require? What process changes will she require? What is her timetable? What will be her consultative process? Who has she talked to, other than her own bureaucrats, on these issues?

I suggest that there has been no formal review process since that which was established by the previous Minister of the Environment, which ended in June 1990. There has been no formal change in terms of consultation on these issues since this minister came into office.

If the minister's real aim is pollution prevention, where is her list of banned chemicals? There was a distinct promise from the Premier of Ontario about organochlorines from the pulp and paper sector. There is no mention here of that matter. Surely to goodness that could have been identified in this statement today.

Without action, what we are seeing from this minister is a minister who is stealing language from the environmentalists for headlines only, and no action. Where is the emphasis on bioaccumulation? We have not seen that. The minister talks about pollution prevention.

There is nothing here, and she is far too late in terms of dealing with these issues, in coming to terms with an appropriate consultative process and in getting things done.

TVONTARIO

Mr Bradley: I have read the statement of the Minister of Culture and Communications, and it is a non-statement, so we will not have any response to it.

Mrs Marland: I am responding to the statement from the Minister of Culture and Communications. I appreciate the promptness with which she has brought her information to the House today and that she is going to share immediately the report of the auditor. Obviously this is a very serious matter to all members of this House and I appreciate the fact that the minister understands that. I appreciate her co-operation.

I think it is very important that although this question hangs over TVOntario, based on the information that was given to an all-party legislative committee in a public forum, apart from what will be available through the auditor's report, the future of TVOntario is very important to the people of this province. This television programming provides an excellent and unique service to the people of this province and it is very necessary as an educational service. Frankly it needs our support to survive this present crisis of confidence so that it can conti