THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)
Resuming the debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.
Mr. MacQuarrie: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned for the supper recess -- I guess some call it dinner -- I was dealing with the fact the government has given notice through the throne speech that the commitment of resources to the construction and expansion of facilities in higher education will be related to the programs that best serve the interests of the province. I pointed to the program at Waterloo, the Institute of Computer Research, as being indicative of the type of program the government has in mind.
I urged the government to fund and support exchange and fellowship programs between business and universities, and to establish special scholarships and aid programs in disciplines of special importance to the province. Since these programs operate to the benefit of not only the province but also the universities and the business community, I can see no reason we cannot expect their full co-operation, participation and possibly even some financial assistance, particularly from business.
The throne speech spoke of an economic and industrial transformation, of changes that present us in Ontario with a set of economic, social and technological challenges that will dominate our public policy agenda for many years to come.
I focused on how we might best meet the technological challenge facing us today, and on the policies and programs that would permit us to guarantee that change in this province will be change for the better.
Mr. Conway: Come on; turn it up and turn it on.
Mr. MacQuarrie: I am about to; just wait.
The policies and programs of this government will help foster the development of the knowledge-intensive industries that I am convinced will play a central role in determining whether the remainder of this century will be a period of growth or decline for this province.
I have attempted to indicate those areas in which I believe our efforts might be expanded or consolidated. I have advanced these suggestions in the belief that their adoption would help us to respond more effectively and quickly to the forces of change which are reshaping our world.
The people of this province have never been afraid of change and have always had the intelligence, imagination and courage to exploit the new opportunities which change brings. I have every confidence they will continue to do so in the future.
Mr. Conway: Now I feel better. That is for the record.
Mr. MacQuarrie: I was not in the House last Monday afternoon. I had an opportunity on Tuesday morning to read the Instant Hansard and in it I found that a member of the opposition suffered from some sort of complex. I am not a physician so I am in no position to diagnose the exact nature of the complex, but in any event it gave some credence to the maxim, "There is no law which can prevent a man from making a fool of himself."
The member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and I represent adjoining constituencies. We were both elected in the election of 1981. Shortly following that election, I had an opportunity to discuss matters with the member and in the course of that discussion suggested that when problems affected a number of communities, where the boundary between our respective constituencies literally went through the middle of the community, maybe we should work together to sort things out.
Unfortunately, that never really came about. As it turns out, I find in my constituency office approximately 10 per cent of the calls come from the adjacent constituency. Contrary to what was suggested, if I have been in that constituency five times since the election, that would be an exaggeration; it is certainly fewer than five.
Mr. Conway: Some people down there remember the member as a Liberal.
Mr. MacQuarrie: Those were in the bad days. The best missionary the Conservatives ever had was a gentleman by the name of Trudeau.
In any event, I find myself in the situation where a considerable number of municipalities with school boards having jurisdiction in a portion of Prescott-Russell frequently have occasion to consult me about their problems. They seem to have some peculiar reluctance about consulting the member for Prescott-Russell. I do not know why, but I can guess.
8:1O p.m.
I am sorry the member is not here tonight. I could go on at considerable length, but I will not really dignify the hour-long remarks made the other day with a response. I tried to put things in perspective from the point of view of our adjacent ridings and the friendly relationship that should exist between them but really does not, and this disturbs me.
What also particularly disturbed me in all of this was a need for a school in a community that is very much a part of my constituency. When letters to the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) over the hand of that particular member appear in a weekly bulletin published in the community, it really strikes me, having had some experience in public life at another level, as being the wrong way to go about things.
There is an old saying that a kicked dog does not hunt.
Mr. Conway: What? A kicked dog does not hunt?
Mr. MacQuarrie: Right. Consequently, I think letters of that nature are not really appropriate to be published at approximately the same time or within a short time of their having been sent to the ministry. I indicated this in a letter I wrote, to which the member referred at some length, and I am still firmly convinced my position on the matter was correct. I think the letter I wrote was an excellent letter in every respect; I make no apologies whatsoever for it.
That concludes everything I have to say.
Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to reply to the throne speech. I must say I was very disappointed to find there was very little in the speech to encourage our Ontario farmers, who are currently at a very low ebb.
The speech talked about getting an advisory body to advise the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell). Surely it is not more advice the minister needs, it is action. The farmers and farm organizations have been giving the minister lots of good advice over the last couple of years, but I guess he has not been listening or does not understand; maybe a little of both.
The Ontario farmer is being squeezed far more than any other farmer in Canada and, in fact, in the greater part of the world. I consider Ontario farmers to be the best in the world as far as their efficiency and use of modern technology is concerned. This has not helped them to receive financial benefits. Their efficiency is such that they can compete with all other farmers throughout the world, but they cannot compete against the treasuries of governments of other provinces in Canada and other countries of the world.
I am not in favour of subsidies but if this is the game the other provinces and other countries are going to play, then we must join in or lose our Ontario agriculture at the expense of Ontario farmers, at the expense of losing jobs -- because one out of every five in Ontario is related to agriculture -- and also at the expense of the consumer, who may get cheaper imports for a while, but wait until we lose our industry and we are at the mercy of other provinces or countries for our food, Mr. Speaker, and watch the price rise.
We must not forget that some countries in the world spend 40 to 50 per cent of their income on food; in Canada it is somewhere between 16 and 18 per cent. If this government does not give our farmers the same protection now as other governments in other provinces and other countries are giving their farmers, it will be to our peril.
Farm bankruptcies in Ontario have outstripped those in all other provinces in the last two years. The beginning farmer assistance program covers only farmers who started since January 1, 1983. What about the young farmers who started in 1980, 1981 and 1982? The Ontario farm adjustment assistance program covers only those with less than 60 per cent equity. If the business is losing money, what does "equity" mean? Equity in one's farm is the factory; he cannot get it unless he sells his farm. If he sells his factory, he is out of business.
All farmers in Ontario need assistance such as all farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Quebec and Alberta are getting. All farmers in the United States are getting assistance. The US government last year paid its farmers $19 billion in assistance. That amount equalled the US farmers' net income. In other words, their net income was provided by the government. Who provides Ontario farmers with money to compete? Nobody, and they are going down fast.
If the farmer has to borrow money to live on each year, he is not going to last too long. The minister says he cannot give the Ontario beef and hog farmers assistance because it would jeopardize the proposed tripartite stabilization program. Why would it jeopardize the tripartite stabilization program if Ontario gave assistance to its farmers when Manitoba and Saskatchewan, who are supposed to be joining the plan, are subsidizing their red meat producers? Can the minister not see other provinces have us at a disadvantage? As long as they have us at a disadvantage, they will be in no hurry to move in on a tripartite stabilization plan.
Of course, we have surpluses. This is our problem. Some producers will have to liquidate. But why should the bulk of them be in Ontario? We would not mind losing our share of farmers but Ontario is losing Canada's share, because Ontario farmers are not getting the support other provinces get. If the minister would move to support the red meat industry in Ontario and put our farmers on an equal footing with the farmers in other provinces, he would find the tripartite stabilization program would move much faster because it would then be to every government's advantage.
It is to the advantage of only the Ontario government to move on the tripartite stabilization program now, because it is the only province where farmers are bleeding badly. Let us wake up and protect ourselves while we have something left to protect. The farmers in the European Economic Community are producing their heads off and getting paid handsomely for doing it. Maybe you noticed, Mr. Speaker, on the Journal last week there were interviews with British and French farmers. One cash crop farmer in Britain who farmed 3,000 acres netted half a million dollars last year. He said it was crazy, he did not need that kind of money, but then he asked, "Why should I complain if the government wants to pay it?"
In France, the poundage of butter in storage equals the weight of all the people in France. The minister and others will tell us the European common market is going broke. Quebec is going broke. The US is going broke, and it will have to cut back, and is cutting back, on its highly subsidized farm payments. It is true it is cutting back on subsidizing farmers.
Now the Ontario farmer is caught again. The farmers in other provinces and countries have been treated so well they have their farm operations in good shape. They have their buildings in good repair and their machinery is up to date. Quebec gave up to $40,000 to farmers in a grant to build new feedlots over the last several years. That is only one example. Farmers in other provinces and countries are now in a position to carry on if their subsidization is reduced. Ontario farmers never had the help.
It may have been a bit of a burden on governments but it saved their agricultural industry at the expense of their taxpayers; and at the expense of Ontario farmers who are now going out of business to leave room for the surpluses from other provinces and countries. The Minister of Agriculture and Food is going to have to take immediate steps to save as much of the agricultural industry in Ontario as he can. We must get back to some of the good stabilization programs we used to have. I will give the members some examples.
1. A 25-year, long-term mortgage loan at eight per cent.
2. A capital grants program where there is a grant of up to 40 per cent of capital costs with a maximum limit. An up-to-date limit could be $20,000.
3. Tile drainage loans covering 75 per cent of the cost at eight per cent interest.
4. Subsidization on lime, which allows acid soils to make better use of fertilizers.
5. A revised crop insurance that will not penalize a farmer who has a good field by cancelling out another poor field two miles down the road.
6. Having Ontario Hydro pay, instead of making the farmers pay, for the filters needed to correct the system which causes tingle voltage, instead of making the farmers pay.
7. Changing the young farmers' program to assist young farmers who have started farming since January 1980, instead of just those who have started since January 1983.
8:20 p.m.
These are only a few things that could go a long way towards stabilizing the farming industry. A lot of my suggestions have been tried and have worked in the years gone by. Why, when we get something working, do we try to fix it? Let us go back and pick up some of those good programs to help stabilize our industry in the years to come. They have done it in the years gone by and they can do it again.
While the minister is implementing the suggestions I just made, he should also make a payout to the red meat sector for shipments made during 1983. This payout must be done now because we have let the situation become too serious for long-term policies only.
I never mentioned preserving agricultural land. When we are in the midst of surplus production, it seems less important to mention the preservation of farm land, but it is important for at least two reasons that come to mind.
First, it is important because only about five per cent of our land in Ontario is good for agriculture. Agriculture should not be allowed to decrease in size in Ontario. It is too important an industry to our small towns and villages and to the province as a whole. As I mentioned before, one out of five jobs in Ontario is related to agriculture. Our Canadian exports are largely agricultural products.
There is one other reason we should preserve our good farm land. If industry was not allowed to build on good farm land near the large cities, it would be pushed back into the small towns and villages of Ontario. Even though agriculture is very important to our rural towns and villages, they could also use some other industry to help maintain a good life and hold our children in our own communities after they leave school. As long as we allow industry to build on choice farm land near the cities, our chances of getting more industry will decrease.
We are fortunate in Grey riding. Although we are predominantly rural, with 26 municipalities, 13 townships and 13 small towns and villages, we have great diversity.
Agriculture is diversified in itself, with dairy, beef, hogs, chickens, turkeys, sheep, apples and other fruit, honey and maple syrup. These all play an important part.
Our tourism industry continues to grow with many establishments such as Blue Mountain Resorts in Collingwood and Talisman Resort in Beaver Valley. They provide excellent skiing in the winter and their swimming pools and slide rides provide year-round recreation and relaxation.
Most of our towns and villages are supplying some other industry to help hold up our employment situation and keep our children at home. The recent closings of the Knechtel Furniture Ltd. factory in Hanover and the Canada Packers Inc. ice cream plant in Harriston were a blow to these communities. For these reasons, we need to encourage industry to our area. But as I have mentioned before, that is hard to do as long as we let industry build on our choice farm land near the large cities.
I also feel we should have an Ontario Development Corp. representative in our area to take care of applications for assistance to industry and tourism. At present interested applicants must go to Kitchener. I have talked about the possibility of having an ODC rep in our area for several years now. The minister tells me there are enough ODC tourism applications in our area for half a man and enough ODC industrial applications for half a man. The minister feels separate men should handle these two different areas of business. I feel one man could easily do both jobs because business is business whether it is tourism or industrial. Applications for ODC assistance cannot be that much different.
There are some programs available for our area through the ODC for tourism and industry. The best program is probably the availability of interest-free loans for a portion of one's capital startup costs or expansion.
There has been an industry representative for industry and trade in our area for some years, but he was never given the power to handle ODC applications. Unfortunately, the government does not seem to understand one man can handle more than one job. I have different kinds of work on the farm. If I had to hire one man for each job, I would be as far in debt as the government is. The government could very well have an ODC man in our area who could spend half his time on tourism and half his time on industry.
I have just covered a couple of things I feel are very important. I hope in the budget speech in a few weeks we will get more encouragement than we have had from the speech from the throne.
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne was a speech women could call a nonspeech. In the speech from the throne the government boasts of its "determination to advance the just interests and rights of women in our programs generally and in the community at large." Where are the specific measures to implement this determination, or is rhetoric the main ingredient of the speech from the throne?
The speech categorically rejects equal pay for work of equal value and mandatory affirmative action, both of which are essential to advance the just interests and rights of women. Almost 95 per cent of the groups appearing before the resources development committee in January 1984 on the subject of Bill 141, which amended the Employment Standards Act regarding equal pay, agreed that the amendments in Bill 141 did not guarantee equal pay for work of equal value.
The speech promises no change in the bill's ineffective amendments to the equal pay section of the Employment Standards Act. The government still seems to think that 245 voluntary affirmative action programs in the whole province represent progress towards affirmative action when there are about 53,000 firms in Ontario with 20 or more employees still without such programs.
In fact, all the government proposes in the speech is to give leadership to crown agencies, municipalities and school boards in setting up effective affirmative action programs.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Would you ask the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) to stop interrupting that conversation over there?
Ms. Bryden: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Good point.
Ms. Bryden: The government's own record on affirmative action in the public service is not very impressive since women make only 76 per cent of what men make in the public service. What sort of role model will the government be for other parts of the public sector? At present only 29 per cent of the administrative jobs in the public service are held by women despite the fact that women make up 42 per cent of the public service.
8:30 p.m.
Without mandatory affirmative action, how is the government going to persuade Hydro, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, all the municipalities and school boards throughout the province to bring in affirmative action programs?
At the present time only 18 out of 62 school boards have such programs. The liquor control board figures are very shocking. Only three per cent of the women are employed in management, while 36 per cent of the men are employed in management. Of the permanent employees of the liquor board, about five per cent are women; it is somewhat better among part-time employees -- about 45 per cent -- but they tend to end up with the low-paying jobs even among part-timers.
What sort of role model is the government going to give to these government agencies, which for lo these many years have been continuing to discriminate against women? Last week the Minister responsible for Women's Issues (Mr. Welch) spoke about affirmative action to a conference called by a number of organizations connected with teachers and trustees on school boards. The minister came out four-square in saying "affirmative action is crucial" -- and he underlined "is" -- "to equal opportunity for women," but then he went on to stop short of mandatory affirmative action.
He said: "The point I am making is that, like the government, the educational system is a role model, a crucial one in which our children spend over 30 hours every week. What better place to demonstrate equal opportunity than in the schools and the classrooms?
"We must remember that school boards are publicly funded. Ontarians are a just and patient people. They bestow the privilege of considerable autonomy upon their public agencies, but in return they expect evidence of a responsible stewardship. The people of Ontario expect results." "Results" is underlined.
"Affirmative action programs make good business sense. Good management develops and utilizes all" -- and he underlined "all" -- "the talent available and produces positive results for students and teachers alike."
It seems to me the minister has made the case admirably for mandatory affirmative action because he said it is so very important and that school boards are publicly funded and should be leading the way. But we have had voluntary affirmative action for eight years in this province and only 18 out of 62 school boards have affirmative action programs. I think the record speaks for itself. It is time the minister stopped trying to kid the people of Ontario that the voluntary approach is working.
Most of the other references to women in the throne speech are nonpromises. Instead of action to meet immediate needs, the government proposes to review "access to and the quality of child care in Ontario." Instead of a thorough overhaul of the flawed Family Law Reform Act, the government proposes to review "the definition of family property." It is supposed to have been reviewing this for the last 15 months, according to a statement in the House in December 1982.
Instead of proposals for tougher new laws on family maintenance orders, the government simply says "a strict enforcement of family maintenance orders will be instituted." This is at least an admission of weak enforcement in the past. There are estimated to be $42 million worth of maintenance orders for spouses and children not being paid in this province. That is the amount of uncollected maintenance payments. This affects something like 40,000 spouses and an unnumbered count of children.
When we asked for up-to-date statistics -- the $42 million being one year old -- we were told that the government was no longer keeping statistics on the unpaid and uncollected maintenance orders. How are they going to change that picture? How are they going to make stricter enforcement? They have not told us yet.
In the throne speech the government now recognizes that battered wives are "an intolerable social problem." However, it makes no concrete promises to implement the many untouched recommendations in the 1982 report on wife battering by the Legislature's social development committee.
Hon. Mr. Walker: Nonsense. The member has seen the new formula.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Ms. Bryden: The speech simply says, "Funding will be increased for transition houses and the northern family resource centres and associated services to encourage greater community involvement in addressing this intolerable social problem." Does this mean adequate funding for interval houses or a continuation of throwing much of the burden on local government and dedicated women volunteers? Does it mean funds will be made available for more than room and board? For example, interval houses need funds for counselling services, for rehabilitation and resettlement services for women who may have to leave their homes permanently.
Hon. Mr. Walker: Was that not included?
Ms. Bryden: No. There has been nothing specific on that.
They need funds for municipal and community outreach and education to let the victims know what services are available and to get at the causes of wife battering. They need funds in the community to deal with wife batterers -- what causes them to engage in that kind of activity?
We are left in the dark on exactly what the government is going to do in that field. They have not accepted the recommendation of the legislative committee for block grants, which is the only way to free interval houses from dependence on the decision of municipalities on what services will be funded.
The government also announced in the throne speech that it is now prepared to include in the civil service part-timers who work on a regular basis, but it should clarify what is being promised. Is the government considering the full range of benefits, including pensions, group life insurance, dental, extended health, long-term income protection, vacation credits, statutory holidays, maternity and adoption leaves and severance pay, etc.? Or do the vague words "to provide wider access to improved rights and benefits" mean that part-timers will get pay and benefits proportionate to what is received by full-time civil servants? Or are they simply weasel words that allow the government to get credit for some extension of rights and benefits but to continue discriminating against part-timers?
8:40 p.m.
Actually, the background paper to the throne speech produced by the women's directorate indicated this initiative would cover approximately 7,000 part-time workers, of whom 75 per cent were women, but would not include seasonal staff. After questioning those figures, we now find that only about 3,000 to 3,400 workers will be covered, according to the Civil Service Commission. The government actually employs 12,644 unclassified staff. Only about one quarter of the unclassified staff is covered by this initiative. It is as yet unclear how far it goes.
The publication of those misleading figures resulted in laudatory editorials in both the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star about the government moving to look after part-time workers on the regular staff. It should make an apology to those papers for misleading them into thinking the initiative involved anything like 7,000 workers.
What is needed is to bring all part-time regular workers fully under the Employment Standards Act. We should recognize that with part-time work likely to become more important as a result of the technological revolution and computerization, we need a charter of rights for part-time workers. There are about 700,000 in Ontario today, and about 71 per cent are women. The step in the throne speech is a faltering mini-step, not a giant step to end the exploitation of part-timers in this province.
That is my summation of what is in the throne speech for women, but there are some other subjects I want to deal with that affect women or groups of women. One is the question of the government's treatment of one of the most exploited groups of women in this province. I refer to domestic workers who live in.
In 1981, the government finally yielded to pressure from New Democratic Party members and many other people concerned about the plight of these workers. It brought in the domestic workers regulation under the Employment Standards Act which guaranteed them a $3 minimum wage, which was 50 cents below the minimum wage for other workers. It also provided for 36 consecutive hours off per week. It did not extend the other sections of the Employment Standards Act to them, and it did not bring in any limitation of hours or overtime.
Under the present regulations, these workers can be called on to work or be on call for 120 hours a week. It was 132 hours before they subtracted another 12 hours in March 1984. For employers who take advantage of this gap in the law, it could mean an effective pay rate of not much more than $1 an hour.
The changes brought in during March 1984 are the government's only response to much lobbying over the past three years by groups of domestic workers, by people supporting them and by members of this party. The minimal changes were to give the domestics the same 35-cent increase in the minimum wage that other workers got but to keep the 50-cent disparity between the minimum wage for them and for other workers.
It looked as if the government was catching up with the 20th century and giving them a five-day week when it increased the time off to 48 hours. But we find it is still not 48 consecutive hours; it is simply adding 12 hours which the employer may give at any other time of the week. So they are not yet into the 20th century, where most people get at least two days off a week.
Equally shocking and discriminatory is the refusal of the government to impose any limit on total hours of work or to provide for any form of overtime pay. As I said, they may still be on call or at work for 120 hours a week.
The government is showing its biases in this legislation. A recent study showed that 75 per cent of those who employ domestic live-in workers have incomes of more than $35,000. This study, which was done by a federal task force, said that raising the minimum wage would be unlikely to have a significant effect on demand. The government is simply favouring well-off employers of domestic workers, and the workers are in effect being asked to subsidize these employers.
It is a heartless and unfeeling government that would permit a group of employees who have little protection against exploitation and little possibility of forming a union to be exploited in this way. For the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) to suggest, as he did in the debate last December on Bill 141, that they are covered by the equal pay section of the Employment Standards Act is really ludicrous. How can one compare a live-in domestic worker with a male employee doing substantially the same work in the same establishment? There are virtually no such cases.
Intercede, the International Coalition to End Domestic Exploitation, supports the claims of domestic workers for fair treatment. In a recent brief to the government of Ontario, it said, "Nearly three years have now transpired since that first step was taken" -- that is, to extend any laws to cover domestic workers -- "and Intercede wishes to underscore the fact that domestic workers (all classifications, including babysitters and companions) are still among the most exploited and underprotected workers in the province of Ontario."
In addition to bringing domestic workers fully under the Employment Standards Act, the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act and the Labour Relations Act must also be fully extended to them. In addition, domestic workers who work part-time should get comparable benefits proportionate to the number of hours worked. At present, they are not covered by the minimum wage.
That is another area where the government has not shown leadership. In fact, it has shown the opposite and is favouring a well-off section of society against a very deprived section.
Another area I wish to deal with is the question of day care. In 1931, the government of Ontario promised to provide free and quality education for all children over the age of seven. In the 53 years that have passed, Ontario has taken pride in the quality of care her children receive. It is strange that ensuring universal and affordable care for preschool children should be such a battle, yet it is still a battle in this province.
8:50 p.m.
The facts show clearly that women are not going to disappear from the labour market. Female participation in the labour force is a financial necessity, and child care is a major factor in women's access to employment. Even in two-parent families, the myth that women work for extras has been exploded.
Of most crucial concern are the 43 per cent of all female-headed households that live in poverty. If we believe it is important for them to rise above their current situation, accessible child care for these single working parents is of first priority.
Despite what the government of Ontario may think, child care is an issue. More than 54 per cent of women with children six years of age and younger are in the work force, and the demand for universally accessible, publicly funded, not-for-profit, quality day care is not about to vanish.
The situation in Ontario today is that severe lack of funding and government inattention has led to long waiting lists for subsidized spaces. More than 1,000 children are on waiting lists in Metro Toronto alone. No significant expansion in day care has taken place to accommodate those who wait. In fact, government restraint and new regulations resulting in cuts in indirect subsidies to municipal day care centres have already led to the closing of two day care centres in Stratford and Val Rita, near Kapuskasing, while others in places like Smiths Falls teeter on the brink of closure.
Municipal day care centres used to be able to expect the provincial government to pay the share of operating expenses that could not be met through fees to parents. It helped keep child care costs down for everyone, but now the province is demanding that day care centres must means-test all parents. The province will cost-share for only those spaces occupied by children whose parents meet the criteria for assistance. All other parents will have to pay the full cost, and many working parents will be forced to withdraw their children as they simply cannot afford the fees.
The full fee structure will be completely phased in by 1986. By that time, fees in some centres will have risen from $9 a day to $25 a day, according to estimates made by students of day care. Certainly wages in this province are not climbing at the same rate. For poorer families the alternative to well-supervised and programmed child care centres is unlicensed day care or leaving the children with older relatives who have already borne the responsibility for raising a generation. For single mothers especially it may mean withdrawing from the work force and joining the welfare ranks.
Under the new setup, low- to middle-income parents, who are least able to afford full-fee day care, will be the ones most affected. In Toronto in 1982 these groups paid between 13.5 per cent and 23 per cent of their take-home pay for child care, but now only the very poor who meet subsidy criteria or the very well-off who benefit from income tax deductions, will be able to afford day care. Most working women will be forced into even further income disparity with working men because of the high cost of day care.
Affordable child care is one of the cornerstones of affirmative action to which the provincial government pays lipservice but seems determined to undermine.
We should not forget that the wages of child care workers, most of whom are women, are extremely low because child care centres attempt to keep fees for parents as low as possible. A child care worker with two years' formal training at a community college level earns, on average, only $10,000 annually. In Toronto, recreation instructors with the municipality and with two years' similar training earn between $24,000 and $27,000 a year. Nurses start at $22,000 with two years' training. The low wages for child care workers perpetuate job ghettos for women and result in high staff turnover. In turn, this results in poorer-quality child care.
The squeeze felt by nonprofit, charitable and locally run child care organizations is making room for multinational commercial corporations to move into Ontario. These US-based corporations compete by paying child care workers even lower wages than public nurseries do. They process children through day care like hamburgers through McDonald's. Profit, not the best possible care for children, is their motive.
In January 1984 the revised standards and guidelines under the Day Nurseries Act for the provision of child care came into effect. While we welcome the introduction of new and better standards for day care, no additional funding has been provided to implement the better standards. Parents will be facing higher fees as a consequence, and day care centres will be even further strapped for funds as they work to meet the new requirements.
The government must take these immediate steps to alleviate the financial and emotional stress that families in this province are now facing in providing quality child care to their children.
First, the government must expand the number of new subsidized spaces. The Ontario Coalition for Better Day Care estimates 10,000 new spaces are needed.
Second, the government should establish a task force or a legislative committee to conduct public hearings throughout the province to ensure the development of appropriate legislation and a comprehensive system of early childhood services in Ontario.
Third, the government should immediately provide a direct per-day, per-space subsidy of at least $5 to all nonprofit child care centres. The direct grant is of vital importance. It would be an initial step towards making day care more accessible since it will offset the operating cost. In some instances the direct grant could go towards reducing parents' fees and in others to raising salaries. In either case the immediate impact would be better-quality care for our children and more equitable access to the job market for women.
I want to discuss the impact of the microtechnological revolution on women. Since this revolution, which is as great as the industrial revolution of the past century, affects office workers, communications workers and workers in financial transactions, the threat to women's jobs is greater than for other workers because the vast majority of women are employed in occupations such as tellers, typists and telephone operators.
9 p.m.
However, there is no doubt that the technological revolution will affect all workers. It has been estimated that it could eliminate 500,000 jobs by the early 1990s and that it could raise unemployment to more than 20 per cent unless we plan for its development and its entry into Ontario and turn it to our benefit.
Because this problem is looming and not very much attention has been paid to it by government, the New Democratic Party set up a task force last fall to look into the potential impact of this revolution on workers of all kinds and to come up with recommendations on how to adapt to the revolution. We are not suggesting we should oppose the technological changes but that we should make them servants of the people rather than making the people servants of them.
The task force spent six months travelling around the province visiting major centres such as Ottawa, Thunder Bay, Windsor, Sudbury and other centres. In Sudbury, the task force went down a mine to see what new technology was doing to employment in mines. We discovered a mine in Sudbury that had been closed had been reopened. It had been employing about 800 workers and was now back to 200 workers on an experimental basis with some new high- technology drilling and other machinery which was greatly increasing productivity. It looked like a way of creating new jobs and getting new productivity out of mines that had been closed.
The task force also met with academics, labour and management, community workers and social workers at round tables in the various centres it visited to find out how much awareness there was of the problems and what sort of solutions were being suggested. After this consultation, it produced a report that came out at the end of March on the subject of Work, People and Technological Change. The report recommends a comprehensive program to shorten working hours, make training a part of every job and give workers a major role in work-place decisions.
That seems to be one of the major elements lacking in present plans to adapt to technological change. The task force said not only should workers be notified about potential changes well in advance, but also they should be involved in planning adjustment to them. More is needed than simply adjustment in the work place affected. What is needed is a redistribution of the benefits of the new productivity and the new efficiency from the technological change, so those who are displaced by the changes will be provided with opportunities to retrain and enter into the new areas where jobs are being created.
For women in particular the task force noted that the problems of adjustment to technological change are compounded by the continued existence of systemic discrimination and sex stereotyping in the work place and in society. They noted there are special problems for women in retraining, linked to their lack of education in science and mathematics. They noted there is a real danger that women now working will be passed over by the electronics revolution and replaced by younger workers with more appropriate education and training.
They also warned of the danger that women will lose everything they have gained in the battle for an equal place in the work force as a result of the technological revolution's changes and displacements and, therefore, special positive measures must be taken to prevent women being the main losers.
They could find themselves segregated again in low-paid, deskilled jobs simply pushing buttons. Even worse, they could find themselves back in the home with a terminal installed beside the kitchen stove, with their child care problems solved but with no regulation of standards and complete isolation in the job. This is the sort of scenario we want to avoid. It can be avoided only if we fully involve workers, management and the government in planning for technological change to make sure all workers and all potential workers benefit from it.
The task force recommends that we should work towards a lower work week. The present work week in the law is 48 hours a week, with overtime paid after 44 hours, but the average work week is now about 38 hours.
It has been estimated that if we immediately reduced the hours from 38 to 30 a week, there would be an increase of 875,000 jobs. Obviously, we cannot do it overnight and at the same time maintain take-home pay, but we can do it gradually and use the increase in productivity to ensure there is no reduction in real income. Our objective is to get down to 32 hours some time after 1990.
That is one of the major recommendations. That would affect a lot of women as well.
Another recommendation of the task force that affects women in particular calls for legislation to regulate daily work hours spent at a video display terminal, It suggests that work at a terminal should be combined with other responsibilities to reduce exposure to possible health risks and to avoid isolating operators in VDT job ghettos.
There is no legislation anywhere in Canada regulating work with VDTs. While there are conflicting reports on whether there are potential health effects, there has not been enough research to establish whether or not there is a real health hazard. We need more monitoring of the workers and more studies of the effect of VDTs on health, eyesight and things of that sort. We need legislation in this field.
My colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) introduced such legislation as a private member's bill two years ago but so far we have not seen any move by the government to adopt this kind of legislation.
There are also a lot of men working with video display terminals now. I think all workers need protective laws regarding the use of these terminals.
The task force encourages extension of affirmative action programs to ensure that women can take advantage of the retraining needed to move into nontraditional jobs and to share fairly in the new and better-paid jobs created by the new technology.
9:10 p.m.
It also suggests special measures may be needed to ensure training schemes do not shortchange women. For example, it proposes training credits for workers which may be part of their jobs, negotiated in collective agreements or granted as lifetime credits for education.
These training credits may need to be enriched for women as long as they suffer from wage discrimination, because presumably they would simply pay the workers their regular daily rate while they are training. But many women are paid much less than men -- it still averages 60 per cent of what men make -- so the training would not be of comparable value in maintaining their standard of living at a level equal to that of the male trainees.
The task force asserts that any policy aimed at ensuring women an equitable share of the benefits of the new technology must go beyond providing equal access to nontraditional education and training. It must seek to change the way in which both the labour market and the work place practise systemic discrimination against women.
In effect, that means the system -- the personnel selection, the hiring practices and the choosing of people for promotion and retraining -- tends to be biased against women. There tend to be more males than females among those who are making the decisions, and traditionally certain jobs have been thought of as women's work and other jobs as men's work. They have to overcome this systemic discrimination that is keeping women in only one section of the labour force and producing ghettos.
Part of Ontario's response to technological change therefore should be legislation to bring in equal pay for work of equal value and mandatory affirmative action. The task force points out that if we succeed in raising productivity through new and more efficient processes, this reform would be easier to afford. That is an important point in the report. They also consider breaking down job ghettos is essential if men and women are to be treated equally.
The task force suggests job rotation systems and occupational bridging where women can move from one job to another on a seconded basis to try out their skills and learn skills as they move. It suggests some revision of job descriptions and job classification systems as measures that could be adopted to end the ghettoization.
A very important recommendation of the task force relates to raising the status of part-time workers, 75 per cent of whom are women at present. As I mentioned earlier, part-time workers need their own charter of rights. The task force suggests they should be entitled to become part of the bargaining unit, to accumulate pension credits in proportion to their work and to qualify for training credits and on-the-job training.
This report is the first brought out by a group of elected politicians in Canada to study the impact of microelectronics and computerization on workers in our labour force.
As a member of the task force I am particularly concerned that the recommendations be carefully studied and as many as possible be adopted. I would urge the government to consider one of its final recommendations -- that a legislative committee be set up on work and technological change to raise awareness of the issues and to make recommendations for action. The member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), one of the co-chairmen of the committee, said, "Technological change is hurtling down on us and we must be prepared for the impact."
There are a lot of other subjects I would like to deal with but in consideration of other people who want to speak on the subject I will simply mention that we must look at more skills training and apprenticeship availability for women to help them move into nontraditional jobs. We must consider the question of equal access to sports opportunities and to funding for sports for women and girls. A report was brought out on this a year ago, but we have not yet heard any reaction from the government on whether it is going to consider any of the recommendations.
We think there should be special consideration of the problems of immigrant women who have difficulty finding employment in the present system and also in understanding our labour laws. Many of them are being exploited in places where they are not organized into unions and where they are not able to understand what is going on. We need improved labour laws that would help groups of that sort to organize, as well as groups such as Eaton's employees and other retail workers who are not organized. This will affect a great many women as well as a great many men.
We need the development of a nonsexist pension system that will provide adequate retirement income for both men and women workers. At the moment, women workers are particularly badly served by pension plans. Very few of them benefit from private plans because they do not stay long enough in one job and their pay is so low anyway that any pension they might earn is not enough to keep them above the poverty line.
We need changes in the Human Rights Code to prevent women from being fired because of pregnancy, as happened recently. A woman who had taken her pregnancy leave was taken back after her pregnancy leave and fired the same day on the ground that she had pregnancy leave and she was no longer protected from being fired. The law under which the employer can fire anybody without any given cause still applies under our Employment Standards Act. She had no protection against being fired the day after she returned, even though there had been no criticism of her work before she left on her pregnancy leave. She had been considered a satisfactory employee.
We need an improvement in the sexual harassment provisions in the Human Rights Code. The description of what constitutes sexual harassment is still not broad enough to protect women from this sort of activity. We need more action to end sex stereotyping in the schools and in the media. Those are some of the areas I would have liked to spend some time on.
One final area I would like to mention is the need for family law reform. The Family Law Reform Act has been in effect since 1978, more than five years. The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) promised in December 1982 to review it and to bring in legislative proposals before March 31, 1984. That day has come and gone and we still have not seen any legislative proposals from him. There are vague things in the throne speech suggesting proposals, as I mentioned. It seems to me he should get off the pot and tell us what proposals he is bringing in as a result of that review.
He should table the reports from his internal review, any recommendations that were made as well as his proposed legislation, then refer them to a legislative committee for public hearings. Only in this way will we find out all the deficiencies in the Family Law Reform Act and only this way will we find out how many loopholes are in it and what sort of groups are being disadvantaged.
9:20 p.m.
We know from the Leatherdale decision and the Stoimenov decision that there are great weaknesses in the act affecting both the matrimonial home and the recognition of work in the home by the spouse. Until these are corrected, a great many more women will suffer loss of the entitlement they should have to sharing the assets acquired during the marriage.
In fact, the whole concept of deciding what are family assets should be looked at. I think the distinction between family and nonfamily assets should be withdrawn. We should adopt the recommendation of the 1974 Law Reform Commission of Ontario, which suggested the law in Ontario should be that all assets which come into the marriage after the marriage, except inheritances, should be split equally between the spouses.
At the present time, only assets that are defined as family assets are split equally. Yet the preamble of the Family Law Reform Act says the province regards marriage as a form of partnership. With that distinction between family assets and nonfamily assets still in the law, it is not a recognition of marriage as a partnership because the wife does contribute to the acquisition of nonfamily assets such as registered retirement savings plans, pensions, insurance and even stocks and bonds. I think all of those should be split equally, and that was the recommendation of the law reform commission.
Three provinces, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, now split practically all assets under the law. Even though the Attorney General boasted that Ontario pioneered in this field, the other provinces have pushed ahead of us a long way and we do not have a very equitable Family Law Reform Act.
I get letters from women who have spent all their lives in the home raising children. One woman, the wife of an army officer had moved about the country many times. She had to uproot a family of six children many times and re-establish the home in a new place. She was never able to go out to work or take on a job. She was fully occupied with looking after this family and all these moves. After the family had all gone and after many years of marriage, she was left by her spouse with practically no benefits except half of the matrimonial home; yet she contributed greatly to the pension and other savings of the spouse.
She is not alone. There are many women like that. They are sort of a silent majority and we do not hear from them. They are being severely disadvantaged by the present law. That is an area I think we must look at and see that there is real reform there and that these loopholes are closed. Some of the loopholes also affect men who are being disadvantaged under the present law. I think they should have the opportunity to come forward and tell us their story as well.
I moved a motion for a select or standing committee to deal with this over a year ago and I still have not seen any action from the government. Certainly an internal committee simply receiving briefs, without any opportunity for cross-examination, is not a true answer to finding out the deficiencies in the act. I would urge the government to consider this approach as well.
There is one other issue I want to refer to for a minute. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) mentioned his trip to Russia in connection with the Soviet refuseniks. I am a co-chairperson of the Ontario legislative committee on Soviet Jewry. This Legislature set it up as an all-party committee to speak out for the people in Russia who are Jewish and who have been refused emigration visas to rejoin their families.
We should urge all members of the Legislature to join this committee. There are 43 members now. All one has to do is send a letter to one of the three co-chairmen, the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) or myself, stating one would like to be a member of this committee. The more members, the louder our voice when we write letters to the Soviet Union urging them to live up to the Helsinki pacts and the Helsinki agreement under which the right to emigrate is a human right.
It is a right that should not be denied when people wish to join their own families. It is being denied now to Jewish people in Russia. Not only is it being denied but anybody who asks is gravely persecuted. He often loses his job; his children lose their chance at university; he is put to do very menial work and virtually loses his human rights. Therefore, I would join with the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk in urging all members to join this committee and occasionally write a letter on behalf of the refuseniks.
Mr. Piché: M. le Président, I am certainly pleased this evening to see so many members in the House to hear history in the making about transportation in the north. At the same time, they will get an education about what transportation is all about in the north.
Mr. Stokes: The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Let us hear it.
Mr. Piché: Says the member for Lake Nipigon.
The throne speech has generated a great deal of interesting and wide-ranging discussion among members of this House. That is precisely its purpose. It is through such a frank and open debate on the vital issues in our society that the government is able to maintain responsive and responsible policies. I am pleased to rise today to add my contribution to this most important debate.
Some of the issues that are of vital importance to me and the people I represent are those affecting northern Ontario and the wellbeing of northerners. Members also know I have always maintained that the economic and social development of the north rests on one crucial factor, and that is transportation.
Transportation to northerners means a link with major markets. Transportation means access to vital social services, such as health care. Transportation means participation in the life of our province. In sum, the quality of transportation determines the quality of life in the north. The federal government plays a major role in regulating and providing transportation services, particularly rail and air in northern Ontario. Unfortunately, the type of policy occasionally pursued by Ottawa and the national railways has not always been beneficial to northerners.
9:30 p.m.
In the past, federal cutbacks in rail service to some northern communities have cut their economic lifeline, increased their isolation and made it more difficult for southern travellers to reach northern communities. I can say with confidence that our government has been consistent in opposing these kinds of negative policies. It has always recognized that the transportation of people and goods are most important to the development of the north. Most important, the Ontario government has always upheld the philosophy that transportation services to the north must be assessed not only from an economic perspective but also in human terms.
The operation of the Ontario Northland Railway reflects this philosophy. This people's railway has provided exceptional service to the residents of northeastern Ontario.
The government has recently reaffirmed its commitment to the wellbeing of northerners with the implementation of an improved and cost- efficient made-in-the-north rail policy. The Ministry of Northern Affairs announced earlier this year its intention to purchase from Can-Car Rail Inc. in Thunder Bay two complete bilevel trains to serve the rail route from Toronto to Timmins to Kapuskasing and, I hope, extend it to Hearst. I am very pleased to see that this initiative was also spelled out in the throne speech.
This is good news indeed for rail travellers in the north. It is also good news for the manufacturing sector in Thunder Bay where the bilevel railway cars will be built. The government announcement is particularly gratifying to me not only as a representative of a large northern community but also as a concerned Ontarian who has spent many years seeking to improve transportation services in the north.
M. le Président, j'ai la ferme conviction que la clé du développement pour le nord de l'Ontario et pour l'ensemble de l'Ontario réside dans une politique intégrée dans le domaine du transport. Mes collègues ici connaissent l'importance de ce dossier.
En tant que maire de la ville de Kapuskasing et président du groupe d'action des municipalités du nord-est, j'ai toujours travaillé à l'amélioration du système de transport dans le nord. En 1979 le groupe d'action a publié un rapport détaillé sur les besoins en terme de transport ainsi que plusieurs recommandations pour amener une solution aux problèmes de transport dans cette belle partie de la province.
Je suis fier de faire partie d'un gouvernement qui a mis en place plusieurs recommandations de ce rapport et qui envisage de continuer à travailler sur le dossier.
Le groupe d'action avait recommandé que le système de transport par train soit amélioré. Récemment, notre gouvernement a annoncé qu'en 1986 un nouveau train, à deux niveaux, entrera en service dans le nord de l'Ontario pour faire le trajet de Kapusakasing, Toronto et Hearst.
Je vois deux avantages à ce nouveau projet. D'abord, nous aurons une amélioration dans le service aux passagers: le trajet sera plus rapide et plus confortable.
Je vois aussi un autre aspect intéressant à ceci. Ce train sera conçu et fabriqué dans le nord de la province, à Thunder Bay. Tout en créant de l'emploi, nous aurons maintenant un produit de qualité internationale que nous pourrons exporter à travers le monde. La participation du gouvernement, et en particulier celle du ministère des Affaires du Nord, fut très importante dans la réalisation de ce projet.
Un autre aspect du transport que je voudrais aborder aujourd'hui est le transport aérien. En 1971 le gouvernement ontarien a créé norOntair, une branche de la Commission de transport Ontario Northland. Les gens du nord comprennent l'importance et le rôle de cette compagnie d'aviation. L'avion est le moyen le plus rapide et le plus économique de parcourir les grandes distances dans le nord.
À ses débuts, norOntair desservait quatre communautés et environ 500 passagers par mois. Aujourd'hui nous retrouvons norOntair dans 21 villes du nord, et près de 11,000 personnes par mois profitent des services de norOntair.
La période de croissance de norOntair est loin d'être finie. L'automne prochain, une autre amélioration importante est prévue avec l'achat de l'avion Dash-8. Cet avion est supérieur au Twin Otter présentement utilisé, plus rapide, plus confortable et certainement plus économique.
Un nouveau standard de qualité vient d'être établi pour le service aérien dans le nord de l'Ontario. En plus, le gouvernement fédéral vient d'annoncer un projet de $4 millions pour améliorer l'aéroport de l'île de Toronto. Le Dash-8 pourrait y atterrir et ainsi les gens du nord pourront bénéficier d'un vol direct près du centre-ville de Toronto.
Members of this House may remember that as mayor of Kapuskasing, I participated as a member and as chairman of the Northeastern Ontario Municipalities Action Group. The motto of our group was "Transportation is the key to northern development." All our deliberations and actions had one goal: to improve the transportation of people and goods in our region and in the north. In fact, back in 1979, the action group compiled a detailed report on the needs of northern Ontario in terms of passenger transportation.
Among our many recommendations was the suggestion that modern, comfortable and attractive equipment be introduced in the north. We recommended that new rail equipment with light, rapid, comfortable features be purchased for northern rail service. We stressed the importance of rail cars that are comfortable and modern, with airline-type seats and air conditioning. We emphasized the importance of a fast, quiet ride and high-quality service to attract passengers.
In 1979 we also recommended that Dash-7 aircraft be introduced in the north. In this context we considered the advantage to northern travellers in expanding the use of the Toronto Island Airport for air ambulance purposes.
These last two points are important and I would like to discuss them in some detail. First, allow me briefly to review the history and development of air service transportation in the north. In 1971 the government of Ontario established norOntair. This is the air services division of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. The actual operations of the airline are carried out by private air carriers operating under contract to Ontario Northland. Those carriers are Air-Dale Ltd. of Sault Ste. Marie, On Air (1979) Ltd. of Thunder Bay and Austin Airways of Timmins.
After a decade of operation the success of norOntair is obvious. Traffic, which was about 500 passengers a month in the early years, has grown to almost 11,000 passengers a month. At the same time the network, which began in 1971 with four communities, has been extended to 21 communities and plans are under way to add several more.
The ready acceptance and use of the airline exemplify the need and benefit of air travel services over great distances and difficult terrain. They emphasize the special role of the airline in service for passengers, freight and mail.
Mr. Speaker, I am just looking around to see if anybody is listening.
Mr. Conway: Be assured the member has my rapt attention.
Hon. Mr. Walker: I want a copy of the speech to send to my constituents.
Mr. Piché: As many copies as the member wishes will be available right after I have completed my address.
An hon. member: In both languages.
Mr. Piché: In both languages.
Mr. Stokes: As soon as the member says something new, we will applaud. He has not said anything I have not heard before.
Mr. Piché: That is not very nice from a colleague of mine who sat here a few minutes ago and said, "Go to it. I will support you. It is for the north; it is transportation. It must be said," and on and on. Now the member comes out with this comment. I cannot understand that.
Mr. Stokes: Tell me something I do not know.
9:40 p.m.
Mr. Piché: Apologize or I will not continue.
Mr. Stokes: I apologize.
Mr. Piché: I must continue for the good of the north. It highlights the benefits for businessmen and the communities they visit. For example, it has been shown that about 70 per cent of the passenger travel is for business purposes, for businessmen in northern Ontario. It is obviously an important aspect of industrial and commercial life in northern Ontario.
Businessmen and their companies have come to depend on it as an integral part of their day-to-day business activities in the economic development of the north. This reflects the airline's role of helping to reduce the isolation of scattered communities in northern Ontario and will facilitate air service connections with southern Ontario.
NorOntair currently enjoys a positive working relationship with Air Canada and Nordair by providing important connections to the region for those larger carriers. Some 55 per cent of all norOntair passengers are connecting to or from other airplanes and airlines.
I should add that the Ontario government's approach to extending norOntario services to particular communities has been guided by the principle that the private sector should be encouraged to offer the services it feels can be commercially viable. After assessing the years of norOntair experience, the government of Ontario is convinced the airline has a vital and important role to play in the development of northern Ontario.
With that in mind, further expansion of the system is under way and will feature the introduction of the Dash-8 aircraft of de Havilland Aircraft of Canada in 1984. NorOntair will become a first customer for this 36-seat, energy- efficient, pressurized aircraft. NorOntair, which carried close to 100,000 passengers last year, is scheduled to take delivery of the first of the two de Havilland Dash-8s next fall. This will enable the airline to realize some cost-efficiencies in the long term, while providing some striking improvements in the areas of comfort and speed for norOntair passengers
As I mentioned earlier, the operations of norOntair are contracted out to three different private sector carriers in the north, providing support for the aviation sector in northern Ontario. This will continue to be the case with the Dash-8.
Mr. Stokes: Is that not the company your federal Tory colleagues keep complaining about?
Mr. Piché: Not that I am aware of. I should add that the Ontario government experienced a few anxious moments over the last year as it monitored the federal discussions regarding financial support for de Havilland's Dash-8 program. Fortunately, it was announced recently that de Havilland is receiving an infusion of funds from the federal government and the program is proceeding as planned.
That is welcome news for us all, both in northern and southern Ontario. De Havilland has been one of the real strengths of the Canadian aerospace industry and the Dash-8 is one of its finest products ever.
Mr. Stokes: Which company is going to get to operate it?
Mr. Piché: As I understand it, that has not been decided yet; it is under close scrutiny by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier). Obviously there should be a decision soon, since we expect the first Dash-8 to be in service this fall in the northeast.
The Dash-8 program for the north means jobs in Metro Toronto as well as better service for northern Ontarians. The Dash-8 aircraft is superior in many ways to the existing Twin Otters. It is larger and roomier. It is of higher quality. It is faster and more fuel-efficient. It sets a new standard for northern transportation. Something that interests me is it opens the possibility of a more direct and uninterrupted route to Toronto for northern travellers.
I read in the papers the other day that the federal government plans to spend $4 million over the new few years to improve the Toronto Island Airport. This is part of the $13-million federal government commitment to install a microwave landing system for the long-delayed Toronto-Montreal-Ottawa commuter air service. Once this service is established, the federal government has said it will provide assistance to build a link to the mainland. This is a very exciting development.
An improved Toronto Island Airport would provide an ideal southern terminal for northern travellers, particularly with the use of the new Dash-8 aircraft. For example, it would serve an essential function in the special health care needs of northern citizens who must be transported to Toronto. Since the airport is close to downtown medical facilities, it would be possible to avoid the traffic delays and the added cost of transporting patients from Lester B. Pearson International Airport to Toronto hospitals.
Direct service also could be provided for the transportation of people who need to do business in the city. It is my conviction that improvements and extensions in the Toronto Island Airport's operation would contribute in a positive way to the economic and social wellbeing of both Metro Toronto and other regions of Ontario.
When it comes right down to it, I believe in a province-wide approach to development. Toronto is the focal point of Ontario with respect to industry, commerce, education, medical services and cultural and recreational facilities. However, we must not forget its growth has been accelerated by resources external to it as well as internal. It is not unreasonable to expect that Metro Toronto should also give its resources on a greater scale than simply within its municipal boundaries.
As a northerner, I would be delighted to see all levels of government co-operating to discuss current policies and to review possible future developments in the field of air transportation. The ideal have in mind, as does the Northeastern Ontario Municipalities Action Group, is to foresee the day when northerners can board a modern airline in their own communities and travel to Toronto without having to change to another flight, even do a day's business or whatever brings anyone to Toronto, and that same evening return home to the north.
We have already come a long way in bridging the vastness of the north-south gap in Ontario. Since the Ministry of Northern Affairs was created in 1977, it has invested more than $700 million in northern transportation programs and facilities. In that period, the ministry has invested some $400 million in northern roads. This total does not include the $35 million spent on the Detour Lake road or the $53.1 million spent on the construction of other economic development roads throughout the north.
In an average year, the Ministry of Northern Affairs commits approximately 80 per cent of its total budget to transportation. In 1983, the Ministry of Northern Affairs spent about $116 million on transportation in northern Ontario. All the government's transportation programs have aimed to reduce isolation, to increase opportunities for industrial development and tourism, and to help reduce costs in the north.
9:50 p.m.
With the new bilevel rail equipment and its schedule designed to meet the needs of the travelling public, railway service in the north will be improved further. The new service will be second to none in Canada in comfort and convenience.
Although the train sets are being designed specifically to meet the needs of northeastern Ontario, their potential use is worldwide. The introduction of this new equipment in 1986 will serve as a showcase for Ontario technology and help us to sell it both here in Canada and in other countries.
The Ontario Northland Railway bilevels will be designed, developed, tested and manufactured in northern Ontario at the Can-Car Rail Inc. facility of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. in Thunder Bay. The federal government will contribute $1 million to this program as its share of the development costs, with a matching contribution being made by the UTDC.
The finished products will be out of the plant in time for Expo 86 in Vancouver, where they will be part of Ontario's transportation showcase. Later in 1986 they will be brought back to Ontario to inaugurate a more comfortable, more reliable, safer and cleaner service for the ONR's overnight run between Toronto, Kapuskasing and Timmins, and as I mentioned earlier in this address, it will be expanded to Hearst.
By the time the new service is started in 1986, we must make sure the new trains are run with updated and new ideas. We must ensure that emphasis is on public service. To guarantee the best public service we will have to reach out to the travelling public in northern Ontario and find out exactly what people want. We will have to identify when and how often people want trains to operate and what type of service they will be looking for. In other words, we will have to seek input concerning schedules and amenities from those people who will be using the improved rail service.
I would like to state my intention here today to fully participate in this progress. I believe it is the only way to truly represent northern interests. I have perfect faith that the Ministry of Northern Affairs intends to follow the same course of action. We will discuss this after. In my experience the ministry has always placed great importance on sitting down face to face with northern delegations, representatives of associations and individuals when discussing northern needs or opportunities.
En conclusion, M. le Président, je voudrais rappeler à mes collègues l'importance de continuer le travail pour l'amélioration des services de transport dans le nord de l'Ontario. Notre survie économique et sociale en dépend.
In concluding, I would like to remind members of this House that the survival of Canada as a nation was ensured by the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It linked the country together. In the same spirit, we must link the northern and southern parts of our province together. We must try for economic and social integration of the north and south to build and maintain a sense of community and understanding between our regions.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join in this debate following upon the very excellent and timely addresses of my colleagues the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) and the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden).
I want to direct my remarks this evening to an extremely important activity in Ontario, one that relates very directly to my constituency. That has to do, of course, with the nuclear industry.
I stand here as the member for Renfrew North, wherein the Canadian and Ontario nuclear industry was born some 40 years ago. It is an industry that is vital to my constituents, whether they work, as 2,350 do, at the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratory, at the Ontario Hydro facilities at Rolphton or down on Highway 17 at such facilities as Chase Nuclear (Canada) Ltd. in Arnprior, which fabricates pressure tubes for Candu reactors.
For the past nine years and during the course of three provincial general elections, I have campaigned very aggressively in my constituency in support of this very vital industry. In the course of my service here in this Legislature, it has been my pleasure to have joined with other members of the Progressive Conservative and New Democratic parties on the select committee on nuclear reactor safety as well as the select committee on nuclear waste management.
In recent months, I have had the pleasure of joining with a number of community and business leaders in the Upper Ottawa Valley in making representations to the Ontario Energy Board with respect to the future of Ontario Hydro's commitment to its campus at Rolphton.
Members may not be aware that it was at Rolphton some 22 years ago that Ontario Hydro, in conjunction with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., put in place the first nuclear power demonstrator in Canada. Unfortunately, in the recent past, the provincial utility indicated its intention to close out the Rolphton nuclear training centre, which has functioned splendidly on that campus for the past number of years.
Regrettably, we are going to see the loss of several instructor positions. More than 600 students were trained annually at that facility during the peak periods of the late 1970s. The loss of the Rolphton nuclear training centre is a very serious one to the Upper Ottawa Valley.
As I indicated earlier, I have a special relationship with this industry because some 2,800 of my constituents in Renfrew North work at the facilities at Chalk River and Rolphton. Communities such as Deep River, Pembroke and Petawawa thrive as a result of a long-standing association with this industry. The total nuclear payroll in Renfrew North exceeds $80 million yearly.
From my point of view, and I think this is an important point of view, the Canadian nuclear industry represents an outstanding achievement in high technology. The Candu nuclear reactors are the safest and most efficient nuclear reactors in the world. Candu technology represents the happy marriage of our indigenous natural resources, especially uranium, and the best of Canadian science and engineering.
In 1982, it was estimated the Canadian nuclear industry contributed some $4.3 billion to the national economy. Of that, some 90 per cent of the Canadian nuclear capacity was located here in Ontario. In Ontario, the nuclear industry employs some 30,000 directly, some 75 per cent of the industry's total employment, and another 50,000 indirectly through spinoff industries.
I should indicate those figures are now about two years old. It is my guess that as a result of the economic recession in the past two years, those figures probably overstate the numbers involved. One report in a Toronto newspaper indicated the number of Ontarians directly employed in the nuclear industry has fallen sharply from the 30,000 figure of the earlier period in 1982.
In addition to the employment factor, which is vital to Renfrew North and most of the rest of Ontario, our nuclear option is key because reliance on nuclear energy allows for the displacement of imported oil and coal as energy sources. This displacement not only relieves Ontario of its dependence --
Mr. Cureatz: Does Julian Reed know what you are saying?
Mr. Conway: I am pleased to note the intervention of the member for Durham East. Yes, the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. A. Reed) and others in my caucus know exactly what my views are.
Mr. Cureatz: It sounds a little different when I listen to that here.
10 p.m.
Mr. Conway: The member for Durham East points out that there has been some criticism levelled at the industry from within the Liberal ranks, and I have to agree with him. I have been unhappy about some of the criticism that I think has been unfairly directed at an industry which is vital to my constituency and, I would argue, to the province as a whole.
I think my colleague the Liberal House leader would be the first to confirm that, within the confines of our caucus, there have been some heated debates about the nature and extent of the Ontario nuclear commitment, but I want to remind the member for Durham East that the Progressive Conservative Party in recent years has not had a united front on this count.
Later in my remarks I will be referring to some comments of some years ago by the former Treasurer, the Honourable Darcy McKeough. I will not embarrass the absent --
Mr. Haggerty: He knocked $600 million off Hydro's budget.
Mr. Conway: I want to respond to the comments of the member for Durham East because I was in his fine community not many weeks ago discussing these very subjects with representatives of the Durham East Liberal Association.
One of the reasons I want to devote my remarks to this critical subject tonight is that, as one member of the assembly, I am concerned about what I see around me in the Ontario nuclear industry. I am concerned about some of the attacks from within my party, I will admit, and from without as well.
I feel an obligation on behalf of the good people of Renfrew North, who in large measure derive their economic livelihood from this industry, to make my views very clear, and I will continue to do so tonight.
As I was indicating, our reliance on nuclear energy allows this province to displace substantial quantities of imported oil and coal from outside Ontario and, indeed, from outside continental North America. This displacement not only relieves Ontario's dependence on outside sources of energy, but has a favourable bearing on our balance of payments.
Clearly, there are significant benefits to Ontario and to Canada as a result of the nuclear industry. I would like to recite in more specific detail the nature and extent of the considerable benefits which accrue to Ontario as a result of our nuclear commitment.
The economic and employment benefits I mentioned earlier are dispersed over seven sectors of the nuclear industry. These sectors include uranium mining, refining and fuel fabrication, research and development, engineering and design, manufacturing and construction, operations and maintenance, and public administration.
Much of the nuclear research and development in Canada is performed by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. This federal crown corporation has research facilities at Chalk River, Ontario, and at Whiteshell, Manitoba. AECL employs more than 3,000 people and in 1980 had budgeted something in excess of $140 million for research and development purposes. Other organizations, such as Ontario Hydro, the Atomic Energy Control Board, Eldorado Nuclear and Hydro-Québec spent another $20 million on research and development.
The manufacturing sector supporting Canada's nuclear industry is heavily concentrated in Ontario and Quebec. This sector supplies components for nuclear reactors such as boilers, calandria tubes and fueling machines. Approximately 100 companies are involved.
Up to 1977, total capital investment in plant and equipment for supplying the nuclear equipment industry was estimated at $214 million. Total direct manufacturing employment in 1977 was estimated at 6,000 persons and, I reiterate, most of those 6,000 persons can be found in Ontario, although there are some in Quebec.
In the construction sector, the bulk of the work is carried out by the utilities and by construction companies. Construction costs represent about 25 per cent of total commissioned cost of a reactor and about 20 per cent of the cost of a heavy water plant. This sector employed more than 12,000 persons in 1977.
In the operations and maintenance of nuclear power stations and heavy water plants, total employment across Canada was estimated at 5,600 persons. In Ontario, there are major nuclear facilities at Douglas Point, Bruce, Darlington, Pickering, Chalk River and Rolphton. In the public administration sector, there are between 200 and 300 persons at various levels of government involved in regulating the activities of the nuclear industry.
From that quick read-through, I hope the members get some sense of the significant impact of the nuclear industry in terms of employment here in Ontario. I should indicate these are not just jobs. These are jobs in high technology, in the professions.
I will reiterate something I said in this House about 10 days ago. I am sure the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn) will remember it. For me the great attraction of the Canadian nuclear achievement has been in that very area of high technology, where it has established a research and development orientation that has brought together the very best of Canadian science and engineering.
Listening to a lot of the experts, whether they were economists or with the Science Council of Canada or elsewhere, I thought this area of high technology, of greater emphasis on research and development, was the way of the future for Ontario. I thought it was the next generation of economic and employment opportunity. Quite frankly, it puzzles me and a lot of my constituents to see a world-class success such as Candu nuclear technology so constantly attacked for the very reason that it has been apparently -- and in my view, demonstrably -- a very great success indeed.
We have been able to export significant aspects of this nuclear technology to the rest of the world. Quite frankly --
Mr. Cureatz: I do not believe my ears.
Mr. Conway: The member for Durham East says he cannot believe his ears. I just invite him to stick around.
Mr. Cureatz: I have been there with the select committee, remember?
Mr. Conway: I certainly well remember being at the select committee, perhaps not for as long as the member for Durham East. However, as a member for the area where the nuclear industry was born in this country 40 years ago, I would like to reiterate the very significant achievements this industry has made in the areas of research and development. Quite frankly, I think we have to reinforce that direction in the future and not attack it.
Mr. Cureatz: I do not believe it. This is great.
Mr. Conway: I would say to the member for Durham East this does not mean I am an uncritical observer of the way Ontario Hydro has gone about its business. I am, for example, a strong supporter of the development of electricity through hydroelectric plants. In my county 10 to 12 years ago, Ontario Hydro built a $70-million facility near the great town of Arnprior. Not everything about the way Ontario Hydro went about its business in that development pleased me and I pointed out my criticisms to the utility.
Mr. Cureatz: What about the Rolls-Royce? I want to hear about the Rolls-Royce.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Was there not an investigation about that?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Renfrew North has the floor.
Mr. Conway: I am not prepared to give uncritical support to any venture. I happen to think the atomic industry in this country can stand on its own feet and defend its very considerable record. I am not pleased about that record in every particular. I have indicated my dissent, both within this Legislature and without. I have accepted a fair measure of criticism within my constituency, and outside, for that view.
I am not ashamed to say to this House that my support is not uncritical, but we face an uncertain future in the Ontario nuclear industry today. As I indicated in the earlier part of my remarks, we are losing jobs in the industry today in communities all across Ontario. The member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) is not here but I am sure he could tell us about some of the problems the industry faces in his area of the province where, if my memory is correct, a number of the component factories are located.
10:10 p.m.
One of the concerns I have is about the length of the uncertainty. We have now gone through a period of two or three years where uncertainty has continued to mount. We know, for example, the industry faces difficulties as a result of a significant slowdown in the demand for electricity. We know, unfortunately, international markets are softer than we would like and that within a soft international marketplace the competition is fierce. We have to face that reality.
Unfortunately, we know the costs of nuclear power have escalated rather significantly in the past number of years. That escalation has been explained by virtue of the increased costs of borrowings. As we know, the nuclear industry is capital intensive, in terms of building reactors at any rate. We know as well the cost of regulation has added to the cost of electricity produced by nuclear means in this province and that conservation programs, which have been aggressively advanced by governments such as the provincial government in Ontario, have had their role to play in reducing demand. The recession I mentioned earlier and the oil glut we have all experienced since about 1980-81 are factors that have contributed to a growing uncertainty within the Canadian nuclear industry.
In that connection, I thought it might be useful to review a document produced by the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, published in 1982, entitled Nuclear Industry Review, Problems and Prospects 1981-2000. In the conclusion of that EMR publication, a number of observations are made. I would like to touch on those, quoting from page 56, chapter 12 of that study.
"Prospects for the Canadian Nuclear Industry: Summary and Conclusions. From 1964 to 1978, the Canadian nuclear industry sold 24 reactor units (including research and power reactors), an order rate of almost two units per year. In contrast, since 1978 there have been no firm orders. The industry is therefore facing an indeterminate period of excess capacity, its future clouded by uncertainty regarding the timing and magnitude of the next round of orders. The outlook for the industry depends upon its domestic and export sales prospects."
If I might digress, I was chatting the other day with some people at the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources about this document. Two years after its publication, at least one of the authors suggested there is not a great deal about this they would now change. There have been some alterations. One of the comments made to me was that, if anything, export markets appear softer than was discussed at the time of this publication.
About the domestic market, the EMR study noted the following. "Most provincial utilities currently have excess capacity and will require few additions to capacity, beyond those currently under construction, for a decade or more. However, most forecasts indicate new generating capacity will be required in the 1990s. Nuclear energy is an economically attractive option for meeting part of this load growth. Because of long lead times, orders will need to be placed in the 1980s for capacity additions required in the 1990s. The big uncertainties are the number and timing of future nuclear orders in relation to the nuclear industry's capacity.
"The market for Candu in Canada in this century will likely be confined to Ontario, the Maritimes and possibly Quebec. Depending on the coal-nuclear mix chosen by the province and the rate of electrical demand growth ultimately realized, Ontario could choose to build no new reactors beyond Darlington, relying entirely on coal, or decide to meet load growth exclusively with nuclear energy and require as many as six post-Darlington reactors to 2000."
The prospects in Quebec, the report goes on to indicate, are minimal. I gather they are no greater today than was indicated in the study two years ago. Prospects in the west do not appear to be very attractive either.
I want to touch quickly on a couple of the other points the conclusion of the EMR study indicates. "The range of uncertainty is, therefore, large." They are talking now about the state of the domestic markets in the provinces and accepting that international markets are going to be softer than we would all like.
"It is arithmetically possible that as many as 12 reactor units may be required to meet domestic load growth this century. More realistically, up to seven reactor units will be required, coming on stream in the 1990s. If the upper end of this range were realized, it should be possible to sustain a rationalized industry."
I would like to digress for a moment. One of the things that is costing jobs in the nuclear industry -- in communities like your home community of Peterborough, Mr. Speaker -- has to do with a rationalization currently under way in the nuclear industry. In the 1960s and 1970s we developed a two-supplier industry in which there were at least two suppliers for most, if not all, the components required for the Candu technology.
The report I cite from now, the 1982 EMR study, seems to accept there is going to be and there probably should be a shakedown and a rationalization to a more efficient -- it argues, or would have one believe at least -- one-supplier, rationalized industry. That is going to cost and is now costing jobs in this province.
"What is certain, however, is that the situation over the next few years will be critical for the industry. Given excess capacity being experienced by domestic utilities, domestic orders in the early to mid-1980s will likely be nonexistent on the basis of the domestic market alone. Virtually all firms in the industry could go out of business by the mid-to-late 1980s, thereby foreclosing the capability of the industry to meet the next round of orders in the late 1980s."
This is a very important point. We have developed an exceptional capacity in this high technology. I think everyone accepts that we are in a very deep and worrisome trough at the present time. There is reasonable expectation that some time in the latter half of the next decade there are going to be additional requirements. That is 10 to 12 years away and, as the authors of the report and most people understand, there are lead times of at least eight to 10 years. So we have to be prepared in the mid-to-late 1980s to commit ourselves to new reactors if we want to have them on stream by the late 1990s. The great challenge we face today is how to keep this industry, if we want it -- and I want it -- alive through these difficult days and years so it can be ready and able to supply the orders we hope will be forthcoming at some point in the future.
The EMR study goes on, "Under these circumstances, the export market over the next few years becomes extremely important because it offers the best prospect of a nearer-term sale which would reduce somewhat the industry's short-term problems of excess supply."
Unfortunately, the report goes on to suggest that the export market is going to be very tough and competitive indeed.
I wanted to cite the report; it makes for very interesting reading. In 1982, it suggests an electrical load growth in Ontario of something in the neighbourhood of three to three and a half per cent per year for the remaining years of this century.
I note on the very important question of increases in the demand for electricity that as late as December 1983 Ontario Hydro produced new load growth forecasts for the rest of this century indicating that EMR in 1982 was probably too generous and from Hydro's calculations it expects electrical load growth in the remaining years of the 20th century will increase at an annual rate of something in the neighbourhood of 2.3 to 2.5 per cent. That is substantially below the historical six and seven per cent rate increases we experienced during the boom years of the 1960s and much of the 1970s. I noted just the other day, by the way, as reported in the Globe and Mail of Monday, April 2, that EMR in Ottawa now has new, much more optimistic forecasts of electrical load growth for Ontario which indicate that Hydro in December 1983 probably underestimated the load growth by 100 per cent. EMR is now saying that, instead of Hydro's 2.3 per cent, the annual increase in electrical demand is going to be 4.5 per cent.
10:20 p.m.
We all know predicting these very complicated questions of electrical load growth is an inexact science, but we have to understand the industry is at a critical juncture. If we are going to protect it, and it must be protected, as I indicated earlier, we must be prepared to look at ways and means of carrying it through these very difficult days in the mid-1980s.
I know my friend the member for Durham East would want me to comment on the very important question of Darlington. Darlington is a critical aspect of this whole debate. As responsible members of the Legislature, we are faced with a very difficult situation. I have indicated in North Renfrew and Durham East that Darlington ought not to be proceeded with until there is a better case for the demand of its product.
Mr. Cureatz: The Liberal candidate did not say that at the last election.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Conway: I want to make it very clear that I have said in Durham East and in North Renfrew that I am concerned about the financial implications of proceeding with Darlington now, when clearly its power may not be required for many years to come. I know that is perhaps not the most popular position for me to adopt in my constituency --
Mr. Cureatz: Darlington is not being built in your constituency.
Mr. Conway: The member for Durham East makes the point that Darlington is not being built in my constituency. I say to the member in whose riding it is being constructed that the people in my riding see a very direct link with the construction of Darlington. What I have to tried to indicate on a number of occasions is that there are very important financial considerations that all responsible members of this assembly have to take into account.
I worry very much about the provincial utility going forward to borrow $10 billion to put on stream additional electrical capacity for which we do not appear to have a requirement for many years to come. However, I would be the first to reconsider that if I could be persuaded that by the speeding up of Darlington we would get the industry that concerns me so very much through these very troubled years. I am not yet persuaded of that, but I remain open to persuasion.
I suggest the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs be reconstituted immediately to investigate the current state of the Ontario nuclear industry, to see exactly what its present health is and what its options are for the next few years. If members opposite can persuade me the only way to carry this vital industry, which I want to see supported and maintained through these difficult years, is to continue with Darlington, I am quite prepared to reconsider the issue.
I have indicated, and I want to reiterate, that this industry, which has given Canadians a world-class achievement in high technology and which has brought together some extraordinary capacity in science and engineering, must not be allowed to go the way of the Avro Arrow. One of my associates growing up in small-town eastern Ontario was the test pilot for Avro, and he often used to talk about the situation as he felt it some 20 years ago when another government, in another place, wound down that particular commitment.
I want to conclude my remarks by indicating that I feel very strongly that we as a Legislature must go forward in a prudent and responsible way in developing an energy policy for this province that will take into account the very considerable achievements and capacity of our nuclear industry.
I do not believe our sole destiny should be a nuclear destiny. I think we should have an energy policy built on the concept of an accountable public utility producing economic, efficient electrical power from a balanced mix. Unlike some in my party, I am quite prepared to support a very considerable reliance on the nuclear option, and it will be my job within the confines of the Liberal caucus to continue to advocate the attractiveness of the nuclear option.
Interjection.
Mr. Conway: I will leave it to my friend the member for Durham East to battle with his friends. I know they have opinions very different from his on some of these issues.
I want to say, not only on my own behalf but also on behalf of the almost 3,000 people it is my pleasure to represent in North Renfrew who work in and live by the nuclear industry, that we are concerned about the constant attack on this industry. We feel very strongly we have made in North Renfrew, through this industry, a great achievement available to the people of Canada. We think that achievement ought to be supported responsibly and prudently, not uncritically. We do not feel, at the Chalk River nuclear laboratories or at Rolphton, that we cannot defend the main thrust of our commitment. We are prepared to do so. My friends in the industry at home have engaged me in quite an active debate on a number of occasions and we have not always agreed on all aspects of the debate.
In conclusion, it is important for me to state for the record, as one member of this assembly from an eastern Ontario riding wherein this industry is vital, that I support the industry and want to see its future protected and guaranteed. I am quite prepared and would encourage my friends across the way to reconvene the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs so this Legislature can immediately go forward and look into the current state of that industry and how it might be provided for in the current climate and with future prospects. I, for one, stand ready and willing to engage in that kind of debate.
I feel very strongly about this subject. It is one I will continue to monitor both here and within the confines of my own political party, where I reiterate there is not unanimity and where I must unhappily report that at some conferences, and sometimes even in this House, things are said that do not represent my view and in some cases annoy me, as I know I sometimes annoy some of my colleagues with some of my views on other subjects.
I want to resume my seat by saying that this is a vital, major and positive industry located in large measure in Ontario, providing reliable and safe electrical energy, employing tens of thousands of people from Elliot Lake to Port Hope and from Mississauga to Rolphton; it is an industry that must be protected so it can carry on and take us into the next generation of employment, economic and energy opportunity.
On motion by Mr. Samis, the debate was adjourned.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, just before you adjourn, may I indicate the business of the House for the coming week.
We will continue with debate on the throne speech tomorrow morning.
On Monday, April 9, we will conclude this debate, with the vote to be called at 5:45 p.m.
On Tuesday, April 10, in the afternoon and evening, legislation will be debated in the following order: Bills 1, 100, 122, 123 and 18, standing in the name of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry).
In the evening, if time still remains, second reading and committee of the whole on Bills 4, 5, 6, 11 and 12, standing in the name of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie).
On Wednesday, April 11, the usual three committees may meet in the morning.
On Thursday, April 12, in the afternoon, private members' ballot items standing in the names of the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) and the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt). In the evening, we will have committee of the whole debate on motions to adopt the recommendations in the 10th report of the select committee on the Ombudsman and the recommendations in the special report of the committee respecting political violence.
On Friday, April 13, we will continue legislation that was not completed on Tuesday.
The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.