Hansard Transcript 1987-Jan-20 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Andrewes: A group of southwestern Ontario parents whose children are suffering from cancer have had to shoulder the added burden of raising money to cover the cost of their children's medical care not covered by the province. Every year they are faced with having to raise more than $47,000 to pay for the salary of a fellow to assist Dr. Barrie de Veber, director of paediatric haematology oncology at the Children's Hospital of Western Ontario.

The fellow, a fully trained paediatrician gaining a specialty in childhood cancer, performs most of the treatments and allows Dr. de Veber to perform other duties such as teaching, consulting with parents and attending to patients in hospital.

The parents' group, which was formed 12 years ago, faces the yearly challenge of raising the necessary funds to pay for a fellow. They are now looking for assistance from the government for ongoing funding.

About 125 children use the paediatric cancer service regularly, with the patient load increasing steadily. Is it fair that we leave these parents, who have to face the emotional turmoil of this situation, holding the bag?

The announcement by the Ministry of Health that 200 post-graduate training positions will be cut across the province over the next five years offers very little comfort.

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Breaugh: I have been asked to read into the record here at Queen's Park a telegram from John Sinclair, president of Local 222 of the Canadian Automobile Workers, to the leader of the official opposition, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman):

"I would ask you, as leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, to demand from one of your members, Sam Cureatz, MPP, Durham East, an apology for callous remarks made in Oshawa This Week newspaper Sunday, January 18, 1987. Mr. Cureatz's remarks not only are insulting to employees of Cadbury's but also show his lack of concern in trying to save the jobs of these employees, many of whom live in his riding.

"I urge you, in your capacity as leader of the Progressive Conservatives, to demand an apology from Mr. Cureatz for the Cadbury workers and to assist us in trying to save the jobs of the Cadbury employees in Whitby."

To quote quickly the references here, the member for Durham East apparently sees some connection between the passage of Bill 7 and the closure of the plant in Whitby. The workers fail to see the connection.

It is complicated by his having been further quoted in the Oshawa Times as saying he did not attend the information meeting for Cadbury workers because neither the plant nor the affected workers are in his riding.

ROAD CONDITIONS

Mr. Eves: The Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) will be aware of the issue I bring before the House today, namely, Daventry road in the riding of Parry Sound and the lack of co-operation which these two ministries have displayed in this affair. This road was rebuilt by the Algonquin Forestry Authority to haul timber out of the north end of Algonquin Park. The trucks hauling these heavy loads drive along Calvin township's roads and are causing serious deterioration in the roads. Calvin township cannot bear the burden of upgrading and maintenance of the road, nor should it.

The northern Ontario resources transportation committee is prepared to fund 50 per cent of the cost of upgrading the roads. Its criteria state that the Algonquin Forest Authority must participate in the upgrading cost. However, to date, the Minister of Natural Resources will not accept any responsibility for these costs, nor will the Algonquin Forestry Authority, which is under his jurisdiction. I call upon both these ministers to co-operate with each other to assist Calvin township by providing the necessary funding to maintain and upgrade the township's roads.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: In October 1981, the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and I found 20 homeless people sleeping in the stairwells of the city hall garage in Toronto. How things have changed in the six years since then. Employables on welfare are still about 100 per cent to 200 per cent higher now than they were at that time. Amidst the poverty, there is incredible wealth. Jaguar sales are higher than they have ever been. At the recent boat show, boats were selling for $180,000 each.

Last year at this time, I requested an overall review of the social assistance system. This Friday at Toronto city hall, five members of this caucus will be making a presentation to the Social Assistance Review committee. We will be laying out a vision of a total overhaul of the social assistance system in the province. We hope to give people power over their lives for the first time and a real chance to participate in our society. We believe our presentation will stand as a challenge to the other parties in this House to lay out before the people of Ontario their ideas of what the future of poverty issues in this province should be. We encourage the other two parties to respond in kind.

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Cureatz: In the one minute and 26 seconds I have, I would like to comment on what the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) brought forward in the House. I will read from the article, if he is not too embarrassed to take that. It says:

"`As far as I am concerned, the executive of the UAW is not taking the responsibility that it should be taking. What it should be doing is arranging a meeting with Bob Rae and finding out what Bob Rae is going to do about the closure.'

"Mr. Cureatz contends that, because a controversial item concerning gay rights was passed in December `because Bob Rae and Mike Breaugh wanted it,' something should also be done for the workers of Cadbury.

"He went on to say that although the plant is not in his riding, he is concerned about the employees.

"`Now we have another controversial item and I want to know what the NDP are going to do with it. If they can get something as controversial as the gay rights issue passed, they can steer David Peterson and get something going for the Cadbury workers.'"

I would like to make sure that all the members of the Legislature appreciate what I said about the closure of the Cadbury plant. Nowhere did I say that I was not concerned about the workers, because I am concerned about the workers, as so well reported in the article in the Oshawa-Whitby This Week newspaper by staff reporter Lucy Rybka.

I appreciate the fact that the member for Oshawa brought forward this article so that we can let the record show that I spoke up for the workers. I want to know what the NDP is going to do about those workers.

HELP CENTRES

Mr. Warner: A while back, the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara) created an air of uncertainty about the future of the unemployed help centres around Ontario. Unfortunately, to date, the minister has not seen fit to put that uncertainty to rest.

1340

The unemployed help centres, which are working very diligently on behalf of unemployed people in Ontario, continue to do their work with a cloud hanging over their heads. They do not know whether this government will continue to support them. I wish, once and for all, the minister would stand up, declare that the government is in support of the work being done by the unemployed help centres and stop threatening their existence. Help is needed for the unemployed help centres.

VOTING BY PRIVATE MEMBERS

Mr. Philip: On Thursday, Bill 21 will be debated in the Legislature. I had always been under the impression that private members' public business was for private members. My understanding, however, is that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) is putting considerable pressure on members of his party to vote, not according to their conscience, but according to his will.

His officials have told people who have called that even if the bill is passed democratically by this House, it will not be called for third reading. Where is open government in Ontario if that kind of coercion by a minority of the Legislature can be imposed on individual members in this House?

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO SCIENCE CENTRE

Hon. Ms. Munro: As everyone in this House knows, the Ontario government has identified the Pacific Rim as a major target for trade development. Agencies of my ministry have been busy pursuing these opportunities, and the Ontario Science Centre has been especially enterprising in developing foreign markets.

Today I am very pleased to inform the House that the government of Malaysia has agreed to purchase the Science Circus, an exhibition that was mounted by the Ontario Science Centre for the first Association of South-East Asian Nations science and technology week held in Kuala Lumpur last April.

The Prime Minister of Malaysia, who visited the science centre when he was in Ontario, saw the exhibition and was very impressed, and negotiations for the purchase were begun. The agreement includes the services of the Ontario Science Centre staff, who will travel to Kuala Lumpur to convert the exhibition to Malaysia's electrical standards. They will also train Malaysian staff to manage, maintain, program and host the circus.

The Malaysian government financed the purchase of the Science Circus through a $9.5-million general line of credit from the federal government's Canadian International Development Agency.

I am very proud of the science centre and the way it is reaching out and sharing its knowledge and exciting science presentation skills with other countries, including in recent years Japan, Kuwait, China, the United States and England. Currently, negotiations are taking place in the Middle East and other Pacific Rim nations for exhibit purchases and consulting services.

The government has long recognized the important role of the science centre. Last April we announced that the centre would receive special funding of more than $8 million in operating and capital moneys over two years, allowing it to revitalize and to address the growing demand for its products and expertise.

I think all members of the House will agree that the Ontario Science Centre is doing a splendid job not only of promoting an understanding of science, but also of raising the profile of Ontario and its rich technological resources.

RESPONSE

ONTARIO SCIENCE CENTRE

Mrs. Marland: I have to express appreciation that there has been recognition today of a marvellous establishment that was created in the province by a Progressive Conservative government. I too am very proud of the Ontario Science Centre and its achievements over the past number of years.

I note in the statement that members of the science centre staff are going to travel to Kuala Lumpur for the establishment of this exhibition. I hope the replacement of those staff members on an interim basis will be well addressed in the contract price so that the ongoing operation of the Ontario Science Centre will not be impeded or jeopardized in any way.

The statement does not address the actual cost of the agreement. It addresses the source of funding that the Malaysian government has used to finance the purchase of the Science Circus. It should be noted that the money has come from the federal Progressive Conservative government.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

Mr. Andrewes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. McClellan: Stop the clock.

Mr. Andrewes: Yes, we can stop the clock. I notice that many members of the executive council are absent this afternoon. It seems that absent are the Premier, president of the council, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Peterson); the Attorney General, minister responsible for women's issues and minister responsible for native affairs (Mr. Scott); the Minister of Colleges and Universities and Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara); the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter); the Minister of Education and acting Minister of Government Services (Mr. Conway); the Minister of the Environment and chairman of cabinet (Mr. Bradley); the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil); and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and minister responsible for francophone affairs (Mr. Grandmaître).

There are a number of pressing issues we would like to question the government on during question period. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps it might be in order to move a motion to recess the House until the government can gather its thoughts and its cabinet ministers.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is not clear whether the honourable member has made such a motion; I sincerely hope he did not. There is not much point in getting into a numbers game, but while the member was gathering his wits and asking me to gather my members, I made a count over there and 40 per cent of the caucus of the official opposition is absent.

I do not think it is really an excuse, but the members will know that the courthouse in Ottawa, a $50-million program begun by the predecessor government, a marvellous building, now is open for whatever it is they do there. It has been my experience that openings of courthouses have a fatal attraction for politicians. A number of my colleagues, including the Premier, the minister of justice, the minister for women's issues, the minister responsible for native issues and so on, because of their responsibilities, are attending that opening in Ottawa.

I believe it is generally accepted as well that the order of business this afternoon is three important bills dealing with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. While that is of extensive and far-reaching importance in the province, it does not involve all the members on an immediate basis. While I cannot for a moment say that the members of the executive council here gathered are in a position to answer all the questions, we will do the best we can.

We have ordered for the business of the House this afternoon very important legislation. I suggest it would not be in the best interests of the democratic process and the work of this House to suggest that there should be an adjournment because of the absence of eight of my colleagues. I wish they were here, but they have business elsewhere in the province that they are attending to.

Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I --

Mr. Speaker: I believe you rose on a point of order. I cannot allow a debate.

Mr. Andrewes: I only want to draw to your attention, sir, and to the attention of the government House leader, that the motion is for a recess, not an adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: I listened very carefully to the member for Lincoln. As I understood it, he suggested that it be considered. Now the last time he rose, he intimated that it was a motion. I did not understand that by his original comment. I would like to refer to standing order 38(a): "Subject to clause (c) of standing order 32, a motion to adjourn the House or the debate may not be moved until after the orders of the day or notices of motion have been entered upon except by unanimous consent of the House. Such motions do not require notice." I feel there is not unanimous consent.

1350

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understood when the honourable member first stood that he was making a suggestion.

Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, if you will retrace my words in Hansard, I think you will find that I moved a motion to recess the House while the government gathered its members of cabinet.

Mr. Speaker: I gather from your most recent comment that you wish me to review that to see whether it has been put.

Mr. Andrewes: You can accept my word or you can review.

Mr. Speaker: Are you trying to put a motion?

Mr. Andrewes: I did put a motion.

Mr. Speaker: I believe this matter has come before the House on two previous occasions. I remember very well a similar occasion, I believe it was in July 1985, and at that time I felt it was not in accordance with the standing orders to place a motion to recess the House because of the reasons given.

Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, we have no alternative but to challenge your decision.

Mr. Speaker: I will then place the question. Shall the Speaker's ruling be upheld?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Ruling sustained.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PAPER MILL

Mr. Grossman: In the absence of the Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Peterson), the Attorney General and minister responsible for native affairs (Mr. Scott), the Minister of Colleges and Universities and Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara), the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter), the Minister of Education and acting Minister of Government Services (Mr. Conway), the Minister of the Environment and acting chairman of cabinet (Mr. Bradley), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), the Minister of Municipal Affairs and minister responsible for francophone affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) --

Mr. Speaker: The question is to which minister?

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for one of the few remaining ministers, and that is the Treasurer.

Yesterday, when questioned by my colleague the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) with regard to the Kimberly-Clark situation, the formerly combative Minister of the Environment, so formerly dedicated to cleaning up the environment and being tough, indicated he might or might not give some money to Kimberly-Clark to save the 1,600 jobs in Terrace Bay, but he had to wait until he was "assured that there is a genuine case of need."

Given that the minister has had three months to determine that situation, and given that the financial audit of the company clearly shows there is a genuine case of need, will the Treasurer tell me why the money has not yet been given to Kimberly-Clark and the jobs saved?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Perhaps for the same reason it has not been given over the past five years, when the control order has been in effect and Kimberly-Clark has done nothing discernible to improve the situation.

I think everybody in this House agrees that we want the employment opportunities to be maintained and, we hope, expanded in Terrace Bay. I believe everybody in this House agrees that Ontario should establish reasonable levels of pollution abatement and see that they are understood and that they are going to be required.

This narrows it down to the matter the honourable Leader of the Opposition has referred to. When there is evidence by an independent audit that the company concerned cannot finance the kinds of improvements that our regulations require, the alternative is for the public Treasury to involve itself in some reasonable way. It is obvious that alternative is under active consideration.

Mr. Grossman: I wish to correct the record. The Treasurer and his colleagues like to pretend that these circumstances are long-standing and that everything their government fails to do is the result of the previous administration.

The facts will show that the control order was put on in 1982 by the previous government. They were given until October 31, 1986, during which time the previous government did offer financial assistance to Kimberly-Clark. So when the Treasurer stands up with a response to the supplementary question that I am about to put, it would be greatly appreciated if he would correct the record and confirm that the previous government did offer assistance.

It has been five years since the control order went on, and the previous government did offer financial assistance to the company. There are 1,600 jobs at stake in the small community of Terrace Bay. The audit has now been done, and the company is saying it cannot afford to do it without government funding. Would the Treasurer be kind enough to agree to dedicate a mere two weeks of the $400-million surplus he has collected in the past six months to devote to this tiny, threatened community in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member is aware that the pollution abatement capital cost for that mill is something in excess of $20 million. I believe he is also aware that many other industries would expect, and very properly, to be involved in a broad program of this nature. I can only reiterate what I have already said. The matter is under active consideration. The member is aware that we do not earmark specific allocations of resources, even windfall resources, but I cannot make it much clearer than saying that the matter is under review and that cabinet makes these decisions in conjunction with our colleagues working together in this connection.

The abatement order has been in effect since 1982, as the member has said. I think of it in terms of five years during which time nothing was done by the company to effect the move towards reaching the levels that are required under the regulations. It is regrettable this has occurred over this time, but the pollution did not begin with the accession of the Liberal government.

We have been concerned about our policies in this regard because I feel they have not met the needs described in the parameters that are a part of this question. I hope there will be an announcement in the near future about this matter which will be supported on all sides.

Mr. Grossman: Let me point out to the Treasurer that the Minister of the Environment is absent again today for the third time in a week, after having been here almost all the time up until now.

Hon. Mr. Elston: What is wrong with you? He was here yesterday and you were not around at all.

Mr. Grossman: The minister is clearly absent for one simple reason. He is now caught between his previous tough statements and the reality that time has run out on him. He must enforce a control order or put up the government's $400 million in surplus funds where his tough words are. He now must make the tough choice between enforcing a control order or finding $20 million out of the government's $400-million surplus to save 1,600 jobs in Kimberly-Clark.

When he runs up against his previous strong words, his threats and promises to be tough, and $20 million from the Treasurer, the Minister of the Environment has no choice but to run and hide from this Legislature. Perhaps he too is at the courthouse in Ottawa when he ought to be here saving the jobs at Kimberly-Clark.

Hon. Mr. Elston: That is not true. You are doing the same thing that you are best at. You are not being correct. You were hiding yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Nobody has been in this House more than the Minister of the Environment, and that man is wrong.

Mr. Pope: Do you want to be the Attorney General? Do you want to be the Premier? Do you want to be anybody else who is missing?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut; that is what you guys are. You are creeping in the ruts.

Mr. Turner: How would you know?

Mr. Gillies: You would have to look skywards to inspect a snake's belly button.

Mr. Speaker: Once again, order.

I will recess this House for 10 minutes.

The House recessed at 2 p.m.

1410

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Grossman: To correct the record, I might say to the House that my information is not that Kimberly-Clark has done nothing in the past five years. It has now complied with six of the seven items on the control order and it has spent more than $7 million in the past five years on these problems, so the Treasurer's information was perhaps inaccurate. Kimberly-Clark has done a great deal.

We do have 1,600 jobs at risk. I know the Treasurer will acknowledge that and I know he is aware that the range we are talking about is some $20 million needed by Kimberly-Clark. Given that the Premier has now set up a committee to review this and that he wants some significant proof of actual need, how can the Treasurer justify this process and the holding back of $20 million to Kimberly-Clark when he gave almost that same amount, i.e., $17.5 million, to the Premier's friend, Mr. Schwartz, to build Exploracom in Toronto without a financial audit --

Mr. Speaker: The Treasurer.

Mr. Grossman: -- without a cabinet committee, without going through these long procedures and without any jobs?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The preamble to the member's question that resulted in the brief adjournment was associated with my colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) trying to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that although the Minister of the Environment was here yesterday, the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) was not. That is why this kind of an exchange is not particularly productive. I am sure both gentlemen had important duties to attend to elsewhere.

In answer to the question, I say again to the Leader of the Opposition that all the facts he put forward are correct, and I am glad he did correct the record, particularly as it pertained to my comments, that six of the seven compliance orders had been lived up to.

The company has done some things, that is for sure, and we feel we want to be in a position to require that it does the cleanup in a way that is going to be advantageous for the community and leave the company in a position where it can continue operation, we hope on a profitable basis, in the future, and where the goals of the government and the people of Ontario will be served and the environment will be substantially improved.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Grossman: The bottom line is that the Minister of the Environment is usually here --

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Grossman: -- except when the heat hits. He has disappeared for three days.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: There was $17 million for Abe Schwartz and not --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind all honourable members this is question period. Does the Leader of the Opposition have a second question? To which minister?

AUTO PACT

Mr. Grossman: In the absence of the Premier and Minister of Northern Development and Mines and in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who surely should be here to speak to this issue, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.

I am sure the minister has by now had an opportunity to consider the remarks made by Mr. Peapples of General Motors indicating there may be 40,000 Canadian jobs lost in the auto industry by the early 1990s. Can the Minister of Labour tell us what he and his colleagues are doing right now to avert that tragedy?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The government has been the leading spokesman in trying to protect the auto pact and in trying to enhance jobs in Ontario. We are very pleased that the levels of automotive employment in the past couple of years have been at record highs. The objective of the government is to maintain as much of that employment as possible within the Big Three, to enhance employment and to be able to attract offshore auto companies to Ontario.

On an ongoing basis, the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) and indeed all members of cabinet, particularly those with economic portfolios, take a very careful look at the auto industry, which is so important to Ontario.

Mr. Grossman: For the sake of the credibility of the governing party, let us not suggest that the minister and his colleagues are the leading spokespersons defending the auto pact. The minister is no more committed to the auto pact than is anyone else in this Legislature. Indeed, the record will show that his colleagues in the Windsor area led the pack in calling for renegotiations when times were tough in that area.

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary question is?

Mr. Grossman: The minister has talked of attracting new investments in the auto industry. I remind the minister that Mr. Peapples, who is on the Premier's high-tech fund, has pointed out that some of the new investment that came here with $95 million from this government failed to comply totally with the auto pact provisions. As a result, we may well get from these companies outsourcing of auto parts -- sourcing outside this country -- which would have to be sourced inside this country if the company were one of the Big Three complying with the auto pact.

Given that circumstance, can the minister outline specifically what he or his colleagues the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Premier and the Treasurer have done to ensure that, with this new capacity coming into Ontario, they have not lost jobs in the longer term in the parts sector and in the broader automotive sector?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am beginning to understand that article this morning. This government remains very committed not only to the automotive companies, but also to the auto parts sector, which has been a very difficult sector. We are anxious to protect and enhance as many jobs as we can.

Over the years, this party and this government have indicated and demonstrated in many ways their commitment to a strong and viable automotive industry in Canada. It was not until it became clear that this government was going to speak strongly for all the people of Ontario, particularly those in the automotive cities of Ontario, that the federal government's tough line began to emerge last week through its free trade negotiator, Mr. Reisman. This government has already had a very positive impact on the situation.

Mr. Grossman: The Treasurer can see how badly he needs to get some ministers into the House who know what they are talking about on the auto pact.

The Minister of Labour has been put on notice by the president of General Motors of Canada that 40,000 Canadian jobs are at risk. Can he tell us specifically, not the good intentions, but whether his ministry has started a training or retraining program for some of the workers? Has the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology put up an adjustment assistance program for the industry? Has any assistance program been put in place to help the adjustment in the broader auto pact sector? Has he ensured that there are any provisions built into the $95 million that was given to the Japanese company to locate in Ontario that will provide the necessary protection?

1420

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I regret that my colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities and Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara), who has the primary responsibility in this cabinet for training, is in the city of Windsor today making important announcements for my community. He is meeting with the president of the University of Windsor and the president of St. Clair College trying to undo the damage that government did to the post-secondary community over so many years.

I am sure the Leader of the Opposition can ask the Minister of Skills Development, on his return tomorrow, about the training. As well, when my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology returns, he can ask him that. The Leader of the Opposition knows the proper minister to put these questions to and I suggest he do so.

PAPER MILL

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Treasurer. We need to find out why it has taken the government three months after the expiry of the last control order to get the government to make up its mind. We know there has been a running battle between the minister and his deputy. We know that running battle has meant the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has had to take the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) out of the game. We know there now is a committee of bureaucrats dealing with this issue. We know that is why the minister has been ducking question period and has not been here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I recessed the House a while ago because we were interrupting ourselves. I hope that does not occur again.

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Treasurer a very basic question that we are entitled to have an answer to. Can he give us the assurance that the control order that is going to take place will have a definite expiry date attached to it with conditions relating to performance in terms of the reduction of pollution? Can he give us the assurance that the government of Ontario is going to be directly involved to protect the jobs of the workers who have contributed so much to the economy of this province?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I think the preamble by the leader of the third party was unworthy of him. While the Minister of the Environment was in the House answering questions yesterday, the leader of the third party was out in the community doing goodness knows what, probably listening to soap operas or something such as that. There is a worthy comment.

Mr. Speaker: And now for the response.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: In response to his preamble, his intelligence is totally erroneous. He should be aware that discussions of this nature in the cabinet under the Premier's leadership are full of understanding, that the facts are put forward in an unbiased way and that we move with all the deliberation the taxpayers would desire in important matters of this type. We are moving towards a solution in this matter. I can assure him that when it comes forward, whatever it may be, we expect the enthusiastic support of all the members of the House.

Mr. Rae: Why watch a soap opera when you can come here every day and watch the real thing in action, watching the Treasurer trying to answer these basic questions and giving us a song and dance? It is a soap opera of a government where the deputy minister and the Premier are doing an end run around the minister, where the minister has zero credibility with respect to the environment because of what has taken place.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If that was a question, I would like to respond.

Mr. Speaker: I guess it was. I was going to ask if the supplementary was on the soap opera. Do you have a supplementary`?

Mr. Rae: I have a question about the saga, "As Bob Turns."

I would like to ask the Treasurer to answer the question I asked him before. Is there going to be a definite time attached to a new control order? Is the government going to be directly involved to protect the jobs of those workers who contributed so much to the economy of northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member is aware that we must protect the jobs in every way we possibly can. We also want to establish credible bases for the environment that will be enforced. In this connection, there is nobody in this House or this province who does not have the highest respect for the Minister of the Environment. His credibility is excellent. Not one of his predecessors in the history of that ministry has done more for the environment. I am proud to be associated with him.

We want to protect the jobs and we want to clean up the environment. If it requires the utilization of public funds in some way, in some program new or old, we are giving that the careful consideration such a difficult question merits.

Mr. Pouliot: This is no laughing matter. We are simply asking that the Treasurer give consideration to putting human needs ahead of bureaucratic convenience. Does he realize the climate of anxiety of the people of Terrace Bay and the five communities that are depending on its survival? He should realize the impact and the dilemma in which his government has placed the workers of northern Ontario because of its inability to govern and to make up its mind in this affair.

Will the Treasurer make a commitment? Will he please give us a date and the contents of the control order so we can go on with the basic necessities of putting bread on the table? It is no laughing matter. The Treasurer has the responsibility to give us a date and the contents of the control order so that we can go on with our lives.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I acknowledge the concern expressed by the honourable member. He also represents the concerns of his constituents in Terrace Bay in an effective way. We do not think it is a laughing matter. Sometimes the member's leader moves me to amusement, and I regret that. It happens.

It is not possible for me to answer the member's question in terms of any control order, the involvement of public funds and in what degree, or even a date. I simply say again that it is under active consideration. The pressure is on the minister and all of us in the government to come up with an effective solution. I can assure all members we will, and we look forward to their support on that occasion.

Mr. Rae: It is three months after the expiry of the last order and the Minister of the Environment has been taken off the case. Those are two things we now know.

DAY CARE

Mr. Rae: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister will be aware of a press conference held this morning to discuss a report conducted for the parliamentary committee in Ottawa dealing with the relative quality of day care being provided across Canada. He will be aware of some quite devastating results of a survey conducted by that committee with respect to the quality of care provided in many day care centres in the country, and presumably in Ontario, and the fact that many day care centres run for profit offer a standard of care that is not acceptable.

Will the minister comment on the report and make public all government inspection reports with respect to day care centres in the province? And given this report, can he explain why his government is still so determined to see that for-profit centres get a handle on government money?

1430

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I met with members of the combined coalition group who were present at the press conference earlier this morning, and they shared that report with me. My understanding is that the report reflects the situation across Canada; it is not a direct reflection of the situation in Ontario. This is not to suggest that it perhaps is not at least partially true in Ontario.

However, I remind the honourable leader that nonprofit centres and commercial centres are inspected in the same way by the same people and acquire the same kinds of licences under the same sets of conditions. If there is a difficulty in the quality of a commercial centre or a nonprofit centre, the same action is taken. Therefore, there is no good reason to believe that, as a general rule, commercial centres do not have good quality and nonprofit centres automatically do have good quality. There are good ones and problem ones in both.

Mr. Rae: The minister is making a statement that is completely and utterly at variance with the report that was released this morning. He may choose to make that kind of statement and he may choose to believe it; but if he makes that kind of statement, he ought to understand that when he does so he is saying something that is contradicted directly by the report. The report states very clearly, for example:

"Global ratings of all centres: Very poor: nonprofit, two per cent; small profit, six per cent; government, zero per cent. Poor: nonprofit, nine per cent; small profit, 19 per cent; chain, 15 per cent." Even of chain centres, 15 per cent are categorized, not by the authors of the report but by inspectors, presumably inspectors even in his own ministry.

I repeat my question to the minister: given that documentation with respect to poor homes clearly establishes that there are more poor day care centres operated on a for-profit basis than is the case for nonprofit centres, municipal or government centres, why are the reports not made public in Ontario as a matter of course, first of all? Second, why is he so determined to continue down the path of giving the chain centres and the for-profit centres a stake in the system and giving them even greater control over the system than they now have?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: If I am wrong the honourable member can correct me, but by implication the suggestion is being made that commercial centres are chain centres. That is not the fact in Ontario. Of the commercial centres in Ontario, 80 per cent are operated by single operators. We do not have a lot of chains here. In fact, if we define a chain as an operator who has five or more centres, that represents five per cent of the centres in Ontario. Thus, we do not have that particular problem.

Second, with respect to the inspection reports, as I indicated a couple of minutes ago, the same inspections by the same people, the same licensing procedure, are done for both commercial and noncommercial centres. If in either case there are situations that have to be corrected, that centre is given a conditional licence, which is posted. As part of that conditional licence the changes that have to be made are listed, and they are posted as well. They then have 30 days to make the necessary corrections. Whether it is commercial or noncommercial, the same rule applies.

Mr. Rae: I want to make clear that the minister has again misunderstood. If he looks at the survey, it establishes a number of basic criteria: enhancing child development, service to working parents, potential for providing broad family and community support, health and safety. Those are the tests that are applied. They do a survey across the board. There are more day care centres in Ontario than in other provinces. The minister will know that. On the basis of that, 25 per cent of the small profit day care centres are described as very poor or poor in quality, one quarter. Fifteen per cent of the chains are described as being very poor or poor, one out of every six. The minister is responsible for those children who are in very poor or poor centres on a daily basis.

Given his responsibility, how can the minister continue to keep the inspection reports private and not available to the public on a basic as-of-right basis? Why is he persisting in his strategy, not of toughening up the regulations but of loosening the regulations and saying, "Here is some money, guys; come and get it"? The strategy does not make any sense. It flies in the face of common sense.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have just explained to the member that when an inspection report indicates that changes have to be made, that is posted.

The second point -- and I made this to the member on the basis of a previous question -- is that if a parent who wishes to use that centre wants to be apprised of that inspection report, he or she can go to the centre and get that information. It is not secret in the sense that the member defines it.

We talked earlier here, and since that discussion I have spoken to my officials about the possibility of a form of posting. We are investigating that now. It may well happen.

With respect to providing financial assistance to the centres, l have said on numerous occasions that we were talking about protecting the existing spaces. We are not talking about expanding that sector of child care service. We are talking about the high percentage of spaces there now. We simply cannot replace those spaces over a short time; therefore, we have to be sure they continue to be there. We are not talking -- and the member again repeats the term "chains" -- about chains dominating the market in Ontario. They do not; they have only five per cent of it.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Gillies: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the head of the technology fund, my question will be to the Treasurer. While Kimberly-Clark languishes for the lack of $20 million, the technology fund's only major commitment thus far is, as my leader stated earlier, to the Exploracom project headed by the Premier's friend Mr. Schwartz.

In view of continuing media speculation about the lack of success of private fund-raising for this project, can the Treasurer inform the House of the status of the Premier's proposed investment in this project and of the private sector fundraising endeavours undertaken by Mr. Schwartz in aid of this project?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The public financing for Exploracom will certainly depend upon the ability of Exploracom to raise the funds necessary to match and also guarantee the continuing funding of the program in the future, but that matter is under review.

Mr. Gillies: We contacted a number of companies in the computer field, including the four majors, Xerox, IBM, Northern Telecom and Bell, all of which indicated they were not participating in the project.

I wonder whether the Treasurer can confirm that Mr. Schwartz has been informed the province will be withdrawing its $17.5 million. With an election looming, the government has realized this was a massive blunder.

I wonder also whether the Treasurer can inform the House whether Mr. Schwartz has himself guaranteed a $3-million loan for this project and whether it is Mr. Schwartz's intention to take legal action against the government for withdrawing the commitment?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is a fact that the funding of Exploracom is not satisfactory from the government's point of view. We feel that Exploracom cannot make up the commitments made originally and it is not expected that the province will advance any money to Exploracom under those circumstances.

1440

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning the Neilson raid on Cadbury Schweppes. Will he table for us in this House the information he has gathered from his meetings -- I understand he has met with Neilson and is scheduling meetings with Cadbury -- all the details of that takeover proposal? Will he also provide us with the company's justification for closing the Whitby plant?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I do not have those details yet. One of the aspects of this takeover that the honourable member asked me about last week in this House was whether this government would be getting involved with the federal authorities that have an opportunity to look at this. I am given to understand my office has been in contact with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and that a preliminary examination of this buyout is under way. We are keeping in close contact on that.

Last Friday, I met for about an hour and a half with senior officials of the Neilson company and they explained the basis for their decisions. While I am away from the House for minor surgery, I expect my office will have meetings with Cadbury and with Local 222 of the Canadian Auto Workers. At that point, we will be advising cabinet as to what next action, if any, the government ought to take.

Mr. Breaugh: Can the minister explain to us why he has not yet registered his objections with the Competition Tribunal? For all intents and purposes, he is approving the takeover and closure of the Whitby plant. Why can he not at least call for the inquiry by registering the objections of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: As I indicated to the honourable gentleman in answer to his first question, we have not yet completed meetings. The tribunal is already conducting a preliminary examination into this matter. The second stage of such would be a formal inquiry. By that point, we will have a position as to whether this government ought to ask that a full inquiry look into the appropriateness of this matter.

It is a very unusual situation that a company buys another and immediately announces its closure. I understand from press reports and from hearing the gentleman and his colleague that there is a great deal of unhappiness in the area, as one might expect. We are looking carefully at whether the situation that is developing is one that is in any way avoidable and whether the company ought to be allowed to complete the purchase.

POLICE INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Solicitor General in the light of the fact that the government over the course of the past year has initiated a number of investigations by the Ontario Provincial Police. For the minister's information, these include allegations of misconduct and drug and alcohol abuse at the Workers' Compensation Board rehab centre in Downsview, the potential misuse of government funds by Wyda Systems, the potential misuse of government funds by LSI Applications and potential criminal charges to be laid as a result of the Vaughan land sale.

Will the minister inform the House when the Legislative Assembly members will be advised of the outcome of those investigations? Will he table those reports at the earliest opportunity for the House to peruse?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I will be happy to give an update as to the dates of potential completion of those investigations. I believe that at the present moment many of them are still going on. As far as the availability goes, some of these are reports that can be made public, others are not.

Mr. Brandt: Can the minister indicate as well the number of OPP officers involved in the investigations and the cost of those investigations, as well as the personal investigations that were undertaken with respect to the minister's own activities?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I will take that question as notice and refer it to the officials for an appropriate answer. If some of those are still going on, I suggest it will be some time before those exact figures can be obtained for every one of the investigations that have been done.

APARTMENT CONVERSIONS

Mr. Grande: My question is of the Minister of Housing. It is in regard to 400 Walmer Road, the condo conversion in Metropolitan Toronto.

Since tenants believe that Bill 11, the Rental Housing Protection Act, was passed by the Legislature to give them security in their homes for at least two years; since the city of York council has decided not to protect the 547 rental housing units on Walmer Road and will change them into condominiums; and since his ministry and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs disagree with that decision, what is he going to do about it? Is he going to investigate it? Is he going to find out whether the city has a right to that decision in respect to his Bill 11?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member is rather conclusive about how the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) agrees about that case on Walmer Road. The member knows the case is now being appealed, and it will be heard. We believe Bill 11 is a very effective bill in protecting the rental stock. If the municipality feels it can release those buildings that it feels can be protected, the process will take its course. That case is now being appealed, so I cannot understand when the member says the Minister of Municipal Affairs agrees on that process.

Mr. Grande: The Minister of Housing again has either not heard or misunderstood. I suggest to him that both the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Municipal Affairs disagree with the decision that the city council took.

I would like to find out from him first, since the decision is being appealed at the Ontario Municipal Board and since it is in the best interests of his government to protect Bill 11, whether he is going to provide intervener funding to those people who will be appearing before the OMB so that the best possible case can be put forward to protect rental housing in this province. Second, once the OMB receives the decision, does the minister not realize that the decision is in his court, because it could be appealed to cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Curling: A process is in place, and there are no applications to me or anyone for intervener funding. I know the OMB will hear the case on its merits and make its decision. If those applicants need intervener funds, I presume they can make their case. I cannot make a decision on whether they will get intervener funding.

SEASONAL HOUSING

Mr. McGuigan: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association, meeting today in its annual convention, is concerned that federal funds are available for the seasonal housing program for farm workers but that these funds will be withdrawn by April 1 if they are not matched by provincial moneys.

This past summer the federal-provincial farm employment program was very successful in providing Canadian workers to work on Ontario farms. New Brunswick was particularly successful as the source of these farm workers. Can the minister announce or provide matching funds that will be available prior to April 1 so that this program may be taken up before it runs out on April 1 ?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I responded to a question very similar to this one that was posed by a member of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association at its convention, which started the beginning of this week. I indicated to them that the details of a federal-provincial agreement for seasonal housing were being finalized. I am in the process of going to cabinet to seek approval. I hope I will be able to get cabinet approval within the next week or two. After that, the final details for a federal-provincial agreement will have been worked out, and we should be in business.

1450

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the same minister on the same issue. Once again, we are back into accusations of verbal promises. The people from the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association felt the minister had promised them funding for the 1986 season, this past season. Did the minister make any promises to them during the 1986 season?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: No, I cannot recall making any promises. I knew full well that once the program had terminated some time in 1986 -- I forget when it was -- I would be getting together with my federal counterpart to see whether a new program could be established. I do not know why in the world I would ever say to the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association that there would be a program in place when I did not know whether my federal counterpart was going to agree to a federal-provincial program.

Mr. Stevenson: I am sure the fruit and vegetable growers will read that answer with interest. In April 1986, the federal government allocated $400,000 for the 1986 seasonal program. That was subsequently reduced to $200,000 because of the minister's inactivity or his prompting. That offer is about to terminate. Why has the minister misled the fruit and vegetable growers during 1986 and when will he have money available for 1986?

Mr. Speaker: Order. In all fairness, you should reconsider what you stated. I wonder whether the member will withdraw that and change his wording.

Mr. Stevenson: Perhaps I should say that the information the --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will you withdraw that statement?

Mr. Stevenson: If there is some problem with "misled," I will withdraw that word and ask the minister why his comments again seem to be completely out of phase with the comments of the growers? When can they expect funding for the construction undertaken in 1986?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Whatever the member has to say does not affect me too much because he is famous for making those accusations, although he will not step outside the House and make allegations. Natural Fry is an example.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister has a response.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I have listened to several allegations made by the honourable member. Natural Fry is an example. For obvious reasons, the member will not go outside the House and name me, my deputy minister, my assistant deputy minister or anyone out of the Premier's office. He will not name those people for very obvious reasons. I do not worry too much about the member's accusations.

I will tell him that a lot of the programs by the previous administration came under the BILD program, which was terminated by this government.

Mr. Stevenson: You terminated it. Now what are you going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We are coming in with far better programs.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Nickel Belt would like your attention so that he can ask a question.

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister will know that his predecessor, who is the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), promised, to his credit, the creation of 155 new provincial parks. At this point, 51 of those parks have still not been officially designated despite the fact that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) promised that by the end 1985 all of them would be officially designated. Can the minister tell us why, aside from divisions within in his own cabinet, those parks have not been designated?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That is an important question, and I would certainly like to share with all members the reasons those parks have not been brought into regulation. When I first took over in the ministry, there seemed to be an agreement on multiple use of parks. It appeared that many of the parties had agreed, after sitting around the table, that this possibility could be achieved.

I am sorry to say that when the new government took over, some parties withdrew from what had appeared to be a reasonable multiple use of parks. The fact that this happened has caused us to hold back on the regulation, to try to get a commitment again from the various users of all parks across the province. I guess it is important to those people who have generally had historical uses of park areas to be given some feeling that we in this government will look at the multiple use of parks. That could be a reality if we were to bring the parties back together and have some unanimity in the use of parks.

Mr. Bernier: You caused the problem and nobody else.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member should not point his finger at me. He is as big a cause of the problem as anyone else.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, I remind members that interjections are out of order.

Mr. Laughren: All the minister is telling us is that he has not been able to make a decision. Whether or not people have different views, why does he not officially designate the parks, so boundaries are set, and then have public hearings on what goes on within those parks? If he does not want to do that, why does he not assign it to the Provincial Parks Council, so it can come up with a policy, since the minister does not seem to have the courage to do so?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is not a matter of courage at all. It is putting the parks to the best possible use for the people of Ontario. This government has done something that has not been done for a good long time in Ontario; that is, to agree with the federal government to have a new national park in the Bruce Peninsula. I take a great deal of pride in that. We took the initiative and are going to do that. That is to the benefit of all the people in this great province of ours, to enjoy a wonderful new park.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will just wait.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I regret I have to keep asking these questions, but there is a great difference between what the minister is telling us and what the farmers are telling us.

On the Natural Fry issue, does the minister deny that phone calls were made to bankers at his request by people under his responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I certainly do. I never requested any staff member of mine in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to make any phone calls to bankers.

Mr. Stevenson: I find that absolutely incredible, because we clearly have it in writing from several people who were at a meeting with the minister that those statements were made.

Prior to Christmas, the minister asked that we get evidence in writing. Now he has changed his story; it now is only letters signed by the minister that we must have in writing. It would be very good if he would get his story straight on exactly what has happened and get it even slightly in tune with what the farmers are saying. He should admit he led the growers astray into far greater financial problems than they were already in and he should come across and pay them in full for their trouble.

1500

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The only member who is mixed up is the member for Durham-York and he has been that way ever since he got to that side of the House. He should face the facts and carry out his opposition duties in a responsible and dignified manner. I also have the minutes of every meeting I held with the potato growers, the potato board, the processors and anyone connected with the potato industry. I have the minutes of the meetings and I know exactly what I said. It is the member who does not know anything about it.

DOMESTIC WORKERS

Ms. Gigantes: My question is for the Minister of Labour. A year ago I asked him to bring in legislation to provide employment standards for domestic workers in this province that would govern hours of work and overtime and permit unionization. He assured me we were going to have a change in regulation under his munificence and that I would not have long to wait. What has happened to that promise?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The matter is under active consideration.

Ms. Gigantes: Can the minister elaborate on why, when what was proposed was a simple change to regulation, it has taken more than a year to produce an answer that tells us we have to wait some more?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The matter was subjected to a round of very comprehensive consultations with a number of organizations. Proposals have gone forward for discussion with my cabinet colleagues. When those discussions are complete, the members of the Legislature and the public will be aware of the decision of the government in this regard.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Brandt from the standing committee on administration of justice reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of the Solicitor General be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Ministry administration program, $8,169,100; public safety program, $23,286,900; policing services program, $8,257,500; and Ontario Provincial Police program, $240,996,400.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. R. F. Johnston from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office Responsible for Women's Issues be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Office Responsible for Women's Issues program, $8,342,000.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: On Tuesday, December 16, there was an altercation between the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye). You undertook to review the transcript and to report back to the House on whether the Minister of Labour had violated standing orders. That seems to have got lost over the Christmas season. I draw it to your attention on page 4267 of Hansard and ask whether you could reactivate that concern.

Mr. Speaker: I certainly will. I thank the member for drawing that to my attention.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the following substitution be made on the select committee on health: Ms. Hart for Mr. Poirier.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRUCK TRANSPORTATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Fulton moved second reading of Bill 150, An Act to regulate Truck Transportation.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Bill 150 is an act to regulate truck transportation, one of three bills related to trucking I will be presenting for second reading.

When I introduced first reading, I may have been remiss in not commenting on and congratulating the members of the select committee on highway transportation of goods of some years ago. My critic the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) was chairman of the committee and the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) served long and diligently on it as well.

I explained the purpose of these bills in some detail upon their introduction on November 19, 1986. However, I would like to state the basic principles today.

Bill 150 provides a new framework for the regulation of Ontario's trucking industry. Primary among the proposed changes will be the replacement of entry controls from a test of need to licensing on the basis of fitness. The test of public necessity and convenience established some 50 years ago has hindered competition.

This test, which takes the form of an adversarial, legalistic and often very expensive hearing before the Ontario Highway Transport Board, has made it difficult to obtain a licence to operate as a for-hire trucker in Ontario, thus protecting existing truckers from competition. The hearing process is both time-consuming and costly to the industry and to the public. In short, it no longer serves the needs of our shipping and trucking industries nor benefits Ontario's consumers.

The new act requires applicants to show they are fit to be licensed to provide a trucking service. This will entail both an examination of the applicant's past performance record and the requirement that the applicant or an employee of the applicant be a holder of a certificate of competency.

The new fitness test will cover the prospective trucker's knowledge of safe trucking operation, transportation legislation, insurance requirements and vehicle maintenance practices. While reducing government intervention in the economic regulation of trucking, this act will increase the emphasis on safety and performance. Furthermore, additional safety measures will be covered under Bill 152.

Second, this act recognizes the reality of today's transportation environment. In recent years, there have been attempts to provide efficient and innovative transportation services. In many cases, such operations are technically illegal under the present Public Commercial Vehicles Act. Not only has this inhibited the introduction of new services, but also it has created enforcement difficulties.

The new act legalizes these transportation services by providing for the licensing of owner-operators and single-source lease operations. It will also ease the administrative burden of rate filing, allowing for more flexible pricing strategies and the use of confidential contracts.

1510

To address any concerns respecting entry into the trucking business that may cause a disruption to the marketplace, the act provides for a public interest test. This will take the form of a hearing before the Ontario Highway Transport Board whenever it is shown a new applicant poses a threat to the public interest.

Further, the legislation establishes an advisory committee on truck transportation. This committee will report to me on the effectiveness of these reforms, the need to continue the public interest test beyond five years and other matters concerning the transportation of goods. The committee will be drawn from industry, both shippers and truckers, as well as government representatives.

These reforms resulted from extensive consultations with the trucking and shipping industries. I have also met with my counterparts across the country to ensure that these measures are compatible with national reform initiatives. These discussions have taken place over a number of years. They represent a broad consensus and are designed to provide a more competitive, responsive and flexible trucking industry to serve the Ontario marketplace.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any comments or questions?

Mr. Gregory: I take a great deal of pleasure in taking part in this debate with the minister --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was asking for comments or questions. Are you carrying on with the debate?

Mr. Gregory: I thought his comments were very good.

Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the member for further debate, I would like to draw the members' attention to a former member for Cornwall, George Samis, who is sitting in the gallery.

Mr. Wildman: I note that the former member for Cornwall is with us this afternoon. He had a tremendous interest in this when he was a member of the Legislature, and has now in his capacity with the board. However, I would ask the minister how extensively he consulted with Eric Cunningham on this initiative. Why is Eric not with us this afternoon?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I welcome the comments of the member for Mississauga East, and I accept the comment of my friend the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman). I do not have the vaguest idea where the gentleman is whose name he mentioned. I did not realize Mr. Samis was here, but I welcome him, as a former member and as a newly appointed member of the Ontario Highway Transport Board. I wish he were sitting on this side, however.

Mr. Gregory: I too welcome Mr. Samis back. It has been some time, and he was a -- I will let it go at that. Welcome back, George. It is nice to see you back.

I also welcome the comment of my friend the member for Algoma. I would like to give my impression of where Eric Cunningham is, but I will not; it will save everybody some embarrassment.

I am glad to take part in the debate on this bill in principle. I congratulate the minister on his first piece of legislation of any consequence. It is an important bill. Our party will be supporting the bill in principle.

Mr. Morin-Strom: The member cannot be serious.

Mr. Gregory: I am totally serious.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Why does he not support the Ontario Trucking Association?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gregory: I do not hesitate to say that. My friend in the back row, who has never appeared at any of the committee meetings or anything else, is an expert on it. If he has read anything, he should know the Ontario Trucking Association supports the bill too. I accept its advice more than I accept his.

We will be voting for the bill in principle. However, we will be taking the position that, upon obtaining second reading, it should be referred to a standing committee for public hearings and clause-by-clause debate. We feel it is important. Whereas I said at the outset that we support this in principle, there are many problems we have with it, not the principle of the bill but certain clauses that need to be looked into.

I thank the minister for his remarks on the report of the select committee. I assume he has read it word for word, all 1,700 pages. He should. It gives a good blueprint for the trucking industry in Canada. However, one of the things with which I take issue is his statement that the bill parallels the recommendations of the committee. It is not entirely true. There were some concerns expressed in the select committee of which I had the honour of being chairman.

I will take an excerpt from that report. This report was written 10 years ago. It took 10 years to write it before that -- no, that is not true either, but it should have taken 10 years. The member for Etobicoke and I worked very hard on that report. The excerpt reads:

"The provision of transport services on a for-hire basis has been a traditional activity of entrepreneurs for centuries. The evolvement of surface carriage on public rights of way has come a long way from the horse-and-buggy days of medieval Europe to today's capital-intensive transcontinental trucking firm, employing thousands of men responsible for sophisticated transport, capable of hauling 50 tons of goods at high speeds over the modern roads."

The minister should not worry; I am not going to read the whole 1,700 pages, just this appropriate part. He has time. The excerpt continues:

"In the evolution, several inherent characteristics of the industry have become apparent. The glamour of independence draws many individualists into the industry. Many of these people are not trained in management processes; most of them start out with insufficient marketing data with which they could justify their decision to enter the industry in the first place.

"Low technological requirements of the industry effectively remove lack of skill from being an entry barrier. In addition, the low capital requirements for initial entry act as a heady inducement to would-be entrepreneurs. As a consequence, chronic conditions of oversupply prevail. This has led to a history of instability wherever industry entry has not been controlled. In fairness, it must be stated that the large and medium-size trucking firms which exist within the Ontario economy have a great deal of sophistication in their management.

"Nevertheless, in those jurisdictions where entry control did not exist in the early days of the trucking industry's growth, conditions of chaos existed for the users of the service, as well as the providers. Shippers would find that carriers with whom they contracted for carriage were improperly insured, or not insured at all, so that lost or damaged goods became a shipper liability; that the vehicles were unreliable, due to poor maintenance; that the drivers were overworked and less than careful with the goods and that the carriers were unreliable even as to their very existence.

"In summary, the here-today-gone-tomorrow character of the industry imposed a real loss upon the economy at large.

"These symptoms were the direct result of an excess of supply of transport services. This led to frantic cost-cutting, beyond the limits of prudence, by all carriers as they struggled to survive.

"In places, social unrest characterized the operators' expressions of dissatisfaction with the circumstances. It is small wonder that authorities responded to these situations by instituting a system of entry controls which were designed to protect the shippers by ensuring that a stable and adequately financed source of supply was available to them and to protect the operators against destructive competition by controlling industry growth."

I think the select committee that came up with this report was recommending entirely the opposite of what the minister is saying. It was saying the controls were needed, and were needed very badly. However, all things change. I think the recommendations of the select committee -- not all of them, but a lot of them -- were, by and large, brought into force, and a lot of good has been done by that.

A lot of control has been gained over the trucking industry, and a lot of safety precautions have been taken. Much of the dangerous equipment has been taken off the road. Many of the abuses, such as overextended hours of driving by truckers, have been eliminated. Perhaps it is time for us to move towards a lessening of the regulations in the trucking industry.

The former Minister of Transportation and Communications, the Honourable James Snow, was of that feeling, and I believe this legislation is based on his working paper. The member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague), another former Minister of Transportation and Communications, also endorsed what we are doing here. On that basis, I have no hesitation in saying to the minister that it is a good idea in principle and I believe I have the support of many people who use the services of trucks and who would agree.

1520

My friend the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom), who has now gone, asked if I had talked to the Ontario Trucking Association. Yes, I have. I have had much conversation with them and a lot of input from them. They have their problems but they are accepting the bill, on which I congratulate them. They do have many problems I feel they should have the opportunity to present to the members.

One criticism of which I was informed by the OTA is that the minister had agreed to meet with its members once again, prior to this second reading, and he did not. This was expressed to me. No doubt the minister has the same information at present as I have on what their recommendations are going to be and what their thrust is going to be on this bill. Most of the problems they have are with safety, and they want to ensure that safety is a prime factor in this bill. I expect the minister will be hearing more from them. I will be touching on that a little later.

I want to go over some of the main points of the bill and touch on some that the minister has already touched on. I think the change in the entry qualifications from an examination of the need for additional service to an examination of fitness of the applicant -- in other words, the ability to provide a service -- is good.

Mr. Wildman: Survival of the fittest.

Mr. Gregory: We have had many horror stories before the Ontario Highway Transport Board --

Mr. Wildman: The law of the jungle.

Mr. Gregory: Slow down, Bud. You will get a chance. Let this Bud speak. This Bud is for me.

Too many times we have heard the horror stories before the OHTB, where a man or woman is applying for a licence, only to be confronted by lawyers who may be representing as many as 20 other trucking companies and who -- surprise, surprise -- are trying to prevent somebody else from getting a licence. One can understand their point of view; naturally, they do not want the competition.

I dare say when I was in the insurance business I regretted every time they gave a new insurance agent a licence, but I was not given the opportunity to prevent it. For many years, we have given trucking companies the opportunity to prevent somebody else from getting a licence. That is not in the spirit of free enterprise, to my mind. Perhaps because the bill is correcting this, that is why my friends on the left do not support it. Anything to do with free enterprise frightens the bejabers out of them. I was going to say something else but I will not. I think this is a --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gregory: All things change except the New Democratic Party. The party of last resort over here never changes its philosophy; it goes on and on and on in opposition. They are going nowhere because they will not adopt new thinking. They will not adopt a broadening of their thinking in any way. They have closed minds. Anyway, I am not here to debate the NDP, which is beyond help. We will concentrate on the bill.

The certificate of competency --

Mr. Martel: How about a handout or something like that? You heard Larry today. We have to have more corporate socialism.

Mr. Gregory: Elie, hang on.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gregory: Elie, hold on. You might get appointed to the board they are talking about here.

The Deputy Speaker: If the member for Mississauga East would speak to the chair, it would discourage the interjections.

Mr. Gregory: I would be delighted to speak to you at any time, Mr. Speaker. When I face the alternative, it is probably much preferable I speak to you.

I see the certificate of competency as almost unworkable. It is going to have to have a great deal of work to determine precisely what competency is. I do not know whether the minister can describe for me at this time what competency is in the trucking industry. I would be interested in hearing if he could. Maybe the government whip over there is explaining it to him right now so he will be able to say what a certificate of competency is. I hope he is going to address himself to that and explain fully to me later what is going to be included in the certificate of competency, because it is a little nebulous right now. I hope he will get into that a little more closely, so we will all understand what particular talents the trucker must have to get a licence, apart from the ability to hire a lawyer and prove he can get insurance.

The fitness test, I believe, covers two things. I expect it covers the fitness of a person to drive a transport truck, plus the fitness of the equipment. I hope it addresses both.

Many of the problems we flagged in the select committee report have been mentioned in the minister's remarks. The unfitness of equipment was one of the problems we faced in the early days. Because there was so much competition and transport owners were putting less and less money into the maintenance of their equipment, their trucks were running with bald tires and overworked drivers; and such forbidden things as bennies to keep people awake while they drove nonstop to Florida were discussed and this sort of thing. These are all the horror stories we heard in the select committee.

I hope the test is going to be very broad for how fit a person is to operate a licence for a transport company intelligently and profitably. Also, the fitness test is going to be supplemented by a public interest test for the first five years. I hope this does not put the applicants in double jeopardy, in that they will have to prove not only that there is a need for their services, as well as the new liberalization the minister has introduced into this, but also that they can provide a service. They have to do both, so what is new? It is not terribly changed.

If his public interest test is applied only on a very selective basis, where there is some difficulty, then that is fine. However, if everybody is going to be subjected to a public interest test simply because some other trucker objected to that licence without any real basis, then I do not think that is fair; it is counterproductive. I hope the minister can assure me that will be used sparingly and anyone who opposes the issuing of a licence will have to have a very solid case on which to base his objections before the applicant is subject to all this examination.

The bill also provides for the establishment of an advisory committee on truck transportation. I hope this does not become another provincial Liberal Senate so that we can have all kinds of appointments to it. If it is going to be so, save one for me in about four or five years because I might be looking for something like that.

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: The member will be the first to know.

Mr. Gregory: Will I? Okay. I do hope it will not be a sort of retirement home for past friends.

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: We like the member for Mississauga East.

Mr. Gregory: I like the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) too. He should not tell too many people, though. I do not want to spoil my reputation.

It is important that advisory committee be more than a sounding board and that it be empowered to offer constructive advice and to do a true review to see how this thing is working after it has been in force for a while.

I am not of the view that we should be overly penalizing people with fines for infractions, but it seems to me that a fine of not less than $150 and not more than $1,500 for an offence is not awfully punishing. Unless great care is taken, a trucker could be mistaken and believe it is worth his while taking a chance on paying a $1,500 fine and making much more money for having done it.

1530

We have to be a little careful. I do not think they should be drawn and quartered; at the same time, any fine should be tough enough to impress them that they had better not fool around with it. I am sure the minister will have that in mind.

I am a little disturbed by the ministerial directions to investigate. The minister and the cabinet are taking a great deal upon themselves, almost giving themselves veto power. Perhaps the minister will explain that a little later.

The point is made that the Ontario Highway Transport Board is going to have all the authority, but there is a little subsection, 37(1), that says: "The minister may direct the board to examine and investigate such matters relating to transportation policy as the minister specifies and the board shall report thereon to the minister." Does that ministerial advice include who should get a licence and who should not? Does the minister have the right to overturn a board decision or ask it to re-examine it; and when it comes back and the board says to the minister, "We have re-examined it and found it right the first time," can the minister say, "That is too bad. I disagree. We are not going to issue that licence"?

I hope the minister is not taking that responsibility on himself. If he is not, perhaps the wording in the act should be cleaned up to make it a little clearer, because that would be very much resented.

If you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, I am having trouble getting together my staff notes.

I have received correspondence, not only from the Ontario Trucking Association about the problems it is having with this act, but also from the Ontario Dump Truck Owners Association. In the strictest definition, this is not part of the principle of this bill, but dump truck licensing is covered under transportation.

In the Ottawa Valley area bordering on Quebec they are having many problems, and this bill presents a threat to them. They suggest that the recommendations of the select committee about 10 years ago made it easier for them to exist, because they are not overflowing with trucks but Quebec truckers are able to come across the border and take away a lot of work from Ontario truckers. This is not reciprocated; Ontario truckers cannot do the same in Quebec. They say a loosening of this licensing requirement is going to put many more dump trucks in competition with them.

It is not the same as dealing with transports. You can only fit so many of them on the highway, but if you have to travel on Hurontario Street in Mississauga you know you can put many thousands of dump trucks on any residential street at any given time. Economically, there is not necessarily room for them, but they are afraid for their livelihood. The minister is going to have to address himself to that. I hope the Ontario Dump Truck Owners Association will have the opportunity to visit with the minister before the committee when this bill is referred to committee.

I want to mention that the list of participants the minister talked to about this legislation is very impressive. There is a list, which is lost in my notes, of 40 or 50 groups he has talked to. However, beyond having given the minister some input, I hope its role does not end there. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell), for example, would say the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is the most important one he should be talking to, but if the minister were to check with every member in this House, he would find a different group that should have further consultation with him. I mentioned the Ontario Dump Truck Owners Association. There are many more, such as the gravel carriers, and some of the people from the north who will be speaking on lumber.

This is the main reason I am suggesting this bill should go to committee. Even though the minister tells us he has negotiated with each of these groups, it is only in committee that we can have an opportunity to make sure of that. I think I speak for my New Democratic Party colleagues as well; they too want to know these groups are getting across the message they want the minister to hear.

I hope he will bear that in mind. I ask him to not push to have this rammed through a committee very quickly, because I do not think it will happen. Our party would not want to stall anything, but we do want to make sure a very important industry is heard from on this matter.

I was going to go over the comparison between the old act and the new bill, but since so many people want to speak on this I will just touch on a couple of things.

The most important thing to me is the burden of proof. It was on the applicant to prove there was a need for his services; now it is on the respondents to an application to prove he should not have a licence. I think that is fair and long-needed. I have often wondered how I would react if I wanted to go into the trucking business and, in applying for a licence, found myself opposed by 20 high-priced charlatans with law degrees and legal documents. I would have only one lawyer to defend me or to prove to 20 lawyers that there was a need for my services. I have often thought that was very unfair, and I welcome that part of the bill.

The safety aspect is another important thing, because the previous act did not mention safety. It was left to inspectors. The new act does, and it is all part of the fitness test. This is welcome. The general public is going to welcome this too.

One of the most frightening things in the world is to drive along the highway, say the Queen Elizabeth Way, or Highway 401 when travelling down east. It is night. Suddenly, you look in the rearview mirror to find big headlights above your level. They are obviously truck headlights and they are right behind you. They are hanging on to your bumper. You want to get out of the way, to move into another lane, but you cannot because there is another transport truck on your left passing you. What happens if someone in front of you suddenly stops and of necessity you have to stop, but the transport is in a position of making you into a sandwich? That is scary.

I do not think drivers of transport trucks have been properly policed or trained. There are too many infractions. Too often one finds transport drivers, because they do not want to gear down or brake or because they want to maintain their speed level, simply passing each other. They play hippity-hop up the hill. The truck that is going faster takes the passing lane. In the last experience I had with that there were three transports abreast, one in the regular curb lane, one in the next lane passing him and one in the passing lane passing them all.

1540

Mr. Haggerty: Who won?

Mr. Gregory: I slowed down. I did not want to get into that, because I thought I could only be a loser. That is scary.

I hope all of these things will be taken into consideration, because I feel the general public is frightened of transport trucks on the road. I think they have reason to be so because very many accidents have taken place. We are all aware of disasters that occur because a transport truck has jack-knifed. There was one on Highway 400 that overturned and fell on top of a group of cars, taking many lives.

I hope this is something to which the minister will address himself and be prepared to be questioned on extensively in the committee hearings. With that, I will yield the floor.

Mr. Martel: It is such good stuff. Go ahead.

Mr. Gregory: If the member is enjoying it so much, okay, fine.

Not to be repetitious, we will be supporting the bill, and we will be very pleased to do so as a matter of fact. Do not think this means we think the bill is perfect; we do not. That is a given. We will want to make some constructive criticism in committee and possibly some amendments. I would like to hear further debate on this from my colleagues to the left -- I am not really looking forward to that, but we do not have to listen to it -- and possibly from some of the minister's colleagues who might not totally share his enthusiasm for the bill. One never knows.

Having done all that, I can assure the minister that we will be supporting him on second reading. We look forward to the interesting meetings we are going to have in committee, which might well last all summer long or until the next election, whichever comes first.

Mr. Wildman: I am tempted to say, "That will be a big 10-4, good buddy." I want to indicate this party will have no truck or trade with the comments my colleague has just made.

Mr. Gregory: I cannot tell members the relief I feel to know my friend the member for Algoma is not going to support my remarks. If he were, I would probably be reconsidering my position at this time.

However, I do thank him for at least sitting in his seat and listening to the very interesting remarks. Now I hope he will lend an equally attentive ear to the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot), who no doubt will have many interesting things to say.

Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The one-time chairman of the select committee on the highway transportation of goods, who came out strongly in favour of a regulatory system, has already changed his mind and done a flip-flop by supporting this legislation.

Mr. Chairman: That is not really a point either of order or of privilege.

Mr. Philip: I thought it was a point of interest.

M. Pouliot: Mon collègue le député de Mississauga Est (M. Gregory) a indiqué qu'il aurait peut-être quelques difficultés à écouter ses collègues, surtout ses collègues de gauche.

I want to reassure the member that if it is any easier for him, we will do it together. We will use the translating process, fully recognizing his very kind comment that this is indeed the Mecca of good manners and decorum. I hope I will not bore him too much.

I wish to join my voice to those of many in recognizing the former member for Cornwall, a person who has not only been an inspiration to the New Democratic Party of Ontario but has also been a sort of spiritual leader in matters such as transportation and communications in Ontario. Again, I welcome M. George Samis. On vous souhaite la bienvenue.

There is nothing in this legislation from which Ontarians will derive benefit. After listening to my distinguished colleague from Mississauga East, I am now convinced these bills are based on the premise of a Liberal-Conservative philosophy, a sort of trial balloon that will surely create far more problems than it will solve.

We do not have to be experts in the field of transportation to recognize that we are indeed in the midst of a campaign that promotes the removal of public interference in the economy. For some vague, bizarre or strange reason, there is a belief that the marketplace always makes the appropriate choice and that public interference is no longer the order of the day, it always chooses second best and only as a last resort will we adhere to public interference or public contribution in this matter.

We have first to realize all is not well in the transportation system. The existing legislation represents a world of yesteryear. If we are to look to the future with confidence, we must implement many changes. What the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) is proposing to do, however, is to enact a complete change from stem to stern without the proper homework.

My colleagues and I have searched long and hard to find the appropriate substance that would warrant such a move, something to justify such an overreaction and, truly, we were unable to come up with justification that warrants such a drastic move from the world of yesteryear to the world of today. At the risk of being repetitious, we have been and will continue to be very strong advocates of changes that will not reflect the world of yesterday but will reflect the world of today.

Some of the current rules are completely inappropriate; other rules are most difficult to enforce. They have become outmoded, archaic, impossible to implement and difficult to interpret. We recognize this and, with a friendly voice, we have proposed and will propose solutions that suit the world of today.

Regulation of economic activity is not a new phenomenon in this province. It is an assertion of a social right that gives people at the consumer level and at the industrial and commercial levels the right to benefit from fair play. It is an assertion of right, the same right as the right to make a profit or the right to be a private entrepreneur.

Regulations are there for a reason. They are there to protect people. They are there because there is a need. They are there because untrammelled competition in the marketplace has not and will not meet the needs and the aspirations of the people. Regulations are there also to ensure that citizens of this province living in outlying or remote regions will not be discriminated against by virtue of the place they live.

The Minister of Transportation and Communications speaks with great fanfare and very eloquently about the need to deregulate completely an industry that represents $3 billion and fully employs 43,000 to 45,000 people in direct jobs in Ontario.

Let us examine what has taken place in the United States where deregulation became the order of the day in California in 1980. Thousands of jobs were lost, in excess of 100,000 jobs, and 350 mid-sized carriers were thrown out of business.

1550

I do not make it a habit -- time is far too valuable -- to read the Wall Street Journal, but my friends to the right, many of whom have mercantile attitudes, will be the first to favour the minister with a meticulous and exact definition of takeovers. That was the order of the day in the US. They will also inform the minister about mergers. The consequence has been that the very element in the economy the minister wishes to promote has been taken away. What is the element? The members have guessed it. It is the element of competition. As the big players got bigger and as the mid-sized operators got eliminated, the result was cartels and monopolies.

The very element that the minister wishes to enhance has been struck at with passion and vengeance. Consequently, today in the US there are 10 major carriers. The other people have been left holding the bag. There is no competition. That disease has carried over in anticipation of deregulation. We have seen many companies disappear. Supplementary to the fact that in excess of 100,000 people have lost their jobs in the US, many of the survivors were left with less bargaining power. Fringe benefits were taken away from them and pensions were drawn out. Concessions became the order of the day. It does not speak very highly of public relations.

Deregulation is also a safety issue. Not long ago, I tabled two petitions in the House signed by some 2,500 people who reside in the great riding of Lake Nipigon. They were concerned about the lack of safety and about the fact that the truckers seemed to have taken over the roads. It has become carnage. I have petitioned the minister on and on. I know the minister is concerned about safety. I have not met anyone who is not concerned about safety. We have indicated positive alternatives related to safety: the expansion of the road network and the enlargement of roads or wider roads in the case of Highways 11 and 17.

We fully realize that it is much easier to put up with what one has than to come up with solutions, especially when there is a lack of money. What we have been asking from the minister is a timetable. Nowhere in the proposals regarding deregulation do we see any increase in the number of inspectors relating to or regarding safety. We do not have enough to police the present regulations, yet the minister does not see fit to make a commitment that there will be more inspectors to regulate the proposed legislation. It is a safety issue.

In the real world, when people turn to the bottom line, when they have to examine profits, what will they do? Will truck drivers be asked to drive longer hours? Will the same drivers be asked to forgo the element of safety checks of the vehicles for the mere sake of making a profit'?

Regional expansion is a subject matter that cannot be neglected. It is our sincere belief that without regulation, the people of northern Ontario, the people who are trying to survive and prosper in remote regions of our province, will not receive adequate protection.

Let us review some of the proposed changes. Under the present system, the onus on the applicants is based on public necessity and convenience. They have to prove the community will benefit from their entrance into the market.

What is the minister proposing? He is proposing a sort of reverse onus regime whereby fitness will become the sole factor of entry into the marketplace. One could call it a world of the fittest. If one is fit, willing and somewhat able, he will be granted a licence, if he can obtain insurance. Nothing at all is said about a performance bond. "Come on, folks, get into the market." Consequently, a cynic would suggest that anyone who is able to breathe will be able to drive anything that is able to roll.

There is no sunsetting formula. The minister is not aware of it. Maybe he did not think about it. Some of his very eloquent and appropriately highly paid staff will come up with a formula that will guarantee that after five years one will still have a public responsibility. We are concerned about the lack of a sunsetting formula. To guarantee that the reverse onus will not be a free-for-all, we need protection for the general public. The system has worked. There is no rush to overhaul it. However, there is a rush to address the problems that must be addressed. We recognize that.

Not only in conscience but also on the basis of reasonable questions that need to be answered, we cannot acquiesce to the minister's demand for support on this matter. We will dissent from the views of the majority.

I have in my hands what seems to be an endless list of participants in the debate that perhaps was to form the substance of the changes the minister is presenting to us, although it was very much a prelude. I see the labour movement, the people driving those trucks, the people showing a profit for the big boys. I see the Teamsters' Joint Council 52. We recognize it is there but we see it only as tokenism. There are some 40 organizations. The major players in this affair -- Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway -- are not even mentioned. Van Horne must be turning in his grave.

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: No, I am still here.

Mr. Pouliot: The distinguished member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) need not apologize for still being with us. We want to wish him well.

I am quoting from an endless litany of unanswered queries. Without regulation, no one would certify that carriers have the necessary fitness to serve the public. There would be no assurance that a carrier must be properly responsible in case of loss or damage or for the collection of payments or cash-on-delivery accounts. Without regulation, it would not be possible to prevent a carrier from picking and choosing customers. There would be an absence of rules for the protection of inexperienced consumers. It would be difficult to settle disputes between shippers and carriers and between carriers and carriers when they are from hand to mouth, or should I say trip to trip.

1600

There is doubt as to who would serve small towns and communities or whether they would be served at all. The riding I represent is the size of Germany; it has 114,000 square miles. The road system ends up in Port Severn. We use Port Severn as a base of transportation to the extreme part of the province, which incidentally -- and this is an omission -- the electoral map of Ontario does not even recognize. It indicates that we go on and on and on. In my wildest fantasies, my wildest dreams, I begin to see the earth's curvature when I go up north; a riding 1,100 miles long.

It borders on audacity. We have nothing against backhaul, but we feel, with all the sincerity at our command, that the right homework was not done, that somewhere the minister has experienced a digestive process. One could never accuse the Liberal Party of moving too quickly. If patience is a virtue, we will go to the higher house. They have sinned for a long, long time.

It is a shocking document, without substance. We are not opposed to change. The fine people around me, the ones with the social conscience -- and being an educated man, Mr. Speaker, you can readily acquiesce in which ones they are -- are saying more work needs to be done.

Without regulation, there would be no effective protection against monopoly pricing and destructive competition. The minister should make a believer of us. He should give us the reasons we should believe that such a massive document will serve the benefit of Ontario, that this is not a witchhunt or a change for the sake of changing. I wish to believe. We are asking to believe. We believe in change, but we do not believe that, without regulations, the interests of Ontarians will be best served.

Quand on parle de l'industrie du camionnage, on parle d'une industrie de $3 milliards, avec quelque 44,000 ou 45,000 employés. Or ce n'est pas une petite affaire; c'est beaucoup. On parle d'une industrie avec laquelle les Ontariens, depuis la Confédération, ont appris à vivre.

Vous savez, Monsieur le Président, il n'y a aucune pression. La pression pour des changements, je l'ai expliquée tout à l'heure, mais personne ne nous dit que le système, dans son entier, devrait être révisé pour servir une idéologie désuète, périmée, une idéologie basée sur les Conservateurs et les Libéraux. Ce sont deux vieux partis politiques.

M. Wildman: Oui, d'accord.

M. Pouliot: Ce sont deux vieux partis politiques qui ont su et qui sauront toujours servir les intérêts des entrepreneurs qui, eux, n'ont pas les mêmes intérêts que les consommateurs. C'est bien facile. Moi, je comprends ça. Ce n'est pas moins que ça, et ce n'est pas plus que ça non plus.

In conclusion, if our memories were short, we would be tempted to believe, because they appear to perspire sincerity, and again with a great lack of substance. Excuse the pun, I am not given to humour, it is not my forte, but we would be taken for a ride, a hayride as well.

We encourage the minister to come up with changes. He is on a roll. He has had courage, and he should be commended. We are saying to the minister that we will support those changes under the present regulation. On the other hand, in conscience, for the sake of safety, for the sake of northerners and for the sake of our brothers and sisters in the labour movement, without absolute and total guarantees, we cannot take a chance on the future.

Mr. Fontaine: My honourable friend is speaking for the big companies and for the big unions right now on this.

Mr. Pouliot: I am not very familiar with the working of companies. I am not a shareholder, but if it is permissible, I invite my good friend, who shares the same problems I have, to consult in a climate of solidarity as opposed to indulging in mere verbiage. He too does not come up with the right answers.

Mr. Sargent: I welcome this chance to talk about the trucking industry, about the benefits and opportunities and about the need for trucking reform, which is long overdue. We have been talking for the last 20 years about the --

Mr. Wildman: The member should not pay any attention to the speech that was written for him.

Mr. Sargent: About the only thing I know is what is on this paper.

The facts are there and we realize the monopoly control of many firms in the trucking industry. I welcome to the House today George Samis, who was one of the finest members in the House during his term here. He was a good hockey player too. I welcome him on the Ontario Highway Transport Board. I know he will be a good voice for all of Ontario.

This legislation is long overdue. The existing legislation does not meet the needs of the trucking industry or those of the users of transportation services. The previous Public Commercial Vehicles Act, enacted in the 1920s with the initial purpose of protecting the railways from competition, is no longer applicable.

Restrictions of entry to the industry are costly and time-consuming and have made it very difficult to get into the trucking business. Consequently, innovative services have been stifled and in many cases transportation costs are higher than they need be. The legislation has also become very difficult to enforce.

Estimates are that 20 per cent of the trucking industry and the traffic moving is contrary to the act. The PCV Act simply does not recognize current needs and marketplace realities.

The member for Lake Nipigon spoke of the need for greater truck safety. A major thrust of the reform package is to improve truck safety. To achieve that objective, performance will be examined upon entry to the industry by means of a fitness test and continued monitoring of the performance of all operators by requiring them to hold a commercial vehicle operator's registration. Any operator, private or for hire, may face suspension or cancellation of operating privileges for continued violation of the applicable laws.

This legislation will stimulate the Ontario economy and I congratulate the minister for bringing this forward now. Transportation has become increasingly important as a cost of doing business. Freer entry and a greater degree of competitiveness in both price and service are crucial to Ontario's manufacturing and industrial base in its efforts to compete, particularly in the international marketplace.

1610

A stated purpose of the Truck Transportation Act is to be of benefit to the users of transportation services. Equally important is the need to enhance small-business opportunities. This new legislation will enhance small-business opportunities both for those desiring to enter into the trucking business and for users of trucking services, particularly in the outlying areas and northern Ontario, which often complain that existing legislation fails to provide them with a cost-effective transportation service. The legislation will encourage the growth of both local and special carriers able to service the needs of the community.

The need to reduce transportation costs is a high priority. Because increased competition as a result of freer entry will invariably lead to lower costs, lower transportation rates are necessary if Ontario business is to be competitive.

Mr. Philip: Where is the proof of that?

Mr. Sargent: We will get to you in a moment.

In markets such as the United States, where shippers large and small have benefited from lower costs, ultimately lower transportation costs will benefit consumers.

To improve transportation services, the new legislation will encourage new and innovative trucking services to the marketplace, which has increased its demands for a tailored, specialized and efficient service. Entrants to the industry will be able to offer such services as they see fit. They can customize and not be subject to some of the spurious limitations that now exist.

To maintain a dependable trucking industry, it is the objective of the legislation that a dependable trucking industry be maintained. A fitness test, a performance monitoring through CVOR -- commercial vehicle operator registration -- will ensure that a fair and competitive environment is created.

These three bills do the following: The Truck Transportation Act replaces the Public Commercial Vehicles Act; the Highway Traffic Amendment Act brings in commercial vehicle operator's registration, and in the Ontario Highway Transport Board Amendment Act, an internal appeal process replaces cabinet petitions and disciplinary review powers.

What are the pressures for reform? In the US, the reforms essentially deregulated the US trucking industry. Trade volume increased and there was growth in transport movement by truck. The present legislation is outdated, and a lot of it is almost unenforceable. Other pressures for reform are the need to reduce transportation costs and the need to improve service options.

This legislation is long overdue and is a tribute to the minister. I welcome further debate as this goes on.

Mr. Pouliot: I welcome the comments by the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), but with respect, I would point out again to the member that the province does not have the necessary complement of personnel to police the safety aspects of the existing regulations. With the onslaught of newcomers into the market, it will not suffice.

Again I remind the member for Grey-Bruce that the minister did not see fit to address what is not a potential problem but a real problem. They have a problem now, and there is no direction, no intent to address the problem in terms of safety inspectors.

Regardless of the safety provisions, in this proposed dog-eat-dog world, when competition is supposedly so fierce -- for a while, at the beginning it may well be that way -- and when profits are trimmed to the bone, expenses will follow suit. It will be an invitation to the truckers to keep those trucks on the road longer. The tires will get a little balder, if there is any such term, or the threads will get somewhat thinner. Unless we have very strong legislation, we will have a potential nightmare in terms of enforcement. The public will again be left holding the bag in this affair. It is important that this be mentioned.

Mr. Philip: In 12 years in the Legislature, this is the first time I have ever seen that member, who is always so enthusiastic and exuberant in his comments, read a speech that was prepared for him. It is a little sad because I do not think he believes in that particular speech.

He made the statement, as a small businessman, that in the US deregulation reduced costs. Has he talked to any of the small businessmen in the US who, as a result of deregulation, have had trouble getting servicing and, in the case of the airline industry, are actually paying very large amounts to go from one small city to another to do business? Has he talked to any of these businessmen? If so, how can he possibly favour a deregulation program similar to that in the US, which he seems to advocate?

Mr. Sargent: There is an old saying that if you have been doing it this way for a long time, it is probably wrong. We have been involved in this legislation since 1920. It is time for it to be revamped. The member can throw stones as much as he wants to, but the minister has to be given credit. It is pretty fresh and it is great stuff.

Mr. Bernier: I rise to join the debate and I open my remarks to the minister in a complimentary way. As my colleague the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) has pointed out, this legislation has been around for some considerable time. Those of us from northern Ontario know very well that the deregulation aspect of the trucking industry is something we have been looking at during that period of time. I guess it goes back to 1974 or 1975.

I can recall vividly the former member for Cochrane North, René Piché, in the very loud and vocal action group of which the present member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) was also a part. It was made up of mayors and reeves from the northeastern Ontario corridor who used to come down to Queen's Park on a regular basis and drop in on various cabinet ministers and committees to promote deregulation in the hope that the free enterprise system would move in with a little more enthusiasm, with the end result of lowering costs.

For these reasons alone, we must commend the minister for having that free-enterprise spirit and for moving ahead in the right direction. There is no question about it. To repeat what the minister says in the explanatory notes, "The bill changes the entry test from an examination of the need for additional service to an examination of the fitness of the applicant." We on this side fully agree.

The explanation goes on further to say: "At the time of the application, the applicant or an employee must hold a certificate of competency which will be obtained by passing a written test. This test will cover that prospective truckers have knowledge of safe truck operation...."

This is the point I would like to address this afternoon. We commend the minister for his new framework for governing the trucking industry. The new thrust is something we all encourage. The licensing of the owner-operator is in his best interest and is in the public interest. However, the question of safety on the highway is something we in the northwest have a real concern about.

As the minister is very much aware, a committee has been set up in my area known as the PAUL committee. It has its offices in Dryden. It is People Against Unsafe Loghauling. It was established by a young lady who lost her husband in a log-hauling incident on the TransCanada Highway when a major pulpwood spill occurred. She took up the cause and has pulled together a very active committee of which she is the secretary. She lives in Dryden and her name is Lori Madder. The chairperson of the committee is the Rev. Ken Rentz. They have attracted much attention in the northwest with respect to the control and enforcement of the hauling of pulpwood in the northwest.

1620

The member for Lake Nipigon made some reference to safety on the highways, as did my own colleague the member for Mississauga East. To best explain the situation, I will put on record a letter that was directed to the minister on December 22, 1986, with respect to the serious situation that is occurring in northwestern Ontario. Before I do that, I want to say, having been in government and having been part of trying to resolve that issue, there was a safety committee established with representatives from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, the Ministry of Northern Affairs and the industry.

That committee met on a regular basis to review the hauling habits and type of enforcement patrols needed for the movement of thousands of cords of pulpwood on the major highways of northwestern Ontario. They did come up with some studies. The ministry at that time advanced something like $100,000 for certain studies that were conducted in the northwest. New equipment was tried, and some money was put into the Quetico centre to set up a truck training program to train drivers in the actual operation of pulp-hauling.

There has been some movement in the right direction, but I question whether it is sufficient to answer the needs of the general public. To move further on the issue, I will put on the record the contents of that letter directed to the minister. It reads as follows:

"The members of PAUL are becoming increasingly concerned about the growing number of log spills and the increasing laxity in enforcement on highway regulations and spot checking of log trucks. There have been several major spills this fall and early winter.

"November: The CBC radio reported a spill near Thunder Bay in which an oncoming vehicle was damaged when it ran into the spilled logs. November 24: Log spill on the Red Lake Highway. November 25: Log spill on the Red Lake Highway. December 2: Log spill near Sioux Lookout. October: An Avis rental van, rented to Monad Construction, had a side window broken while passing a log truck. The driver believed it to be from a log. December 16: An OPP vehicle was damaged by a protruding log."

There is a copy of a newspaper clipping sent with the letter to elaborate on the problem in that area: "A 23-year-old Dinorwic man has been charged with driving with an insecure load after a protruding log from a pulp truck he was driving knocked the roof lights off a Sioux Lookout OPP cruiser." That will give members some idea of the seriousness of the situation when pulp trucks move down the highway and literally take off the top of a police cruiser.

"These incidents are but the `tip of the iceberg,'" the letter goes on to point out. "They are the ones that we know about because of media attention. There are spills that are not reported because they are in less public places. We in PAUL have been monitoring the trucks as they come into Dryden on a regular basis. We find that the security of loads has greatly deteriorated in the past year or two. See enclosed pictures which are not unusual but almost the norm. Daily we witness loads enter Dryden and the mill yard, with logs protruding beyond the limits, with cables slack and loads not crowned. The enclosed pictures could be multiplied many times. They indicate the kinds of loads that pass through town.

"We have been told by persons from both the highway department and the OPP that enforcement and spot-checking has become less because of cutbacks in personnel. We believe this to be both unwise and dangerous. The government, by not enforcing regulations, is playing Russian roulette with the lives of people who share the highways with the log trucks. We think this to be a very dangerous policy.

"Where is the monitoring committee that was set up after the two young men were killed in January 1983? Has this committee been abandoned? If so, why? And the safety committee that was set up, is it also now defunct? If it meets, we certainly have no indication of that. We want some answers as to why the process set in motion in 1983 appears now to be abandoned. Must we have another tragedy to get things back on track?

"There will be another tragedy if the present trends are allowed to continue. We urge the government to increase enforcement and the penalties for insecure loads.

"Please answer our questions regarding the monitoring committee and the safety committee that were supposed to be ongoing committees. Also, what has happened to the recommendations of the Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada report? Have they also been set aside? And why are the scales east of Dryden and in Vermilion Bay closed so much? Is this part of the cutback policy? If so, it is one that should be reversed immediately. I do not want to have to minister to other families who have lost loved ones because we do not take the necessary steps to keep the logs on the trucks where they belong.

"I await your early reply to our concerns and our questions."

Copies of that went out to me and to the traffic programs branch of the Ontario Provincial Police.

That gives the minister an idea of the problem facing the northwest. We all realize that the pulpwood industry and the sawmill industry are vital to northwestern Ontario. The jobs these industries create add to the economic benefits of that area. We do not want to jeopardize them in any way, but there is that question of safety on the highway.

As my colleague the member for Cochrane North has pointed out to me privately, in the northeast they do not have that problem to that great an extent because they have gone to what is called full-length logging. Loads are piled on a lengthwise basis. They are not crosswise. This diminishes the amount of wood that each truck can carry, and with that comes added costs.

There comes a time that we must look at the cost vis-à-vis the safety factor. As we move through this bill and as we go through committee stage, I hope these issues will be addressed. I hope that as the committees are established and with the new licensing procedure for the owner-operators of our transportation system, we will be able to come up with some answers to this serious problem.

In closing, I want to compliment the minister again for bringing this bill forward. As the critic has pointed out, our party is anxiously looking forward to the committee hearings and to having a good, healthy debate on the various issues that have been brought forward, particularly safety for people of northwestern Ontario.

Mr. Philip: The member makes the same statement that has been made by both Liberals and Conservatives in this House without any proof. It is a matter of ideology and a matter of faith, but I ask the member to show any proof that deregulation will reduce prices in the long run. I ask him to give us any proof of that. I have not heard one member, including this member, who is able to provide that proof.

The member talks about how this bill will somehow improve safety on the highway. In fact, if we look at the European situations and at other jurisdictions, the safest highway systems are those that have a regulated trucking industry.

If the member was so concerned about highway safety, why did his party do so little to implement the report of the select committee on highway safety or to copy some of the techniques that have been used in Europe for so many years to ensure highway safety?

Deregulation has invariably meant that companies desperate to stay in business under excessive competition often cut back and operate in an unsafe manner. If he does not believe that, all he has to do is look at what has happened in the US and see how many airplanes have come down in the past few years after deregulation.

1630

Mr. Gregory: I want to compliment the member for his remarks. He expressed the views of a member concerned about his riding in northern Ontario. It is a legitimate concern. I agree with him on his viewpoint on the bill, and the bill will go a long way towards rectifying the problem.

I am always amazed that whenever the word "deregulation" is used, the members of the party of last resort tend to fall apart. They tend to get all dewy-eyed when anybody mentions deregulation. It does not matter what it is. I swear, if they could regulate animals, they would do so. They get so excited it is almost worth repeating the word "deregulation" to see the reaction because it is so humorous.

Mr. Speaker: You are referring to the remarks by the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier), are you?

Mr. Gregory: I certainly am. I am reflecting on the intelligent remarks of the member for Kenora, which are being responded to by the unintelligent remarks of the party of last resort.

Mr. Pouliot: I have far too much respect for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enter into a sparring contest with my friend the member for Mississauga East. The member for Kenora, who was not repetitious, has emphasized a situation that is really chaotic -- we cannot say it too often -- which is the safety element, especially as it pertains to northern Ontario.

Over the last while, although it has been going on for some time, people have become literally petrified to use, as a privilege, like anyone else, the roads of Ontario. What scares people, and rightly so, is not only that under the proposal there is no guarantee that the increased heavy traffic will be sanctioned and monitored but also that the government of Ontario has failed to meet the present standards. Thus, it is difficult for us to believe that if the government is not doing the job that needs to be done right now, it can give any guarantee, and be sincere at the same time, that somewhere in the future, be it near or distant, it will have the policies and the manpower in place. The government has made no commitment. Its budget has been reduced. Those are facts of life.

Mr. Speaker: Are you directing your comments to the member for Kenora'?

Mr. Pouliot: It is the same as responding to the comments of the member for Kenora, although at times it is almost transparent. It is a philosophy. What is needed is reregulation, not deregulation.

Mr. Sargent: I want to compliment the member for Kenora on his concern for the log-hauling industry. In the ministry there is a great concern for and awareness of the problems in the log-hauling industry. They are on top of it.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I want to express concern that the member for Kenora has not reflected the interests of his riding with respect to the kinds of service we can expect under a deregulated trucking industry. The evidence from the United States is that, in hard-to-service areas such as we see in northern Ontario, deregulation will have very difficult consequences in terms of the costs we are going to have to pay for the trucking of our material, the number of carriers that will be willing to serve northern Ontario and whether we will have service provided at all to some of the small communities in northern Ontario.

The member should be concerned about the consequences that have been seen in the US and that we anticipate happening across the north. The evidence is that the major carriers compete fiercely for the high-traffic areas. One expects there is going to be heavy competition on Highway 401.

We have seen what has happened in the airline industry from the deregulation the federal government imposed on northern Ontario. The carriers are abandoning the north. Air Canada is abandoning northern Ontario. We are losing jet service into communities in northern Ontario. The price of air service is increasing in northern Ontario, not going down, as a result of deregulation. We have seen it very heavily in the community of Sault Ste. Marie. The member should be reflecting on that experience and hoping we will be looking at what will provide better services for the north, not worse services.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members have comments or questions? If not, the member for Kenora has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Bernier: I am somewhat amazed to sit here and listen to the third party, a party that refers to itself as a reform party. As has been pointed out by the member for Grey-Bruce, these are the same ground rules the trucking industry has been dealing with since 1920. Some reform party. They want to stick around with the same rules we have had for so many years because the union bosses -- and believe me, the Teamsters control that party over there; they were told how to react to this bill, because they know the effect it will have on the Teamsters' control over the trucking industry in the province.

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I suggest the former minister is imputing motives. That is against the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I feel he was expressing a point of view. I will ask the honourable member to reconsider his comments; I know he will be considerate.

Mr. Bernier: I will reconsider, but I still have a very strong point of view that there is control coming down on that party from outside sources. While they talk of being a reform party, the progressive part of this Legislature is on this side of the House, in this party. Now we have the Liberal Party joining us after all these years of public debate right across northern Ontario.

The people of northern Ontario have asked for deregulation. At public hearings, committee after committee has asked for deregulation. I am confident that when this act is in place, we will see the changes we in northern Ontario want in place.

Mr. Philip: I find it unfortunate that the previous speaker could not respond to the legitimate questions we had of his slogans, his glib statements about what would happen, and his completely unresearched clichés. Instead, he had to resort to attacking our motives in a shameless manner.

I rise without hesitation to say I have some grave concerns about this bill. I have felt as strongly and emotionally about few bills that have come before this House, in terms of the need for the bill to go completely to committee to have proper public input. While the minister may come up with a long list of various people he has consulted with, he is silent in his comments about what those people have said and about whether he has listened to them.

I think the committee hearings will show over and over again that many people in the industry, many small businesses -- and even the trade unions the Conservative Party seems to be so punishing of --

Mr. Wildman: Paranoid.

Mr. Philip: -- and paranoid about, have some very grave concerns about all or part of this bill.

1640

In 1977, as a fairly new member of this Legislature since 1976, I had the marvellous learning experience of serving on the select committee on the highway transportation of goods. At that time, we had the unusual situation of the Liberal Party being publicly on record as favouring a completely deregulated system.

To their credit, both Liberal critics -- Patrick Reid, a northerner, and Eric Cunningham, a southerner -- after hearing the testimony before the committee, became very strong regulationists. They believed in the regulatory system with the reforms that were needed. They were advocates of the very reforms we in the New Democratic Party were suggesting and the industry itself was proposing. After the testimony, they said: "We are sorry; we were wrong. The slogans, the Adam Smith theories, do not hold up in Ontario, nor do they hold up in parts of Europe that we visited, after meeting with various people from industry, labour and the trucking industry."

I have a lot of respect for Mr. Cunningham. He joined with me under the minority Conservative government when Mr. Snow did a flip-flop from his original position and tried to introduce deregulation in this House. I recall Mr. Cunningham and I going to the then House leader of the Conservative Party and saying, "If you call this bill, we will defeat it." That was the position of the Liberal Party at that time. It was a pragmatic party that said, "We will look at something and if it works, if it makes economic sense, we will go along with it."

Instead, what we see today is a Liberal Party that says: "The federal Conservative government believes in the open-door policy. It believes in the deregulatory system. It believes in free trade, and transportation is a key part of that so-called free trade. Therefore, we are going to go along with that kind of thing."

I can understand that flip-flop by the Liberal government. Indeed, the federal Liberal government before Mulroney --

Interjection.

Mr. Philip: If the member has a comment, I will be happy to sit down and let him make a speech or read a speech, which is what the previous Liberal member seemed to be doing. Now that it is suddenly quiet, I will continue my speech.

Interjection.

Mr. Philip: I write my stuff. I do not have a prepared speech such as the member for Grey-Bruce had. I have never seen a once-enthusiastic member degenerate like this. He would get up and give speeches in this House right from his gut and he knew his facts from his head. Today we had the pathetic performance of his reading a speech that was prepared by somebody in the back rooms of the Liberal Party.

The Liberal Party at that time realized what deregulation would do to the industry in this province. The experience of the committee was able to show them the exact problem. The committee went to great lengths to ensure that our inquiry would be open and fair and that it would consider the views of all who wanted to be consulted.

We pointed out that the implementation of our recommendations -- somebody told me this weighs 12 pounds. I do not know, I have not weighed it, but it is more than 700 pages in length. It made some proposals that would correct some of the problems in the regulated transportation industry in this province.

In our first chapter, having met with the Europeans, having had the benefit of the Australians coming to Ontario to testify before our committee, having heard from the deregulationists and the regulationists, and having visited with the various industries, including the chambers of commerce and some of those who were in favour of deregulation, we concluded that the basic principle is that if economic regulation is to work in Ontario, transportation must be viewed as a system, a complex whole, a set of connected things or parts or a set of co-ordinated doctrines. Indeed, that is basically what has been done over a period of time.

I am not one of those who believe in regulation or deregulation as a matter of faith. I believe a system of transportation must deliver services at the best possible price and must give equal balance to the trucking industry and, indeed, the consumer.

If we look at what is said on the other side, I am afraid we have the opposite. When I visited Washington not so long ago as part of an interparliamentary exchange, in meeting with people from the American side and with some US congressmen, I was astonished at the way certain among them -- particularly Republicans, but a few Democrats, though not very many -- viewed the whole deregulation issue. I would say to them, "In this instance, deregulation has brought these results." I would be met with, "But free enterprise is good." I would say, "But it did not work in this instance. This town is not getting any airline service, whereas before it did," and the answer would be, "We are all for free enterprise."

Slogans do not deliver the goods. Slogans do not deliver the transportation. What they have in the US is a system that was working relatively well. The Interstate Commerce Commission was beyond reproach in terms of honesty and in terms of the manner in which it operated. In things such as conflict of interest, it set standards that could be followed by any country in the world, and there was a lot to learn from it.

Our committee pointed out that the movement of goods dramatically affects all industries. We stated that, furthermore, the government is elected to run the province rationally. A government is continually defining plans and striving towards certain goals that it feels are in the public interest. The establishment of goals and objectives is an integral part of the corporate and public administration. The government is answerable to the public on the basis of the objectives it sets and the way it tries to achieve the success of those efforts.

Transportation is not the same as any other business. It is more analogous to the pipeline. One does not deregulate the pipeline. It is an essential. If transportation disappears from a town, be it rail transportation, trucking transportation or air transportation, there are disastrous consequences to that town. Indeed, many economists have argued, and if one looks at the history of transportation one can see, that there are, either through direct planning or through indirect planning, major effects, such as whether cities grow, whether they do not grow, whether they live, whether they die, whether certain businesses thrive or whether they go into receivership.

1650

Transportation is one of the largest sectors of the Canadian economy. It has revenues of more than $30 billion and Ontario generates roughly 40 per cent of that. If we are going to tinker with a system, we had better be sure about what we are doing. My friend the member for Grey-Bruce has said to me often, "lf it isn't broken, don't fix it."

Interjection.

Mr. Philip: I say to the minister, with respect, "You have not proved that it is broken yet, sir." If it is not broken, do not fix it. If a patient needs a Band-Aid on his finger, do not take out his appendix; it is as simple as that. The government is playing into the hands of the American continentalists, the philosophy stemming out of the federal Conservative government.

In 1977, the select committee summarized its arguments in support and against deregulation of the trucking industry as follows, and these are the essential issues we are dealing with.

It said there were traditional arguments in support of regulation centred on the following beliefs about deregulation, namely, that it would: lead to chaos; result in noncompensatory truckload rates; limit the supply of trucks; result in poorer service and/or higher rates to small communities; result in more unsafe trucks; impede technological development by loss of capital-investment motive; lead to instability of employment; and simply would not have the effect that the proponents felt it would, namely, the reduction of rates.

Those who favoured deregulation, on the other hand, claimed that regulation resulted in: higher costs; misallocation of resources, namely, empty backhauls; and an uncompetitive supply market.

Interestingly enough, when we looked at those, particularly the arguments about higher costs, we were able to compare similar jurisdictions, similarly sized cities, similar economies in Alberta and Saskatchewan. One of the interesting things is that whereas Saskatchewan had a regulatory system and Alberta had a deregulatory system, when we compared costs over the same distance with the same products, we found there were no differences in cost. In fact, deregulation did not reduce cost.

What we found was that it often resulted in bankruptcies, in people getting into the business who were not able to handle that kind of business properly because they did not have the background and experience. Indeed, experience shows that it resulted in dislocation of some companies in the trucking industry.

We also proposed a number of changes that would make it easier and more competitive to get into the trucking business, while at the same time keeping that kind of balance. The committee found:

"Without regulation: no one would certify that carriers have the necessary fitness to serve the public; there would be no assurance that a carrier must be properly responsible in case of loss and damage, or for the collection and payment of COD accounts; it would not be possible to prevent a carrier from picking and choosing customers," from skimming, in the traditional words of the trade.

"There would be an absence of rules for the protection of inexperienced consumers...when they have their household goods moved; it would be difficult to settle disputes between shippers and carriers and between carriers and other carriers; there would be a tendency in some cases for carriers to charge what the market would bear; there is doubt as to who would serve small towns and communities or whether they would be served at all; it is expected that big shippers would wring concessions out of small carriers; it would be awkward to come to the aid of the consumer who found that his only recourse in a transportation dispute was to go to court" to sue a company that might or might not exist.

"There would be no effective protection against monopoly pricing and destructive competition; the customers of the transport companies would not have channels for complaints other than to the carriers themselves" or to the courts; "new products would be less likely to be marketed without a stable transportation system."

I think of that last one as a key to what we have to look at. I said earlier that transportation is not like any other business. We are not in favour of regulating all businesses. I want competition in supermarkets, in dry goods stores and in restaurants. That is healthy. We in the New Democratic Party believe in a mixed and competitive economy.

But when it comes to transportation, which is so essential to all other industries, the minister must have a system that is dependable and reliable and that business and communities, regardless of their size, can count on. If the minister introduces legislation that will in any way tinker with that system, he had better be pretty sure of what he is doing. In reading this bill, I frankly do not have that assurance.

Let me tell members about some of the experiences I have had with the regulation versus deregulation of industry as someone who has studied it for some time. I think even the member for Mississauga East, in all humility, will admit that I wrote a good part of the report, along with Mr. Moffatt and himself, that he signed as chairman.

Mr. Gregory: I had something to do with it too.

Mr. Philip: I said that. If the member would kindly listen, I am sure he would not have these problems.

Mr. Callahan: Did he do the index?

Mr. Philip: I believe he did the index. Of course, if the member for Mississauga East had really written major sections of this, he would be somewhat more shy about admitting he had done a flip-flop and changed his mind on all the principal issues to which he had signed his name. If it was his work, then how can he explain his sudden complete change? How is it that in a few years, the very principles to which he put his name suddenly are no longer valid?

Mr. Callahan: It is flexible.

Mr. Philip: The member for Brampton says it is flexible.

Mr. Callahan: Thank you for telling the people I am here.

Mr. Philip: I know the member for Brampton has more positions on these issues than Masters and Johnson. If that is what he calls flexibility, then so be it. Maybe it pleases somebody; I do not know. I will not ask who.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Philip: If we look at the Australian experience of deregulation, we see what can happen. In Australia, there is deregulation of the industry. We had an opportunity to have appear before our committee at that time some of the key executives of some of the largest transportation companies in the world, which were operating in Australia. I can remember very well questioning one of the executives, who happened to be an executive of a British company that was one of the largest transportation companies in the world and one of the largest ones in Australia.

I said to him, "lf you were operating in the Canadian market or the Ontario market and you had a deregulatory system, what would you do?" He said, "Very simply, I would do the same thing as I did in Australia. I would run on the main routes and take my trucks off the bad routes, the less profitable routes. I would undercut the market for two years. I would buy up competitors as they were about to go into receivership, and then, as I did in Australia, I would raise the price and gain back in six months what I lost in two years, but I would have a monopoly, or close to it."

He said: "That is what I did in Australia. That was my job. I regretted doing it, from a conscience point of view, but from the business point of view, it was the only thing I could do."

1700

We looked at the British experience. Before the Liberal Party had a change of heart as a result of all the overwhelming evidence against its position, it was saying, "They deregulated in Britain, and nothing particularly disastrous happened." We sat down in Britain with both the trucking industry and the unions. They told us that nothing disastrous happened. But what one is talking about in the British experience is a very small country with very short routes, a high concentration of goods and a highly organized trade union system.

If you tried in Britain any of the things that deregulated companies have tried here or in the US, you would not get shipped. The shippers would go on strike. They would refuse to load your trucks. What they had was a regulatory system. The unions were so well organized that nobody tried anything that would be in any way comparable to the things that have happened in the US under a deregulated system.

Sure, one can deregulate if somebody else is regulated. The government does not have to regulate if somebody else is already running an efficient system. In the case of Canada and the US, we do not have that kind of system. In the case of Canada and the US, we have a system with very long distances and in many cases a completely different economic system to that in a small, highly concentrated, centralized country.

If one looks at the history of regulation, it basically started in the late 19th century, when the railways in the US had a monopoly and were gouging the public. At that time, it was decided that it would make some sense to regulate to protect the industry. The most capitalistic, the most free-enterprise of all countries, the US, decided a regulatory system was needed.

In the 1930s, the motor carriers had become a major mode of freight transportation. Then during the Great Depression, the cut-throat competition in transportation became so excessive that, to preserve a transportation system in the US and to protect any kind of consistency of service to the consumer, it became absolutely necessary to impose the kind of regulatory system we have seen until recent years.

If one looks at the airline industry, one sees the disastrous effect of deregulation in the US. The airline deregulation, which was initiated in 1977, was supported by only one airline company. That was American Airlines. A few years ago, I had an opportunity to meet with a retired executive of American Airlines.

He said: "We advocated deregulation, thinking that we, as a company, could get all that business. We could skim off, we could undercut everybody, and we would become the big boys." One can see what has happened. He said, "If you think deregulation is bad now, just wait and see what happens in another five years when those stretch DC-8s start coming down."

Mr. Callahan: Down where?

Mr. Philip: All you have to do is look at what happened last year in the United States, see how many airline crashes there were and you will know exactly where. They are coming down on the heads of the people. There was a tremendous increase last year in air-traffic disasters in the United States.

It only makes sense. In a transportation industry, which is not a high-profit industry, you have to have enough money and enough stability in order to plan for capital replacement. You have to be able to plan on the equipment you are going to need not just now but also in the years ahead.

In the United States, there are a lot of fly-by-night airlines that came in and bought old DC-8s and are flying them around on the gravy train from New York to Miami, New York to Fort Lauderdale and New York to the Bahamas. Sure, they can undercut the market for a while, but if you look at the number of bankruptcies in the United States, if you look at the tremendous increase in costs in going from one small city in the United States to another small city, you can see the disastrous effect on small business and on the airline industry.

Sure, on a short-term basis perhaps a few people who want to benefit from a trip south during the cold weather can get a cheaper deal; but in the long run, deregulation means there will be less safety, less new equipment will be bought and shortcuts will be taken. We have only to look at some of the astounding figures and studies on some of the larger, better-known airlines concerning inspections that have been done on their planes to see just how many safety problems there have been. When one has done certain studies on any of those planes recently, one can see what deregulation does.

Deregulation's effect on safety in the trucking industry is less dramatic. We do not see trucks falling from the skies.

Mr. Callahan: Gee, I hope not.

Mr. Philip: The member for Brampton does, but that is his problem.

What we have here is a system I find astonishing. The federal, Conservative, Mulroney government wants to set up a free trade system. Those of us who have interacted with our colleagues in the United States know exactly what the price is, and part of the price is that they want a deregulated trucking industry, the same way as they have managed to create the disasters of a deregulated trucking system in the US.

In talking to them about the reality that we want to do things our way, that we have a system that has worked, an efficient transportation system that needs some change but can be changed without throwing out the baby with the bath water, I find they simply throw out the ideology that this is free enterprise.

There is nothing free about small businessmen not getting service. There is nothing free about airlines going into receivership. There is nothing free about trade unionists losing their jobs, as has happened in the US, where in a period of five years something like one third of the unionized, well-paying jobs disappeared. There is nothing free in some people getting a better, more lucrative service on certain key routes while everybody else suffers. There is nothing free about that.

Transportation is an essential, key service. We have to build in a system that has a balance between competition and the ability of transportation corporations to plan, to buy new equipment, to pay decent wages and to train their employees. This bill does not do that.

This bill follows the American route in a blind fashion and that is why I have no alternative but to vote against it. I find it very sad that the Liberal government in Ontario has parted from the lessons learned in the past by such Liberal critics as Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Reid.

1710

Mr. Wildman: And Dick Smith.

Mr. Philip: And Dick Smith, who is by far one of the greatest parliamentarians and greatest human beings I have ever met in this game and who served on the committee with me. I understand I saw him in his declining years when he was extremely sick. People said, "If you think he is a great man now, you should have seen him when he was healthy." He was a man who understood the transportation industry and a man who was big enough to say: "Our party is wrong. The evidence is overwhelmingly against this kind of silliness." That is why Eric Cunningham, Pat Reid and, may God bless him, the late Dick Smith signed this report.

I find it disappointing that the member for Mississauga East, who chaired that committee, feels it necessary to go on side with the Mulroneyites, that party not of last resort but of no resort, and to support his federal colleagues in this blind thrust towards free trade.

I look forward to the deliberations in committee. I look forward to the presentations that will be made. Members may be sure that we will be supporting modest reform. We have always supported modest reform. Members may recall that I, along with my colleagues, forced the inquiry into the Ontario Highway Transport Board. That resulted in a number of regulatory changes and a number of improvements.

Mr. Haggerty: Your former colleague is a member of it now.

Mr. Philip: I am sorry, but I cannot hear the member's interjection. If he is going to mumble, then I ask him not to interject.

Mr. Haggerty: Your colleague is a member of that board now.

Mr. Philip: My colleague is a member of that board now; indeed, he was so much in favour of a systematic, regulated system that we will have in the new domed stadium a properly regulated beer-in-the-ball-park system. That is how much he was in favour of a properly regulated system. Indeed, there will be a regulated transportation system. As a matter of fact, I have talked to the people concerned in the domed stadium and they say people can come up one aisle and transport their beer down the other aisle. They have all this in hand.

This bill does not cover it but Mr. Samis covered it, and if it had not been for him we might not have had that kind of system.

With those remarks, which Mr. Samis finds somewhat amusing, I will give way to other people. I would be happy to answer any questions anyone wishes to ask.

Mr. Gregory: It is always interesting to listen to the designated blabber of the New Democratic Party. It is fine to be a reformer such as my friend if one is blessed with selective memory. The member for Etobicoke has never been shy. We call him Mr. Modesty, but he certainly is not that. He seems to forget. I notice a number of comments such as, "When I wrote that report," "When I wrote this" and "When I did that." He takes credit for putting it together, along with his colleague, a Mr. Moffatt, who saw fit to accept a position with a company the Ontario Highway Transport Board was ruling against.

He talks about flip-flops; flip-flops from a member of a party that aligns itself with another party to retain power. He should talk about flip-flops.

Mr. Hayes: You are doing it now.

Mr. Gregory: I have not flip-flopped. This party is flexible enough at least to see when the time has come for change and not to be afraid of it. We in the Progressive Conservative Party are not afraid of change, as are my friends in the party of last resort, who are in third place for a good reason. If there were a fourth place, they would be in fourth place.

The member has made some interesting comments, none of which I am sure the minister will pay any attention to if he is as smart as I think he is.

Mr. Philip: I do not sign my name to a report one year and then, four or five years later, say the principles I signed my name to are completely false because my leader in Ottawa, who is now in a very bad third place in the polls, needs to be rescued on a free trade issue. I do not make those kinds of flip-flops and I will not resort to the rhetoric and attacks that the member for Mississauga East did.

I do not want to disturb him. He has chapped lips and his mirror has been very cold today. None the less, I will not resort to that, because he has publicly stated that on Thursday he will be voting for my private member's bill to deregulate animal control and I do not want to irritate the member.

Mr. Gregory: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The member should be obliged to explain the chapped lips and the mirror bit. I do not know what he is talking about.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Ramsay: It has been a pleasure this afternoon to listen to the speakers talking about trucking reregulation, not deregulation as I have heard it called many times. It is unfortunate that the previous speaker, my colleague the member for Etobicoke, keeps calling it that. It is reregulation and we have been lucky enough to have learned from the American experience of deregulation not to follow in their path. If the member is familiar with all the regulations, he will see that it does not follow the American example at all but rather learns from its mistakes. We are fortunate to be able to do that.

I have some comments on how this legislation impacts on my region of the province. Commenting again on the previous speaker, I would say that exhuming a report written 10 years ago to defend his position is a bit outdated. We are now in the late 1980s and we have to be looking at a more efficient transportation system, not only for the whole of the province but especially for northern Ontario, my region, which suffers from the lack of transportation facilities.

In many of the speeches I am hearing, the third party seems to be saying that truck transportation is A-okay in northern Ontario. I do not believe that to be so. This is a step in making some changes and members are going to see some benefits from this.

The member for Etobicoke talked about safety and went on to give examples of airline deregulation in the US --

Mr. Callahan: Trucks falling from the skies.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, 20-wheelers falling from the skies and that sort of thing. If one looks at this legislation, one will see that safety is one of the paramount items it addresses. Not only does one have to prove the roadworthiness of one's company and the ability of staff to drive the equipment; there is also a recording mechanism here, so government will now be able to keep track of the offences that occur at the companies. Licences can be yanked if companies frequently and constantly run into offences. We are going to be able to police our roads much better.

In northern Ontario, where all sorts of lumber trucks and many other vehicles are hauling, safety is paramount. We have a lot of accidents.

Mr. Philip: You do not need deregulation to do that.

Mr. Ramsay: It is not deregulation.

I would not mind commenting on the remarks of the member for Algoma, who talked about turbo-prop aircraft.

Mr. Wildman: I would just as soon you did not comment on anything I say.

Mr. Ramsay: This is a debate and I am free to do so.

There is another antiquated idea that some people in North Bay and Sudbury have, which is that somehow there is prestige to having jet service come into one's town or city. We have to look at more efficient and cost-effective transportation into the north and at frequency of service. These are the things we are going to be looking for. A Canadian-built Dash-8 aircraft servicing North Bay, Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie from Toronto is a much more efficient aircraft to use. It adds about 10 minutes on its Sudbury-North Bay flights, but with the frequency of service, that is what a businessman wants: to come into a city and to come out again. That is the type of affordable service we need. I think we are going to see that with the deregulation of the airline industry, but not with trucking.

1720

This is going to give us more jobs in northern Ontario. Trucking firms are going to be able to enter the market and service small local areas much more easily. We are going to get rid of that backhaul problem.

Surely the member for Algoma must admit the backhaul problem is one of the most frustrating events people see in the north. When we see empty trucks going north, that is most upsetting and adds to the cost of our consumer goods in northern Ontario.

We should give this a chance. I think it is going to work. We are going to have safer, more cost-effective transportation in all of Ontario and especially our region.

Mr. Hennessy: I would like to speak on second reading of the act to regulate truck transportation. I wish to commend the minister for looking into the complaints that were existing in northwestern Ontario. I asked him to hold a meeting with truckers. We had large meetings in Dryden and in Thunder Bay and the minister was kind enough to meet with the truckers and me here in Toronto.

Mr. Haggerty: A very accommodating minister.

Mr. Hennessy: Your minister is going to get mad. I am saying good things about him. The member should be quiet for a minute. I know it is difficult.

Mr. Haggerty: That is what I said; a very accommodating minister.

Mr. Hennessy: He gets so many bad things said about him that people do not listen.

Mr. Guindon: There is no need to heckle.

Mr. Hennessy: The member should show the man the courtesy. That is why his wife is glad he got elected; he is here.

We had a meeting with the minister. He was very kind and listened to the problems that exist. This bill may not be perfect, but the idea is that, by having a standing committee and by going to different areas to discuss the problems, maybe to the city of Thunder Bay, perhaps things can be rectified to the satisfaction of everybody concerned.

I agree the last bill was brought in many years ago. It is about time for a change, because there are more trucks on the road. A lot of things are happening differently today than they did 10 years ago. I support it in principle.

I am pleased to see that a standing committee is going to be struck. By having a standing committee, we have the opportunity of going to different cities and towns, discussing it with the truckers, the people involved in this problem, and bringing in something satisfactory to everybody concerned.

Mr. Wildman: I rise to participate in this debate with mixed feelings, and I say that with sincerity. I will explain why in a moment.

I think of my colleague Fred Young, who worked for so many years in this Legislature on behalf of safety in trucking and to try to deal with the problems, the chaos that has occurred in the past in trucking in this province, with regard to the effects on the small carriers, the small businessmen, the owner-operators, as well as the effects it had for safety on our highways. Fred Young did a tremendous job as spokesperson on trucking affairs and matters in the Legislature for many years. All of us owe him a great debt.

I also participate in this debate feeling a great deal of respect for the minister and for his sincerity in his attempts to deal with concerns. As my colleague the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) mentioned, this minister, in his short term so far, has indicated a willingness to respond to the concerns of members from all over the province and to deal with what he considers legitimate problems raised. I respect him for that.

I regret that on this matter he seems to have become a prisoner of Reaganomics and of Thatcherism. I speak here not simply as a member of this party, which has taken a position with regard to the question of regulation, but as a representative of northern Ontario. Many people from other provinces find it amusing when we from northern Ontario -- less so perhaps northwestern Ontario, but certainly northeastern Ontario -- refer to our part of the province as the north. Most parts of northern Ontario are far south of most centres in the Prairies, for instance.

For a moment, we should talk about what the north is, what it means and the problems we in northern Ontario experience. It is not so much a geographic location as what is called by economists a hinterland. The difference between the north and south in this province can be the differences between the transportation and communications networks. In what we refer to as northern Ontario, transportation and communications are no longer a grid. They cease to be a grid and become a couple of long, narrow ribbons stretched across a vast territory, joining together small communities separated by great distances, with a very scattered and sparse population. Obviously, in an area such as that, transportation is of the utmost importance to the people. Just as transportation has been of major importance in the development of this whole country, it still remains of paramount importance to northern Ontario.

Let us look for a moment at the problems we experience in northern Ontario today and how they might relate to this legislation. I may be accused of being repetitive, of being a bit of a broken record because I have been raising this in the House for the past number of months, but it is important for us to recognize that in northern Ontario the recession has not passed. The boom being experienced in southern Ontario, in the Golden Horseshoe or that stretch between Windsor and Oshawa, has not come to northern Ontario. The recession of the early 1980s continues and worsens. We are close to being in a depression in northern Ontario.

We have heard it said in this debate that this legislation will mean more jobs in northern Ontario. If I could believe that I might say we should look at this legislation in a different light, but I honestly and sincerely do not believe that to be the case. The question is will deregulation -- not the euphemism of reregulation but deregulation, because that is what this is -- help northern Ontario?

We have a problem in northern Ontario that has been referred to by a number of speakers in this House this afternoon; that is, the question of backhauls. We as a party and I as a representative of northern Ontario recognize this is a major problem for shippers and business in northern Ontario as well as for truckers. It does not make a lot of sense for a trucker to be licensed to carry a product or set of products from Thunder Bay to Toronto but not to be licensed to ship other products from Toronto to Thunder Bay. It does not make any sense to anyone for that truck to have to return empty. There is no question that is a serious problem, a problem that adds to the cost of doing business in northern Ontario.

The question is, must we have deregulation, or even what Mulroney likes to call reregulation, to solve that problem? I honestly do not think so. It seems to me in this case, if that is one of the concerns the government has, it is throwing away the kitchen sink. It is destroying everything. My friend the member for Lake Nipigon says, "They are throwing out the baby with the bath water," and I think that is the case.

1730

We could certainly change the licensing process to deal with the problem of backhaul without getting rid of the licensing process. It does not make any sense for this minister to say to the people of this province and to the people in this House that to deal with that problem we have to destroy the whole system. That is what he is saying to us today. The minister in his presentation said that with this legislation under this system we will now look at fitness rather than test public convenience and necessity.

Mr. Pouliot: Survival of the fittest.

Mr. Wildman: My friend from Nipigon refers to the survival of the fittest. That indeed is the law of the jungle. Prior to the regulation process we have in trucking that is what we had in this province on our highways, the law of the jungle. I fear what this will mean for northern Ontario.

The minister said it is too hard to get a licence and it is time-consuming and costly. I grant him that may be the case; it certainly is the case. I have had experience with trying to assist owner-operators to gain a licence and appearing before the Ontario Highway Transport Board. It does not have to be costly, but it can be time-consuming and inconvenient. We could change those administrative problems without throwing out the system.

Testing fitness is an interesting concept. How can we be assured that a company that can show itself or argue that it is fit to carry on business in a certain area will remain so subsequently? I am not sure how that will be enforced or dealt with and I do not think the legislation is clear.

I was concerned when the minister referred to the fact that this would end the burden of rate filing. That is what we in this party are concerned about. The argument is that this will mean a cut in rates, that we will have less regulation, or deregulation, which will mean lower rates and greater competition with more companies vying for the business available. It has been said by other members of this House that will probably be not of assistance to the small haulers, to the owner-operators, but to the large companies. They will be the ones that will be able to cut their rates significantly, to cut out the small haulers.

That would mean, at least in the short term, a lowering of the costs of doing business in the north and lower costs for shipping goods; but what will it mean in human terms? What will it mean for the small company that will be forced out of the business? What will it mean in terms of the loss of trucking jobs in northern Ontario? It will mean not more jobs but fewer jobs.

It has been said by a number of members from northern Ontario that we have a great deal of concern for safety in northern Ontario. There is no question about that. If members drove on the kinds of roads we have in the north, with the unfortunate lack of commitment by the government -- and I do not mean the minister in this case -- to provide the necessary funding to improve the roads in northern Ontario so that they could at least match the secondary highway system in southern Ontario, they would be concerned about safety too.

We have so-called highways in northern Ontario that do not even match the county roads in southern Ontario. We have seen the comments of the road-building contractors about the need for investment by government to bring the roads up to the standard they were at 10 years ago. We have even seen promises by the Liberal Party in the last election campaign, when it said it would cost $40 million to bring the roads up to the standard they were at a few years ago.

Our roads have always been at a lower standard. I recognize it is harder to build roads in northern Ontario. The topography, the kind of rocky terrain we have, makes it more difficult to build roads in the north. The cold weather, with the severe winters we have, makes it a fact of life that the roads do not last as long once they are built.

However, we have had inadequate funding over the past number of years under the previous government and, unfortunately, it has continued under this government. The estimates for this ministry, actually the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, though the Ministry of Transportation and Communications does the road-building, are cut. They are lower than last year, even with the supplementary estimate.

We are concerned about safety. The minister says this legislation will provide for safety and performance and will ensure that the trucking companies will be responsible and will carry out necessary vehicle maintenance. However, every study that has ever been done about trucking, not only in this province and this country but also throughout North America, has shown that in a deregulated system safety is the first thing that goes by the board. If small haulers are faced with undercutting by the large companies, they have to cut their rates to stay in business. They cut them so low they have to cut corners to compete.

How do they cut those corners? One of the ways is by staying on the road too long. We have sleepy drivers driving on those unsafe roads in the north. Over the years, we have talked many times in this House about truckers' logs and the need to ensure that truckers do not drive more than a certain number of hours per week. The question is how that would ever be enforced. I would like to find a way to enforce it, but if someone is faced with losing his whole livelihood, even if he is required to keep a log he will fake it.

If the member for Cochrane North were here, he would be able to attest to the fact there are truckers from my riding, from the Sault Ste. Marie area, who haul lumber from the Hearst area to Detroit and Milwaukee. How do they do it? They start off on a Sunday night at about seven. They drive all night to get to Hearst and arrive there between 3 a.m. and 5 a.m., depending on weather conditions. Then they load up and are out of there by 9 a.m. They get back to the Sault that evening, stop for supper and maybe one or two hours of rest, and then drive all night to Detroit. They unload the next morning, drive back to the Sault and head off to Hearst again. They do that three or four times a week. Can you tell me those are safe drivers? That is what is happening now. What is going to happen when this legislation gets through?

If you are driving a passenger automobile on the road between White River and Hornepayne or Hearst, a road I admit the minister is rebuilding -- which is certainly needed, because it is a shortcut used by the truckers from Hearst to get either to Sault Ste. Marie and the border into the US or to haul chips from Hearst to Marathon for American Can -- that is a very narrow road; as I say, we welcome the fact that the minister is widening it.

1740

If you are driving a passenger automobile on that road, at night particularly, and meet a truck in the middle of the road and he does not move for you -- and I suspect some of those drivers are going simply on adrenalin, if not some other substance -- you are lucky if you do not get into an accident when you are facing those kinds of trucks and that kind of trucking on that road.

That is the situation today. What is it going to be like when we bring this legislation through? Small truckers, owner-operators, are faced with a tremendous cost. What does a rig cost today; about $120,000? Those guys have to work night and day to make their payments. If they get Sunday off they spend it doing repairs and maintenance on their truck. They are going to face cut rates by the big haulers. What are they going to do to stay in business? They are going to stay on the road even longer and they are going to do less maintenance. What kind of corner-cutting are they going to have to indulge in? We may find more haulers, more truckers, burning fuel oil on the road.

It has been suggested in this House that this legislation is good for northern Ontario. I want to know why this government is attempting to destroy the small haulers in this province and in northern Ontario. Honestly, I am very disappointed and surprised that this minister in particular would endanger safety the way I think this legislation is going to do.

There is the other side of the coin. Will it benefit the shippers'? I have talked about the backhaul problem. I have said that could and should be dealt with, but it does not have to be dealt with in this manner. In the short term, if rates are cut, it will benefit the shippers. It will cost less to ship the goods, but if it means the small competitors are put out of business and we get the development of a near monopoly by bigger companies, does the minister honestly believe the rates are going to stay low? In the long term, the rates are going to be back up to the level they are at now, if not higher. To paraphrase our friend from Ottawa, we are talking about short-term gain for long-term pain in northern Ontario.

Other members of the House have talked about the effects of deregulation on the airline industry in the US. I am surprised more of them have not talked about the effects of deregulation on trucking in the US. The member for Lake Nipigon mentioned the effects in California. What was it, 100,000 out of work in California? We are talking about more jobs in the north; are we kidding?

Jokes have been made here about my colleague's comments about the deregulation of airlines. I do not think it is a joke to be in an unsafe situation when you are flying in the US. What has happened? A lot of small carriers have developed in the US and have started up businesses in short hauls in the US at lower rates. That is true. You can fly from Buffalo to Florida a lot cheaper than you can from Toronto to Florida. There is no question about that. But in the United States they have also identified serious safety problems. The minister cannot deny that; even the American government does not deny that.

What is happening in Canada because of the federal Conservative government's proposal for deregulation in the airline industry? In preparation for that, even before it is happening, we have seen the two major carriers, through mergers and takeovers, gain monopolies over air traffic in this country such as we have never seen before. Deregulation is supposed to mean more competition. At least this is what was said by the ideologues who put it forward as a good idea. In fact, in Canada proposed deregulation in the airline industry has meant less competition, not more.

Let us look at Sault Ste. Marie, for example. We used to have Air Canada and Nordair serving the long hauls from the Sault. We also had norOntair serving the smaller communities feeding into Sault Ste. Marie. We had Austin Airways, and then Air Ontario came in. Air Ontario came in, anticipating deregulation; so as far as the ideologues are concerned, they say, "That shows we are going to get more competition; more companies are coming in." Air Canada bought up Air Ontario and Austin and then announced it was no longer going to serve Sault Ste. Marie with Air Canada. You do not make a lot of money on those kinds of hauls.

What happened on the other side? Besides purchasing Québecair and Eastern Provincial Airlines, Canadian Pacific Air Lines bought Nordair and was bought out itself by Pacific Western Airlines. Now we are served by Canadian Pacific -- we still have jet service, I admit, but it has cut the number of flights -- and Air Ontario, which is owned by Air Canada, Austin, which is also owned by Air Canada, and norOntair. Air Ontario has a propeller-driven aircraft. It takes about half an hour more. I will admit that is not very much longer. This is all in the name of deregulation, which is supposed to mean more competition.

We have had jokes made about 18-wheelers or 20-wheelers falling from the sky in response to the remarks my colleague the member for Etobicoke made about air safety. Transportation in northern Ontario is too important to be joked about. What has happened in the airline industry in Sault Ste. Marie presages what is going to happen in trucking in all the smaller communities in northern Ontario. It will be harder to get service. It will be less frequent and more expensive in the long run, and we will be endangering safety.

One may think it will be a good thing to have just the large companies that can afford to cut rates and do the proper maintenance on their trucks hauling in and out of northern Ontario. I do not think it is. I have too many of my constituents, good, hardworking, honest small businessmen who purchased trucks and who need business, to vote in favour of this legislation.

It is too bad that in the current political situation in this province we do not have -- I do not know how to put this delicately; I have a great deal of respect for the member for Cochrane North, but I feel it is unfortunate we do not have more effective spokespeople in the government on behalf of the north. My colleague the member for Etobicoke mentioned Dick Smith. If Dick Smith were still sitting in this Legislature and were on that side of the House, we would not have this kind of legislation. In Dick Smith we had a man who was willing to speak on behalf of northern Ontario and its needs. It did not matter whether it fitted with what his party thought on a particular issue. It is too bad we do not have more people of the calibre of Dick Smith speaking not only on the government side but on all sides of this Legislature.

1750

Right from the beginning of this country, since before Confederation, people who have known this country recognized the importance of transportation to it. Transportation built Canada, it united this country; but it was not free enterprise transportation that did it, despite what the people at Canadian Pacific might like to tell us. We all know it was government involvement, government land grants and government money grants that built the transportation system in this country. Without continued government involvement and regulation our transportation system is threatened. If you threaten the transportation system, you not only threaten the economy of this country and this province, you also threaten the unity and the very fabric of this country and province.

I regret very much that this legislation was introduced. I regret that this minister is involved with it. I can only hope that he will rethink his position and withdraw the legislation.

Mr. Pouliot: It is with certain emotion that we have been presented with an excellent and very factual address by the member for Algoma regarding the subject matter of Bill 150, Bill 151 and Bill 152. The member reminded us of the cost of doing business, particularly in northern Ontario, the need to address the very real issue of safety and the atrocious and deplorable road conditions. He then went on to remind us of the need to have public regulation. He went on and on and we began to understand that under the present system, where the minister is concerned about the conditions of the soft shoulders in southern Ontario, we in the second Ontario -- we in northern Ontario -- are concerned about the section between the soft shoulders.

There are two Ontarios; thank heaven we have had public regulation because it has given us, and not at exorbitant prices, a system that has worked relatively well. It needs to be amended and I beg the minister to reconsider removing the guarantees that have given us a chance to stay alive. My colleague spoke with wisdom; it was almost like gospel. Even as a novice I can commend him with all the sincerity at my command. He was absolutely right on in addressing the needs of northern Ontarians.

Mr. Wildman: I thank my friend the member for Lake Nipigon for his kind comments, but to elevate my remarks to gospel is a bit extreme.

Mr. Callahan: In the brief moments that are left, I want to say I have listened to the debate in the House and it seems to me that most of the debate from the members of the third party seemed to be one of doom and gloom. They appear to have a less than enthusiastic approach to the small businessman of Ontario and the fact that he wishes to compete in the marketplace.

All too significantly in the past, because of the tremendous cost of hiring a fairly high-priced counsel to appear before the Ontario Highway Transport Board to establish through perhaps many days of evidence that it was a matter of necessity that an additional route be opened up for a particular trucker, many of these people were denied access to the market.

The third party has always professed to support the little man. I suggest their entire attitude to this bill demonstrates a total lack of concern about the little man, a total lack of concern about the question of enhancing small business opportunities. There are truckers in Ontario who would dearly love to have an opportunity to open up their own business, to operate either a local venture within a municipality or even on a long-haul basis.

My experience has been that a lot of people who were not capable of obtaining their own public commercial vehicle licence from the transport board because of the cost involved and the lengthy procedure would enslave themselves to a broker. They would enter into various arrangements with a broker who had a PCV licence and arrange to buy a tractor-trailer. If somewhere along the line something happened that perhaps was their fault, or was a mishap and was no fault of their own, some of these agreements would result in their tractor-trailers being usurped by the brokers.

They were driven to those extremes, not in every case but there were such cases. The entrepreneur, the person who did not have a great deal of wealth, was denied the opportunity of being able to enter into a small business transaction by operating his truck, which was his livelihood and was paid for and eked out of the dollars he was able to save, perhaps from two jobs, to arrive at the funds for that type of unit.

The traditions of the past die slowly. I am pleased that the minister had the foresight and the guts, which are indicative of this government's entire approach to the legislative process, to come forward and say, "History 1920" -- when the entire PCV licence procedure was set up to regulate competition with the railway system -- "is ancient history." We now have to get on with the real purpose of serving not only the people of northern Ontario but the people of Ontario as a whole by giving business opportunities to small, young entrepreneurs, not denying it to them and allowing only the larger corporations to participate on long-haul routes.

There are a lot of people out there, young people in particular, who are very mechanically inclined, people who enjoy the trucking experience but are not in a position to do it because of the difficult bars set up in the past as a result of the lengthy proceedings before the board. The third party seems to have some difficulty in understanding that people who earn their livelihood by a particular occupation are very cognizant of the concern that if they lose the ability to support their family through that occupation, they are being denied the very source of their existence.

Accordingly, quite contrary to the doom and gloom of the members of the third party, I suggest the secondary or perhaps equal thrust of this bill is to ensure that there is safety on the roads. That becomes particularly significant when one looks at the products being carried by a number of trucking outlets. We hear conversation about items of a dangerous nature being trucked and it becomes important to have the additional safety feature that is provided for in this bill.

I am pleased to support the bill.

On motion by Ms. E. J. Smith, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

January 20, 1987

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANCER TREATMENT COSTS

PLANT SHUTDOWN

ROAD CONDITIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

PLANT SHUTDOWN

HELP CENTRES

VOTING BY PRIVATE MEMBERS

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO SCIENCE CENTRE

RESPONSE

ONTARIO SCIENCE CENTRE

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PAPER MILL

AUTO PACT

PAPER MILL

DAY CARE

TECHNOLOGY FUND

PLANT SHUTDOWN

POLICE INVESTIGATIONS

APARTMENT CONVERSIONS

SEASONAL HOUSING

PROVINCIAL PARKS

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

DOMESTIC WORKERS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRUCK TRANSPORTATION ACT