[Report continued from volume A]

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOISEN CE QUI CONCERNE LA RETRAITE DES EMPLOYÉS MUNICIPAUX

Continuing the debate on the motion for third reading of Bill Bill 151, An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act and the Municipal Act / Projet de loi 151, Loi modifiant la Loi sur le régime de retraite des employés municipaux de l'Ontario et la Loi sur les municipalités.

Mr Mahoney: Where was I? Maybe I should start over. Should I tell members about the train derailment, 1979, and how all those municipal people worked so hard? I will not do that.

Mr Cousens: Aren't we up to 1980?

Mr Mahoney: No. I think I was talking about how this is indexed and capped at 6%, based on 70% of the CPI. The contributions to the plan will increase by 0.5% for both employers and employees to pay for part of the enhanced benefits. We did the same thing with the teachers' pension and we were criticized from one end of this province to the other because they refused to understand that what we were doing was correcting an injustice, correcting use by a former Conservative government of money at 2% and 3%, of borrowing it cheaply, which is clearly just another form of taxation. We were criticized for that.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I agree with you, it is nonsense.

Mr Wiseman: You haven't got it right.

Mr Mahoney: I sure do have it right. I was here, and I understand that, and we put the money in place to ensure that pension fund would be there for all time and to secure it on behalf of the working teachers in this province. We were proud to do that. Remember, it is fully indexed up to 8%, better than this one. So let's be truthful about this stuff. We did what we had to do in that regard, and the fraud that was perpetrated on all the rank-and-file teachers, frankly, by the leadership of the union was just disgraceful, nothing but for political advantage.

The legislation does not specify the benefit enhancements and additional costs, but it enables the board to implement the changes and it revises it to bring it in to act with the Pension Benefits Act. I talked about this before and this is important: Fund "surplus" is defined to ensure that surpluses will be shared on a 50-50 basis between employees and employers.

What if there are not surpluses? Guess who pays. What if there is a deficit? The taxpayer, of course, but I guess it is part of the cost of doing business. It is part of the cost of saying to the municipal employees, "We appreciate the work you do for us," and while there may be some who work a little less efficiently than others, by and large, as I have said before, I think we should thank them for the work they do on our behalf. I think most of them are clearly dedicated.

This will prohibit employers, which are the municipalities, from withdrawing from the funds without meeting conditions set by the board in order to protect employees. That is what we should have had when these guys over here were taking all the pension money out of the teachers' fund. We should have had some protection to stop the employees from simply abdicating their responsibility to be truthful to the ratepayers and the taxpayers of this province and to stop them from borrowing at those kinds of rates. We did not have that and that is why we wound up, frankly, in the mess that we wound up in.

In light of the financial risks involved in the administration of any pension fund, I am glad the NDP listened to the AMO recommendations to limit the indexation to 70%. I openly admit it was 100% before. I think it is more responsible and AMO sees that. I can tell members from my three years serving on the board that AMO is a responsible organization.

We heard from the minister today that he is announcing amendments to conflict-of-interest guidelines and is announcing open meetings, and this government is going to come down and save all the municipalities from themselves. They sat over there and they were screaming that they wanted kangaroo courts and investigations. Then they get into power and what happens? They bring back a review of a review of the legislation that was introduced by the Liberal government. It just boggles the mind how they can get there with all their pomposity, when they sat in opposition pretending they were going to save the world. They get into government and what do they do? I told members before: Sunday shopping, auto insurance, a social charter in the Constitution and conflict-of-interest Liberal legislation. I do not understand.

Those guys were going to change the world. They were going to reform everything. Even the OMERS bill that we are debating today fundamentally is a bill that was introduced by us with some amendments, and that is why I support it. I support the concept. I am proud to stand up as a former member of the municipal council in Mississauga and as the spouse of a currently sitting member of the municipal council in Mississauga and say I am proud of the people who work for the city of Mississauga and the region of Peel. I think they have done a terrific job in developing that community, and I am sure each and every one of the members could say the same thing about the men, women and young people who work for their municipalities. They should be proud of them.

As a result, we are prepared to offer them an enriched OMERS benefit, a package with a fund that is $11.7-billion strong; that is, a fund that will secure their retirement in the future growth of that fund so that they will all be able to enjoy the benefits and the fruits of their labour at the end of the day.

I would hope, frankly, that this House will vote unanimously. There may be some of the more radical right-wingers in the Tory caucus who are not prepared to do that. I say to my mayor and my council and to the people at the region that yes, there is a financial impact, but it is a cost-benefit impact. It is a benefit that says they are giving a benefit to the people who work for them, who are so dedicated. It will boost morale. They will be able to say to the people in the employ of municipalities, "We care about your services."

1810

I firmly believe, as a small business person, as someone who has had to deal with employees both in office as an elected official and in business, that the best, most productive employee is a happy one. You do not necessarily have a happy employee by paying the biggest dollar. The atmosphere in the workplace is equally important. The relationship with their colleagues is equally important. The relationship with their superiors in business, their bosses, is equally important.

You treat people fairly. You treat them with dignity. You do not eliminate the service they need, for guidance on their credit counselling problems, that gives them some dignity, that gives them an opportunity to get a hand up, instead of a handout, which is the philosophy of this government: Just give everybody a handout. You do not eliminate that kind of an agency, for God's sake, and tell them to sink or swim in a sea of red ink. Not everybody is like the Treasurer. Not everybody can say, "I don't care about my deficit." Not everybody can say, "Take my overdraft and put it on my mortgage." That is what this Treasurer is doing. These people cannot do that. They lose their assets. They go broke.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I know you do not know what I am talking about. I understand that. The people of Ontario know what I am talking about. The people of Ontario know darn well that this is the most irresponsible, fiscally non-oriented government in the history of this province.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Please address the Chair.

Mr Mahoney: Pardon me, Mr Speaker. They just get me upset when they say they do not understand, because I know that is the truth: They do not understand.

I understand the issues municipalities have to deal with on an ongoing basis. I understand how important they are. I have been literally in the works yard with the municipal employees for years, talking to them. I have sat down in committee rooms on countless occasions with municipal employees in planning, in waste management.

I chaired the budget committee at the region of Peel for seven years. We used to have to go through the budget subcommittee hearings for months and months, trying to find a way to deliver a reasonable increase in the mill rate that would not have people lose their homes, trying to find a way to be fair to people, trying to find a way to save the senior citizens' allowance of $65 so they can pay some youngster to shovel the driveway and the walkway, trying to find a way we could plant more trees to improve the ecology and the environment in our community, trying to find a way we could build more arenas so that we could keep our young people out of the malls. We just had a terrible mob scene in one of the malls in my riding the other night -- it was on the news -- perhaps not as serious as the one in Scarborough, but still frightening and very serious.

A community like Erin Mills in Mississauga, where I come from and currently represent, is not immune to the violence and the problems we have seen in other parts of this province. They are not immune to the crime and the statistics we read about every day. Municipalities have to deal with these problems.

People are amazed when they talk to a municipal councillor to find out the scope of the responsibility he has. Frankly, let me tell members something: It is a more onerous job than this one is. It requires more dedication and more hours and more interaction within the community than the job of an MPP, beyond a doubt -- not even close. It requires you to be meeting with municipal employees every evening of the week and very often on the weekends and going to two and three meetings in an evening. You very seldom see your family. You must be dedicated to the democratic principle that says the people you work for, the people who elect you, deserve to see you on a regular basis.

There is no party whip, by the way, that I am aware of. I think the city of Toronto may be different. They have an NDP caucus and all of that sort of infiltration of NDP socialists into the municipal scene.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: It is the municipal scene; it relates. Those people are going to get a pension. Some of them only got there because these guys put some money behind them and got some people and went out and pounded on doors and helped them put their dogmatic socialist viewpoint into municipal government.

What in God's name is philosophical about a pothole? Why would you have a municipal council with an NDP caucus on it? That is outrageous, absolutely outrageous. Municipal politics should be -- certainly they are in my community, and I would hope in many communities across this province -- above partisan politics.

Mr O'Connor: Is your wife a Liberal?

Mr Mahoney: My wife is a municipal councillor. She did not run as a Liberal. Her colours were black and white, because everything about us is black and white.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Please address the Chair and ignore the heckling.

Mr Mahoney: On the municipal scene, that is what they understand. The New Democrats do not care about the municipality, what they care about is building a caucus so they can build a political base and one day come up and take over the MPPs' jobs. They do not run for school boards because they care about curriculum or about learning-disabled kids or about taxes. The NDP philosophy is to increase taxes at every level; we all know that. That is one of the reasons we have such a problem in this province. They run for political expediency and their own gain and they openly and blatantly run as members of the New Democratic Party. I think that is wrong.

While I am talking about that, let me tell members something else. A lot of the labour leadership in this province does a disservice to the men and women they represent, because they are vice-presidents of the federal New Democratic Party, card-carrying members, and not the rank and file. A lot of my family in Sault Ste Marie who work at the plant are not members of the NDP and never will be.

The fact of the matter is that the majority of men and women in Ontario do not belong to any party. They are apolitical. What they care about is good service from government. They care about their municipality delivering good service to them. They care that the roads are taken care of, the potholes are filled, the snow is plowed and the garbage is picked up. People put their garbage out at 6 o'clock on Thursday morning. They go to work, they come home and guess what? It has gone, magic, poof. It has just disappeared. Guess who took it? The municipality took it. They are driving around town trying to figure out what to do with it.

These guys are shutting down waste management. They have some magic idea. They have stuck their heads in the sand and said, "We can't have any incineration," so we cannot burn it, even though the technology exists to do that all over the world. They should go to Japan and talk to the people in the city of Kiryu, twinned with my city of Mississauga. They burn their domestic garbage. They have zero coming out the stack at the top. The dioxins have all been burned off because of the temperature and the scrubbers in the system that is used, and they generate power to actually provide heat to the local community centre and the swimming pool.

The member should not shake his head at me. That is what they do.

Mr Mills: It's no good.

Mr Mahoney: It is not wrong. They do it and they have the national testing standards to prove to the people of Japan that it is safe. But no, the government is going to solve the problem and have no incineration.

What about all the tires building up in our municipalities? What are we going to do with them? Many NDP members were pretty open and had a lot of great ideas when we had Hagersville, because for them it was simply an opportunity. We can see what almost happened in Hagersville. When you burn tires in an open field in an uncontrolled fire, you have all that stuff going into the ground water. Does the member understand? When it goes into the ground water, it can pollute the drinking water, and if it pollutes the drinking water, it can cause cancer.

Why do we not smarten up? Those guys could lead the way. I would be stunned if they did, but I would be delighted too. Why do we not smarten up and recognize that within our municipal government structure, we have many ways and opportunities with which we can take care of these problems? Why do we not show some faith? Instead, what do we do? We say: "Boy, we've got a Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. We are going to make you list all your clothes and your assets," and that is the biggest problem of the day.

It does not much matter whether a minister is telling the truth or slandering a doctor. It does not much matter what is going on in this province. It does not much matter that the economy is going to hell in a handbasket. It does not much matter that Mulroney decides they can have lunch on Wednesday, a week before Christmas, at a first ministers' conference, and that will solve the problem. The Premier goes down with a request to release RRSP money. That is just terrific. That is going to solve all his problems.

1820

The people in the government just do not understand that we have to get down to some basic, fundamental principles of investing in our communities and in our municipalities, of allowing for good economic growth to take place in our communities that these people are opposed to in good times. They do not like somebody making a profit out there. That is a disgrace.

It is all related to the bill. If they do not make a profit, they cannot pay their taxes. If they cannot pay their taxes, the municipality has to lay people off and if they lay people off, they will not get a pension.

Members should think of the impact of the social services on municipalities and the impact of police work on municipalities. The two largest items that drive a municipality, particularly a regional municipality's budget, are social services and the police. They have no control over social services. Members should imagine all the immigrants who come in. Some of them are refugees. They come here and they cannot get work and they have no place to live. What are we going to do? We cannot let them wander around the streets. I am one who believes we need to expand our immigration. I believe that this province and this country were built on a good, solid platform of immigration, by importing people, by having people come to this country who can add a dimension of new technology, better education, financial independence, investing and starting a business. They are quite important to this country.

But at the same time as we get people who can bring us all those positive things from other parts of the world, whether it is from Hong Kong or Japan or wherever it is from, they come in and they bring a positive attitude and they invest and they start a business and then they try to figure out, "My God, how did we get all these taxes?" They come here and they pay taxes to the municipality.

At the same time, we also have a responsibility to accept our share of people in the world who are in strife. We have to accept our share of the people who would be killed if they went back to their homelands, or who would be tortured or who would be physically or mentally abused. As Canadians, we have always opened our hearts to those people in the world and said, "We're prepared to help; we're prepared to be humanitarian; we're prepared to live up to our international responsibility; we're prepared to be Canadian." That to me is what being Canadian is. I have always felt proud of that.

How is Madam Whip today?

Hon Mrs Coppen: I am fine, thank you.

Mr Mahoney: Did she just cross the floor or is that my imagination?

An hon member: You've been so persuasive that they're all crossing the floor.

Mr Mahoney: I have them all crossing the floor. Do you want to say, "Hi, Mom"?

The problem is that the impact of social services on the municipal budget is catastrophic in areas where they get a lot of refugees and they get a lot of problems. We have people who are forced to live in hotel and motel rooms in Brampton and Mississauga because there is nowhere for them to go. Guess who has to pay? The municipalities have to pay.

Sure, there are some transfer payments that come down -- 50% from the feds, 30% from these guys. The feds cap it, so their guys cut it down to 2% and what do we get? The NDP creating a mountain of human misery. Those are not my words. They have a tremendous impact on the social services network at the municipal level and all those employees, who are the people we are talking about in this bill, get to deal with the heartache and the frustration and the anxiety and the stress.

Members should imagine, what we should do is to take some Canadians and give them $100 and a suitcase and tell them, "We're going to drop you in Bangladesh and see how you survive." That is what is happening. We are getting people from places like Bangladesh. We are getting people from places all over the world. I refer again to the tragic murder-suicide that we witnessed in Brampton. You can bet that is a result of the stress placed on people in this society today, the increase in violence against women that is absolutely intolerable in our society and that we must stop. It is a result of the financial pressures that are being put on every human being, in my view. Perhaps what we are seeing today is what used to be a beating, totally unacceptable, turning into a murder.

What are these people doing about it? You would have thought, with an NDP government, there would be some programs that would address that. But no, what do they do? They want a social charter in the Constitution, they want auto insurance -- it is our bill -- they want to close down all the stores on Sunday, and that will solve the problems of the world. Now the biggest item of the day is the OMERS pension amendments.

Mr Drainville: Good heavens, finally.

Mr Mahoney: "Good heavens" is right. You can imagine how frustrating it is when you see tragedy every day. One Saturday morning two, three or four weeks ago, I was sitting reading the Toronto Star. There in the Life section of the Star, ironically, tragically, were the photographs of about 40 women who have been murdered in Ontario this year, now, today; murdered mostly by a spouse or a lover or a friend supposedly, someone they knew, a few by strangers -- the tragic loss of Nina de Villiers and others, senseless murder -- but many of them by people they had a relationship with. When you see approximately 40 of them on a page like that, it really drives it home to make you wonder, why are we standing here dealing with indexed pensions, for goodness' sake, when we have people being murdered in our communities?

It makes it so frustrating to have this kind of inactivity and inaction by this incompetent government at a time when we should be investing in community policing, at a time when we should be changing attitudes about people, about violence, about murder, about our young people. But they do not want to do that. They are too busy defending the cabinet minister from Sudbury. They are too busy covering up and closing and refusing to meet with people. There has to be a coverup there, Mr Speaker. There can be no doubt.

I realize I go off from time to time, but I maintain, Mr Speaker, that it is related, because the reality is that pressures are put on the municipalities as a result of no increase in the MUSH grants. For people at home, that is for municipalities, universities, school boards and hospitals. The Treasurer has refused to announce that increase, and in so doing he has left them in a state of -- I do not know what the word would be -- uncertainty, confusion, fear. Let me tell members, they are afraid -- except for the NDP caucus in the city of Toronto, because they are hoping and praying the government is not going to do it to them -- the realistic people, the non-partisan members of councils all over this province are scared to death of what this government is doing and what it might not do in the form of grants.

Yet in not announcing the grants, maybe it would have been a little easier for us to take had the government come in with an announcement on a transfer grant to the municipalities that would make up in the city of Mississauga for the $500,000 the government is passing on in the cost of indexing the OMERS pension for the employees of the city. Why can we not get that? We do not even get 2%. They gave 2% out to welfare recipients. They will not give anything out to the municipal --

Mr Callahan: They will tell us in the spring.

Mr Mahoney: Maybe they will tell us in the spring and maybe they will flat-line in the spring, and then what are they going to do? They are going to be forced, because of their budgeting time frame, to simply absorb the cost. The only way they can absorb those costs is one of two ways: They either increase the taxes or they decrease the services being provided. This government does not care.

It is really frustrating. I see the embattled Minister of Northern Development sitting over there. I realize she is going through an extremely tough time in her life. She made a mistake. We think it is a serious mistake; she does not. It relates to this because it refers back to the municipalities.

How can the municipalities in northern Ontario that are looking for new programs from this government -- we have not been able to deal with any new programs. Any questions in question period on municipal issues, on infrastructure, on new economic development, on growth, on anything that is important, on the hospital issue, on the capping of the $400,000 income to northern doctors, who have to work two and three times the hours they have to work here for no more money --

Mr Curling: Higher costs of transportation.

Mr Mahoney: -- who have the higher costs of transportation, as my friend says, the higher costs of living in the north, perhaps because of the fact that they have to hire nurses to come in from elsewhere, they have to get their equipment shipped in. And what has the north done? When this government has the Minister of Transportation from the north, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines from the north and it has caucus members from all over the north, you would think the north would get some attention. You would think this government would be prepared to come out and say, "We'd really like to announce something in the north."

1830

Mr Callahan: They're getting snowed.

Mr Mahoney: That is right. The only snow in Sudbury is not on the ground.

Mr Jamison: Send me as far north as you want.

Mr Mahoney: I have been there, unlike the current advocate for small business. Does the member still have that job?

Mr Jamison: Yes, I do.

Mr Mahoney: Good. Small business is very concerned. Small business sees a bill like this passing on added costs to the municipality, and as a result, how is the municipality going to get its money? The days of milking the small business community as the cash cow in this province are over, gone, and if that member is talking to them, he knows I am right. I am not sure he is talking to them. But I talked to them when I was the small business advocate, and they are scared. They are afraid of every piece of legislation. They go through it with a fine-tooth comb. Whether it is the Minister of Labour's bill, whether it is the Treasurer's draconian financing bills, whether it is education, environment, health or housing, the business community is scrutinizing this government like never before because it is absolutely petrified.

One in three of those small business people is looking for another alternative. A report by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, a very well respected body in this province, indicated that one in three of small businesses in this province is considering moving to the United States. That member had better hope they go by because they might stop in and spend some money down in St Catharines somewhere and maybe that community will get some economic development out of it, But that is it, because they are heading south, they are out of here, they are out of town. The reality is that this government is driving them out of town.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I know the member for York East is here. It is nice to see him. I feel like I have the NDP caucus over here now supporting me. I am sure, with the eloquence and the impact of my speech, they have all crossed the floor. We are delighted to welcome the member for York East, who has now decided to join this side of the House. We will make the arrangements with him for Monday and Tuesday when this House comes back to try to get some business done.

We could be out of here now. We could be out of here if the Minister of Northern Development and Mines had done the honourable thing and stepped aside. She did not even have to walk out; just step aside until the committee everybody agreed to could investigate. It would have been easy.

But let me tell members something. In relationship to this bill and in relationship to the lack of announcement on the MUSH grants and in relationship to the increased burden these people are putting on all municipalities across this province, regardless of how you want to look at it, as a result of the increased burden this government is putting on businesses and the reduced ability of the business community to pay its taxes, as a result of all that, municipal councillors are going to be facing substantial increases in the mill rate and the property tax. I used to be one of those guys, and if members think for one minute they are going to sit back and let their ratepayers and their taxpayers and their business community think this is their fault, they are wrong.

While some people accused us of running Operation Alienation, and there is some truth in that. The late Dalton McGuinty, whose son has replaced him, as Dalton passed away during the last sitting of the Legislature -- his son is now delightfully part of our caucus -- Dalton McGuinty senior, the late Dalton, was a wonderful guy. He used to say we ran Operation Alienation. If members want to think about it, we upset the teachers, the lawyers, the doctors, the municipal people, the students. We were not discriminatory, I can assure you.

An hon member: The backbenchers.

Mr Mahoney: The backbenchers, you got that right. But let me tell you, you have not seen fury --

The Deputy Speaker: Please address the Speaker.

Mr Mahoney: -- until the municipal councils have to go to their ratepayers with a tax increase. Let me tell you, they are going to be jamming every council chamber, every committee room, every meeting hall, every church basement in this province. I would love any one of you to come and talk to one of the most dynamic municipal politicians in this country, Hazel McCallion. I would love you to come and talk to Hazel who, I might add, is very supportive of the member for Mississauga West. I am delighted to say that.

Mr McClelland: Well, somebody has to.

Mr Mahoney: That is a friend. Let me tell you, you come and talk to her about passing on tax increases, talk to her about passing on irresponsible duties to the municipalities, talk to her about the 20% they have to pay in welfare. She does not have a limousine, unlike your fat-cat ministers over there. She is 70 years old and she drives herself. She works 80 to 100 hours a week. If you spent a little bit of time there, you might understand.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Please address the Speaker.

Mr Mahoney: Whatever you want.

So what is going to happen is that at all of those meetings the municipalities and AMO are going to say: "Look, we've had enough. We can't take this any more." They are going to orchestrate and organize. This is something they learned from the guys opposite, the way they get their stuff on the ground. It does not matter what they say in their case; it does not even have to be true. They just put it out there, because people might believe it. The municipalities and AMO are going to orchestrate a movement that is going to make the tax revolters look like small potatoes. Have members ever heard of Jarvis in California, Jaws II?

Mr Callahan: Proposition 13.

Mr Mahoney: Proposition 13, exactly. Let me tell these folks, we are facing that. Elected officials on the municipal councils are not going to put up with taking the blame for the irresponsibility of this socialist government which refuses to understand the importance and the significance of economic development and growth at the municipal level in their communities, which sets up a boondoggle for John Sewell to make a hundred grand a year, plus a bunch of staff to investigate how it can smooth out the Planning Act. Why do they not just ask the people who know? Not to mention Robin Sears in Tokyo, I might add.

Hon Ms Lankin: Not to mention Bob Nixon.

Mr Mahoney: Not to mention Bob Nixon. Somebody has to go to London.

Mr Drainville: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I am here to attempt to listen to the debate on Bill 151. As I hear these comments, I am reminded of the comment that was once made, "There but for the grace of God goes God." What we see with the honourable member is that he is not addressing the bill.

Mr Curling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was just about to understand the drift of the speaker, what he was saying. These interruptions, which are not points of order, interrupt my thoughts. I just want to say that you should rule very strictly on these members who are calling points of order which are not points of order.

Mr Cousens: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think one of the real things that should happen at Christmastime as we are getting ready for a holiday break -- we have shown a very good spirit with regard to the pages and a retiring servant of the House. Other members are not showing the same kind of spirit to the member for Mississauga West. I realize the member for Mississauga West is really pushing in the House, but I think there should be more patience.

Mr McClelland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I notice that you too are being swept up in the spirit of the season and recognized me with a very pleasant demeanour. I thank you for that.

I want to say on the point of order raised by my friend the member for Victoria-Haliburton that I was beginning to understand the kernel of wisdom and the very fine points the member for Mississauga West was beginning to bring to light. I find the debate to be most enlightening and helpful.

1840

The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order. The floor belongs to the member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: Let me just touch briefly on the issue of disentanglement, because I think it relates to this bill. The minister says he is only doing what municipalities have requested, but the cost of this legislation is going to be ascribed to the province, not to the municipalities, except that it is going to impact on their share, with my community getting hit with $500,000. As I noted earlier, the ultimate responsibility -- we are saying if it fails, it comes back to the province -- for the plan's viability belongs in the provincial books.

Unfortunately, the accountability of OMERS and this legislation are not going to be sorted out under the grand scheme of disentanglement. Many counties, cities and regions are quite concerned about disentanglement and the impact it may have on their budgets. They are deathly afraid this government will simply pass on more of the authority and responsibility, disentangle itself from the municipal level, but not provide the requisite funding that would go along with that level of responsibility.

If some municipalities are saying they are concerned about the costs, the question would be, why does the province or the board not allow them to decide on the issue of indexation? Why do we have to set a rule? Here we go again, setting a rule based on the province of Toronto. This is not the province of Toronto, it is the province of Ontario. Why not allow for some local autonomy?

The best example of that was our Sunday shopping bill when we were in government. It allowed for a local municipality to make a choice. If Sault Ste Marie voted -- without an appeal to the OMB, by the way, which is the most outrageous step I have ever heard of -- in a referendum in favour of Sunday shopping, which it did, on the municipal election ballot, why can it not open? That does not force Sudbury to do the same thing, but if Sudbury decides it wants to open, why can it not open?

The government could do the same thing in this situation with indexation. It could set a base formula and then allow each municipality to deal with it. Those municipalities that could afford it could pass on some of the cost, and those municipalities that could not afford it could perhaps give a benefit in some other way.

This is the old problem of Big Brother provincial government. Boy, these guys are big brothers like nobody else in the history of this province. It is the old idea of Big Brother passing on exactly what he is going to do.

Mr Speaker, I know the member for Markham has some interest and some desire in speaking about this legislation. I appreciate the time and latitude you have given me to address it. Stop smiling.

I still reiterate that just as the municipalities are interdependent on themselves and this government, they are also interdependent on the business community, and the small business community particularly. When you lose a job -- I have outlined the jobs that have been lost in many of the parts of this province -- you lose the potential of a taxpayer to pay his taxes. When you lose that, you lose the ability of the government to fund indexed pension plans for municipal employees.

In the end, I will be supporting the amendments, because I support the local and regional municipalities and AMO, to give them an opportunity to make some autonomous decisions about their future with their employees. There are many aspects of this bill I am not happy with. I am not happy with the financial impact. That is just another example of passing on the burden. Ultimately, for the opportunity to say to our municipal employees, "We're proud of the work you've done, we're proud of the service you've given to us and we believe this is a fitting pension for you," I am pleased to support it and to have that opportunity.

But I want to be clear, in closing, that supporting this bill in no way should indicate support for this government. I continue to feel as passionately and strongly as I can that they are on a wrong course and that they are providing a lack of leadership. They are damaging the financial infrastructure and the entire physical infrastructure of the municipal sector in this province. They should be looking forward to the next election with some trepidation, when we will be able to correct history and simply remove them from office.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments?

Mr Callahan: I have listened with great interest to my colleague the member for Mississauga West and his comments on this bill. Certainly he has put in perspective that municipal employees and so on deserve this. They are hardworking people.

The concern I have is that I have seen that government over there always talk about emulating Quebec. In Quebec, they use these funds in what would be termed as high-risk opportunities. I see this government as seeing this as a great lump of money. That will be the next step. If it is, I will be vocal against it because the next step will be that they will take this money and use it, perhaps through a crown corporation, to try to spin off some of the debt they have and not have it registered in their books.

If that is what the spin doctors back there in that room down the hall are planning -- the Premier and the four major cabinet ministers and the six unelected spin doctors around them -- I suggest this province is really in trouble. What they are going to do is hide that. As my friend the member for Mississauga West said, that actually will be a drain on the local ratepayers of the various municipalities. For instance, in Mississauga I think the figures could be quite staggering. I had it at my fingertips, but I think it is quite a large amount.

What they are going to say is that the province carries the can. But if the province tries to use this money in some surreptitious way to try to fund its operations and try to put it away like Quebec does, then I suggest that not only the local ratepayers but also the people of Ontario are in great jeopardy. If the government puts those into risky operations with an attempt to get the largest return, everybody loses because it is hidden debt that just suddenly comes back to haunt you at some later stage.

I have grave concerns. I will be supporting the bill, but if the next step by the government is that, I am certainly not going to vote for that.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, during the discourse from the member for Mississauga West there was a time when I wanted to have some kind of privilege recognized by the Chair, and you suggested that rather than make those comments in the middle of the presentation by the member, I wait until my two minutes were available.

I was concerned with the kinds of references that were coming from the lips of the member for Mississauga West about our leader, the member for Nipissing, pertaining to his leadership, and what he is saying in this House pertaining to the Minister of Labour and the new proposals that are going to give far more teeth to the unions as they establish more power, more strength, change the voting rights, and an extensive amount of change that will make Ontario far more a union jurisdiction than any other in Canada, very much the same as Sweden.

When the member for Nipissing was asking questions today of the Minister of Labour, many people were really impressed with the way he was going at the needs of the workers' rights. Unfortunately, in referencing these things, the member for Mississauga West was mocking these facts and I felt that was incorrect. I just want to put that on the record now.

I also would like to comment on another aspect -- he said this earlier in the speech -- that the member's wife is a municipal councillor. I questioned whether or not she would have any conflict of interest. I am satisfied she would not. Looking at this bill, one understands that it is not dealing with the salaries or pension plans of municipally elected people.

I have to say that other than those two points, the member for Mississauga West has given an excellent presentation. I think he is really trying to touch on the issue of downloading to municipalities.

1850

Mr Bradley: I want first to thank the member for Mississauga West for his contribution to the debate this afternoon. His contribution has been far more than perhaps one can see this afternoon to the resolution of many things that have been happening in the House over the last few days. I think what he said had to be said in the House. It is unfortunate that he had to elaborate for as long as he did, but I do not think he wanted to miss any of the details of the ramifications of this piece of legislation. I know he would have been eager to come back to yet another question period in the Legislative Assembly, because the line of questioning was becoming most interesting in the House, if you look at the last question that was asked and the potential future questions that could be asked. He did not have that opportunity, so he has made a good contribution to the House this afternoon.

We also recognize that there is further legislation that no doubt will have to be processed in the evening. We will have some suitable contributions to that, but I do not know whether they will be as lengthy as that which the member for Mississauga West presented in the House this afternoon. As part of this, he could have looked at the ramifications and tried to tie them in with the dire consequences facing the automotive industry in Ontario, but this bill did not directly relate to that.

I know that when he talks about pensions and things of that nature -- I just saw 30 go up on the clock; it reminded me of 60 and 60% of the cost of education. I do not think we will have time tonight to allow the government to bring forward a bill which would pay 60% of the cost of education from the provincial coffers, as the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation and my friend Larry French, who is in the gallery, have always demanded. That is most unfortunate, because we would have been prepared to pass that this evening.

Mr Curling: I have listened very carefully to my colleague the member for Mississauga West. As the session winds down, I think how fortunate the government and we are to have a member who has put forward such thoughtful input so that the government can actually go away and think about it and make this a better place. Whether or not the government listens, I am convinced by the most influential manner in which the member for Mississauga West put forward his thoughts. I think Bill 151 will be a better bill as soon as they have amendments put forward to this.

He was preparing this for days. When I spoke to him before, he told me that he could go on speaking on this matter for a day or two. It is so close to his heart and is of such great concern to him that he felt the things he said must be said. However, with his consideration that other members would like to contribute to this debate, he felt he should put in only about three hours; he said he had more.

His concern, especially with the demographic situation in the province today, that we are getting so much older, especially the baby boomers like myself who are gradually coming into the pension era, and that we are going to make sure --

Mr Mahoney: Going grey.

Mr Curling: Do not watch the grey; this is all about intelligence and wisdom.

Mrs Caplan: You've earned every one of those.

Mr Curling: Of course, as the member said, I've earned every one. As pension time comes along, and as the member spoke so eloquently about this bill, I said to myself, "Thank you, Lord, that we have individuals like the member for Mississauga West to put forward these thoughts."

My concern, though, as I add to the comments towards Bill 151 is that, as members know, there are more people who are getting older than younger people coming in. I am concerned about who will pay these pensions. I thank him so much for his contribution.

Mr Mahoney: The reason I finished as early as I did was that I have to attend the Mississauga senior citizens' centre dinner dance, where they will be making the Senior Citizen of the Year presentation in Mississauga.

Mr Bradley: Who's getting it?

Mr Mahoney: I have the delightful pleasure of finding out who is getting it when I get there, because it is secret. We do not give those out until we make the actual presentation.

I could probably take several people from here to win, but I would have actually liked to have made a number of additional points. I had some more items of concern about this, but I thank the honourable members for their comments.

I say to the member for Markham that while I can appreciate perhaps the sensitivity that my remarks were somewhat intemperate with regard to his leader, I really have some difficulty with having a leader of his party stand up and tell us he is fighting for the working man, with all due respect. That was really the point I wanted to make. Having said that, of course I respect him and respect his right to say that, even if I do not agree with it. That is one of the great things about the democratic system.

I appreciate the member's gracious comments about the presentation, and I know he is about to address the throne with his concerns, which I am sure will come from a municipal base to a certain degree, and a provincial base, in expressing the concerns of this government. Let me, in a spirit of friendship and hopefully a spirit of understanding, even though from time to time we disagree strongly -- I see the Minister of Community and Social Services, and I disagreed strongly with her in question period today, but we all get here via the same route. We are all elected by the people and entrusted with a very real responsibility, and it is one I am proud to do. I wish all members a very happy, safe holiday season and a great, successful new year.

Mr Cousens: Bill 151, An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act and the Municipal Act, has to go down as an important bill, but it also opens up a large number of questions in its implications.

On the positive side, we certainly know the important role that is played by municipal employees to maintain a strong structure of government throughout our well over 835 local government situations in Ontario. Each of those local governments would not possibly be able to fulfil the needs of the local community were it not for the dedication of the men and women who over the years have served their communities with diligence, with care and with a tremendous professional sense about themselves.

There is, within the municipal employee group, a dedication that allows them to go on and do special studies, and they are constantly upgrading themselves through seminars and special programs. They are having to fine-tune their governments so that they take advantage of the latest in technology. They are constantly looking for ways in which they are able to serve their communities.

In fact, that probably touches on one of the most important parts of what has been the case within the municipal governments across Ontario, and that has been the high level of service provided to the local communities by these servants of the people. There they are, worrying about making sure the budgets are balanced, worrying about responding to all the needs the Ontario government lays upon them and, most of all, trying to respond in a balanced way to the needs of their municipal councils, but more particularly, those of the people who have specific concerns. That is where it happens.

If members really want to know where democracy begins, it begins right there in each of our own backyards, in each of those communities -- I think it is 837 of them -- where you see democracy working. That elected council, being backed up and supported by their administrators, their clerks, their treasurers, their parks and recreation people, by the whole assembly of people who have that concern -- to me it is a tribute to the quality of life we have had in Ontario that there have been as many who have given so much of themselves.

It was not all that long ago that they were among the most poorly paid people in the province, compared to others who would be running a grocery store or another business or doing something else. Yet as educated as they were and for the hours they put in -- and that is something else, the hours that are worked by municipal employees. As we come into a new tax year, they will be putting in extra hours to get their systems changed over from this last year into the new year. They will be changing those systems and they will be getting out their tax bills, not a happy scene for the people across the province, but this does not just happen because someone presses a button somewhere. That happens in each community so that the files and the assessment tapes and the information that pertains to their own local bills are being maintained and run and managed by the people who work in each of those communities. As we look at the work they are doing, members should please understand, and I am sure the honourable Speaker does, that these are the people who keep that level of government working and available to their municipalities.

1900

I think we take so much for granted in Ontario. When you recognize that these people have that job and they are doing it faithfully and well, I would not want some of the comments I am about to make to take away from the dedication they have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate. Very often, when we get into the Legislature as we do, we will say, "Look, we have problems with this bill." Then people will automatically assume we have problems with the people who are implicated by it.

Therefore, when I start having some concerns about the pensions of municipal employees, and I have a number of concerns, people will say, "How can you say that about our municipal employees?" That is why, as a backdrop to anything I say, I think it is imperative that the people of Ontario stop and reflect on the fact that we just could not have the systems running as smoothly as they do were it not for the efficiency and the dedication of those municipal employees.

As in my own community of Markham, you really see it in a community that is growing so quickly. When I was first elected in 1981, we had around 35,000 to 40,000 people in Markham and now we are well over 150,000 people. The way in which that community has had to respond to the needs for growth has meant that the municipal employees were brought on working with a much smaller staff and a smaller building. Then they had more and more staff and, before you knew it, you had many of them working in cramped quarters. They really did not have the facilities to work easily. They did not have the tools to do the job, yet somehow or other they did it.

They were able to make sure that the town grew well so that the people who are served within that community have a sense of pride. I think that is really one of the beautiful things about our community. There is the sense that something that is right is happening there. I know in part it is because of an excellent council and a continuing dedication by council, but also it is through the ongoing support and service of the civil servants.

I have seen that as well in the way the municipalities in which I have had experience have operated. I look at the city of Vaughan. It used to be a town and is now a city, and likewise it is into the Garnet A. Williams Community Centre and that continues to get small because of the growth. You go through York region and each of those communities has really made something happen that is good.

It is unfortunate that every time something happens that is the slightest bit wrong in a municipality, it just gets to the news in a flash. Everybody says, "Look at Richmond Hill," and at the situation that happened there with some of the moneys that were put in trust. Those moneys seemed to disappear -- in fact, they did -- and there has been a forensic audit to look into it.

That illustrates the problems that take place, but none the less that town of Richmond Hill continued to run and function. It addressed the problem and it began to find ways to make sure it would never happen again. I have a sense that the community, in re-electing its council and its officials who are responsible for it to the electorate, has won the confidence, again because of the way it has managed a tough situation, and not just the elected officials but the people at the town level as well.

I have problems none the less with a bill that is talking today about the retirement plans for municipal employees when in fact I see the people of Ontario facing one of the worst recessions this country has experienced, certainly in my lifetime and certainly in the lifetime of many people who will continue to help to make this a strong province.

We see uncertainty about the future for those many employees at General Motors, with the announcement yesterday of cutbacks that are taking place. Not just a few thousand but over 70,000 employees are going to be impacted by the downsizing of General Motors. We can believe that some of those jobs that will be lost will be in Oshawa.

Then we look at other companies. We have seen well over 200,000 jobs lost over the last year in Ontario. People were working, doing their thing, and for reasons beyond their control in large part, those positions have disappeared and therefore they are unemployed now. The unemployment rolls are increasing, and for whatever reason, those very people who had a long-term plan for the future and for their retirement, cannot do that. They cannot see beyond the next cheque they are getting, because most of them do not know where the money is going to come from to provide for necessities, for their families, for Christmas and the holidays or for something else that might happen to them.

We are dealing with a crisis for everybody in Ontario, because even those who have jobs know people who are suffering severely because they do not have a job. They know families or friends who will not be able to celebrate the kind of festive season this year that many of us think everyone in Canada should have. They are unemployed now and they see no prospect in the near future of finding a job.

While we in this House debate pension plans for municipal employees, we are somehow losing sight, at least for the time being, of the thousands of people who have no sense that there is going to be a pension for them at all. They do not even have a regular paycheque coming in right now. They have no sense that the future is going to be good for them. I cry for them. I have a sense that we here in the Ontario Legislature have a responsibility to do something for them, so that when they come to an age where they want to retire, there is going to be some kind of fund to assist them to live in a way in which they are entitled to live, in comfort, and enjoy some of the days of their lives.

I fear for them. This early retirement the business community talks about, those are sweet words of misery to those people who become the recipients of an early retirement scheme. Unless you stay in a retirement plan for the full term, it does not give you a return on the investment you have made in it. If you retire at 55 or 53, when you are supposed to wait until you are 65, it is only in the latter years that your pension really builds up and you begin to get the full amount. If you retire prior to the full time, you are going to get less and less, a significant percentage less if you retire seven or eight years before the age of retirement comes.

In Ontario now, in this debate, we are talking about the pensions of municipal employees who already have a pension plan, who already have certain investments. They are doing a good job, they are hard at work for the people of Ontario, but there is something the matter here in the province. We are not concentrating on the needs of those who are in desperate need for the future, whose jobs are lost, whose future is bleak. Let Charles Dickens come to life and write a story on a Christmas in Canada and the holiday season in 1991. It will not be the pleasant, happy story that it should be for everyone. That is a fact.

We in this House have a job for three or four more years, but the number of people who will not be able to have that claim on the future is one of the most despicable things we as legislators are doing, by not at the same time, even in the Orders and Notices or the agenda of the government or An Agenda for People or the plans coming from this government, making sure that every person in Ontario first of all has a job, and all the people have jobs, an opportunity to contribute to a pension fund that will mean they can somehow live through their days. We are failing the people who elected us by not taking that more seriously. Until we do, we are judged for the failure we are perpetrating into the future.

1910

What we need to begin to do is to look at a much bigger picture of what Ontario should be and can be. I bring that through, and somehow or other may it become one of the things all of us begin to feel and have a sense that we are committed to people and committed to principle, committed to making sure that when they get up in the morning there is a future for them, rather than the kind of future that exists today.

It is not that there are just a few people unemployed right now; that number is increasing. We are into one of the deepest, hardest, coldest winters for many, many people.

When you look at northern Ontario, I think so many of us here in this House have no understanding of how hard it is for those people in mining towns, where the unemployment rate is up over 15% and 20%, and there is not a chance of the mine being opened again. We are looking at people in the forest industry, again in northern Ontario. Recently I met with leaders in the forest industry who are seeing nothing but despair at the closing down of their industry, for a combination of reasons, some of which I can blame the government for, but not entirely.

I attribute a large part of it to the free trade agreement. As one who voted for it, I am having grave problems with what is happening with Canada today because of the free trade agreement. Somehow or other we are not positioned to accept a change that is happening so rapidly. Business is not responding fast enough. Therefore there is the fallout, and the fallout is hitting people. Those very people are ending up carrying the can, carrying it for all governments, the provincial and the federal governments, which are failing these people in not helping to ensure that there is a job for them.

Our future as a country depends on the people who make it up. That is a resource that is worth something. It was not that long ago that you looked at the resources of Canada, and when you thought of the resources, you thought they were our forests, our water, our minerals, our wheat and grain; they were the natural things that were here when this country was first opened up. Whether it was opened up by the aboriginal Canadians or by those of us who came from Europe first, I do not really care. That was the strength of this country in the early days.

Now, let us understand, the richest and best resource we have as a country is our people. We have to make sure their needs are understood and appreciated. On the one hand, you have to have this social, what do you call it, blanket?

Mrs Witmer: Net.

Mr Cousens: The social net. I understand that, and we have a commitment to that from our party. I know the socialists in government have a commitment to that as well.

The Liberals do. That is something this House takes for granted, that we have a responsibility for the social needs of our community and our people so if there is sickness or there is lack of food or there is any kind of lack, there is a way in which that can be supplemented and supported. We are a great society, when you think of what we can do for it; in fact, such a great society that people from around the world have looked to Canada as a place they would love to come to, they would love to immigrate to. They would like to make their homes here. They would like to be able to come and make it an even better place. When you understand --

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: I am sorry, but it comes into Bill 151, Mr Speaker.

What it really means is that there are so many people who see Canada and Ontario as a marvellous place in which to live, but it means it is a place in which they have to work and build and develop some kind of plan for the future. That plan is non-existent for so many who do not have a pension fund.

Those people who have government jobs, be it provincial, municipal or federal government, have a planned pension plan to help them. What about all the other thousands of people who have no pension plan, who have no sense for the term of what they will do and how they will live and what they will live on when it comes to the day of retirement?

That is the problem we have. We are debating a bill today that is going to assist municipal employees' retirement plans. In the end, it is going to pass, so you wonder why it is that someone would even pause to reflect on it. I am pausing to reflect on it because, before we come along and just automatically sweeten the pot for municipal employees' retirement funds, we should have a clear conscience, a sense of knowing the numbers of people who have nothing, no pension at all to sweeten, no pension whatsoever, so when they reach the age of 65 they will not have anything to plan with except the CPP.

Anyone who is relying on the CPP for his retirement had better think twice. It may not be there. It may be bankrupt, if it is not already bankrupt, by the time 1996 comes along, or the year 2000. For people who are forecasting their returns and the money they will be making in those years, if they are including the CPP, it may not be there by then. It just cannot continue to be funded.

When I look out into our great communities across Ontario, on the one hand government employees have magnificent pension plans. They are wonderful because they are shared by the employer, being the governing body, and by themselves. So right early on, within those government plans, people start to accumulate a retirement fund. Yet how many people in Ontario are not contributing at all to a pension fund today? Why are we not doing something about it? Why are we not waking up and saying to those companies and those corporations, to the unions, to everybody, "Get involved with your pension plan"?

Here it is government looking after government. We in this Ontario House will look after the municipal employees. Sure, we will. This bill will pass. But why are we not doing something for those thousands of people who do not have someone looking over their shoulder saying, "Do something about it"?

I hope something is stirred in our hearts at this Christmas season to understand there is not just sentimental garbage in talking about pensions, that for every human being, when he starts to work at the age of even 14 or 16, whenever it may be, there is some way in which he can begin to accumulate a pension for his retirement. Let that be a beginning of an ongoing life cycle in which people are constantly building up that fund, so they are focused on it early and then, as time goes on, that pot will build.

1920

Our federal government again has totally dropped the ball on RRSPs. It is only this year that you can begin to put a larger amount into these registered retirement savings plans. That is the kind of investment that should be part of everyone's planning. But do members know what is happening? We are so busy living for today, looking after the food and clothes and heat for our homes, that people do not have the money left over to put aside for a pension plan.

The evidence is in the people who are now 65 years of age and do not have the money to live in the style to which they were accustomed. They are ending up selling their homes and they are changing their lifestyle, which is notching downwards. It is notching downwards as they lose control of their own economy. They are moving into a stage in which, what will they have in the next 10 years? If they live beyond a certain age, they are dipping into their capital, their capital is getting smaller and smaller and their sense of worry about the future is increasing.

They have become a group within our society we have tried to do something for. There are a number of pension plans and support plans the province has subsidized to assist people who own property for a property tax rebate. There is a supplemental pension plan, but nothing close to their need. While they are dipping into their capital, the amount of money they are going to have at some date in the future will be less than enough to look after them, especially as I do not have any doubt that we are going to see inflation come back to Ontario and Canada in the next two or three years as we have not seen before.

I think that once the federal government reviews things, the suffering being caused by the tough dollar could well mean that people will say, "We've had enough with the tough dollar, so open it up." Once they have released the tight dollar policy of Mr Crow and the Bank of Canada, what will happen is inflation, and what a mistake that will be. The very people I have just been talking about, our seniors -- some of us will be among them by then -- unless they have some kind of indexation to their pension plan, are going to be out of luck.

Every day will be a Scrooge day for them. Every day will have a sense of despair and anguish because there will be nothing in the bank to help them through. What does come in will still be insufficient. They will sell their assets and move to a lower level of living, into some form of subsidized living. Indeed, in our country we will continue to provide that for people. But their pride is injured, their sense of self-importance has gone down and their sense of having looked after themselves for all those years will be wiped away because there will not be the kind of assurance for the future because of what they have done.

People in Canada like to know they are doing something for themselves and not relying upon the government or anyone else to do it for them. They want to have pride. In fact, when you look at what it takes to make up a Canadian, it takes this: the pioneer spirit that when they get out into the world they are going to do something, they are going to create, they are going to build, they are going to work, and on their shoulders they will make it a better land.

The people who work for municipal governments, as we refer to them in Bill 151, continue to build and grow and do these things. But there are so many others who do not have that chance and will not have that chance, especially as the economy goes through the kind of serious change we are into now.

Is there a sense of urgency to it? There is great urgency. There is greater urgency to the needs of the thousands of unemployed people, the many seniors who are moving into retirement who do not have an indexed pension, who do not have resources. The limited resources they have will dissipate over the forthcoming years so that they have next to nothing. They lose not only buying power, but their pride, their sense of self-esteem.

Yet here we are in this Legislature talking about Bill 151, sweetening the pot, as I said earlier, for municipal employees' retirement funds. Why are we not doing something about those many thousands of other people who need a break? Why are we not doing something to educate young people right across our whole society and say: "Start early, young people, even while you are going to university, start early. Put some money away for the day you will retire"?

When I went to university, one of the first investments I made was my insurance policy from a Prudential insurance man who came to my home in Burnbrae, just outside of Campbellford. He came and told me the story of how this $5,000 policy was going to --

Hon Mr Pilkey: Tell us the story of long, long ago.

Mr Cousens: Oh gosh, the Solicitor General is bad. The insurance man came and sold me on how I could take my earnings as a student in high school and put aside a certain amount so that over time I would have some money set aside for something else.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Pay yourself first.

Mr Cousens: In fact, there is a sense there of my commitment to my future by putting some money aside at that early stage. Yet today people are not buying insurance to the same extent they once were. It is more that they are looking for the kind of insurance for emergencies. I am trying to think of the term. You just pay for it as you need it; it is not something that has the long-term impact.

But where are people's minds, if they too, like the municipal employees, are building a plan for the future where they will have a chance to know there is a future? Unless we start with everybody -- I think people are sick of the way government looks after government. Bill 151 is looking after municipal employees. That really is important and necessary, but on a scale compared to the need of those who have no pension plan and no guidance and no support from this government, no agenda from this government for a pension -- I see up in the gallery a number of people from the teaching profession. They are going to be very interested in their pension plan. The teachers have one of the best pension plans going. Maybe it comes out of their educational program, because very early on they know they would be fools if they did not plan for their future retirement, so teachers invest heavily in it. It is taken off their payroll; they do not see the money, so they forget about it. They just know it will be there some day when they need it. Then that day comes and, when they retire, they are able to live in a way which has been planned for.

I commend the teachers for the way in which they have done it as a profession, because they have fought hard. They work hard and they invest hard, so when it is all over and done with and their life is finished in the work world, they can then look forward to some kind of comfort that will allow them to carry on their lives in dignity. How many other professions have taken the same commitment as teachers have? Not very many. Teachers are close to the municipal employees as far as looking after themselves is concerned.

It is too bad this idea of planning for your retirement is not something more generic to every profession, so that there is a sense of commitment early on by those who are in an apprenticeship program, those who are at university having a summer job; too bad that there is not some way they are being educated on the need to set aside a certain amount of money, that different unions are not somehow building in extra portability plans so that those who are members of those unions can take the investment that has been made by an employee and move it into another opportunity when it comes.

In my preliminary remarks to this bill, I think we are making a dreadful mistake as legislators not to consider at the same time other bills that begin to touch upon the pension needs of different groups within our society. As I look back at some of the legislation we passed and worked on over the years we have seen pension reform come to our province, I had the pleasure of sitting on the Legislature's select committee on pensions back in 1981. In fact, one of the people on that pension committee was the previous Premier of this province. There was a Premier before the present Premier and he lost the election on September 6. You forget their names so quickly. David --

1930

An hon member: Patterson?

Mr Cousens: Not Patterson. It was not Patterson. There was another Premier. He was really a very --

Hon Mr Buchanan: David Elston.

Mr Cousens: David Elston? No. He is running for the next leadership of the Liberal Party.

Mr Morrow: David McClelland?

Mr Cousens: David McClelland? No, he is not running for the leadership this week. It was David Peterson. David Peterson was on the pension committee back in 1981. That was an opportunity for a backbencher -- I was on the government side at the time and Mr Peterson was a backbencher with the Liberals. It was a chance for us to look at ways in which we built portability and spousal benefits into pension legislation from Ontario. Let's just comment briefly.

Portability means that a person who has invested for a certain period of time can take that investment in his pension fund and move it from company A to company B to company C so it continues to accumulate without interference as people move from one position to another in different companies and in different funds. That is the kind of thing that has now happened through changes to the pension act.

We also became very concerned about spousal benefits. The number of existing pension plans and the changes that were made in legislation certainly built the need to have spousal benefits into the legislation in 1987 and 1989, which is absolutely imperative. We touch on that in Bill 151 for municipal employees, but for everybody in this province let's not forget that the obligations we have while living also carry on after we are dead. The commitment we make to our spouse while alive certainly should be more than just words. It should have a financial link to what our pension plans are for the future. It is only being responsible. It is only living up to more than just the terms of a marriage agreement. It has to do with the very spirit of what it is to have and to hold, to love and to cherish and to build together.

When you start looking at the different kinds of pension plans and the changes that have been made, I guess the one issue that really starts coming into this bill and into previous ones is the whole idea of indexation. It was in 1987 that the Ontario Pension Benefits Act decreed that pension benefits must be indexed according to a formula to be prescribed. The task force that was run by Mr Friedland at the time suggested that such a formula would become at least some way in which surplus funds that are gathered or gained or built up within any kind of pension fund could then be allocated on a percentage basis to help with the effects of inflation. I do not think there is any doubt that every pension plan we have in our province should be revisited, if it has not been already, to see what can be done to build something in there for inflation.

Knowing that we have inflation now at around 5% and 6%, if inflation returns at double-digit levels, then the value of the dollar people are receiving through their pensions is reduced so significantly that they are forced into a form of poverty. They enter their retirement program thinking they were going to be well off and then, as inflation eats away at their investments, they are left with less and less and forced into a new stage. What I would really like to see is that all plans, not just the one we are looking at today, have some understanding about what indexation is all about.

What we are really talking about in Bill 151, which is going to assist Ontario municipal employees' retirement plans, is the guarantee of indexing the members' pension benefits. That is why I am saying, if we are looking after municipal employees and government employees, why are we not doing something as well to help make sure other plans are building that kind of indexation into them? I realize that the level of the OMERS pension plan will be capped at 6%. That may seem like a lot; 6 % is at least pegging it at a level. After 10 years, is it not, you have a doubling effect at 6%, so someone's pension can have a significant -- it does not double. I guess it would double in 15 years. There is a sense in which it will grow at least to maintain a level or standard for an individual who is retired who otherwise would not have that kind of growth that goes with it.

To meet the costs of this indexation, there is going to be more paying for their pension than previously. I think that is the responsible thing. I think the government certainly would want there to be a joint responsibility for the extra benefit, so the contribution rates for both the employer and the employee will increase, by 0.5%.

The costs of these increases will affect two different groups. The one cost is going to affect the municipal employees. I was surprised when I was reading one of the newspaper reports on this bill. There was some concern and complaint that this program was going to cost the municipal employees possibly up to $150 a person because of this change in their pension plan. We should not complain about it. To those people who are going to have the chance to increase their payment to their pension plan and have the benefit of indexation, it is indeed a fantastic coup. I do not support it, for the reasons I am coming to, but the New Democratic government is generous in saying, "We've got to make everybody have an indexed pension plan." As long as the employee is contributing to it, that is a good thing.

Here is the wrinkle: How much is it going to cost each municipality across Ontario for the increase it has to pay? It is going to cost municipal employees 0.5% of their salaries to go to their pension funds so that they have the indexation. The cost to municipalities across Ontario because of this amounts to $22 million. The sum total of all the increases we are talking about because of the changes in Bill 151 amounts to $22 million that will have to be picked up by municipalities right across Ontario, a small amount here, a small amount there, but each municipality, because of a decision we are making in this House, ends up immediately, on January 1, having to plan either a deficit or some way of bringing in that extra money. That is a large part of what is going to happen.

If each municipality then has to do it, it is added to the total number of programs we have already forced on them. What we have been doing for the last five years around here since David Peterson came to power, and now with the member for York South coming to power, is passing the bill down to the municipal governments. It means the municipal governments are picking up the taxes. They pick them up out of the members' and my back pockets. The people do not have the money any more.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Oh, you've got it. It's okay, Don.

Mr Cousens: Oh, I may have it. The honourable Minister of Labour happens to realize that I -- oh, never mind. Maybe some of us have more than others. That is the issue. There are some people who do not have it and I am concerned that we are putting on them the added responsibility of more taxes. Municipal governments do not just pass the pot around. It is not like going to the kirk where they pass the plate until they get enough and then you can pay the preacher and pay for the building.

Instead, at the municipal government level they pass the little tax bill around and you pay it, in just the same way as the New Democratic Party member whose membership I ripped up today was complaining that he is having to pay taxes. He is saying, "Please don't keep adding to the taxes." I think they want me to think of something else to say.

Mr Conway: Is that a Queen's tie?

Mr Cousens: This is a Queen's tie and I paid for it -- no, I did not; my daughter did.

Mr Runciman: Say something about Christmas.

1940

Mr Cousens: Say something about Christmas? I am talking about municipal taxes. It is an ugly subject and it

makes me ugly to talk about it. I want to make everybody else a little bit more mean-minded. I think we in this House should be thinking very seriously about the negative impact of every tax we are levying across this province.

I thank our leader, the member for Nipissing, because if there is anyone who has fought tax increases, it is him. I also think there is not a more balanced individual than the member for Nipissing. If the government froze taxes at the level they are now, as he suggests, then it would find the money within its present budget, instead of continuing to let it creep up and up. People do not have the money. They would have money in their pockets for a happy Christmas if the government was not taxing them so harshly.

Interjections.

Mr Cousens: I would like to wish everybody a very merry Christmas. If there is anything else that is very important it is that we can have a very happy Christmas for all the people of Ontario. May they have a very merry Christmas. For those who do not celebrate Christmas, may they have a very happy holiday season. These guys do not realize I live in a multicultural neighbourhood. We understand therefore that there are those who may not celebrate this particular festive occasion, but may they celebrate a very happy time with their families and may they enjoy a good time together in the days they have off.

I have pages to go on this issue and at least I would like to be able to make one final point. If we in this Legislature continue to have a commitment to all the people of Ontario the way we have to municipal employees, to make sure we are doing something in a leadership role for them, that they have some way in which they can plan their retirement, then every day will be Christmas Day for them when they have a sense of knowing there is some money in the bank, some food in the fridge and something there to last them for the days to come.

That is what we are here for, to make this province continue to be a strong, good place to live. May it be a great place this season of the year for every one of us and everybody within our municipalities, and may we as legislators try to do the right thing for them all the time.

Motion agreed to.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

Mr Cooke moved third reading of Bill 163, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act / Projet de loi 163, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Assemblée législative.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Would the minister like to make a few comments?

Hon Mr Cooke: I like the old tradition where there is not much talk on third reading.

Motion agreed to.

TEACHERS' PENSION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE RÉGIME DE RETRAITE DES ENSEIGNANTS

Mr Cooke, on behalf of Mr Silipo, moved third reading of Bill 140, An Act to amend the Teachers' Pension Act, 1989 and the Teaching Profession Act / Projet de loi 140, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1989 sur le régime de retraite des enseignants et la Loi sur la profession enseignante.

Motion agreed to.

TRUCK TRANSPORTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE CAMIONNAGE

Mr Cooke, on behalf of Mr Pouliot, moved third reading of Bill 129, An Act to amend the Truck Transportation Act, 1988 / Projet de loi 129, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1988 sur le camionnage.

Motion agreed to.

ONTARIO MEDICAL ASSOCIATION DUES ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES COTISATIONS DE L'ONTARIO MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

Mr Wessenger, on behalf of Ms Lankin, moved third reading of Bill 135, An Act to provide for the Payment of Physicians' Dues and Other Amounts to the Ontario Medical Association / Projet de loi 135, Loi prévoyant le paiement des cotisations des médecins et d'autres montants à l'Ontario Medical Association.

Mr Runciman: I simply want to say this is a very unfortunate agreement which I do not believe is in the best interests of health care consumers in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Mr Wessenger has moved third reading of the bill. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991/ LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELEVANT DU MINISTERE DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'ALIMENTATION

Mr Buchanan moved third reading of Bill 144, An Act to amend certain Acts administered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food / Projet de loi 144, Loi modifiant certaines lois dont l'application relève du ministère de l'Agriculture et de l'Alimentation.

Motion agreed to.

1950

House in committee of the whole.

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ADMINISTRATION FINANCIERE

Consideration of Bill 156, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act / Projet de loi 156, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration financière.

Section 1:

Mr Christopherson: On behalf of the Treasurer, I move that subsection 2(2) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(2) The Treasurer shall establish in the name of the Treasurer and may authorize an agency of the crown to establish in the name of the agency accounts with any bank, trust corporation, co-operative credit society, credit union, caisse populaire, credit union league or caisse populaire league that is authorized to carry on business in Ontario and is designated by the Treasurer for the deposit of public money."

The Second Deputy Chair: Could the honourable member please make sure the table has a copy of the amendment?

Mr Christopherson: Yes, I will, Mr Chair. Do you need that right away or can I provide it?

The Second Deputy Chair: We could use it any time, please.

The Second Deputy Chair: Are there any comments on the amendment that has just been put forth?

Mr Christopherson: The only comment I would have is that we have had an opportunity to talk with both opposition parties about this as thoroughly as I understand they need it, and at this point I believe there is agreement to pass the amendment.

2000

Mr Phillips: My understanding of the intent of the amendment is that it was essentially an oversight in the original drafting in that there were two definitions left out, I think two leagues. I do not have the amendment before me, but I had an opportunity to read it a few moments ago. On the understanding that really it was an oversight, we see no difficulty with the "league." I believe the third party had an opportunity to review it. I do not think we would have any difficulty including that in the bill.

Mr Harris: I know the member for Carleton was actively involved in this piece of legislation. I know he has expressed concerns as well about the complexity of the legislation and the fact that we would have liked to have more time for this. He also was hoping I believe to get some understanding from the Provincial Auditor. I think this particular amendment is not one of those areas he was requesting advice from the auditor on.

I now have the amendment in front of me. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant can just confirm for me that is not the case. I do not believe it is the case and my understanding is that we also believe, from our party's point of view, this amendment is necessary and will improve the bill.

The Second Deputy Chair: Does the parliamentary assistant have any comments?

Mr Christopherson: Just to affirm very clearly that the intent of the amendment is merely to include two designations that were omitted from the original. It is not meant to change in any way the intent of the legislation. Also, indeed the leader of the third party is correct in that the auditor was not asked to comment on this. At the appropriate time, I do have a copy of a letter from the auditor regarding the overall legislation. If there are any other assurances needed by the opposition parties with regard to this amendment, I am prepared to respond to them.

The Second Deputy Chair: All those in favour of the amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

The Second Deputy Chair: Do any other members want to make comments on different sections of Bill 156?

Mr Phillips: There were a number of areas of the bill that we expressed concern about at the committee stage and that we continue to have.

Our fundamental concern with the bill is, we think, the inappropriate reporting of capital, a belief and a concern we have that the intent of the bill is to allow for the reporting of the finances of the province to be done in a way that will not allow for accurate year-to-year comparisons.

We have often heard the Premier say, and as a matter of fact, I think many members of the government have said, "We will balance the budget in 1997-98," I think it is. But they will not balance the budget. They might balance the operating budget, but there still will be a deficit of $5 billion to $6 billion on the capital account. So I can understand why the government may want to pass this bill and allow them to report the finances of the province in a way that we do not think reflects the true nature of the spending.

We had an awful lot of assurances at the committee that this was not going to happen, that the reporting would not change and that we were unduly worried. I am still worried, because the budget the Treasurer prepared on April 23 talks about "balancing the budget." We have heard the Premier say it often; we have heard members of the government say it often. So we continue to be apprehensive about that aspect of it.

The second aspect that worries us -- and by the way, Mr Chairman, I think you appreciate that this bill significantly broadens the scope for the Treasurer as to what institutions he uses for his financing. The concern that was expressed by both ourselves and the third party had to do with regular disclosure of where those funds are being invested. I think there was concern at the committee stage that without a full knowledge and disclosure of where the funds of the province are being invested, it provides for the Treasurer, inadvertently perhaps, to direct funds to financial institutions without the public being aware of it.

I think one of my colleagues wanted some reassurance that this information would in fact be publicly available, either through an amendment to the bill to ensure that there is regular reporting of it or, at the very minimum, and perhaps the parliamentary assistant can help us here, an assurance that the information is publicly available on a regular basis and, if we do not amend the bill for a regular reporting, that the parliamentary assistant could inform the House of where that information is and how one would go about accessing it.

The third area of concern -- and I hope we can deal with the bill by separating these three questions; the parliamentary assistant can give us a hand here -- had to do with section 6 of the bill around interim supply. As we re-read this, there was some concern which the parliamentary assistant maybe can help us on. We wanted to be assured that passing this bill would not change the basis on which the Legislature deals with interim supply.

Those would be our three concerns. The one I am not sure the parliamentary assistant can help us on, because it is a very fundamental issue with us, is the reporting. We think there is a better way of reporting that would allow for an annual reporting on what is the true cost of furbishing our infrastructure. We suggest, rather than what this proposes to do, which is to show merely the amortization cost of the capital account, showing essentially an annual, what would be called in the private sector "depreciation" but here an "infrastructure refurbishing." That would be, I think, our fundamental concern.

The parliamentary assistant could help the House on those two points: first, disclosure of the investment and, second -- it is section 6 of the bill, but section 14 of the act, "The treasury board, on the application of a minister, may authorize the Treasurer to make interim payments from the consolidated revenue fund" -- assurances that, by passing that, we are not changing the basis on which we deal with interim supply in the House.

2010

Mr Harris: I know the member for Carleton felt very strongly on a couple of points that have been mentioned by my friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, particularly the changing of the reporting from the way it is done now, the capital accounts and the operating account, to make sure we were always talking apples to apples. I believe the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has expressed that viewpoint very well and I will not repeat it here.

I have one question I would like the parliamentary assistant to answer on that. I will put it now and then go on to the next issue. This does not come from the member for Carleton; it comes from me. I have heard many politicians argue that we should be reporting separately, the way businesses do. They report operating and capital, and provinces do as well, but businesses particularly.

One thing that businesses also do -- the member is quite right -- is they take their debt and many of their capital expenditures and put them over a much longer period of time, so it is not all being spent that year. It makes the books look a little better from that point of view.

However, all businesses also depreciate all their capital assets each year. If the government is really going to truly have an accurate reflection in the reporting of the province, I can accept that the operating budget is one and the capital is another, but it also strikes me that we should have a reporting of the total capital assets of the province and a fair method of depreciating those assets so that we could also determine whether the government is putting enough into repair and maintenance to balance the depreciation that is in effect there and whether that is being reported.

We could get a very different figure. I have no idea, for example, what the capital assets of this province are. I do not know how many billions they are, our roads, our highways, our hospitals. Some will argue those are in different accounts, but let's face it, we pay pretty much 100% of operating hospitals and the maintenance and repair. Clearly we are in hundreds of billions of dollars of capital assets.

Were we, as a business does, to depreciate those assets -- even, say, 5% a year -- we would in effect be adding several billions more to our deficit each and every year. I do not think governments would want to do that for reporting purposes, but it might also help give us a more accurate reflection of how we stand as a province.

I would be interested if the parliamentary assistant could tell me if there has been any discussion on that. I do not expect, at this particular hour, on this particular day, at this particular time of the season close to Christmas, that if they are not prepared to move on that in this bill at this time, they will, but I would interested in his thoughts on that briefly.

Second, with regard to the quarterly reporting on the short-term investment, the member for Carleton felt very strongly that to give a more accurate understanding when quarterly reports are being issued, the short-term investments of the province should be released quarterly as well.

I see no reason why that cannot be done. I do not have an amendment prepared to suggest that it must be done, but if the parliamentary assistant agrees with me in his response, I would be prepared to sit down with him and draft the amendment and figure out where it goes.

Mr Christopherson: I thank the honourable members for their constructive comments and concerns regarding this amendment. I will do the best I can to address some of the concerns that were raised. First of all, with regard to the capital accounts, the separating of the operating and the capital, that indeed has been the focus of a great deal of discussion by all of us, both here in the House and in committee. Indeed, we had the Provincial Auditor present and we went into it, I think, in relative depth with him.

I suppose the best thing I can do with regard to this concern is to advise of a copy of a letter that I have addressed to the Chair of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, the member for St Andrew-St Patrick. It is a very brief letter, two very short sentences, and I would like to read it, if I can.

"Dear Ms Akande:

"Re Amendments to Financial Administration Act:

"As requested by the committee, I have now reviewed section 15(2) of the act regarding the creation of a capital account with officials of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. As a result, I am satisfied that the province's total deficit (operating and capital combined) will continue to be reflected in future annual financial statements."

It is signed by the Provincial Auditor and dated December 13. I have copies here if members of the committee do not yet have their own copies. That should, I hope, in fairness, alleviate all the concerns that members have about the reporting aspects of the split in the operating and the capital accounts.

Also, before I move on to a couple of the other subjects mentioned, this should make it easier for the province, for the taxpayers, for the auditor and for all of us, quite frankly, to determine whether or not we are spending enough money on infrastructure, refurbishing and maintaining that infrastructure and ensuring that we are keeping the edge we now have.

On disclosure, which was raised by the leader of the third party, we cannot agree to any kind of amendment, not because the essence of his request is unacceptable. Quite frankly, as much information as he would like as can be released our Treasury officials are prepared to release. The reason we do not want it entrenched in the legislation is that there is a concern, I am advised by Treasury officials, that because of the movement of short-term investment, were we to disclose too quickly where we are going in the market, there would be an ability for others to see where we are going and where we have been and in effect harm the taxpayers' ability to maximize their investment benefits out in the market.

On interim supply, I have asked staff about that and I am advised that this will not have any impact on the current procedure for interim supply. The last thing I would say is that if members would like information on short-term investments, if they would like to make those requests in writing to the Treasury officials, it will be made available to them as soon as the issue of confidentiality allows. Also, whether or not there is a request, that information will be made available to the auditor at the end of the year for reporting purposes. I hope I have addressed the major concerns. I am prepared to answer other questions if need be.

2020

Mrs Sullivan: This is a bill in which I have some considerable interest. I am quite satisfied with the borrowing instruments that are included in the bill. I am very concerned about some of the approaches to investment instruments that are included in the bill, because we see included in this bill, as a way of approaching investment by the province through the office of the Treasury, investment in short sales, in puts and calls, in the futures market, in private corporations without any reference to their investment capacity, the entire power of investment of the province in those areas. We see a potential for risk investment in foreign money markets and in currency exchange areas, and we see those issues being ascribed even further to be used as instruments of social policy.

This bill will allow the government to invest in any private corporation, whether publicly listed or simply registered, as an instrument of social policy. We do not believe that is the way the office of the Treasury of this government should operate. Those kinds of investment decisions should be made and carried out through a line ministry, through a policy that is clear, open and above-board; for example, through the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. We believe the influence of the province in its investments can change the way the market operates if it is a publicly traded stock. I do not think the assurances of the parliamentary assistant have met my concerns.

We are also very concerned that social policy would be determined by unilateral action through the office of the Treasury, by direction of the Treasurer, when a line ministry decision which can be examined in a policy context is what should be before the people.

As my colleague has indicated, we are concerned about the capital budget projections moving to an accrual system and the reporting of that capital budgeting arrangement, including the backlog of capital that is not being reported, the obligations against that capital or the disposition of that capital in the future.

These are issues of some concern. In committee, the parliamentary assistant agreed that he would bring those issues forward. He has addressed some of the issues in his commentary tonight. I think these are other issues that we want to have on the table and that we would like him to respond to tonight.

Mr Christopherson: I assure the honourable member for Halton Centre that to the best of my knowledge, from discussions with our Treasury officials as a result of concerns raised in committee, the basic, fundamental way in which this government invests and the checks and balances that are in the system will not be affected by this amendment. In fact, I believe Hansard will show that I asked rather pointed questions of the Provincial Auditor along that line. He also gave assurances that he did not see any major weakening of the kind the member has raised. I believe the very small-c conservative approach of this Treasurer and other treasurers in taking care of the investments of the taxpayers will continue.

I would point out that some of the concerns raised about investments in some of these new areas will have the same rules and regulations applied that have applied to current institutions for investment. Indeed there have been times when Ontario investments have been taken out of banks in this nation, and when one of those banks folded, we had already, as a province, removed the money.

I believe there has been a thorough discussion of this, particularly with the Provincial Auditor. Although I recognize how sincere the member is in raising these concerns, I do not believe they are well founded and I do not believe this particular amendment will have any impact on the safekeeping and proper investment that previous treasurers and the current Treasurer apply to the funds of the citizens of Ontario.

Sections 2 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Mrs Grier, the committee of the whole reported one bill with certain amendments.

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ADMINISTRATION FINANCIERE

Mr Christopherson moved third reading of Bill 156, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act / Projet de loi 156, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration financière.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Haeck): All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed say will please say "nay."

In my opinion the "ayes" have it.

Call in the members.

Hon Mr Cooke: There is an agreement that all the votes will be stacked.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): There is an agreement among the House leaders that votes will be stacked.

Vote deferred.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 130, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Projet de loi 130, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): We are now resuming the debate on Bill 130. The honourable member for Willowdale had the floor when the debate was adjourned.

Mr Harnick: I have no further comments on Bill 130.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I am glad that the member for Willowdale has had sufficient time to give us his comments because he really did have a lot to say on this bill.

I think Bill 130 should be renamed. I think it should be named the tax on auto workers. This legislation implements the NDP budget policy extending the gas guzzler tax on new automobiles and is indeed an indirect tax on automobile workers -- this week has shown that -- a tax that helps put them off the line and out of work.

It is true that the taxation of fuel-inefficient automobiles began with a Liberal government initiative as part of the 1989 provincial budget. It is important to note that the Liberal gas guzzler tax was only targeted to 42 of the most fuel-inefficient car models. It was primarily designed to exact a premium from and to discourage the purchase of luxury foreign-made automobiles such as Rolls-Royces, Ferraris and the like. The gas guzzler tax was not a major revenue generator for the province under the Liberal government, producing only $8 million a year. Its focus was energy conservation and environmental protection. It was not designed to be a tax grab, as is Bill 130.

2030

On April 29, 1991, the current Treasurer, however, announced in his budget a substantial increase and extension of the gas guzzler tax. The NDP budget version of this tax reduced the low end of the range of cars covered by the tax from 9.5 litres per 100 kilometres to 8.5 and doubled the amount of tax in each of the previous gas mileage categories. The tax was also extended to include sport and utility vehicles. Indeed, this bill extends taxation to all full-sized vehicles, including four-wheel-drive trucks. Once announced, this tax hike was promptly denounced by management and labour alike, including Bob White, head of the Canadian Auto Workers, and Ken Harrigan, president of Ford and head of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association.

On June 25, 1991, the Ottawa Citizen stated, "The news infuriated the auto makers, who complained the new rates would drive away business," an increasingly familiar cry from the business community. The Financial Post of December 12 talks about "GM Warning on Plants and Jobs." The tax was criticized as unfair for penalizing sport and utility vehicles, often used by families that have few other vehicle choices. For example, some large families drive mini-vans, and northerners and farmers often use trucks as off-road vehicles. For these and many other Ontarians, these vehicles are a matter of necessity. They have no choice. They are not a luxury.

During the Liberal budget tour we held in 1991, John Walker of the Thunder Bay Economic Development Commission noted that northerners have been hit both with the increase in the gasoline tax and the gas guzzler tax, which penalize those who have to drive larger vehicles because they drive longer distances over much rougher roads. The Minister of Revenue, herself a northerner, must be concerned about the impact of these revenue generators on northern Ontario families, yet there was not one mention of this from the minister. Her own constituents are going to have a very detrimental result from Bill 130.

Would the Minister of Revenue want to be limited to driving a three-cylinder subcompact, the only type of car that qualifies for the $100 rebate, between Thunder Bay and Atikokan on a stormy winter's day? May I remind the House that only 1% of all vehicles purchased in Ontario presently qualify for this modest but highly touted rebate. Many Ontario-made vehicles and parts are caught by this new tax, making it effectively a tax on auto workers, as I call it.

The NDP gas guzzler tax basically extended coverage to all full-size vehicles, including four-wheel-drive trucks, as I have stated. The gas guzzler tax lists are expanded by Bill 130 and include Chrysler Magic Wagons with automatic transmissions, several Ford products including engines made in both Windsor and St Thomas, the Suzuki Sidekick -- all vehicles which in both manufacturing and sales keep Ontario workers off the unemployment rolls -- the Chevrolet Lumina and the Buick Regal, which are and have been traditionally built in Oshawa but which I fear will soon be built exclusively in the United States.

The article I pointed to earlier certainly outlines this point, "GM Warning on Plants and Jobs." What plants and jobs are talked about in this article? Oshawa plant number 1 and Oshawa plant number 2. What are the models that are created in these plants? The Lumina and the Buick Regal. These are the cars this tax is going to affect. These are the plants that are now in jeopardy. We do not see a government with any connection being put through its brainwaves on this event.

In the press -- this and other items I have just shown members -- we have learned that General Motors is under intense pressure from investors and bond-rating agencies to do something radical to improve its profitability and cash flow in 1992. GM, which has been the backbone of industry in this province, is now being questioned by investors and bond-rating agencies. GM Canada has suffered one of the sharpest sales drops in its history, which has led General Motors to consider moving its number 2 plant to the United States, and perhaps parts of its number 1 plant. As we all know, this will likely result in 3,800 or 4,000 jobs in a very important industry, the automotive industry, going from this province.

Bill 130 is all this government can offer GM at this time of need. Is Bill 130 all this government is going to offer GM to help keep Ontario workers off the unemployment rolls, or more correctly, I should say, to keep them off the line to put them out of work?

GM has estimated that the original budget version of the NDP gas guzzler tax would hit 21 of its car models and as many as 32 of its sport utility vehicles. Ford estimated it would have had 15 models affected. According to the Ontario Automobile Dealers Association, an additional 202 vehicles have been hit by this budget announcement of the NDP automotive tax, in contrast to only 42 models covered by the previous tax, an extension of over 400%. That is 42 to 202 with Bill 130.

The budget version of the gas-guzzler tax resulted in Ford reconsidering plans to relocate production of the Bronco line to Oakville. Ford Canada estimated the tax would cost it $50 million and 3,000 lost vehicle sales in 1992. So why would they relocate to Oakville?

Even environmental groups agree that the "tax only" approach is not necessarily the most effective way of helping the environment. Friends of the Earth said that a better program would also offer tax rebates to purchasers of fuel-efficient vehicles, a little bit of positive thinking on the part of this government, but no, we have negative thoughts. This other program I mentioned has been tried successfully in California.

This legislation makes an almost meaningless token gesture in the direction of the environment. A $100 rebate on the price of an automobile is not going to change many purchasing decisions, especially when it only affects 1% of the purchases. The Liberal opposition raised its concern regarding the new gas guzzler tax on numerous occasions. There were other criticisms in the community. To respond to this, the Treasurer met with Canadian Auto Workers reps as well as representatives from the Big Three auto manufacturers, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association and the Ontario Automobile Dealers Association, parts manufacturers' representatives and environmental groups.

All these people got together, including Pollution Probe and Friends of the Earth, on May 16, 1991. What should have happened before the budget happened after the budget. That is why we have Bill 130. As a result of these negotiations -- I think we should say they were negotiations rather than consultations -- the Treasurer came forward and announced that he would be changing that budget line and would now be introducing, as he did on June 24, Bill 130. This is another one of the flip-flops of this NDP government.

The effect of the change was to lower the rate of the budget tax proposals for many vehicles, but also to extend the tax to an even wider range of vehicles, so we have less choice with a little lower tax. A rebate of $100 will be provided to purchasers of vehicles with fuel consumption ratings of less than six litres per 100 kilometres. Does the minister have any assurance from the automobile manufacturers that they intend to produce additional model lines that will capitalize on this rebate? Have there even been discussions along these lines? I doubt it. We have heard nothing. If not, this rebate is going to be meaningless and it will not be a very successful effort.

2040

In essence, the so-called gas guzzler tax changed from being targeted to only the worst gas guzzling vehicles to cover most vehicles on the road today. I repeat, the effect of Bill 130 changed this from the worst gas guzzling vehicles on the road today into a much broader sphere.

According to the Treasury staff, the previous gas guzzler was aimed at 10% of automobiles sold in Ontario. The June 24 announcement is extended to 99% of all vehicles sold in Ontario. It hits at the heart, the head, the feet, the very soul of the industry. I repeat, 99% of all vehicles produced in this province are affected by Bill 130. It has been indicated that the overall revenue from the revised tax will be as high as $45 million.

It is clear to us on this side of the House that the NDP has changed the tax from being an environmentally based deterrent to a broad-based, regressive tax grab. Where the original Liberal policy motive was green, this NDP tax policy is greed. This tax is regressive because it is across-the-board tax. It taxes automobiles regardless of their value, thus impacting on larger, low-income Ontario families and Ontarians with special or challenging transportation needs disproportionately.

There are alternatives. There are many alternatives in this country and there are alternatives in the United States, but they were never examined. This tax is regressive, from a party which has always touted its goal to present progressive taxation. It is regressive because it impacts rural, northern and eastern Ontarians who do not have all the public transportation options that are available in Ontario's urban communities. They are often required, by distance and terrain, to purchase vehicles in the more heavily taxed categories. The Treasurer has refused to answer our questions about how this latest extension of the tax to include 99% of vehicles would deter people from buying fuel-inefficient cars. There are few, if any, vehicles to buy in this category -- 1%.

Many and various interest groups have been less than enthusiastic in their response to Bill 130. Even Bob White could only say that the plan is "a more uniform tax...much less damaging on the bottom line of the industry in terms of how it would skewer the sales of certain models." Bob White's remarks were hardly a ringing endorsement from the labour community. He likely fears and is fully aware of the announcement that we have heard about General Motors. He knows more about it that we do. But the truth is that Bill 130 is uniform in being ineffective in encouraging people to conserve fuel and be conscious of the environment. Not only that, it puts people's jobs on the line -- in fact puts people off the line.

The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada president Donald McArthur said, "It still puts a tax on quite fuel-efficient cars and I don't understand the rationale for that, other than that the government required the revenue. It is certainly not going to achieve any environmental objective....As the tax stands now, it will damage the automobile industry at a time when it's just beginning to recover from the recession."

Interjections.

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am aware that there are some interjections from members who are not in their seats and I know that is contrary to our rules of order.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: Nick Hall of GM stated that his company "continues to have serious reservations" about the tax.

What is most disturbing about Bill 130, however, is the way in which it came about. Only after they had an initial announcement, which shook the entire automobile industry of this province to its core, did this government agree to consult with the stakeholders. Only after the industry was shaking and trembling did the government finally decide to consult. I need not remind anyone in this House that this is the same government that uses day after day the magic words "consultation," "open," "responsive to difficult issues," and here we have the kind of response to a difficult issue. This has been promised to us time and time again.

Is it the intention of the NDP government to make tax announcements which cause massive confusion and concern to those affected and then re-examine its decisions, making flip-flop after flip-flop even on major, fundamental pieces of legislation such as tax bills?

I suggest it would be more efficient and effective for the government to consult with the affected groups prior to making these decisions and to conduct impact studies. We see nothing in the way of impact studies; they are never presented when the bills are presented. We know they are not happening and we cannot get any commitment to impact studies from this government. Tax changes affect people's lives and we are into major tax changes with this government.

Is the minister collecting data concerning purchasing trends since this legislation came into effect on July 1, 1991? I really hope she is doing that. Can she give us any indication that it has deterred any people -- in fact, one person -- in this province from buying an efficient vehicle? Has one person in this province changed his buying habits because of Bill 130? In other words, has there been an increase in the sale of vehicles receiving the rebate with fuel-consumption rates of less than six litres per 100 kilometres? Are data being collected? Has 1% of the market grown to 2%, 3% or 5%? This government risks its very credibility on poorly executed tax policies, and this is just one in a series.

Is this tax going to affect the automobile industry, already struggling out of the recession? I am afraid the answer is yes, but it is going to affect them very negatively and this industry does not need to be affected negatively at this point. The recovery will be further delayed in a fundamental core industry in this province. This is going to hurt us badly as Ontarians, as we enter the 21st century. I think the Treasurer will find the carrot-and-stick approach to revenue policy just does not work, especially in this case where the stick is very big and the carrot provides barely a bite.

I want to close with a cartoon again. "Ontario, Yours To Discover," and in this we have the sales tax, gas tax, tobacco tax, booze tax and the gas guzzler tax. That is the Ontario we are now discovering.

Mr Bradley: I am not expecting any more speakers for our party so I will take the last two minutes to compliment the member on her speech this evening, which deals with the tax on auto workers in Ontario.

I asked a question about this during question period earlier in the day and tried to persuade the Treasurer of this province that it would be wise to withdraw this tax which is going to increase the price of automobiles in Ontario and thereby have a detrimental effect not only on those plants which assemble the vehicles in the province but also on those plants which make the various parts -- the component plants, drive-train plants and supplier plants. For this reason, first, our party is adamantly opposed to this tax, particularly as it is in the midst of the deepest recession we have been in since the 1930s. Second, it is also at a time when the industry is facing the greatest competition it has faced in the history of automobile making in North America and in the world.

Third, I want to respond because the Treasurer always suggested this is an environmental tax. He would know that by removing this tax and by removing the sales tax on all vehicles sold in Ontario, he could spur the economy, get the automotive industry back on its feet and at the same time put on the roads of Ontario vehicles which are more fuel efficient and have better emission standards and emission-control equipment in them.

So I implore the government, when it has the time over the recess, to think about this bill with a good deal of care, to consider withdrawing this tax, to consider starting again, to consider providing some assistance to the automobile industry in the province, upon which so many rely for jobs, either directly or indirectly. I am confident the Treasurer, when he has a chance to reflect, will see the wisdom of the arguments the opposition has advanced for so many weeks and months now.

2050

Mr McClelland: I want to add a couple of comments already in part alluded to or touched on by our leader, the member for St Catharines. As the member for Brampton North, I want to draw to your attention, Mr Speaker, that a very significant part of our local economy is based on the automobile industry. Chrysler-Jeep-Eagle assembly built not too long ago a massive plant in the riding of Brampton North. That particular operation faces considerable rationalization and reorganization, as does the workforce in the entire automobile industry.

The points raised by our leader are very significant not only to the entire province and to his riding of St Catharines but also to the riding of Brampton North and the riding of my colleague the member for Brampton South. It is a vital part of the local economy in our community. Our community is in an interesting position. About two years ago we had an employment problem inasmuch as it was difficult to find people to fill all the jobs that were available. We have had a complete turnaround of late and now we have a serious unemployment problem.

We have to be very creative in government, I say to my friends opposite. We are looking to them for the type of initiatives that will give the automobile industry, which is already in difficult times, at least some opportunity, as it rationalizes its operations, to expand in specific areas and markets that will appeal to the consumer.

The member for St Catharines very ably said that this is touted as an environmental initiative. It is not really that at all, and we know that. It is a tax to raise revenues, which is certainly the prerogative of the Treasurer. As Environment critic for our party, I want to add that we wish we would have some initiatives that are positive in nature and that would reward people for taking the appropriate action in terms of being sensitive and forward-thinking about the environment.

Mr Callahan: I would like to say that this tax, as was indicated by the member for St Catharines, is really a job-losing tax for auto workers. We have one of the largest Chrysler plants in Brampton that provides significant jobs to people, but when you put this type of tax on cars that are being produced, you slow down the sale of cars within the community, ie, you put in jeopardy the jobs of the people of my community. When you consider there have been some 486,000 people out of work in this province, any taxes being implemented by this government have to be done very carefully to make certain they do not impact on those people who are very vulnerable.

I suggest that the people in the auto industry who are making cars in this province are people who are vulnerable, because their jobs fluctuate with the market. If the Treasurer does anything to interfere with that market, he jeopardizes their jobs and he jeopardizes the future of their children and their families.

I want to pick up on a point my colleague made. This tax purportedly was put out as an environmental tax. If you look at the cars being affected, that makes absolutely no sense. I suggest that the young people out there understand that. They understand this is a tax grab. They understand that if their fathers are auto workers their jobs are in jeopardy. When the government looks at future taxes it better make certain it tells it as it is. They should not say it is an environmental tax if it is not. They should make sure that when they do it they do not interfere unduly with the jobs of people who work on an hourly basis, whose jobs are perhaps in jeopardy because of the recession itself.

This is nothing more than a tax grab. The people of this province who work in the auto industry will understand that, and the government will rue it.

Mr O'Connor: The reason I feel obliged to get up and speak on this bill is because on May 28 this past year, shortly after the bill was introduced, I presented a petition in this House signed by the auto workers from Oshawa, workers I had worked with on the assembly line. They were concerned about their jobs because of the way the tax was then set up. The Treasurer, in his wisdom, took a look at it and changed it a little.

I want to explain the fact that these jobs the members are talking about right now and these jobs we are hearing about have nothing whatsoever to do with the tax. We heard the members opposite speak many times over the course of the last couple of days about this and they kept relating the two. They talked about the history of perhaps people being laid off because of various changes in the economy. During the time I was an auto worker in Oshawa I saw people who had lost their jobs come into the factory where I worked, people who came from Firestone, Houdaille and Pedlar, people who were well up in age, and they came there as a result of changes within the economy.

We should recognize this tax for what it is. The Treasurer changed it, and I think it showed a lot of flexibility in this government. I want to thank the members for allowing me this time to express that and wish them all a merry Christmas.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I believe people will agree with the message I gave that this tax is really a tax grab. It is not green; it is greed. There were alternatives. There could have been much more in the way of consultations. In fact, the consultations all took place after the fact. This is the kind of message this government continues to give out: "If we scare you enough and you get excited enough and you finally get our ear, then we'll change the policy." Time after time we are getting flip-flop after flip-flop. I really hope the next flip-flop will be about the child care workers in the private day care centres.

Mrs Marland: I do not plan to speak very long on this bill, but I say at the outset that if there is one piece of legislation that really is surprising coming from this socialist government, it is Bill 130; a bill, in spite of the comments made a few moments ago by one of the government members, that will affect the future sale and manufacture of automobiles in this province. That member made comment about the number of jobs that have been lost having no relevance to this bill, but surely he is not so naïve as not to understand the impact of this bill.

The government seems to think that if there is some commodity without which the public cannot live that it is the best thing in the world to tax, because the government knows that people in this province are going to have to buy automobiles. The problem is that now when they buy automobiles, except for the 1% or 2% that do not fall into the category for taxation under this bill, everybody is now going to have to pay a further added tax on the fuel consumption.

If we could think for one fanciful moment that any of the money was not going to just fall into the deep black hole of the general revenue fund but instead would be directed to research and development of alternative fuels, perhaps research and development in the conservation area dealing with alternatives for environmental protection programs, perhaps we could be more sympathetic. But we know full well that this is simply another government tax bill, another government tax grab. We know this money is going to go into the government's general revenue fund without any designation for use in dealing with the problem in the future of fuel consumption and heavy gas guzzling cars.

In this case, it is not even the larger, more heavily consuming cars that are a problem; it is apparently all cars with the exception of three-cylinder cars. Is that not interesting? I do not know how many people you know, Mr Speaker, who drive three-cylinder cars. I would suggest not very many.

2100

This bill is about as significant as the previous Liberal government's bill when it charged $5 on tires. The tire tax was a previous Liberal government's tax that affected the cost and impacted the cost of new automobiles. Now we are saying: "Well, folks, the tire tax went into the general revenue fund. It was not directed to tire recycling programs or other environmental programs looking at the safe disposal of tires so that tire tax did not mean anything."

We are quite sure that this tax on new automobiles, because they happen to use gasoline, is going to go the same route. It is a disgusting piece of legislation because it penalizes everybody. The majority of people in Ontario who own cars own them in the majority of cases because they need them to do their business, to get to and from work and, in cases of limousines and taxis, we are talking about the very basic tool of their livelihood.

It is a further demonstration that this Bob Rae socialist government is so far out to lunch it does not have a clue about the impact and the regressiveness of this Bill 130, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I would like to close debate.

The House divided on Ms Wark-Martyn's motion for second reading of Bill 130, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 53

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Drainville, Ferguson, Frankford, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Mills;

North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Pilkey, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 22

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Caplan, Carr, Conway, Cordiano, Cunningham, Eves, Fawcett, Harnick, Harris, Mancini, Marland, McClelland, Murdoch, B., Offer, O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poirier, Sullivan, Wilson, J.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

2113

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ADMINISTRATION FINANCIERE

The House divided on Mr Laughren's motion for third reading of Bill 156, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act, which was agreed to on the same vote.

House in committee of the whole.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

Consideration of Bill 130, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Projet de loi 130, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2:

The Chair: Ms Wark-Martyn moves that subsection 2c(11) of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by striking out "sixty" in the sixth line and inserting in lieu thereof "thirty."

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: This amendment will allow manufacturers and importers to report highway fuel consumption ratings up to 30 days prior to the first retail sale of a new vehicle in Ontario rather than 60 days.

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to. Sections 3 to 9, inclusive, agreed to. Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

2120

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPOT SUR LE REVENU

The Chair: Shall Bill 83, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, be reported to the House?

Bill ordered to be reported.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LE TABAC

The Chair: Shall Bill 84, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act, be reported to the House?

Bill ordered to be reported.

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L'ESSENCE

The Chair: Shall Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, be reported to the House?

Bill ordered to be reported.

On motion by Mr Cooke, the committee of the whole House reported three bills without amendment and one bill with a certain amendment.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Agreed to.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPOT SUR LE REVENU

The House divided on Ms Wark-Martyn's motion for third reading of Bill 83, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, which was agreed to on the following vote:

2137

Ayes -- 56

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Drainville, Ferguson, Frankford, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Johnson, Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Pilkey, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 22

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Conway, Cordiano, Cunningham, Eves, Fawcett, Harnick, Harris, Marland, McClelland, Murdoch, B., Offer, O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poirier, Scott, Villeneuve, Wilson, J.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LE TABAC

The House divided on Ms Wark-Martyn's motion for third reading of Bill 84, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act, which was agreed to on the following vote:

2143

Ayes -- 56

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Drainville, Ferguson, Frankford, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Johnson, Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Pilkey, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 22

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Conway, Cordiano, Cunningham, Eves, Fawcett, Harnick, Harris, Marland, McClelland, Murdoch, B., Offer, O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poirier, Scott, Villeneuve, Wilson, J.

2147

FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LES CARBURANTS

The House divided on Ms Wark-Martyn's motion for third reading of Bill 85, which was agreed to on the same vote.

STATUS OF BUSINESS

Mr Cooke moved that notwithstanding the prorogation of the House,

(i) all government bills except Bill 114, An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts with respect to Special Education; Bill 117, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, 1984 respecting Provincial Judges' Compensation; Bill 125, An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts relating to Education;

(ii) all government orders with respect to committee reports;

(iii) all private members' bills referred to standing committees;

(iv) the following private members' bills referred to committee of the whole House or pending third reading: Bill 22, An Act to provide for Certain Rights for Deaf Persons; Bill 87, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Volunteer Fire Fighters; Bill 155, An Act proclaiming Earth Day;

(v) all private bills referred to standing committee on regulations and private bills except Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Toronto, and Bill Pr80, An Act respecting the City of Toronto; and

(vi) all matters referred to or designated in any select, special or standing committees;

remaining on the Orders and Notices paper at the prorogation of the first session of this Parliament be continued and placed on the Orders and Notices paper on the second sessional day of the second session of the 35th Parliament at the same stage of business for the House and its committees as at prorogation.

Motion agreed to.

2150

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Mr Cooke moved that the following committees be continued and authorized to meet during the recess between the first and second sessions of the 35th Parliament, in accordance with the schedule of meeting dates agreed to by the three party whips and tabled with the Clerk of the assembly, to examine and inquire into the following matters:

Select committee on Ontario in Confederation to consider matters related to Ontario in Confederation;

Special committee on the parliamentary precinct to meet from time to time at the call of the co-Chairs of the committee to consider matters related to the repair and restoration of the Parliament Building;

Standing committee on administration of justice to consider Bill 74, An Act respecting the Provision of Advocacy Services to Vulnerable Persons, Bill 108, An Act to provide for the making of Decisions on behalf of Adults concerning the Management of their Property and concerning their Personal Care, Bill 109, An Act respecting Consent to Treatment, Bill 110, An Act to amend certain Statutes of Ontario consequent upon the enactment of the Consent to Treatment Act, 1991 and the Substitute Decisions Act, 1991, Bill 7, An Act to amend the Powers of Attorney Act, and Bill 8, An Act respecting Natural Death;

Standing committee on finance and economic affairs to consider Bill 150, An Act to provide for the Creation and Registration of Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations to Invest in Eligible Ontario Businesses and to make certain other amendments, and matters related to pre-budget consultation;

Standing committee on general government to consider Bill 121, An Act to revise the Law related to Residential Rent Regulation, and matters designated pursuant to standing order 123;

Standing committee on government agencies to consider the operation of certain agencies, boards and commissions of the government of Ontario and to review intended appointments in the public sector;

Standing committee on public accounts to consider the 1990 and 1991 annual reports of the Provincial Auditor;

Standing committee on the Ombudsman to write a report to the House;

Standing committee on resources development to consider Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act;

Standing committee on social development to consider Bill 143, An Act respecting Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Mr Cooke moved that with the agreement of the House leaders and whips of each recognized party, committees may meet during the recess between the first and second sessions of this Parliament at times other than those specified in the schedule tabled today with the Clerk of the assembly to consider matters referred to them by the House or to consider matters designated pursuant to standing order 123.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr Cooke moved that committees be authorized to release their reports during the recess between the first and second sessions of this Parliament by depositing a copy of any report with the Clerk of the assembly, and on the second sessional day of the second session of the 35th Parliament the Chairs of such committees shall bring any such reports before the House in accordance with the standing orders.

Motion agreed to.

STATUS OF BUSINESS

Mr Cooke moved that notwithstanding the prorogation of the House, the order of the House of Wednesday, October 23, 1991, with respect to Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act, the order of the House of Tuesday, December 10, 1991, with respect to Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act, and the order of the House of December 20, 1990, as amended with respect to the select committee on Ontario in Confederation be continued in the recess between the first and second sessions of this Parliament and in the second session of the 35th Parliament.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Mr Cooke moved that the membership of the select, special and standing committees in the recess between the first and second sessions of this Parliament be provided in writing to the Clerk of the House prior to January 8, 1992, by the respective whips of the three parties in the House.

Motion agreed to.

INQUIRY BY STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

1. Mr Cooke moved that the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly shall meet for the purposes of an inquiry. The terms of reference of this inquiry include but are not limited to: an investigation into the disclosure of confidential information emanating from the Ministry of Health, including documentary and viva voce evidence; an investigation of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines in Thunder Bay, Ontario, on December 5, 1991, and the events leading up to her attendance in Thunder Bay; an investigation into the dissemination of information obtained from the Ministry of Health.

2. All necessary documentary evidence, including confidential files, shall be produced for review by the subcommittee of the committee under the auspices of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

3. The Legislative Assembly committee for the purpose of this referral is to be chaired by a member of the official opposition.

4. The subcommittee of the committee be composed of one representative from each party plus the Chair.

5. The subcommittee shall have the ultimate decision-making power with respect to the calling of witnesses and any other procedural aspects of the proceedings and all matters arising relevant to the execution of the terms of reference of the committee. A minimum list of witnesses will be determined by the House leaders; additional witnesses to be determined by the subcommittee. Length of time the committee will have to hold hearings and write its report will be determined by the House leaders.

6. There shall be a committee counsel hired and directed by the subcommittee paid for by the Legislative Assembly.

7. The subcommittee can through Speaker's warrant compel the attendance of any person to attend and give evidence.

8. The subcommittee can through Speaker's warrant require any person to produce in evidence such documents and things as the subcommittee may specify.

9. The members of the committee and/or their counsel shall be permitted, upon swearing an oath of non-disclosure, to obtain production and review of any document or thing and disclosure of any viva voce evidence necessary and ancillary to the purpose of this investigation.

10. If there shall be any objection to the disclosure of information based upon the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the committee may continue the proceedings in camera.

11. The final report of the committee and/or any dissenting report must not disclose the names of any individual or group obtained from a confidential source but may disclose any information obtained provided that it is not attributable to any identifiable source and is not in contravention of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

12. Prior to the commencement of the committee hearings the subcommittee may require the attendance of any person or production of any document for the purpose of a preliminary examination for discovery subject to the oath of non-disclosure as outlined in paragraph 10 above.

13. The Legislative Assembly committee has priority over all other committees with respect to its sitting time and in any event, the committee shall not sit as a committee prior to the 10th day of February 1992.

14. Any witness compelled to appear before the committee may attend with counsel and shall be required to give testimony upon oath pursuant to section 58 of the Legislative Assembly Act.

15. The subcommittee may if requested permit any portion of its proceedings to occur in camera.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, His Honour awaits to give royal assent.

2200

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

Hon Mr Jackman: Pray be seated.

The Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:

Bill 83, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act / Projet de loi 83, Loi portant modification de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu;

Bill 84, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act / Projet de loi 84, Loi portant modification de la Loi de la taxe sur le tabac;

Bill 85, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act, 1981 / Projet de loi 85, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1981 de la taxe sur les carburants;

Bill 129, An Act to amend the Truck Transportation Act, 1988 / Projet de loi 129, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1988 sur le camionnage;

Bill 135, An Act to provide for the Payment of Physicians' Dues and Other Amounts to the Ontario Medical Association / Projet de loi 135, Loi prévoyant le paiement des cotisations des médecins et d'autres montants à l'Ontario Medical Association;

Bill 140, An Act to amend the Teachers' Pension Act, 1989 and the Teaching Profession Act / Projet de loi 140, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1989 sur le régime de retraite des enseignants et la Loi sur la profession enseignante;

Bill 144, An Act to amend certain Acts administered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food / Projet de loi 144, Loi modifiant certaines lois dont l'application relève du ministère de l'Agriculture et de l'Alimentation;

Bill 151, An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act and the Municipal Act / Projet de loi 151, Loi modifiant la Loi sur le régime de retraite des employés municipaux de l'Ontario et la Loi sur les municipalités;

Bill 156, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act / Projet de loi 156, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration financière;

Bill 158, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act with respect to the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Sector of the Construction Industry / Projet de loi 158, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail en ce qui a trait au secteur industriel, commercial et institutionnel de l'industrie de la construction;

Bill 163, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act / Projet de loi 163, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Assemblée législative;

Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the City of Toronto;

Bill Pr53, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton;

Bill Pr81, An Act respecting the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville;

Bill Pr85, An Act respecting the City of Toronto;

Bill Pr99, An Act respecting the City of Windsor;

Bill Pr104, An Act to revive The Church of the Torontonians;

Bill Pr109, An Act to revive Federated Women's Institutes of Ontario, Bay of Quinte Branch;

Bill Pr110, An Act respecting the City of Nepean;

Bill Pr113, An Act to revive Hotstone Minerals Limited;

Bill Pr114, An Act to revive Tasmaque Gold Mines Limited;

Bill Pr115, An Act to revive Pittsonto Mining Company Limited;

Bill Pr116, An Act to revive Sunbeam Exploration Company Limited;

Bill Pr117, An Act to revive Petitclerc Mines Limited;

Bill Pr118, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton;

Bill Pr119, An Act to establish the West Nipissing Economic Development Corporation.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

Au nom de Sa Majesté, Son Honneur le lieutenant-gouverneur sanctionne ces projets de loi.

The Speaker: May it please Your Honour, we, Her Majesty's most dutiful and faithful subjects of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, in session assembled, approach Your Honour with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty's person and government, and humbly beg to present for Your Honour's acceptance a bill entitled An Act to authorize the payment of certain amounts for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending on the 31st day of March, 1992.

Clerk of the House: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth thank Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill in Her Majesty's name.

Son Honneur le lieutenant-gouverneur remercie les bons et loyaux sujets de Sa Majesté, accepte leur bienveillance et sanctionne ce projet de loi au nom de Sa Majesté.

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to deliver the following gracious speech.

Hon Mr Jackman: Mr Speaker, members of the Legislative Assembly, ladies and gentlemen:

The First Session of the 35th Parliament has been both productive and challenging.

As outlined in the 1991 budget, the inherited deficit and the most severe recession since the 1930s have placed enormous fiscal pressures on the province. Revenues have declined and job losses have escalated.

Pour lutter contre la récession, le gouvernement a adopté plusieurs mesures qui ont une importance critique pour amenuiser les terribles conséquences de cette dure période économique pour la population ontarienne.

The anti-recession program injected $700 million into capital works and job creation programs during 1991-1992. The employee wage protection program was established to ensure that workers would not endure the brunt of business failures. Innovative worker ownership legislation permits workers to invest in and restore to profitability companies that may otherwise have closed.

The recession has seriously hurt Ontario business. The $57-million manufacturing recovery program was designed to provide bridge financing to companies encountering short-term financial difficulties. Currently, details are being finalized on an agreement that will see the Urban Transportation Development Corp continue to operate as a leading-edge firm in the transportation sector.

The local economies of many Ontario communities have been damaged during the economic downturn. In Kapuskasing, government-led negotiations culminated in an agreement between the workers, community, Ontario Hydro and the private sector to save the Spruce Falls mill. This example of worker ownership will preserve jobs, modernize the mill and contribute to the continued viability of the local economy. For Elliot Lake, a $250-million adjustment package was approved to assist the community make its transition to a more diversified economy from one that was dependent on uranium mining.

A recession is particularly severe for society's most vulnerable people. This government is committed to protecting the vulnerable to the greatest extent possible. In 1991-92, it allocated an additional $215 million to social assistance reform through its Back on Track initiative. This is the single largest improvement to the social assistance benefits structure in Ontario history. Legislation was enacted to ensure that single parents especially, and their children, could be guaranteed support payments as awarded by the courts. Ten thousand units of non-profit housing have been funded. Ontario's minimum wage was given a sharp boost.

Farm income has suffered. The government has directed $90 million to income stabilization and interest relief programs.

2210

Recognizing that governments must lead by example, the salaries of MPPs and public service executives and senior managers will be frozen for 1992. Ontario taxpayers have been relieved of the onerous debt burden of SkyDome through successful negotiations with the private sector.

Future prosperity lies in the economic renewal of Ontario. Central to the province's success will be increased co-operation between business and labour. Consultations have begun on establishing the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board to ensure that skills training and labour adjustment programs are developed, through partnership, to support a skilled and flexible future labour force. Discussions are also under way on reforms to the Ontario Labour Relations Act to enhance the role organized labour can play in renewing the province's economy. To contribute to Ontario's economic future, programs such as the Ontario technology fund and the centres of excellence program have been renewed.

Important advances were made in the government's social justice agenda. The first step in child care reform involved an expansion of the non-profit sector. Extensive programs have been launched to combat wife assault and sexual assault. The government appointed the province's first employment equity commissioner and work has begun on the legislation that will achieve employment equity. Legislation to extend pay equity to women in organizations where no male comparators exist was tabled. The Advocacy Act has been introduced to provide advocacy services to vulnerable Ontarians.

On August 6, the Premier and the minister responsible for native affairs with 14 representatives of the first nations signed the historic Statement of Political Relationship. In addition, $48 million has been targeted to improve aboriginal quality of life.

Last spring, a landmark agreement was reached with the Ontario Medical Association that underscored the mutual commitment of government and physicians to controlling health costs while preserving the principles of medicare. The Regulated Health Professions Act culminates a decade of work and it will improve the quality of medical care through the regulation of 24 self-governing professions.

Common pause day legislation, with Sunday shopping permitted in December, will assist the retail sector while ensuring that workers and their families have the right to enjoy Sundays together.

The environment remains a top government priority. Twenty-eight million dollars will be dedicated to the 3R program: reduce, reuse and recycle. Supporting legislation has been introduced that will result in waste reductions of 50% by the year 2000.

Legislation that is being carried over to the next session will create a fairer and a more affordable system of automobile insurance and combines the best features of a court-based system with the advantages of no-fault benefits. The Rent Control Act will protect tenants against exorbitant rent increases while promoting the upkeep of rental property. Amendments to the Power Corporation Act will make Ontario Hydro more accountable to the public. A bill to resolve the long-standing dilemma of Toronto Island residents will be enacted.

Honourable members, I commend the progress you have made this session. In closing, may I take this opportunity to wish you a safe and pleasant holiday season.

Au nom de notre souveraine, je vous remercie. In our sovereign's name, I thank you.

Je déclare cette session prorogée. I now declare the session prorogued.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, members of the Legislative Assembly, it is the will and the pleasure of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor that this Legislative Assembly be prorogued and this Legislative Assembly is accordingly prorogued.

The House prorogued at 2215.