The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Carr moved resolution 7:

That, in the opinion of this House, given that the previous Liberal government and the present NDP government have contributed to the high taxation, high government spending and high unemployment in the province of Ontario through their tax, spend and borrow approach to fiscal management, this government should introduce the following measures to bring prosperity back to Ontario:

-- Commit to a policy of achieving deficit reduction through expenditure controls and not through tax increases.

-- Avoid hiking taxes or introducing new taxes.

-- Introduce legislation to cap and, where necessary, to roll back wage increases in the broader public sector to hold wage hikes to the level of the transfer payment increases announced by the Treasurer on January 21.

-- Provide tax relief for the retail, tourism and small business sectors through reductions in the provincial sales and gasoline taxes.

-- Abandon its proposed changes to Ontario labour law, proposals which are only helping to fuel the exodus of business and investment from Ontario.

-- Restructure the provincial welfare system to make more productive use of social assistance dollars by financing wage subsidies for employers who hire social assistance recipients.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Pursuant to standing order 94(c), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I am pleased to introduce this resolution into the House. It's appropriate that I do it on a day when we have a budget coming later today, which I suspect will not incorporate many of these resolutions. But I hope some of the things we talk about will offer some of the direction I believe this province should be taking.

I do it as a bit of a backdrop and talk a little bit about the fiscal problems we're facing by the Liberals in this resolution somewhat reluctantly, but I think it is important that we take a look at where we're at today and how we got into this situation.

Make no mistake about it: Ontario is in trouble. Our economy is being battered by high taxation, high government spending, high unemployment and low productivity. Our social structures are being stretched to the limit because of soaring costs for health, education and welfare. The issues of crime and poverty seem to be growing faster than we can respond to them.

In spite of this, we still have one of the highest standards of living of any people on this planet, but our time is short. As these pressures continue to mount, many of Ontario's blessings are now at risk.

One of the reasons we have the problems we are going to hear about later today with the high taxation is because of high government spending. I have in front of me the growth of program spending over the last five years in the province of Ontario. Most people can't see it, but if you were to get a close look at it you would see that Ontario spent more than any other province, 10.6%; Alberta, 3.8%.

I introduce this because I believe today we are facing a crisis. We have had one philosophy since 1985: Anything that moved, we taxed it; if it still moved, we regulated it.

I see the member for Sudbury East laughing at that. Later today I think we'll see even more of that.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Sudbury, not Sudbury East.

Mr Carr: Sorry. Sudbury, not to be mixed up with Sudbury East.

In 1985 we had a 10% tax advantage over the province of Quebec and we were rated very competitive versus West Germany, Japan and the surrounding United States. Today, as we sit here, we are the highest-taxed province in Canada and the highest-taxed jurisdiction in all of North America. In spite of that, we have a deficit that up to this point is costing us about $15,000 a minute just to service. That's not for the good roads, health care or the education system; to pay the interest alone costs us $15,000 a minute and we will hear later today at 4 o'clock how that is going up.

All the things we care about -- good roads, the health care system, hospitals, the environment; all those things -- don't depend upon the compassion of government, as this government is finding out. It does, however, depend on having a healthy and prosperous economy to support them.

The people who were elected in 1985, when the government changed, came in and said, "We care more," and they pumped more money into all these programs, social assistance and non-profit housing. Since the NDP came in they did the same thing: They poured money into these programs. Guess what happened? The waiting lists now for social assistance are longer than they have ever been in the history of this province. The waiting lists for non-profit housing are longer than they have ever been.

Surely to goodness, what we need to do is to judge the programs not by the amount of money we pump into it because we say we're more compassionate, but by how we reduce the number of people on social assistance or reduce the need for some of the non-profit housing. Our growth in spending has been higher than any other province over the last five years -- 10.6% -- most of which isn't the fault of this government, but the previous Liberal government. In spite of the fact that we spent more than Alberta, Saskatchewan and every other province, our services in this province are deteriorating.

We've got waiting lists for hospitals that are longer than they have ever been. Cuts are being made on an ad hoc basis out of fiscal necessity, as we saw by that portion of the budget estimates tabled yesterday, instead of with a long-term, comprehensive plan. The fiscal problems we are facing are a direct result of the tax, spend and borrow approach of both the Liberal and the NDP governments. We are, in no small part, in the dire financial straits we are because of the growth of spending programs during those good years, when we spent faster and more than any other province in Canada, and in spite of that, most of the services we have today, most people would say, are deteriorating. There are waiting lists now for all those programs in spite of the fact the money has been spent, overspent and borrowed.

I believe one of the big things we can do is to stop driving the private sector out of housing, like we did with the crazy rent bill this government introduced. In 1985, 80% of the rental units used to be built by the private sector. Today, less than 20% are.

It's the same with day care. Their policy drove the private day care operators out: $175 million pumped into non-profit day care centres, when the private sector in housing, education, day care, does the job faster, better, cheaper and at no expense to the taxpayer. They are being thwarted, penalized and shut out because it doesn't fit in with today's trendy political ideology of this government. That's why we are in the fiscal shape we're in now.

It wasn't like auto insurance where they came out and said, "We're going to nationalize it," and everybody got up and said, "No, don't do that." With day care and housing it was sneaky. It was sneaky because they didn't say, "We're going to nationalize all the housing being built in the rental units in Ontario." They did it because they regulated them to death, and that's why we're in this fiscal situation.

1010

The chap from Peel who appeared before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs wanted 800 new units of non-profit housing, because there's a waiting list of 7,200. He admits that even if he gets those 800, next year alone the waiting list will get longer.

We see how the Liberals attempted to deal with their famous Ataratiri program, where basically we have taken a billion dollars and we may as well have have put it outside on the front lawn and burned it, because that billion dollars was completely and absolutely wasted. Of all these programs, not one more unit has been created, even though that money was wasted on programs that supposedly were going to create 7,000 new non-profit units; not one was created. So I talk a bit about that in the resolution.

We've talked about some of the tough choices in introducing legislation to cap and roll back the wage increases that have been negotiated. The people of this province have to realize that their property taxes will go up next year as a direct result of this government.

They said 1%, 2% next year and 2% the following year, and the Liberals said: "Well, you should've spent more. You should've given more to municipalities, more to the universities, more to school boards, more to hospitals." We said no. We were consistent. We realized we've got a financial crisis.

If you're going to give them 1% this year, 2% next year and 2% the following year, you should have the political courage to tie the wages -- which in school boards, for example, for teachers is 80% of the cost -- to the same transfer payments you got from the province. We've got the Minister of Education, who stands up and says: "You can't cut programs. You can't lay off teachers and we've only given you 1% this year," and then he wonders why property taxes will go up dramatically.

The irony of this whole thing is that the Premier criticizes the federal government for transfer payments when he has been one of the worst -- what were the words he used? -- "absconding debtors." He did that to his transfer partners: the municipalities, universities, school boards and hospitals. Yet he didn't have the political courage to come in with a wage cap and rollback where the negotiations have been made. In the city of Toronto, where they were asking 4.9%, you got 2%. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that property taxes will go up as a direct result of this government.

We're saying that if you've got fiscal problems, you should come in with legislation to be able to cap and roll back. The problem is that when school boards negotiate, they will go to the arbitrators and the arbitrators will get big increases. So we talk about that.

We talk about the abandoning of the proposed changes -- and I'll close because we're winding up here -- to the Ontario labour laws. That will be the single biggest factor in Ontario's history in driving out business: $20 billion and up to 400,000 jobs will be lost if this is brought in. If you look at it, you'll see that this government is driven by ideological -- all we did in September 1990 was to replace one high-taxing, big-spending government beholden to special interest groups with another high-taxing, big-spending government beholden to special interest groups.

I hope the resolution will be passed today and that we can get on the road to prosperity that we had under the Progressive Conservative Party for 42 years.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Oakville South will have two minutes to sum up at the end of the debate. Each recognized party will have 15 minutes to participate in this debate, going in a clockwise fashion.

Ms Murdock: I'm very happy to be speaking this morning to the member for Oakville South's resolution, first, to clarify some of the misconceptions that have been stated. I'm only going to address one or two of the six issues that have been mentioned as suggestions to bring back prosperity because I want to allow my colleagues on this side to address some of the others.

It's all well and good to suggest making expenditures, but the reality is that if you do that to a great degree, as suggested by the opposition, what exactly do we cut? We have discovered in the past year that we have already had to cut programs which we as social democrats feel are needed in this province; we've had to make reductions in those areas with the hope the economy will improve in the very near future. The problem we have, that any government, frankly, would have in this economic time, is to figure out what exactly has to be cut. If I understood what the member for Oakville South was saying, basically we would end up with no housing and no social assistance programs in order not to have any tax increases.

When you think about the situation of a $1.5-billion increase to social assistance recipients alone, the problem is not so much the increase in taxes, which we did in a very minimal fashion in the last budget, but the reality that unemployment insurance recipients who have fewer weeks of coverage are now having to fall back on the provincial safety net. We as a province then have the responsibility of picking that up.

It is interesting that the member for Oakville South talks about transfer payments. He keeps referring to the word "cut," the fact that these transfer payments have been reduced and that we've cut transfer payments. The reality is that we haven't cut transfer payments; they have actually increased by 1%. I'll agree it is true that the 1% is a low percentage, but the reality is that they are sitting with an increase of 1%, 2% and 2%.

The problem with restructuring of the provincial welfare system -- I use the exact wording of the resolution today, "welfare system"; I personally prefer the whole social assistance aspect. I don't know where the opposition has been, because we've been talking about this for months in terms of the review programs already under way in every single ministry in which we have programs.

I use an example that is already under way, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, which will be affecting social assistance programs and retraining programs. There are 48 different training programs presented in this province, supplied and delivered by 10 different ministries. The Ontario Training and Adjustment Board is going to put that all together. Instead of having 10 ministries delivering similar kinds of programs to similar client groups, we're going to have one training and adjustment board that's going to deliver those same kinds of programs.

Through the social assistance program, they will be able to cut into OTAB and utilize those training programs which are there for the very people who need them. We have to look at the assessments of the people on social assistance, make a decision as to what kind of training they really need, what will be most beneficial to them, and then provide the training to see to it that they do get jobs in the future.

We can't do everything at once. The reality is that as much as we would like to be able to change this world overnight, we can't. We have to take it one step at a time, and the first step is OTAB.

The main point I want to make today is the Ontario Labour Relations Act changes, the reform to the labour review. It was with interest that I looked at the words the member for Oakville South used: "helping to fuel the exodus of business and investment from Ontario." It is business's own rhetoric and hysteria that are fueling any exodus that is occurring. Businesses were closing and moving from this province long before labour reform was even mentioned last April. The successful companies are those that work with business, labour and government to form different kinds of working relationships.

This is going to allow working people to choose to join a union if they wish. Who are those people but predominantly women, immigrant workers and part-time workers? Right now 70% are allowed to organize if they wish, yet only 32% of them do. That is not what is fueling businesses to leave.

What is fueling businesses to leave is an American company like Hill and Knowlton. It is the fodder from their cannon that is causing businesses to move. It is not the government of Ontario that has taken out full-page ads in the New York Times and every paper across this country.

We're being asked to abandon our proposed reforms. I'll tell you right now, it's not going to happen, and therefore I will not be supporting this resolution.

1020

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): In the few minutes I have, let me say I'm quite disappointed in the resolution that has been placed by Mr Carr. I don't question his motive. He is a new member of the Legislature; he is quite inexperienced. Much of the information contained in this resolution is factually incorrect, and I believe that's partly due to his inexperience. But I also suggest that an important resolution such as this, during private members' hour, could contribute to an important debate if the facts were presented in a factually correct way. I listened carefully to what he had to say during his presentation before this House, and I want to say he is not correct about a number of facts.

We know these are difficult economic times in Ontario, and I suggest that the kind of rhetoric coming from some members of the Conservative Party is not helpful in reassuring the people of this province what the facts actually are. For example, I served as a member of the government during 1985-90. Those were very, very good economic times in the province; there were some 700,000 jobs created. Not only were they strong economic times, but they were also times when we were able to see the deficit reduced very significantly and the presentation of the first balanced budget in the province in 1989-90.

I'm quite surprised to hear laughter, as it was true; in 1989-90 there was a completely balanced budget.

Mr Carr: Balanced budget: a $30-million surplus went to a $3-billion deficit in two months.

Mrs Caplan: The member from Oakville is shouting, but the truth is that there was for the first time in over 40 years in the province a deficit reduction of $430 million in 1989-90. Not only was that accomplished that year, but it was the year that a fully balanced budget, including all capital expenditure, was presented in this province, and that is a fact.

For the members of the Conservative Party to suggest to the people of the province that that is not the fact engages in the kind of misleading -- and I use the term appropriately in this House -- debate that the public becomes confused and upset about. I think it's important, as legislators in this House, that we argue our policy differences and that we argue our philosophical differences on the basis of the truth.

One of the things the people of this province and my constituents in the riding of Oriole are saying to me is, "We're really disappointed because in opposition Premier Bob Rae said one thing; now that he's in government, he's saying and doing the opposite." They are concerned because the rhetoric that is coming from the New Democratic Party today is very different rhetoric from what they heard during the election campaign, and people are upset and they're frustrated.

During this time of economic downturn, all of us in this House need to understand how important it is to tell the people of the province that we may differ in philosophy, we may have different values and principles -- although sometimes I think our values and goals are very similar -- we may differ in our approach and we may differ in our policy, but the facts are the facts, and the truth is the truth. We can argue and debate on the basis of those facts and realities.

Having said that, governing is difficult during difficult economic times. Governing is difficult during prosperous times: Having served in government, I can tell you that during prosperous economic times we could not possibly meet all of the very high expectations the public had and that were demanded by members of the opposition in this House. However, we did the very best we could at the time, given the prosperous resources of the province and the need to be fiscally responsible, and I am proud of the fact that we were extremely fiscally responsible.

One of the concerns I have about the approach of the new government is that it has reversed the trend. During the period from 1985 to 1990, government's role in spending as a percentage of the provincial domestic economy, often referred to as the gross domestic product, was actually declining. What that means is that as the total wealth of the province is reflected in the gross domestic product, the amount that government was spending of that wealth was on a decline. Even though spending in total was increasing, it was declining as a percentage of gross domestic product.

What has happened and why this is important is that the New Democratic Party has reversed that trend. As a percentage of our total wealth, as a percentage of our gross domestic product, this government is spending a larger and larger share. What that means is that there is less room for the kind of spending by consumers and business and others to create wealth. That's about wealth creation, and there's a very important difference in philosophy between the Liberal policies and the NDP policies. We Liberals believe that government can't do everything, that government cannot create the jobs, that government's role is to create a climate so that private people, individuals and businesses can have the confidence to create the jobs this province needs. That's a very big philosophical difference between the approach of the previous Liberal government and the approach of this New Democratic government.

There's also an opportunity for government, in creating that climate, to send out certain signals. Now is not the time to increase taxes. You increase taxes during time of economic expansion, when wealth is being created and jobs are being created. That's the time for tax increases, not now. During a recession, government should not be taking money out of the economy. Now is the time to make sure we hold the line on the deficit, which was well under control from 1985 to 1990, and on a steady decline. To see huge increases is misguided.

I would say to Mr Carr that I think his motion today is simplistic and is misguided in the extreme.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I welcome this opportunity to say a few words in support of this resolution put forward by my colleague the member for Oakville South. I trust you will agree that it is rather ironic that we are debating this resolution on the same day the NDP government will be bringing down its most recent effort at a budget. It's a budget that the Premier has already said -- and we already know, thanks to Mr Stockwell, the member for Etobicoke West -- will contain substantial cuts, a considerable increase in the deficit and tax hikes, among many other revelations of yesterday.

This budget will come at a time that has been very difficult for the people of Ontario. Our economy is being battered by high taxation, high unemployment and low productivity. Our social structure is stretched to the limit by soaring costs for health, education and welfare. Our economic difficulties are far too pressing to allow the provincial government the luxury of playing political games. Our economic difficulties are far too real to allow the provincial government the luxury of not giving the resolution of the member for Oakville South serious consideration this morning.

In simple terms, this resolution would direct the provincial government to commit to a policy of achieving deficit reduction through expenditure controls and not through tax increases; avoid hiking taxes or introducing new taxes; cap or roll back wage increases in the public sector; provide tax relief for the retail, tourism and small business sectors by reducing the provincial sales tax and gasoline taxes; abandon proposed changes to Ontario labour law, and restructure the provincial welfare system to make better use of social assistance dollars by financing wage subsidies for employers who hire social assistance recipients.

All of these are practical solutions. All of the points contained in the resolution today are also contained in the Ontario PC document New Directions, which we brought out some many months ago. We were very hopeful that the government would have paid attention to that document, but I think we're going to find out again this afternoon, with the budget, that the government is not listening to the commonsense suggestions put forward by my leader, Mike Harris, the member for Nipissing, and my caucus colleagues and myself.

1030

It's a practical resolution that takes a commonsense approach to ending high taxation, high government spending and high unemployment. The provincial government's fiscal policies are having a dramatic impact on the province's ability to attract investment, create jobs and maintain those we already have. Common sense tells us that economic opportunity, social justice and health care cannot be attained just be tossing money around.

Provincial government spending has tripled since 1981 to more than $53 billion today. You can bet that today's budget will contain a $12-billion deficit at least, a far cry from the $9.7 billion figure we were promised last year, which we made very clear at that time was unacceptable to this province. Add this to the recession, the restructuring process in Simcoe county, for example, and a clear anti-business bias by this government, and there's no question why our economy is reeling, job creators are under siege, taxpaying families are being deprived of hope and opportunity and the least fortunate in our society are being exposed to untold hardship.

These views were echoed by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce in a submission to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. The chamber submitted that: "The problem isn't new to this government. The province has a legacy of expressing moral outrage at anything that remotely resembles a reduction in federal transfer payments at the same time it has been obstructionist on federal tax initiatives."

I wanted to quote that paragraph because it brings us into an area of justification often used by the Premier and the members of the NDP caucus that somehow federal transfer payments and a so-called cut in federal transfer payments are really the root of the NDP's problems today in trying to run the fiscal affairs of this province.

I want to point out, as Mr Phillips, the Liberal member, pointed out on April 28 in a question to the Premier, the fact -- and the Treasurer has admitted this fact -- that transfer payments from the federal government are up some 25%. They are not cut; they're up 25%. In addition to what he was expecting in the regular increases in transfer payments every year, the Treasurer will be expecting an additional $1.5 billion this year from the federal government.

I want to quote Mr Phillips. He says: "The thing that offends people...is hypocrisy. On the one hand, the federal government says, 'We are going to give you a 25% increase in transfer payments.' On the other hand, the Premier gets up and says in a speech, 'These are tough times. We are going to give our transfer payment agencies, the hospitals, the school boards, 1%.'"

Mr Phillips went on: "If you can call the federal government an absconding debtor with those sorts of transfer payment" increases, and then he simply poses a rhetorical question that if the feds are being called an absconding debtor, then what are you, Mr Premier? I think it speaks volumes of the type of political games that have been played by the NDP over the past 18 months, and in fact it's a history in that party.

I want to continue to quote from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce submission to the legislative committee: "We have some news for you. It may have escaped the attention of most people here, but the federal government's taxpayers and the provincial government's taxpayers are largely one and the same. Hard as it may be to believe, the federal government is actually in much deeper financial trouble than the provincial government is -- so far.

"This country and its economy can not afford any more cute games of political one-upmanship at the expense of the economy."

They then go on to speak specifically about the NDP government in Ontario: "This recession did not just happen, and it wasn't caused by the free trade agreement any more than the 1982 recession was caused by the free trade agreement. It was created by the Bank of Canada trying to control rising inflationary problems that were centred primarily in Ontario.

"A lot of that inflation problem arises from the provincial government." That is a quote from the chamber. They point out that that problem stems from "higher taxes; legislated cost increases; a costly and rising bureaucratic burden; expensive, high-profile public sector wage settlements; increased provincial competition for the scarce funds that are available."

Finally, the chamber says: "Ontario has become a high-risk, hostile environment. There is no comfort that business will receive fair treatment. Unless that perception changes, and changes quickly, our economic prospects are dim."

I also want to speak about the tourism industry in Ontario. I'm the former Tourism and Recreation critic for my party and I live in a part of the province that is very much dependent on tourism: the Wasaga Beach and Collingwood areas.

The Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, Local 75, says, "There are no new major conventions booked in Toronto before 1995 because the city has become uncompetitive in terms of costs." I raise the Toronto example from a union in the hope that this government that is Toronto-centred and union-centred in its thinking will listen to its union partners. The union went on to say, "The cost of holding conventions in Toronto is 40% higher than elsewhere in North America."

"The Treasurer is said to be considering removing the sales tax exemption for meals under $4" -- we're expecting that in the budget this afternoon. "This will decimate the tourism industry and may cause substantial job losses in the neighbourhood of 12,000 jobs...Bankruptcies in the food services industry are at record high. Bankruptcies increased 85% in 1990 over 1989 levels," and that trend continued throughout 1991. "The restaurant industry has lost more than 50,000 jobs over the past 18 months."

To date, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation's response to the Metro Toronto convention crisis and the overall tourism malaise has been to say, "The Treasurer makes decisions on taxes." When asked outside the Legislature what he was doing to bring more conventions to Toronto and Ontario, as more conventions mean more dollars in our provincial economy, Mr North said: "I'm not the Treasurer. It's not my job to think that way." It's a pretty astonishing response from the so-called advocate and Minister of Tourism and Recreation in this province.

The NDP government's response to another major tourism problem, cross-border shopping, is to avoid a real solution: to lower taxes and to make us competitive again here in Ontario. Instead the government is betting with its collective heart that casino gambling will solve this problem. I say, not likely. I'd say the NDP has crapped out if it expects casino gambling to solve its economic and tourism woes. The horse racing industry generates almost $2 billion annually and employs close to 50,000 people in this province. The industry says 10,000 of those jobs would be lost with the introduction of casinos to the province.

In a letter to me from Mr William Rowe, president of Barrie Raceway Holdings Ltd, Mr Rowe writes: "In the present depressed economy, the pool of disposable entertainment dollars is very small and growing smaller daily as more individuals and small businesses go bankrupt in this province.

"There is no doubt that bringing in casino gambling will bring in some dollars to the provincial Treasury -- some estimates are being quoted at $150 million. This sounds great, but most of these dollars will not be new dollars but dollars diverted from the racing industry and the lotteries."

Mr Rowe feels the "advent of casino gambling will have a grave consequence for individuals who make their living at the Barrie Raceway. It takes no great genius to see what will happen to Barrie Raceway and 500 people who work here and the hundreds more people who derive indirect income from the racetrack throughout Simcoe county."

Other problems in the area of casino gambling: addiction. The NDP government withdrew funding for programs designed to treat gambling addicts. A New Jersey committee studying casino gambling reported that evidence indicates that availability of legalized gambling increases the risk of becoming a compulsive gambler.

How many lives will be ruined, I ask? How much will it cost our society to treat the rise in addicts that accompanies legalized gambling in Ontario?

1040

I want to make this point specifically to the tourism operators in my area of the province: Some areas could suffer a tourism decline if they are competing against other Ontario jurisdictions that have casinos and they don't. What will form the basis of which areas get casinos?

The Huronia Tourist Association has written a letter to the Premier:

"We must, in the strongest way possible, take issue with the site selections, since they totally bypass and isolate central Ontario and the region known as Huronia. Therefore, while it's nice to know that you do not want to see us at a disadvantage, the 'us' does not include us in Huronia, but rather a select few areas of the province. As a result, it would appear that the sites are strategically placed so as to entice Americans to cross the border. As desirable as that may be, did it occur to those selecting the casino locations that they were restricting this major tourist lure to Canadian border areas and completely boycotting that part of Ontario which accounts for almost 12% of all tourist destinations in Ontario? As well, why should there be two in Metro Toronto? On that basis, this association finds the proposed sites clearly discriminatory and unfair."

Finally, I want to thank the member for Oakville South for bringing this thoughtful and commonsense resolution before the Legislature today. It's sad that the other parties seem to be void of common sense. We saw that in five years of Liberal reign and we are certainly seeing that in the last 18 months of NDP reign in Ontario.

I would urge all members of the Legislature, though, to step back from their political agendas and lend their support to this resolution. A more stable and prosperous future in Ontario begins with the passage of this resolution today. Thank you for your indulgence.

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): That was somewhat entertaining.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Talk about entertaining: How about that tie?

Mr Waters: I think it's a beautiful tie.

Anyway, I'd like to address the member for Oakville South's resolution. We'll start at the top.

As I look at the main body of his resolution, it talks about the government contributing to high taxation and high government spending and high unemployment in the province. Maybe we'll give them a quick history lesson on the whole thing.

I come from a unique area of the province. In the early 1980s we had a Premier of this province who went about my riding and promised various things. He promised sewer projects, he promised housing projects.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Wasn't he a Conservative Premier?

Mr Waters: Very much a Conservative Premier. The roads were going to be taken care of. This all happened back in the early 1980s, and nothing ever came of it.

Then we had a Liberal government come in, and the same promises went around, and once again literally nothing came of it.

Now it's at a point in my riding where we have absolutely no alternative: We have a series of sewer plants we desperately need, we have roads that have to be repaired -- we have roads that have needed repairs since the 1950s. We have housing projects that -- I find it quite interesting that it's fallen upon our government to fulfil the projects the past Premier announced back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and I find it interesting to be able to travel around with him and do the sod-turnings and the openings of these projects.

Here we are in the toughest economic time this country has seen since the 1930s, and it falls upon us to go around and clean up the neglected mess that was left there before us. Even though times are tough, we are able to do some of it and put a start in on this. I see housing projects around the province; I see sewer projects around the province; I see road projects. This infrastructure is needed by the people, by the private sector, I might say, to be competitive. They need this infrastructure, and the members across should recognize that unless we have this infrastructure, these towns can't grow. Yes, we might be spending a bit more than what they would like to see us spend, but we have to build that infrastructure and indeed we are spending on infrastructure.

Then I would go on. One of the key arguments that has been going on in this House for months has been labour reforms. The members across would have you believe that if you have a husband-and-wife industry, the wife is going to go out and organize against her husband. Nothing could be farther from the truth and they know it. They're out there creating scare tactics to try to force us to back down on legislation that is desperately needed in this province. The fact that we are dropping from 55% to 50% for the right to organize is nothing to be afraid of. They would have you believe it's the end of the world.

I think at this point I'm going to save some time for some of my fellow colleagues to make some comments, so I will at this point take my seat.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Further debate?

Mr Bradley: It's a pleasure to be able to participate in this activity this morning. The member for Oakville South has presented a resolution for consideration of the Legislature. Unfortunately it's fitting in with the new Progressive Conservative strategy. I don't know who is concocting this strategy. Hugh Segal is advising or someone is advising. But if you look at the resolutions that are brought forward by the Conservative caucus at this time, you will see that they are designed not to attract the support of any of the other political parties in the Legislature.

This is so they can go out to various places across the province and wave a particular resolution, and that resolution will be one which sounds attractive but they won't show what the preamble was in the resolution. They'll put a hook in criticizing one or both of the other parties. In this case, I noticed the last few resolutions have references to the previous government. They're still fighting the last provincial election. If they wanted to be truly effective, they would in fact put forward a resolution that might attract the support of even some members of the New Democratic Party who in conscience would be prepared to vote for it.

You may think this is a good trick. Back in the old days when the Big Blue Machine was around Ontario and you had Norm Atkins and Hugh Segal and that crew concocting these resolutions, it may have been pretty politically smart. Today I think people see through that strategy. What they're looking for is straightforward resolutions.

There are some components of this resolution which are certainly worthy of support and some which are not. I want to deal with a couple of these, first of all the suggestion that no new taxes be brought in at this time in this particular budget. I think that's a reasonable proposition for the following reasons.

First, I think we should be leaving as much money as possible in the hands of the consumers at a difficult economic time so they can make the purchases they feel are necessary and essential. This will keep the economy going. The Treasurer will see that his revenues will continue to increase as in fact the economic activity across the province continues to increase.

Second, there is the problem of cross-border shopping. It used to be said that you could put a tax on gasoline because some people saw that as being a negative consumption, or you could put a tax on alcohol or on tobacco and most people would live with that. Indeed there was a time when that could be done, and various governments across this country have done so.

1050

The difference today, if the government were to include those taxes, is that it would continue to drive people to make purchases across the border, making those purchases because they felt the tax increases were making it an economic necessity. Those are attractive taxes. I know that from time to time they are attractive taxes, but in this particular case those are the loss leaders which send consumers to the United States in great numbers to make purchases. So I hope at this time the government would avoid increasing those kinds of taxes as well.

The third issue I wish to deal with is that of casino gambling. I know I saw Mel Swart, for instance, in the precincts of the Parliament yesterday and I can imagine the viewpoint of Mel Swart, though I can't speak for him, on the issue of casino gambling. I recall seeing Fred Young here, former member for Yorkview, the individual who had a hand in writing the prayer that commences the session each day. I can't believe that people of the ilk of Mel Swart and Fred Young would look favourably upon casino gambling as the solution to the problems of Ontario.

There will be those who will say: "Well, isn't it attractive to have it in your own community? Wouldn't it raise a lot of money?" Of course, there's always that attractiveness. What people have to understand, however, is that the day you put a casino in one border town you will find out that the American jurisdiction will have it in another town right across the border. Any advantage you have gained will be diminished by the fact that there is a casino or a major gambling event in another location immediately across a border.

Second, of course, is that we're having a great problem in the Niagara Peninsula with the Fort Erie Race Track. We've already lost Garden City Raceway, just outside of St Catharines, and now very much threatened by economic circumstances is Fort Erie Race Track. The mayor of Fort Erie and others in the Fort Erie area in particular have expressed great concern about the impact of casino gambling on their particular sport and their particular facility, and I think that must be taken into account.

Third, members will know that three members have now dealt with issues related to people being able to raise funds for themselves. I had the opportunity to raise the issue of junior hockey teams, soccer teams, fastball teams and you name the sport, having individual bingos they would use to raise funds so that they could operate within their communities. In the Niagara Peninsula we have several Junior B hockey teams, and some Junior C and Junior D hockey teams around Ontario.

We're going to see two results: first, casino gambling will take money from other sources of raising revenues; but second, and more important as far as the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is concerned, they must understand these are important activities within a community. It seems to me that the provincial government, while it has to always look at all of its policies and I appreciate that, should not be threatening to withdraw bingo licences simply because of the age of the players in one case or the so-called narrowness of the focus in another case.

I hope the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will give very serious consideration to the representations which have been made by members of various parties. I've raised the issue with her personally in the House. I've previously made a statement in the House about this. I hope they will not remove from those people the opportunity to raise their own funds so that the government of Ontario can then come by and say, "Here is a grant directly from us." Those people want to raise their own funds, and I think it's important that they be allowed to do so.

There are many aspects of this resolution which are quite attractive. Obviously it was written so members of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party cannot support it, and that's most unfortunate. I wish members would bring forward resolutions which would attract consensus support in this House. That often happens in this hour, and I believe it's what this hour is all about.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Further debate?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Good morning, Mr Speaker. You wouldn't believe how lucky I feel to be allowed to spend all of four minutes and 29 seconds speaking to this. It's not a whole lot of time that I get to stand up and talk here, but I'm happy to be able to do it on this occasion. I just left the whip's office, where the bells have been momentarily silenced, and it remains that I anxiously and eagerly await my passport and my ticket for whatever destination the whip may see it appropriate to send her favourite puppy to.

It's interesting, this kind of debate about this kind of issue. It's interesting that people listening ought to know exactly who it is talking about their concerns right now and really what kind of income brackets they're in. Let's talk for a minute about what MPPs make by way of income here in the province of Ontario. It's a little bit confusing, because you've got to add all the things up and factor in some impact of tax-free income.

Mr Carr: You guys got an increase.

Mr Kormos: The base income -- and I'm reading from April 1990. There was a clever little stunt played here where there was a so-called freeze on salaries, but that was after there was a retroactive increase. That's a very clever sort of thing. I've got workers down in Welland and Thorold who wish they could pull off the same sort of thing. Every MPP makes, first of all, $44,675, but it doesn't end there. Every one of these 130 people then make an additional $15,000 tax-free.

Ms Murdock: It's $14,000.

Mr Kormos: It's $14,984, which is close enough to $15,000 for me to call it $15,000 tax-free. Now $15,000 tax-free is just about maybe $20,000 or $22,000 taxable, so you add $22,000 on to the $44,000 and you're up to $66,000, and there isn't a single member of the government caucus -- we inherited this trait or we acquired it none the less from our Liberal predecessors -- who doesn't make a little bit more on the side, anywhere from around $5,000 up to around $12,000 up to around $30,000 if you're a cabinet minister. Plus every single member of this Legislature picks up $2,000 or $3,000 tax-free every year just for doing the job. It's called the per diem for sitting on committees.

Then of course there's the 29 cents or 29.5 cents, depending on what part of the province you live in, for every kilometre -- not mile; metric did it again -- that you travel in your car. Hopefully it's a made-in-North-America car, but there are more than a few Nissans, Volvos and Lexuses out there in the parking lot. Some of them have got MPP plates on them. I find that the height of arrogance.

The bottom line is this: These people in this assembly make more money, each and every one of them, than most working people in this province will even ever dare dream of. I find it incredible that this resolution could talk, for instance, about the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments when those people working in sweatshops, those people working in non-unionized workplaces, as often as not women, as often as not immigrants, will never dare dream of the incomes that MPPs enjoy.

I find it incredible that these people could somehow purport in this resolution, Mr Carr -- and I appreciate that there are some valid points here. There's some quality in this resolution; unfortunately not enough. It unfortunately ignores the reality of hardworking women and men and unfortunately non-working women and men who would like to have jobs, had they not been stolen from them by Brian Mulroney in free trade and GST.

I find it the height of arrogance for people making $70,000 or $75,000 a year and having a trough available to them, be it gold-plated identification pins or be it little trips that the whip may wish to dispense at her pleasure, depending upon for whom the bell tolls -- I find it incredible that this resolution coming from the Conservative Party would attempt to say what it does when these people are so removed from reality, so wedded to Brian Mulroney and a regressive, reactionary policy, a sellout of workers. They should be ashamed.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Oakville South has two minutes for concluding remarks.

1100

Mr Carr: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and welcome. I understand this is your first time in the Chair and we welcome you as the new Speaker.

I am pleased to add a little bit to the debate. It was interesting. I'm one of the 28 who doesn't get any extra money. I believe 102 out of the 130 get extra money. I'm one of the 28 who does not. It's interesting we hear from the member for Welland-Thorold who talks about perks and --

Interjections.

Mr Carr: I don't drive a Corvette. I didn't ever in my life have a Porsche like the member did.

Mr Kormos: You've got a Lexus out there.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member sit down, please. I would ask the honourable member for Welland-Thorold please to restrain himself and allow the member for Oakville South to continue with his concluding remarks.

Mr Kormos: I apologize, Mr Speaker. I sincerely apologize to you.

Mr Carr: My time, my time.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I thank the member very much. Please take your seat. I ask the member for Welland-Thorold to take his seat.

Mr Carr: Mr Speaker, would there be any chance of getting back the 20 seconds we lost?

Mr Kormos: No, you can't play those games.

Mr Carr: Okay, I'll have to wrap up very quickly. All I'm saying is that for a member who drives a Corvette and had a Porsche to stand up -- unfortunately I'm not in those circumstances, but for him to stand up and talk about perks when he goes out of here in his Corvette -- I will leave that for the public to decide.

Some of the other speakers talked about who I'm talking about. I'm not in this House to impress anybody. I was elected by the people of Oakville South. These are the polls I got back -- and I've got to be really quick because I lost some of the time -- 80% of the people said, "You shouldn't have any tax increases." Liberals, NDP, Conservatives, everybody in the riding said -- 80% of them -- "No new taxes, no government spending."

That's who I'm standing up for. I'm not in this House to please anybody -- Corvette drivers or Porsche drivers. It's the people of Oakville South I'm standing up for here today and I hope you'll support me.

The Acting Speaker: The time has expired for ballot item 3.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LE CODE DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

Mr Winninger moved second reading of Bill 15, An Act to amend the Human Rights Code / Loi modifiant le Code des droits de la personne.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): The member has 10 minutes.

Mr David Winninger (London South): Mr Speaker, I ask you to imagine if Einstein had been refused work at Princeton University when he was in his 70s. I ask you to imagine if Jessica Tandy had been denied her Oscar-winning performance at the age of 80 or if Picasso had been told to stop painting or Rubinstein told to stop playing the piano to allow younger people access to such work.

These are questions Reginald Stackhouse, a member of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, raised in 1990. Does Ontario have a place for age discrimination? Are people who reach the age of 65 to be treated like so many barrels of oil or lumps of coal?

Many people feel that mandatory retirement fails to consider ability and denies the opportunity for the benefits, the dignity and the self-satisfaction ongoing employment can provide. A study last fall by Statistics Canada showed that only one third of adult Canadians favour retaining a mandatory retirement age and that most people interviewed wanted greater choice and flexibility regarding retirement than company or government policies provide.

Provincial legislation, as you know, applies to the provincially regulated private sector as well as the provincial public sector. Exceptions to provincial legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age exist within the Human Rights Code of Ontario. Ontario has an exception in subsection 10(1), defining age to mean over the age of 18 and less than the age of 65. Another exception provides for situations in which age is a reasonable or bona fide qualification or factor for the job. I have some concerns about other exceptions regarding employment, but those can await another day. I note in passing that if an age of 65 or over is a requirement, qualification or consideration for preferential treatment, a right to non-discrimination is not infringed.

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision, McKinney v the University of Guelph, a decision involving seven justices -- five male justices and two female justices -- is binding on the courts of Canada. The decision ruled that universities are not bound by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because of their private component as they function in society. But even if the charter had extended to universities, the majority of the court would have found that compulsory retirement is a reasonable limit on protection from age discrimination.

Even though the court found that our subsection 10(1) did violate the right to protection from discrimination and that under section 1 that limit on protection from discrimination was reasonable and constitutionally valid, the two female justices, who spoke in dissent, would have struck down the mandatory retirement provisions. They wrote that discrimination based on age "has the effect of reinforcing the stereotype that older workers are no longer useful members of the labour force. Their services may therefore be freely and arbitrarily dispensed with." In fact these justices, who wrote a strong dissent, echoed the 1985 report of the federal parliamentary committee on equality rights. I believe you, Mr Speaker, participated in the preparation thereof. The third female justice on the Supreme Court of Canada could not participate in this decision because she, sitting in the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, had previously struck down a mandatory retirement decision there. It's interesting to note that Supreme Court of Canada judges enjoy tenure on the bench until the age of 75.

Mandatory retirement clearly disadvantages capable people who are forced to retire solely because of age, particularly women, new Canadians and others who begin careers late or in midlife and are unable to build up adequate pensions. Further, there are many people for whom employment is a source of physical, mental and social health. To deprive individuals of the opportunity to work may contribute to a wasting away following retirement.

At one time many employees were forced to work long after they had become decrepit, often employed for long hours and in squalid working conditions we would consider intolerable today. A mandatory retirement age was designed to ensure that those employees who required a dignified retirement with the security of pension benefits would not be denied a comfortable and dignified retirement. The confusion, however, between normal retirement age and mandatory retirement age has been well documented.

After the Second World War, pension plans proliferated in the United States and Canada, generally using 65 as the entitlement age. The 1979 Canadian senate committee on retirement age policies concluded "that mandatory retirement based on age involves an infringement of human rights, economic waste and misconceptions about the relevance of age." The report of the Task Force on Mandatory Retirement observed in 1987 that: "The appropriateness of mandatory or compulsory retirement is being widely questioned. Some see it as a form of age discrimination that offends the rights of the individual."

1110

Six other provinces -- PEI, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Manitoba and Alberta, as well as the two territories -- have taken the necessary steps to amend their human rights legislation to remove exceptions for those over 65. Quebec, for example, notwithstanding its abolished mandatory retirement, can regulate and has regulated exceptions for firefighters and police officers. The case law in Ontario has upheld such exceptions.

The time has come for Ontario to take a bold step in this regard. Why? The C. D. Howe Institute declared recently that later retirement should be the way of the future. We must adapt our social policies and workplaces to meet the challenge from large-scale population changes.

People over 65 will increase by 60% by the year 2000 and by 200% in the next half-century. Some 1.6% of the working population is over 65. In 1990 the average income of those over 65 was only $17,640, compared to $24,294 for those aged 15 to 64. So you can see and appreciate clearly, Mr Speaker, that people forced to retire after the age of 65 are facing a concomitant decline in their income.

Certainly it makes good economic sense, as the baby boom generation retires and the workload falls to a number of younger workers due to the decline in the fertility rate, that there may be labour shortages. In fact, as the baby boom came of age, labour force growth exceeded 3% a year. Now the labour bust generation has come down the pipe, and labour force entry is down to 1.8% a year, a decline in participation, particularly among men.

While there is some evidence of loss of memory and cognitive ability with age, it depends on the demographics and on personal characteristics. Some maintain all their competence well into their 80s. So I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to be aware of the changing demographics in Ontario and to understand and appreciate the need for a re-evaluation of Ontario's policies on mandatory retirement.

I'll have more to say in conclusion.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm pleased to rise in today's debate. I want to compliment the member who raised this issue for a very thoughtful discussion which we've heard from him in the last few minutes.

I want to quote from a research paper on this subject. The concluding, bottom line says, "Historically, all advances in human rights have been opposed by those with vested interests, who inevitably have predicted all manner of resulting evil and destruction." The writer says, "My own view is that the benefits of eliminating 'ageism' from our employment systems far outweigh the costs."

This article was written by Michael Krashinsky, who is an economist with the department of economics at the University of Toronto. I would commend this paper to anyone in this House or anyone who is interested in the issue of mandatory retirement, because it does deal with many of those things which would have to change if we were to eliminate mandatory retirement and look at normal retirement.

Things that would have to change would be tenure, collective agreements, bargaining, pension plan design and reform, and performance appraisal. Anyone who thinks we could just amend the Human Rights Code and eliminate mandatory retirement without having ripple effects through the economy, ripple effects through changing some of the institutions and infrastructures that have been in place in our society, is simply wrong. We know that there would be many changes. The question is, would those changes be better for us or worse for us as a society?

Philosophically, I am very supportive of the elimination of mandatory retirement. I do believe, as our society is aging in Ontario, that we cannot afford to have unproductive human resources. I also believe we have the opportunity now to do the planning, make the kind of anticipated changes, whether it is in our universities, which would be tremendously impacted by a change in mandatory retirement because that is where tenure is most prevalent; whether it would be in our labour laws, which would encourage the kind of renegotiating that would have to happen around collective agreements that have mandated mandatory retirement as part of the collective agreement; whether it would be in pension plan design to ensure proper incentives, better pension plans, more widespread, when you take a look at the number of people in our society today who have no private sector pensions, who rely only on the Canada pension plan for their retirement and find that this is inadequate.

Women are particularly impacted by the provisions of mandatory retirement. Many of them have left the workforce to raise their families or, because of marriage breakdown, have entered the workforce late in life and do not have adequate pension benefits and credits and find that when they reach the age of 65 they are living in poverty. They need to have greater opportunities to work.

In fact, once we're through this recession -- and we know we will come through this recession -- we have to create the kind of society that will encourage people to be as productive as possible, if they choose, for as long as possible.

I believe the concepts of lifelong learning and career change will be with us. When we talk about a change in mandatory retirement, that does not mean that people will be able to stay in work and be unproductive. That's the issue of performance appraisal, and it's one of the concerns I have, because some of those who argue against mandatory retirement suggest that employers would be less likely to maintain their workforce and would institute practices which may result in job loss for those workers who are not seen to be as productive as they should be.

I argue that while that is a concern and should be discussed, I believe workers should have the opportunity to prove they are able and capable of doing the job that is required, but that would be a significant change and something that should be considered.

The predictions for the future for the young are that they will change their careers many times. Our society is changing generally. When it comes to the development of social policies which will be forward-looking and take us confidently into the next century, which is really on the horizon, I believe we must look at issues such as mandatory retirement with a view to how this will have a positive impact on our society and how it will have a negative impact. Let's have a proper discussion and debate.

I would encourage the member, as a member of the government, to suggest that we not simply discuss this in private members' hour, but perhaps have a white paper of government policy. I think that would be very helpful, a chance to discuss what would have to change. We know it's highly unlikely that a private member's bill of this magnitude would be proclaimed by the government without significant discussion. I don't want to deceive anyone today to suggest that this is likely going to become government policy without it being a government bill.

I think it's important that members know the difference between a private member's bill and a government bill. I'd like the opportunity, as a legislator, as a member of this Parliament, to have before us a government document, a piece of government legislation that could be thoroughly discussed and debated at committee. I would like to hear from the economists who would argue in support of mandatory retirement. I'd like to know from all those who argue for the status quo what they believe it would mean.

I believe mandatory retirement ultimately is a good thing not to have in the future. I believe mandatory retirement is an outdated, outmoded, unnecessary, discriminatory provision. It's my hope that we will have the opportunity to raise the public consciousness to see what this would mean in Ontario; to give people the right to work if they choose and to have that freedom, free of discrimination. I thank the member for bringing that forward and I support his resolution, even though I do not expect it will become law in the province unless it is supported as a government piece of legislation.

1120

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): It really is a pleasure to speak this morning in favour of Bill 15, put forward by the member for London South. I must say at the beginning, though, that I really speak for myself as a member of the Ontario PC caucus. We did not have the opportunity to come to a consensus on this issue in caucus; anyway, it certainly is the practice of my party that members speak on legislation for themselves. I simply make that clear this morning.

Interjection.

Mr Jim Wilson: The member for Durham East doesn't me want to get started because I am supportive of the bill. Did you hear that? It's a historic moment. I know I'm agreeing with the NDP and it's budget day and all that jazz, but I'm kind of hoping to put the NDP in good humour before the budget comes down at 4 o'clock because I think they're going to have a bad evening.

None the less, I think the member for London South is correct in wanting to amend the Ontario Human Rights Code to allow people, in effect, to work beyond age 65. I'm supportive of this, I should also say, because in other jurisdictions -- and I will talk about some of the experience of the other jurisdictions, as the member has, including the federal civil service that no longer has a requirement for mandatory retirement -- less than 1% of the workforce has actually been affected. So I think when people are opposed to banning mandatory retirement, they do so really on philosophical grounds and not in actual fact and by experience, because the experience has been generally positive. I will go into that.

I note, as the member for London South has, that in December 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it was constitutional for provinces to allow mandatory retirement policies. This put the government of Ontario in the position of allowing mandatory retirement at age 65 to remain or amending the Human Rights Code, as the private member's bill does this morning. I point out that in making its decision, the court said that while mandatory retirement did constitute age discrimination under section 15 of the charter, it could be considered justifiable in a free and democratic society and therefore was constitutional under section 1 of the charter.

Currently, half of Ontario's workforce of 2.5 million employees is subject to mandatory retirement provisions. At the time of the Supreme Court decision, again in December 1990, the Ontario PC Party Citizenship critic, the member for Markham, Mr Don Cousens, was quoted in the Toronto Star as saying, "It's a good idea to change the code" -- the Human Rights Code -- "so people over 65 can work if they want to." I note that the Liberal critic at the time also agreed with Mr Cousens's remarks.

The impetus to abolish mandatory retirement in this province receives a boost from current demographics. Ontario's workforce is aging, our workforce is shrinking and people are living longer lives. I note that Ontario's Task Force on Mandatory Retirement recommended in its 1987 report that mandatory retirement be abolished except where it can be established as a bona fide occupational requirement, and that membership of a pension or retirement plan, even under a collective agreement, not be grounds for exemption. Mandatory retirement is disproportionately present in the unionized workforce. I point that out not in a partisan manner, but simply because there is work to be done in terms of collective bargaining agreements and pensions. The member for Oriole very correctly pointed that out just a few minutes ago. A 1979 study of major Ontario collective agreements found that 83% of such employees were subject to some form of mandatory retirement.

These are some of the arguments opposing mandatory retirement, and I'm going to do this under headings, the first heading being flexibility.

The chairman of the Task Force on Mandatory Retirement, Dr Ron Ianni, argued that its removal would precipitate a number of innovative and imaginative policies facilitating early retirement, voluntary reductions in work responsibilities for seniors, improved pension plans and a more flexible approach to the whole question of retirement.

I argue that this flexibility would enable skilled workers to continue working in their field of expertise past the age of 65. When I think of my own riding of Simcoe West, a very significant portion of that riding -- because we have a lot of retirees who chose to retire to the country from Toronto -- are working past age 65, particularly in businesses in their own homes. I am surprised, as I visit a number of subdivisions, at how many older couples -- older in terms of over age 65 -- are running consulting businesses, working with computers at home or doing crafts, a number of things, businesses on the side, really because they need the money and, second, they are living longer.

The quality of life is very high in this province and in this country. They're perfectly capable of doing many of the things they did when they were younger, and I don't see why we should have a law to prohibit people from doing what they do best.

Under the heading of planning: Opponents of mandatory retirement argue, first, that it is paternalistic to assume that career planning needs to be imposed upon older workers; second, it's overkill to uniformly retire all senior workers because some may experience a personally difficult dismissal; and third, it's of questionable justice to require workers to retire just because of some sort of administrative convenience.

Under the heading of increased monitoring: As the number of employees likely to stay on is minimal -- as I say, studies indicate that it probably would only affect about 1% of the workforce; ie, only about 1% of the workforce would choose to work beyond age 65 or the mandatory retirement age -- employers have little incentive to alter their personnel practices.

Under the category of deferred wage compensation: The argument that deferred wage compensation is a major incentive for workers to remain at work, as well as being a significant cost to employers, is weakened by the current trend to early retirement.

Again, estimates released in the study by the Task Force on Mandatory Retirement indicated that between 5,000 to 10,000 persons a year would consider working beyond age 65 if mandatory retirement was to be removed. As I've said, this would mean an increase of about 25,000 to 50,000 workers, or less than 1% of the Ontario workforce.

As the member for London South has correctly noted, the provinces of Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba and New Brunswick have abolished mandatory retirement and the federal government abolished it in 1986. I wanted to take a moment just to recap the experience in each of those jurisdictions.

Manitoba in 1982 introduced an amendment to its human rights code. A study commissioned by the Ontario task force again found that the elimination of mandatory retirement appears to have had little effect on workers or working conditions in Manitoba. When the Ontario task force looked at the experience in Manitoba, there seemed to be very little effect.

The same study also found that of employees affected by the elimination of mandatory retirement, almost none chose to stay on in heavy industry, while two thirds of eligible university faculty chose to stay. Overall, though, the study found that those who chose to stay on were most often pension-poor older women, an interesting and important fact.

I think of that in my own mother's case. She had six children, was a school teacher and took 13 years out of her teaching career to have the six children. We very affectionately say, "Mom, you're going to have to work until you drop," because they certainly need the money. I don't come from a wealthy family by any stretch of the imagination. I may add, she's one of these teachers that went to normal school, did not have the opportunity over the years to get her BA because she was raising a family, and subsequently makes significantly less money than many teachers after their first one or two years --

1130

Mrs Caplan: Just don't say how old she is or you're in big trouble.

Mr Jim Wilson: The member for Oriole reminds me not to say how old my mother is. That's very kind of you because you know I'm going into one of my side speeches here. None the less, it's important that she be able to work as long as she can and wants to, and she very much enjoys her job. She is a special education teacher.

New Brunswick also brought in amendments, I believe, in 1973. When our task force in Ontario looked at that, it again found that less than 1% of people 65 years old were staying on in employment. In that legislation in New Brunswick the exemption for pension coverage is broad, which accounts for the minimal impact in New Brunswick of mandatory retirement elimination.

In Quebec, by means of provincial legislation in 1981, mandatory retirement was abolished. Again the Ontario task force found little impact on the workforce or employers. It is interesting to note that the exemption was universities where the study found that 10-year professors were becoming "complacent and entrenched" -- that's from the Ontario task force study -- and that the impact this was having on the prospects of new graduates wishing to enter the teaching world was creating "a pressing problem."

Of the last two jurisdictions I want to look at, the Canadian federal government, of course, as I mentioned, abolished mandatory retirement for the federal civil service in 1986. The Ontario study indicated that not enough time had really elapsed to come to any significant conclusions of what the effect was at the federal level.

In the United States, 1978 amendments to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act raised the retirement age for federal government employees from 65 to 70. Amendments to the same act in 1986 resulted in the elimination of mandatory retirement for federal government employees in the United States. Our Ontario task force uses the words, "Overall, the removal of mandatory retirement in the United States was a non-event." It really says quite a bit there.

I want to end by saying that we support it. I echo the thoughts brought forward by the member for Oriole when she said people really shouldn't get their hopes up. This is a private member's bill that's being debated this morning on second reading. I note that the Minister of Citizenship, Elaine Ziemba, at the time of the decision in December 1990, wasn't clear what the government's intention would be.

I would be interested to hear in the member for London South's two-minute windup if he is working with the unionized sector. In a lot of the reading I did in preparing for today I found that not only are 83% of unionized workers now forced to retire at age 65 or earlier because of their pension plans and a number of other issues that have been mentioned, but many of them want to. The Canadian Labour Congress, in its response to the Supreme Court's decision in December 1990, supported the Supreme Court.

I think there's some work to be done in both a public way and behind the scenes with some of the labour leaders in the country to see really where they stand. I would not want to see the government move ahead without really giving us a clear indication. When you read the Ontario task force report, it studies other jurisdictions and gives us an overall feeling that abolishing mandatory retirement is okay. It's not going to have any great effects, but there will be and could be individual cases of hardship resulting from pension plans that may not work as well for people.

We want to make sure the government does its homework thoroughly on this before proceeding to third reading with this bill, if that ever occurs. The record around here, of course, is that private members' bills don't go very far. None the less, I commend the member for London South for bringing forward this thoughtful piece of legislation today.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It is indeed a pleasure for me to rise in my place this morning and speak in support of second reading of Bill 15, An Act to amend the Human Rights Code, introduced by my colleague the member for London South. I didn't think the day would dawn when I would stand in this House and agree with the member for Oriole or the member for Simcoe West, but it's happened and it's very unique.

Also, my experience this morning is somewhat unique in that I was the victim of mandatory retirement at the age of 50, when I was forced to leave the military. I must say at that time I was able to run 10 miles a day and was doing that. I thought I was at the height of my powers of knowledge of policing, yet on my 50th birthday, I was told I was no longer useful. That was a traumatic experience. Many of my colleagues have gone down hill steadily, because it is very difficult to find a job anywhere in Canada today in that 50 age group. That is discrimination. People say, "Well, you got a pension." Yes, I got a pension all right, but it wouldn't pay the rent on a normal apartment.

Then I retired again. I went to another job and was encouraged to leave early under some sort of plan. I must say it was what I considered an artful plan to get rid of older workers, where they encouraged you to take some form of increased severance, and that way you were out of their hair.

I went off to the sunset in Florida to live happily ever after. After about four weeks down there, I said to my wife: "You and I have got to sit down and have a talk. Each morning I go around the park that way and say good morning to those people, and in the afternoon I go around and say good afternoon to those people in the opposite way. In the evening when I meet them, they tell me what they had to eat the day before, and then this guy says what he had to eat. I can't put up with this. I'm going crackers. I've got to go back to work." She said: "I understand. You're a bit of an oddball."

I would like to see some amendment in my friend's bill that would allow for some cooling-off period so that when you took mandatory retirement, you could step back and say, "This isn't for me," and then you could be welcomed back into the workplace once again.

Age-based retirement severs people from their livelihood. I'd like to go back to the days after the war when my father was forcibly retired. He lasted about two years after that. It absolutely devastated him, the loss of work with very little pension and having to grovel around and do odd jobs for very little money. His whole pride went down the tube. As a matter of fact, he passed away two years after being forced to retire.

I've got a lot of news clips here. This one says, "End Forced Retirement, Council on Aging Says." "Your Opinion" -- the London Free Press -- "Benefits of Forced Retirement Doubtful." The Supreme Court, "Retirement Judgement Ominous for Women." Another editorial, "Flexible Policy Best on Retirement Issue." "Seniors Totals Soaring but It's a Fit Lot." We're a fit lot, seniors. "Age Ruling Hurts Women Most." "Retirement Ruling Shocking Loss of Rights." "Federal Human Rights Commission Opposed to Mandatory Retirement."

There's a very fine article here by Michael Krashinsky of the department of economics, University of Toronto, "The Case for Eliminating Mandatory Retirement." That's a very interesting document one should read.

On April 1 of this year, I had been working for 50 years. I'm hoping I can work another 30. As a member of this Legislature, along with my colleagues, I am not subject to mandatory retirement. I thank God for that, because if it were mandatory, very shortly I would be getting the pink ticket. So now the pink ticket is in the hands of my constituents. If they're watching this morning, I like the job and I'd be appreciative if they didn't ever give me the pink ticket.

I know there are a number of my colleagues who want to speak on this very important issue. In summary, I would just like to say that, in my opinion, forced, age-based retirement squanders people's talents, it ruins in some cases their health and it drives many elderly people into despair and even poverty. I can speak from the experience of my own father.

Agism today is as odious as racism or sexism. I know my friend's bill is not perfect -- no bill that comes before this House is perfect -- but I am sure we can work on this and introduce this into some legislation whereby we protect people. This is not forcing people to work over 65; it allows people the choice to continue working and I hope we can do that.

1140

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I also wish to speak to Bill 15, An Act to amend the Human Rights Code, which will prohibit discrimination in employment against persons 65 and older. There are numerous arguments for and against mandatory retirement. The arguments for include the following: mandatory retirement opens up jobs and promotional opportunities for young workers; it makes it easier for employers to plan and manage pension plans, most of which are calculated on the basis of people retiring at 65 years of age; it makes employers less reluctant to hire middle-aged employees who they know they would be able to retire.

However, there are also arguments against forced retirement. It is an unfair assumption that workers over 65 years of age are less competent than younger people. It systematically discriminates against working women, many of whom, because of family responsibilities, have not worked long enough to earn adequate pensions. It denies people who want to continue working the right to do so. It fails to allow for consideration of individual situations and abilities and it does not take into account the labour shortage this country may face because of our aging population.

Projections show that 20% of our population will be over 65 by the year 2021; no doubt that will include several members of this House. If all elderly workers were forced to retire, eventually there would be a job glut. As mentioned, there is the argument for mandatory retirement that jobs for young Canadians become threatened when older workers do not retire. Even economists who strongly support mandatory retirement agree that mandatory retirement has little to do with youth unemployment.

Employment rates in the long run are not generally dependent on the size of the labour force. Workers who stay in the labour force allow the economy to absorb the labour force increase, because such an increase itself increases demand. Perhaps at the beginning there may be some impact on youth unemployment, but I believe the impact will fade relatively quickly. Another assumption supporting forced retirement is that younger workers are more effective workers. This is debatable, because experience must be recognized.

As you know, Max Yalden, chief of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, recently urged the federal government to abolish mandatory retirement. People over 65 should have legal protection against age discrimination. As Mr Yalden said, "Employees should be judged on their competence, not their age." He went on to say that medical advancements have left Canada facing "an unprecedented extension of human longevity. More and more people will likely feel fit enough to wish to extend their working lives...and we must be prepared to deal with any age discrimination to which that gives rise." I agree with that statement.

An argument for mandatory retirement, as I mentioned previously, is that it makes it easier for employers to plan and manage pension plans, which are calculated on the basis of people retiring, in most cases, at age 65. I believe this is an outdated premise in that what is convenient for an employer is not always best for the employee. The convenience factor is not what should judge the quality of life for citizens over 65.

I do support this bill -- however, not without reservations. While researching the topic I read in various articles that there was not a consensus among cabinet ministers on this topic. This is perhaps the reason it is not government legislation but a private member's bill. This is a concern of mine.

The Labour minister, who has traditionally supported the idea of mandatory retirement, now says he is hearing good arguments from the other side. He is impressed with the argument that mandatory retirement discriminates against women. Mandatory retirement is discriminatory to all older persons but it is especially disadvantageous to women because they have not traditionally been able to build up the financial resources that men have. Women traditionally have not earned as much as men, and their work history has often been sporadic because of the demands of child-bearing and child-rearing.

There are also the women who have not worked out of the house but have remained as homemakers. Should their marriage end in divorce or should they become widowed and be thrown into the workforce at this stage in their lives, mandatory retirement at age 65 would force them into unemployment and would cause severe financial deprivation, often accompanied by mental and physical stress. The Minister of Citizenship says she opposes age discrimination but worries about pensions being in place for older workers. But she does not worry about sexual discrimination regarding pensions for women.

We all know that the Supreme Court ruled in late 1990 that age discrimination is justifiable. However, the court also said that if provinces feel strongly about mandatory retirement they could pass laws prohibiting it, and four have done so, as we've heard: Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta and New Brunswick. If the Ontario government was serious about addressing this issue it would be presenting this bill as a government bill, not a private member's bill.

I will be supporting this bill. Let's have less regulation of people's lives wherever we can. However, I do hope the government decides to move forward with this legislation and does not let it slide to the bottom of the government's agenda and remain there like so many other private members' bills that should have been introduced as government bills.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the member for his contribution.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I'm very happy to get up and speak to this bill that the honourable member for London South has brought forward.

There's no guarantee that when people become older they are wise, nor that a young person has particularly new and fresh insights on the world. But I was reading once again one of the fine essayists of the 17th century, Sir Richard Steele, who once said, "Age in a virtuous person, of either sex, carries in it an authority which makes it preferable to all the pleasures of youth." Indeed, if we look at those who are creative in their later years, those who are older in society, the contribution they make to their own communities is a contribution based upon the imagination and the spirit and the vision that they have been able to inculcate within themselves and in their families over the years.

I'd like to say that in the society that we live in today, with better health and the fact that people live longer, there's no question that people of ability who are aging are people who have the raw material and resources that we need to build a better society. So I want to very much applaud the member for London South for bringing this particular bill to the House today.

1150

This is a human rights issue. Back in 1984-85 I had the great honour of working on the task force on equality rights with a number of people across this province who made several recommendations to the government of Canada, and at that time in fact my section for that brief to the parliamentary committee was against agism. There's no question that there are many "isms" in society, whether it is agism or racism. Whatever the problem, we have to say that it is the policy of the members of this House and the policy of the government, indeed, that we cannot accept people to be classified and compartmentalized in a way that is not advantageous to their rights.

So this is very much a human rights issue and I want to underline that. There is no question that such decisions are unfair particularly to women, minorities, refugees and people who have few pension benefits.

I also want to say, in a comment to the member for Simcoe West, that Mr Winninger, the member for London South, has already shown his ability to move private members' bills through the House. His last private member's bill indeed did have third reading and was passed.

Anyway, I want to leave some time for the other honourable members on this side of the House. I am glad to support the member for London South in this.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Mandatory retirement is certainly a complex issue. All seven Supreme Court judges agreed that the Ontario Human Rights Code is against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The code permits mandatory retirement by banning employment discrimination only between ages 18 and 65. However, there is a "notwithstanding" clause which says, "if reasonable limits are justified in a free and democratic society." So the question is, is this discrimination justified?

A little bit of background: First of all, only half the workforce in Ontario has jobs subject to this ruling. The rest do have choices, such as being self-employed.

Second, a very small number wish to work beyond the age of 65. Whom would this affect? Certainly we know of the skilled professionals who have challenged this ruling.

But let's look at the others who are affected beyond these professionals. It also affects non-unionized, part-time workforces that are the least likely to have adequate or indexed pensions. Who are these people? They are, in the main, women. Let's look at the work patterns of women. Women often have interrupted work lives because of child care responsibilities.

Mandatory retirement at 65 recognizes that an average man has worked for more than 40. It does not reflect that a woman's career very often could have begun at age 35 or 40, on re-entering the workforce after her children have been in school. Women earn less and therefore have less savings -- that is very obvious -- and also women live longer. These women want to be part of life and of society. Women over 65 can of course be called old women. Maybe society views old women as expendable or irrelevant to the economy. Older women are more likely, statistics prove, to be poor and living on the margins of society.

The question we ask today is, does mandatory retirement serve some overriding public interest? I realize it can certainly be argued both ways. I think what we're dealing with here are the values of equality and freedom. We say we want all people to be equal and retire at 65 to ensure there is not abuse. I believe that once our society has established a social safety net and stopped abuse, and through education there is an atmosphere of equality and a reality of equality, then we can move towards more freedom.

I think this time has come with regard to the issue of retirement. I believe we want choice, for each citizen of Ontario to choose to be able to join a union. I also believe we want choice for people at 65 to work or to retire.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): As the member for the riding of Lambton it is with pleasure that I rise today and speak in favour of this bill. I would also like to compliment my colleague from the riding of London South for his consideration in this regard.

There is a perception in the public that the abolition of mandatory retirement will prevent access to jobs for the younger people. However, I remember very much the day a younger member of my family came to me with great consternation. This person was working where many senior people had taken an early retirement rather than be laid off. The concern he expressed to me was, "There's no one left to represent my dad." In other words, he could not find anyone with more years or experience than himself to confide in or to discuss the whole job situation with. As a young person he felt left alone. He was not denying that many of the retirees were deserving of the retirement but was questioning the validity of leaving the responsibility that had been placed on them on short notice.

If mandatory retirement at age 65 was law, I would not have the great privilege of being here today and being allowed to speak for the riding of Lambton. When I was elected I was elected to stand up for Lambton, and in Lambton there are many wonderful people past this imaginary retirement age who are contributing a great deal to our community as well as to the province of Ontario. I know of one woman in Lambton who is well over the age of 70 and is still contributing to the whole of Canada in the health care sector. Why should she be deprived of that opportunity to serve this country because of her age, and why should all of us be deprived of gaining from her work and knowledge because of her age?

Life at 60 is terrific. Life at 66 is even more terrific. I know because I'm there. So let us allow others the same opportunity and let us not force retirement on them that would deprive those of us who need their skills, their knowledge and their experience. It is noteworthy that there is no real, particular evidence that indicates productivity declines with age, and I'll include myself. A measure of the peculiar way many people view the older citizen is to substitute any other group into this debate. It would be considered intolerable to ask women, Asians or people of different religious organizations to step aside to provide a place for a younger person to be employed.

The Speaker: I thank the member for Lambton for her contribution. The member for London South has two minutes to wrap up the debate.

Mr Winninger: I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues the members for Lambton, Victoria-Haliburton, Durham East, Niagara Falls, Simcoe West, Oriole and Brant-Haldimand for their thoughtful comments and personal perspectives. I can certainly appreciate the unique perspectives members bring to bear on this issue, because I too had a grandfather in Austria whose career was interrupted in midlife during the war, and he had the opportunity there to practise law well into his 80s. I think that had he been denied that opportunity it would have had a tremendous effect not only on his mental, physical and emotional wellbeing but certainly, in the post-war years in Europe, a very deleterious effect on his ability to earn an income.

Many of the points I'd hoped to make earlier in these proceedings have been made by my colleagues on all sides of the House and I appreciate the support they bring to this issue. As indicated by all members, a projected labour shortage in the future, as our population ages and fertility declines, merits that we take action now to address the issue. We need to utilize the productivity of our seniors to the greatest extent possible. Rather than saying to people at the arbitrary age of 65, "You no longer have value," we need to affirm that value. Certainly the employers of today are far more inclined to rate the productivity of people over the age of 65 higher than they did 20 years ago, for example.

For those who make economic arguments that our society can't afford to abolish mandatory retirement, just remember that in the United States 90% of those who have elected to stay on after the age of 65 leave the labour force after two years. In Canada we've made the necessary amendments to the Canada pension plan to allow people to work on after 65. Thank you for the opportunity of making these concluding remarks.

1200

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

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

Ayes -- 8

Arnott, Carr, Cunningham, Jackson, Jordan, Sterling, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West).

Nays -- 43

Bisson, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Cooper, Coppen, Cordiano, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Eddy, Ferguson, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Mancini, Miclash, Mills, Morin, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, O'Neil (Quinte), Owens, Poole, Ruprecht, Sutherland, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LE CODE DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Mr Winninger has moved second reading of Bill 15.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker: The bill will be referred to committee of the whole House.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I would ask, with the consent of the House, that the bill be referred to the standing committee on justice.

Bill ordered for the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Speaker: All matters related to private members' public business having been dealt with, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed at 1210.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY MAILING

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): As we head into another peak of the tourist season in northern Ontario, many of the operators in the area are concerned about the season they face. Some of them are no longer concerned because they have gone bankrupt.

A good number of operators suggest that the upcoming season may not be all that great. Higher gasoline taxes, higher tobacco taxes, higher alcohol taxes and higher costs across the board are things that discourage travel in the northern part of this province. I can only hope that my friend the Treasurer, the member for Nickel Belt, a northerner as well, has paid some attention to the northern tourist industry in the budget he will release in full today.

But how can I be optimistic when I've received this in the mail: the NDP promoting a trip to Costa Rica, of all things, suggesting that if I make a contribution to the party it will give me a chance to win a trip for two, all expenses paid, to Costa Rica. This package epitomizes the NDP government. The mascot is a three-toed sloth. The NDP has been in power for 19 months and it has not done anything to soften the recession.

The entry form starts off with, "Yes, I don't care what the opposition says," and I often question myself as to whether the Honourable Bob Mackenzie thought up this line when he was devising his labour reforms and included it in this package. It goes on to say, "I promise you, your generosity would not be forgotten." Shirley, does that ring a bell?

The NDP is going to give two people a break from a weary Ontario winter. Why do they not give all Ontarians a break by creating some jobs? Why don't they give our tourist operators a break and promote tourism right here in Ontario?

ROAD MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I want to bring to the attention of this House how the NDP government appears to be punishing the people of my riding of Wellington for not having elected an NDP member.

As you know, Mr Speaker, funding for our municipal road system largely comes from the Ministry of Transportation. At the Ontario Good Roads Association convention in February, the minister promised a 1% increase in the total provincial base allocation to municipalities. The Wellington county roads committee in my riding actually budgeted for a 5% decrease because it was trying to be cautious. It was stunned to learn in late February that it was actually going to receive 8% less than last year, a full $441,000 less than last year's allocation.

This was bad enough, but then we learned that the city of Guelph actually received a 4% increase over its allocation for last year. The people of my riding understand and accept the need for fiscal restraint, but they were angered by this blatant example of favouritism shown to an NDP-held riding at the expense of one held by the opposition.

In my riding important projects, roads and bridges will not be built and will have to be put off as a result of this government. I demand that the Minister of Transportation review this matter. The county roads committee is awaiting his response to its letter of protest. I call upon him to abandon this cynical, manipulative and outrageous policy of showing favouritism and punishing ridings which have shown the wisdom not to vote for the NDP.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): This year our government took major steps to open up the budget-making process. For the first time ever, we gave people information on how budgets are made and shared details of the economic and fiscal challenges facing Ontario.

In my riding of Scarborough West, I conducted three pre-budget consultations with community leaders representing businesses, unions, social services, community organizations and others.

Some of those participants are here in the members' gallery now and will remain as my guests today to hear the Treasurer's presentation of the budget. I would like to acknowledge the presence of Jim Russell of General Motors, who is chair of the East Metro Industrial Training Advisory Committee, Mai Cheng of the Chinese Canadian Association of Scarborough, Melinda Rooke, executive director of the Second Base Youth Shelter, and Christine Chun, coordinator of the Scarborough Housing Help Centre.

Participants encouraged our government's program reviews to cut waste, duplication and excess administration. Many spoke of the need to protect and improve needed human services. They called for better and more coordinated training programs. They called for greater use of welfare funding to help people get back to work. They expressed concern for the budget deficit, while also demanding action on the deficit of jobs and infrastructure.

My government and I hope that our constituents will feel heard by our Treasurer's budget today. I will be meeting again with my community's leaders to determine how well we will have met that test, and I thank them for their participation in making democracy work.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have two letters from constituents which outline a need which is very great in the Niagara Peninsula.

One is from Jack Leake of St Catharines. He writes:

"The Hotel Dieu Hospital, St Catharines, has operated the regional life support program for dialysis in the Niagara Peninsula since 1974. Since that time, the program has not received any funding from the Ministry of Health. As a result, the dialysis unit is in dire need of renovation and requires new equipment to ensure that safe and quality care is given to patients.

"I have written numerous letters to Premier Bob Rae and the Minister of Health, the Honourable Frances Lankin, asking that the Hotel Dieu Hospital, St Catharines, receive its fair portion of the $23-million dialysis fund. Now those moneys are gone and a new $49 million is to be spent for dialysis, bone marrow transplants, chemotherapy and heart surgery.

"What portion of this will go to Hotel Dieu Hospital, St Catharines? The hospital has prepared proposals and made presentations to no avail. The patients are getting tired of waiting for a response while conditions continue to deteriorate....

"Can you help us to get fair funding in the Niagara regional dialysis program?"

The other was a letter from Diane Reed, who is a peer volunteer, outlining the very difficult circumstances facing patients, the families of patients and those who serve the patients at Hotel Dieu Hospital. Within the allocation which has been presented to the Minister of Health, I ask that she give urgent consideration to providing those funds to Hotel Dieu Hospital.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): My colleague Bill Murdoch, the member for Grey, recently raised the issue of the London-Middlesex arbitration report and legislation which will follow. I too am very interested in this issue, especially as it relates to the farming community surrounding London.

The report states that the annexed agricultural land must be protected and cannot be built on for at least 10 years. If this farm land is important enough to protect against development, why then would this government even consider including it within the city of London? Why will the protection exist for only 10 years? A good question. Is protection of farm land not a priority of this government beyond a 10-year period?

It will seem very odd to have an agricultural community within a major city, and the situation raises many concerns. I am not sure that any major urban area, no matter how well intentioned, can protect the rights of farmers as they relate to raising livestock and producing crops within the city limits of London. How will the city handle the reduced rate for hydro paid by farmers? Will this be lost? Will city people living on farms pay more for electricity?

This is a serious issue. If the Minister of Municipal Affairs does not care, he should at least speak with the Minister of Agriculture and Food; I think he does. I would ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs to consider the plight of the Middlesex farmers before those farmers join the city of London federation of agriculture.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): In the first speech from the throne, this government signalled its desire and intention to reform the outdated labour relations laws of this province. Revising the rules on how employers and employees relate to one another -- that's essentially what the act is about -- will make the labour relations structure more efficient and effective in this province.

The minister has indicated time and time again that he's prepared to look at any vehicle to reduce confrontation. Unfortunately some but not all in the business community have accepted that this government is going to move into the 1990s in terms of labour legislation in this province.

There is no doubt at all that we all must adjust to a new competitive reality. For business that means a strategy that ensures profitability and for workers it's a strategy which provides job security and enrichment of the quality of their lives, their families and their communities.

The workers of this province clearly have demonstrated that they do want to enter into a meaningful partnership with the business community. I believe that when the new Labour Relations Act is introduced, it will indeed be an act of confidence: confidence in the workers of this province, confidence in our quality of life and confidence that together business and labour will be able to compete provincially, federally and globally.

1340

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): It's one thing for a bunch of oppositionists to decry the antics of our NDP friends from Clampettville; it's another thing, I suppose, for the Ottawa Citizen to editorialize as it did this week that Bob Rae has become the Jerry Brown of Ontario politics, gyrating madly around in a kind of policy vacuum. It's another thing, I notice, to see Allan Fotheringham write about how our Premier has become Premier Prude.

All of these things, I think, might be considered as part of the regular fare, but what are we to make of it when major pillars in the NDP of Ontario like Professor Rob Martin are writing in the provincial press such as the London Free Press of yesterday? Of course, Mr Martin is well known to all of us as a very distinguished professor at the University of Western Ontario's law school, twice a candidate for the New Democratic Party.

What is Mr Martin writing? He's writing among other things that "the NDP of the 1990s doesn't seem to have any ideas or principles." He goes on to observe that "the government of Robert K. Rae, QC, has shown us the party's moral bankruptcy." He goes on to conclude by saying: "The NDP today manages to be both pathetic and obscene, ludicrous and grotesque. It has betrayed its constituency, betrayed its history, betrayed itself."

I say in conclusion only this, that as Premier Rae prepares to wing his way to New York City, Tokyo and Hong Kong, he might want to make a detour to Australia to talk to Bob Hawke as to how one avoids being deposed as a Labour Prime Minister who loses his way.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Market value reassessment bears no relationship to municipal services used or ability to pay. This system may be fair in areas that have stable home prices, but not in my riding of York Mills or Metropolitan Toronto. It becomes a tax on location.

The former Liberal government mandated 1988 values as the basis of assessment. These artificially high values are not realistic in today's market. The convoluted implementation plan proposed by Metro council will have the commercial sector subsidizing home owners and industry for five years. Approximately $200 million of taxes will be shifted annually from the residential and industrial class to the commercial class. More than 14,000 businesses in the city of Toronto alone would face tax increases of greater than 25%. More than 6,000 would see 100% tax increases in 1993.

These tax increases would have a particularly devastating impact on businesses just coming out of a major recession. Many firms may be forced into bankruptcy or relocation. Metro Toronto cannot afford more job losses at this time of hardship and high unemployment. Metro Toronto is already penalized by the Liberal commercial concentration tax which takes approximately $100 million from Toronto each year.

The Minister of Revenue cannot play Pontius Pilate and wash her hands of this decision. It remains her responsibility to see fairness is attained.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): As all members are aware, it is National Volunteer Week and in appreciation I would like to share a story about volunteerism. Next fall when you see geese heading south for the winter, flying along in V formation, you might consider what science has discovered about why they fly that way. As each bird flaps its wings it creates an uplift for the bird immediately following. By flying in V formation, the whole flock adds at least 71% greater flying range than if each bird flew on its own.

People who share a common direction and sense of community can get where they are going more quickly and easily because they're travelling on the thrust of one another. When a goose falls out of formation, it suddenly feels the drag and resistance of trying to go it alone and quickly gets back into formation to take advantage of the lifting power of the bird in front.

If we have as much sense as the goose, we will stay in formation with those who are headed the same way we are. When the head goose gets tired, it rotates back in the wing and another goose flies point. It is sensible to take turns doing demanding jobs with people or with geese flying south. Geese honk from behind to encourage those up front to keep up their speed. What do we say when we honk from behind?

Finally, and this is important, when a goose gets sick or is wounded by gunshots and falls out of formation, two other geese fall out with the goose and follow it down to lend help and protection. They stay with the fallen goose until it's able to fly or until it dies, and only then do they launch out on their own or with another formation to catch up with the group. If we have the sense of a goose, we will stand by each other like that.

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: This is a point of privilege which is important to every member of this House because I believe our rights as members have been abrogated. We, as members, have a responsibility, indeed a duty, to assist our constituents in cutting through red tape and getting problems solved at Queen's Park. I believe that a government agency has abrogated those rights, those responsibilities and those duties. The Office of the Ombudsman has paid for an ad campaign which says, "Getting nowhere at Queen's Park? Call the Ombudsman," with a 1-800 number.

First, I believe it usurps the responsibility of an MPP, whose duty and responsibility it is to solve his constituents' problems with Queen's Park. Second, I believe it is very misleading. The Ombudsman's office is a court of final and last resort. What will happen is that our constituents will phone this 1-800 number. At that stage they'll be told, no, it is more appropriate that they phone the MPP. By the time they call our office, we have wasted enormous taxpayers' dollars and completely confused and misled our constituents. I would ask you to rule on --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take her seat, please. I realize the member for Eglinton has an item which is of interest and concern to her. It does not, however, constitute a point of privilege, although I do appreciate the fact that she has brought it to our attention and to the attention of the House.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, can I ask for your advice and assistance in how one would deal with this type of problem, which I believe does abrogate the responsibilities of members of this House?

The Speaker: All I can say to the member in her request for information is that the Ombudsman is an officer of the House and operates at arm's length from the government of the day. The member, of course, is quite free to contact the Ombudsman in person if she wishes to and to bring her concerns to the attention of the Ombudsman. Perhaps that is of assistance. I don't know what else I can add to that in trying to assist the member.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for the Provincial Anti-Drug Strategy): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It may be furthering this request for assistance, but certainly there is a jurisdiction here in the Legislative Assembly of all the members of all the parties, and I think the point the member raises is a point of concern to all of us. Perhaps if you could look into the matter you might be able to give us all better advice on how we could address this problem.

The Speaker: I should add one other point of information which would be perhaps of assistance. Since the Ombudsman is an officer of the House, one avenue to explore is that the matter can be brought to the Board of Internal Economy. Of course, all three parties are represented on that board. It is a matter which can be dealt with there. There is also a committee of the Legislature for the Ombudsman, which again is an all-party committee, and the matter can be dealt with in that avenue as well.

1350

JAYNE SUTHERLAND

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Perhaps you'll find it to be more of a point of information than a point of order, but I would be very remiss if I didn't rise in the House today and indicate to you and other members present and their staffs that today happens to be the last day, serving in her current capacity, of Jayne Sutherland, my executive assistant. I can tell you that anybody who can tolerate me for over eight years certainly has to be an individual of outstanding character.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the member for his point of information. There is in fact nothing out of order, and you would not want the Speaker to comment on anyone's tolerance of other members.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I'd certainly like to join with Ernie in saying that this is a wise career move on Jayne's part, but I do want to say that when I was an opposition House leader and since I've been over on this side as well, the working relationship that's existed between the three offices, but particularly with Jayne and with the Conservative office because of Jayne and only because of Jayne, has been a very good working relationship. She's very professional and very helpful and respects the parliamentary procedure. We all wish Jayne well in her next career, although I think she's going to work for the federal Tories, so I think we should all have a little sympathy as well.

The Speaker: House leader for the official opposition.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): If I may, just a few brief words. I got to work twice with Ms Sutherland. Instead of just on one occasion for eight years, mine were for many shorter months. I would only ask that when she leaves she leave her copy of the Jayne Sutherland annotated standing orders with me so we too can make use of her really deep-seated understanding of the way this place works. I know she was receiving instruction and debate, no doubt, with her own employer, but it has been a pleasure to see someone here who knows how to do her job and to work very well at it.

I must say that I hope she's on secondment. I wouldn't want to see her go without employ after Mr Chrétien and others in the federal Liberal Party have an opportunity to deal with Mr Andre, who is about to become her employer, and others in the next federal election. But from someone who likes to deal with rules and procedure and administration, I can tell you that I was very much taken by the depth of her knowledge, her understanding, and sometimes, although we're not partisan in those meetings, she does know how to take the advantage and she is very skilled. Mr Harvie Andre's gain is obviously going to be Ernie's loss. Maybe that's something that will give us some gain as well, although I know her replacement, Ms Hutton, will probably do a very good job indeed.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is to the Minister of Education. Yesterday, Mr Minister, you talked about reform of the educational system, based on reshaping and restructuring. Other words for those are downgrading and downsizing.

My community of Ottawa-Carleton and many communities right across this province are finding your statements about educational reform based on cooperation and partnerships contradictory, counterproductive and confusing. Your government says you recognize the difficulties of 1% transfer payments to education. "We really do understand." You say this; your Premier says this. The words ring very hollow.

You said in this House yourself, Mr Minister, on April 13, "Teachers' federations and school boards...need to be looking at the question of salary packages and what has been happening versus what we believe needs to happen." Mr Minister, what do you really mean when you say that teachers and boards need to be looking at salary packages? What do you really believe needs to happen?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): What I really believe needs to happen is that in the same way school boards are being asked by us to look at the administrative costs of their budgets, which we all know are in the neighbourhood of 25% to 30% of their budgets, we also need to be encouraging school boards, teachers' federations and support staff employee groups to be looking at ways of managing the salary costs of school board budgets, because we know that's the largest portion. What that means in terms of how that translates into different ways of looking at that is really something that needs to be worked out at the local level.

The end result that we believe is useful is one that looks at wage increases that are more in line with the kind of inflationary increases we've seen, along with a number of issues that we know teachers and other employers continue to raise, whether it's in terms of increased job security provisions or other kinds of things that are of benefit to teachers and other employees and obviously are of benefit to our students. The more we can protect jobs on the teaching side in education, the more it allows us to protect the kinds of programs that we all want to see maintained in our schools.

Mrs O'Neill: Mr Minister, you know that 15,000 secondary students in the Carleton Board of Education have been out of class for 21 days and that 1,900 elementary teachers in that same board are about to take a vote to work to rule. This is a school board, I remind you, that has never had a teachers' strike. My question to you is, do you realize the pressure, the impossible burden, placed on the ratepayers in Carleton by the recent Ottawa Board of Education 4% settlement for 1992, a settlement you said you can't do anything about? Then again, you said there will be results like this. I now ask, what advice, what creative solutions, to use your own words, are you offering to the members of the Carleton community in their almost impossible situation and in their very painful dilemma?

Hon Mr Silipo: I'm not sure which way the members opposite want to have this. The other day I was asked by the leader of the official opposition about whether I was interfering in the collective bargaining process. Now I'm being asked, if I can surmise from the question, why I didn't interfere to produce a different result from the one that was produced through a locally bargained collective agreement. I think the issue remains that the agreement reached in the Ottawa situation was one that the parties felt they could agree to. Obviously the school board, in arriving at that agreement, had to size up what it felt it could afford and could pay. They knew fully well the kind of situation they were in.

We are obviously monitoring very closely what is happening in Carleton. I know there are meetings scheduled between the mediator and the parties tomorrow. Obviously we will continue to monitor that situation very closely. As in the Ottawa situation, I remain convinced that in fact there is an ability of the parties to come together and come to a collective agreement at the local level.

Mrs O'Neill: Mr Minister, you must know how divisive all across the community of Ottawa-Carleton the Ottawa settlement has been. The Carleton Board of Education and many boards are in a dilemma. They're upset. They're weary. They've been trying for months and months to set budgets, to negotiate collective agreements -- again, to use your own words, collective agreements that are fair to local taxpayers and to students.

The province is looking to you for a clear message. They are looking to you for some leadership. You have said -- again, I use your own words -- that there are other things you may be able to do. How about being a bit forthcoming and telling them the other things they're able to do? How do you propose to work out a way -- again, I'm using your own words -- with the Carleton Board of Education to get those students who have been out for 21 days back to their classes Monday morning?

Hon Mr Silipo: The other things we can do are not things I have been holding back in terms of indicating to people what they are. I've been talking to representatives of school boards and teachers' federations and others over the last number of months, as I'm sure the member well knows. I have said to them that there was some help in terms of the transition funds; I announced those funds here last week. We've just sent out a letter to school boards with some of those details. I've said to school boards that we are looking at what we can do in the capital area. That's another indication.

Obviously, in terms of the Carleton situation, I've indicated that we'll continue to monitor that situation. The parties are talking to each other. I understand the mediator is meeting with the parties tomorrow. I believe that there's an opportunity there for a settlement to be reached, for the parties to come together and deal with the issues they need to deal with in the kind of relationship they have at the local bargaining level.

1400

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister is aware of the greater London area arbitrator's report concerning the annexation of a large, indeed a huge, part of the county of Middlesex by the city of London. The minister will also be aware this is the first time an arbitrator has been commissioned by a provincial government to resolve a boundary dispute. There are many people across the province who are concerned this will set a precedent for future boundary disputes by undermining the effectiveness of the Boundaries Act.

As you are aware, Mr Minister, the arbitrator's report gave the city of London 64,000 acres from the county of Middlesex. The city of London's own study recommended only 12,000 acres from the county be turned over to the city. What is the rationale for taking this 64,000 acres of land, much of which is prime farm land, from the county? Why has the arbitrator whom you appointed given the city of London over five times as much as the city's own study recommended?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I appreciate the question. I think the member will know better than any of us in the Legislature how long this debate has been going on in London. As an administrator in the county, he might even have been able to have some influence in terms of the position the county has taken and the position the city has taken over the last 11 years this issue has been in dispute. The member will also know that other disputes in this province, like the one in Sarnia and Clearwater, went on for 42 years. It's absolutely essential that we find some process in the province whereby annexation disputes can be solved in a rational way and an appropriate time.

The economic situation in the London area was such that without some decision being made the possibility of economic growth was being interfered with. A decision had to be made. The choice was that either I could make it unilaterally without any public hearings or I could appoint a local person to have public hearings and make that decision at the local level. I think local people should be given that opportunity, and that's what I did.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Mr Minister, this is the first time I have heard a minister from your government measuring the time of negotiations. This is the first time I've heard that in this House. You're for ever asking people to negotiate and this is what the people in the county of Middlesex and London wanted you to do through your arbitrator.

Mr Minister, do you realize what 64,000 acres represent? Let me put it in perspective. It represents approximately the size of the city of Mississauga. It also represents 35% of the property tax base of Middlesex. How can you justify the decision of your arbitrator to take away over a third of the county's tax base, with no land needs study to justify this?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think if the member has read the report, he'll see the rationale behind the decision Mr Brant, the arbitrator, has made in terms of having the airport in the city, which is appropriate, and having Westminster in the city. The member will know, being a former Minister of Municipal Affairs, that there were serious planning and environmental problems. In fact, there was even a development freeze on that part of the community, which I believe he or the person who followed him in the ministry put on that community.

Decisions had to be made. If the former minister doesn't like the decision I've made, there always was another option. This dispute had been going on for 11 years. The previous government could have got off the fence and made the decision long before we took office, but it was afraid to make that decision.

Mr Eddy: As I mentioned earlier, the following decisions of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, namely, (1) to appoint a sole arbitrator to make recommendations to the minister within 60 days of his appointment on a new structural arrangement for the greater London area and (2) "to legislate whatever the arbitrator recommends," represent a precedent that will ultimately affect the way boundary disputes are handled in the future in this province.

Will the minister agree to send this legislation, once introduced, to a standing committee of this House for full and public hearings?

Hon Mr Cooke: What I will agree to do is to table the legislation when it is ready. I would ask the critics for the official opposition to take a look at the legislation, and then we'll talk about how the legislation is going to be handled.

The other thing I'd like to say to the associate critic and the critic for the official opposition is that I will not support any amendments from the opposition party that would institute the recommendations that are being made by the former member for Middlesex back in London right now, whereby he says that the solution of this would be to amalgamate Elgin county and Middlesex county in one huge regional government. That's the way to end rural Ontario, and I don't support that approach taken by the Liberal Party.

BUDGET SECURITY

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the House leader on the government side. I have some concern with respect to your government's determination --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Will the member take his seat, please. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have some concern with respect to your government's interpretation of a budget leak. Considering some of the information that was divulged yesterday through the information on the car tax etc, the teachers' pension fund and the delisting of drugs and so on, it seems to me there could be some private sector gain for some of the information that was in fact contained in the estimates that were released yesterday.

Mr House Leader, my question to you is, having studied the document now overnight and your staff seeing it, is there any sense in your mind that there could be some information used for gain by the public?

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): No, there's no concern about that at all. That point was made very clear yesterday. I was listening to Metro Morning on CBC Radio this morning and heard the two business commentators who are on weekly take that question and that argument and describe it as rather a frivolous comment. They said it was impossible to make gains from such things as increases in the Attorney General's budget.

I also read in the Financial Post today where the former Premier of Ontario and the former Treasurer of Ontario, Frank Miller, said: "I don't see that as a key part of the budget. I wouldn't be too upset about it being made public. The spending estimates wouldn't worry me at all." Now that's from Frank Miller, one of yours, and I agree with his position.

Mr Stockwell: It is rather interesting that when Mr Miller had what they described as a budget leak, they had a very different opinion than Mr Miller shared at that time. It's rather interesting as well that today you're starting to take direction from Mr Frank Miller. You didn't seem to listen to him when he was in government. I'm very shocked today. Now Frank Miller is one of your closest advisers.

If you understand the car business, in the information that was outlined yesterday you are now going to a Red Book value on resale vehicles. A Red Book value is an estimate on an amount of a car. Many cars are sold under Red Book value. If you check with your licence offices today, I would suggest there would be a flurry of activity from wholesalers, retailers or even individuals selling their cars today, because they know they're not valued at Red Book value. They're going to get less than that and they're going to avoid the taxes they'd have to pay tomorrow.

The direct question to the House leader is, have you examined this point? It seems rather clear to me that you're going to see a flurry of activity at your motor vehicle licence offices. The question is, don't you consider that to be information that's a little privileged before the budget's announced?

1410

Hon Mr Cooke: I think what the member should do is wait until the budget is tabled and wait until he sees the details of any proposals that might exist in the budget, and I think he'll see that the question he just asked is rather irrelevant and off base.

Mr Stockwell: So the announcement made by the Treasurer yesterday that in fact it was substantive, it formed the majority of the budget that's coming out today, was incorrect? Because when that question was put, that response was given by the Treasurer. He in fact discussed that at length yesterday, the curbsider, the Red Book value on used vehicles passing between less than arm's-length, between people in the same family or friends.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat. The member for Etobicoke West with his final supplementary.

Mr Stockwell: It's obvious they're restless on the other side of the House because absolutely everyone in the province has more information than backbenchers in that government.

The Speaker: Would the member place his final supplementary.

Mr Stockwell: Maybe if these people played their cards right they might get directions to the caucus office.

The Speaker: Does the member have a final supplementary?

Mr Stockwell: The question I put to the House leader for the government is simply this: Your Treasurer did admit that this in fact was part of the budget and it was going to be part of the budget today. We are going to know at 4 o'clock. The jig will be up at 4 o'clock when it's told that the estimates that were released yesterday will accurately reflect the estimates that are in place when the budget's announced.

Will you undertake to monitor the amount of business that the motor vehicle offices are doing today, the amount of transactions that are taking place on used vehicles and Red Book-valued vehicles, to see if in fact any gain was made by wholesalers, retailers or curbsiders?

Hon Mr Cooke: Again I would like to suggest to the member that he might want to wait for the budget to be tabled, see if there are any proposals that even come close to what he's suggesting will be in it, and I think he might determine later on this afternoon that his question is not really on base at all.

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities and Minister of Skills Development.

Interjections.

Mrs Cunningham: A good day. There must be something going on over there that I don't understand.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Now that you have everyone's attention, could you place your question.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Minister, in the last few weeks there have been many discussions on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board makeup, and we asked a question in the House a couple of weeks ago about that. I think you would understand that in the next few days, beginning in Thunder Bay and Timmins and North Bay and Kingston and a few days in Toronto, Niagara Falls, Oshawa, Cobourg -- there are many people who have taken a lot of time to give your government what they feel is pretty important information.

Given that the consultation meetings are still taking place and given that I did ask you a question on April 9 with regard to this governing body makeup being a done deal and that you responded in the negative, Mr Minister, and said that you were open for suggestions, I'm going to ask you why at this time there are still nominations being required and requested for the makeup of the board members. Why are you continuing to ask that the nominations be fulfilled for these positions when we really don't know what they are?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities and Minister of Skills Development): I think the answer is contained in the question. There is a consultation process in place. It will not be until the middle of May that all of the sectors that are consulting together will come together to iron out some of the issues that still exist in the wake of the consultation. At that time the terms of reference will be worked out for responding to those issues.

Then in mid-June there will be a round table meeting of all those groups that will put the final details in place around representation and all those questions. That's why we continue to ask people to comment and respond with respect to all those aspects of the issue.

Mrs Cunningham: The submission day for the response to this OTAB paper was originally set for April 30, and it's my understanding that it has been extended to May 15. The hearings I have down here end on May 7, but it's my understanding that they have been extended to May 15, but we also have the nomination process ending on May 12.

I'm wondering if the minister can clarify if in fact these nominating committees, the different subcommittees, are being asked to put forth the recommendations for these positions on May 12. I seems to me that we have a very major problem in communication.

Hon Mr Allen: No. Final nominations for the board or any aspect of the board's operations are not deadlined at May 12 or any other specific date at this point in time.

Mrs Cunningham: Minister, the unemployment rate for Ontario's youth aged 15 to 24, the young people in our province, rose from 17.2% in January to 18.7% in February, the last numbers I could get. We're looking at about 164,000 young people. This is the highest youth unemployment rate in almost a decade -- in nine years, at least.

I would ask the minister at this time, since youths are major consumers of education and training, would he consider, given the representations we've had before the committees, appointing them specifically as having their own voice on the OTAB training board? Is that something he's going to be looking at in his deliberations, since it has been a major recommendation on behalf of the youth training groups?

Hon Mr Allen: As the member for London North has correctly indicated, that question has come up in a number of the consultations and it has been proposed that youth representatives might be among the equity groups represented upon the board or upon its subsidiary councils. Those matters are all being taken under consideration and will be looked at in the context of the cross-sectoral meetings and also at the round table. I think their claims will have to weighed in the context of all the claims that can be made for representation on the board to get the most effective board in place.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, you and I have spoken in this place, we've had questions, I have written to you -- I have, in fact, many pieces of correspondence -- with respect to the Chinguacousy Health Services Centre. To date I have certainly received no answers from you and, more important, leadership in the community feels it has not had anything forthcoming from you particularly. In fact, the only response I have received is one sentence in the general, three-page press release two weeks ago.

No explanation has been given -- none whatsoever -- and it leaves me to conclude one of two things. One is that you do not understand -- and I say this with respect -- the implications of your decision, or perhaps you have not been made aware of the implications of your decision for the community of Brampton -- a decision, I might add, that many feel may very well stretch beyond the breaking point an already strained system.

Minister, knowing full well that I will do everything, as you would expect, to have you review and revisit that decision together with leaders in my community, will you at least sit down with my colleague the member for Brampton South and the leadership in the community, whether it be civic and/or a combination of people from the Chinguacousy health services board, a request I put to you as early as last winter? In fact, on December 18 I put it to you verbally and in writing.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member conclude his question, please?

Mr McClelland: Would you at least sit down and offer some sort of explanation and rationale for the decision you have made that has very serious implications for our community?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): Yes. I can say to the member I am prepared to do that. In fact, he may well know that such a meeting was actually going to be held today. That was prior to today being named budget day. We realized that it was not appropriate timing and we are going to restructure it.

There have been some problems in terms of communications from my office to the offices of the two MPPs involved in this, and for that I'm quite apologetic. On the day the press release was released I had given instructions that calls be placed to those offices. In fact what happened was that press releases were simply faxed to their constituency offices. That's not acceptable and I do apologize for that.

1420

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): As an example of another hospital waiting for funding, I believe you're aware that in my riding of Quinte the Trenton Memorial Hospital's physical plant is in very poor condition. It has both structural and functional problems, yet I would like to say that it's one of the best-run in the province.

In the summer of 1990 the then Minister of Health, the honourable Elinor Caplan, gave approval for the hospital to proceed with the plans, consistent with the innovative direction proposed by the hospital with advice from your ministry and in parallel with a comprehensive health organization feasibility development study. Minister, I might also add that over $5.5 million has been pledged locally towards this project. Can you tell me today when the hospital will be given the funding approval to proceed with the plans that have been discussed with your ministry?

Hon Ms Lankin: I would like to thank the member for the question, because it provides me with an opportunity to explain to a number of members in the House the process we're going through yet again.

At the end of January I announced that we were reviewing all capital approvals in the hospital sector, and as you may know, in conjunction with announcing a 1% transfer payment we felt it was important that approvals that were out there be consistent with both the new planning guidelines in terms of the number of patient-days per thousand, moving in that direction, and with respect to plans that wouldn't increase pressures on operating costs. We certainly ensured that projects that were already in the ground and under way were released from that review and went ahead.

The next group we focused on were those that had tenders out. There were a number whose tenders were actually expiring on April 30. Some we got extended to April 30. We've dealt with that batch and in this past week we gave the responses out.

We are now moving to the next group, which includes the hospital the member raises, the Trenton hospital. In fact I do concur with him that the hospital has taken great strides towards reducing patient-days per thousand. The review we hope will be done in a very expeditious way. I am not going to assure you, but I'm hopeful that by about the end of May we will have a response for the hospital about whether it can proceed and in what way it can proceed.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, you are aware that next week is Mental Health Week in Ontario. The Ontario division of the Canadian Mental Health Association wants your government to adopt as policy recommendation 1 of the 1988 Graham report, which gives priority to developing community-based mental health services and building partnerships between consumers, families, service providers and government.

I'd like to read a quote uttered in this chamber three years ago by the former member for Riverdale, who was also the NDP Health critic:

"We cannot deal with mental illness as though it were something contained entirely within the person who we suspect has mental illness. We have to deal with the economic, social and, dare I say, spiritual opportunities people need. The Graham report offers some hope in this regard."

The former NDP Health critic and now chief adviser to the Premier, David Reville, the Canadian Mental Health Association and local district health councils support the Graham report. Minister, do you support the Graham report?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): Yes, I think the work that went into the Graham report, and particularly some of the secondary reports that will be forthcoming that have involved consumer survivors and families in the development of those recommendations with respect to implementation, are very important pieces of work.

I can inform the member that as a result of the overview we did of the strategic directions and goals for the ministry the mental health delivery system is a priority of review for us in terms of trying to bring some linkages in the system. I think right now we have a system of facilities -- that is, psych hospitals and psych units in hospitals -- and we have a non-system of delivery on the community side. There is a tremendous opportunity to build proper linkages and deliver better services, and we are currently working on the plan for that. We have set ourselves some goalposts in terms of timing over the next few months to release elements of working documents, and I'm hopeful the member will see that there is some progress that is being made in this area.

Mr Jim Wilson: Minister, I appreciate what you're trying to do in this area, but I want to point out that it continues to be a disturbing fact in this province that 140 people with psychiatric problems are discharged into the community from hospitals every day without the necessary community supports in place.

In the Kitchener-Waterloo region hundreds of seriously ill psychiatric patients are being told to take a number and wait because of a lack of community-based services. Hundreds of patients are going without care, and no local referrals have been made since January 1990.

The Kitchener-Waterloo health council wants to develop better community-based services, but your ministry is refusing to help, and I quote from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of April 23. It says, "Council members noted that the ministry's latest position seems to fly in the face of its earlier commitment to the mentally ill."

The lack of mental health services in communities is reaching a crisis proportion and it carries a significant social pricetag. When can we expect a leap from philosophical agreement to concrete action in developing community-based mental health services?

Hon Ms Lankin: May I say, for a member of the Conservative Party, which was responsible for the deinstitutionalization of psychiatric patients in this province without putting in place any community supports at all, to raise these concerns and criticisms is taking things a bit too far.

May I just say, giving a word of credit to the Liberal government, that over a period of five years the kind of investment that went into starting to build the community network was substantial. Had we seen that from the third party at the time the policy of deinstitutionalization started, we would be much further ahead.

To answer the question, we'll see continued investment in the community side this year. We'll also see an effort to take what is a fragmented system of community delivery to try to work with those community deliverers, to try to put an end to the duplication of administration and other sorts of problems that take money away from direct delivery of services, and look at enhancing services within the very limited resources we have available.

We will also, in trying to bring together a comprehensive framework, hopefully for the first time be able to have a strategy of reallocation of dollars from the hospital side, the institutional psychiatric facility side, to the community.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of the Environment.

As you know, my riding of Lincoln has been selected as the proposed site for the location of a toxic waste facility, to be built and operated by the Ontario Waste Management Corp. The proposal is currently before an environmental assessment review board.

Recently evidence was brought forward that shows the facility will ultimately contaminate the groundwater in the area where the facility will be located, making the water unfit for human consumption. The thing is that we're talking about 3,000 acres to be contaminated. There is indication that it takes 500 years for this to migrate, but there are sand seams in that particular area; it's not all clay. I want the minister to know this before any decision is made.

It is unacceptable to me and the people of Lincoln why your ministry plans to proceed with the OWMC proposal in light of this disturbing evidence.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I know that this member's interest and concern about the proposal for a toxic waste facility goes back to the days when the party on that side was proposing it and when the party on this side was continuing with it, and he has certainly expressed his concern to me on very many occasions.

As the member knows, consideration of the facility is currently, and has been for lo these many months, the subject of a Consolidated Hearings Board hearing, and therefore it would be inappropriate for me to comment or to say anything that might prejudice the outcome of that hearing.

I want to say to the member that I certainly share his concern and dismay his community feels at the evidence that was presented this week. I look forward to the conclusion of that hearing and I'm quite sure that the evidence will be taken into account by the board.

Mr Hansen: The minister recently announced that disposal now ranks fourth -- we use the 3Rs first -- and that last among preferred options for dealing with toxic waste chemicals is disposal. This is a good-news item to the people in my riding who have been fighting the Ontario Waste Management Corp proposal.

Will this new evidence about contaminating the groundwater affect the ministry's position regarding the Ontario Waste Management Corp?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member is absolutely right. What I announced earlier this week was a shift in emphasis within my ministry from the traditional react and cure approach to an anticipate and prevent approach, which will lead us towards sustainable development, an approach that puts prevention at the core of the programs of my ministry.

The hierarchy to which the member refers is that in the case of toxic wastes, first, at the top of the hierarchy is preventing the creation of them in the first place; second, one has to recycle them as best one can; third, treat them in a way that nullifies their toxic effects, and finally, disposal. I can assure the member that the ordering of that hierarchy will be taken into account in any decisions that have to be taken with respect to the OWMC.

1430

ONTARIO HYDRO CONTRACT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Energy. I want to ask him again a question relating to the Manitoba purchase. That's the agreement between Ontario Hydro and Manitoba whereby Hydro is going to buy 1,000 megawatts of electricity from Manitoba starting in the year 2000.

There's an environmental assessment hearing taking place at the present time considering this issue, among others. Hydro has told us something that's very interesting. They're telling us that based on the information they have today, it's now cheaper to produce this electricity in Ontario than it is for us to buy it from Manitoba. They're also telling us that if we produce the electricity here, it's going to create 19,791 jobs in our province. You will know, Mr Speaker, that the minister has told us on several occasions that we have tremendous potential here for non-utility generation and that we can produce this power here, if needed. Does the minister continue to support the Manitoba purchase?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Acting Minister of Energy): As the member well knows, the Manitoba purchase was a contract between Ontario Hydro and Manitoba Hydro that was signed under the previous administration. The question, as the member has said, is now before the Environmental Assessment Board in the DSP hearing. The DSP hearing is looking at all the options for power over the next 25 years so that hopefully, for the first time in the Hydro planning process, we can get some objective, expert advice about how we should proceed in the future. I look forward to seeing the board's report and recommendations on that purchase.

Mr McGuinty: It's most interesting to hear the minister tell us about the objectivity and impartiality of the environmental assessment panel, but it was Ontario Hydro, acting under the direction of this government, that amended the demand-supply plan presently before the environmental assessment hearing, and with one fell swoop this government has deferred nuclear power in this province for 10 years and it has doubled its conservation targets.

I want to quote an Ontario Hydro official at the environmental assessment hearing, who was under cross-examination, in relation to Hydro's change of heart with respect to the cost of this electricity. I don't have the official's name. He said, "We didn't know that we were going to be in this situation in 1989, and you have to make decisions on the best information available at the time that you make them."

We now know it's cheaper to produce this electricity in the province than it is to buy it from Manitoba. We now know that if we produce it here, we're going to create some 19,791 jobs. In addition, we now know that if we cancel the deal today, it's going to cost us $82 million, but if we wait until the end of the environmental assessment hearing, it's going to cost us over $200 million. I ask the minister again, does he continue to support the Manitoba purchase?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member across the way, as he does on most occasions, seems to try to deal with issues in isolation. It's impossible to do that in the electrical planning process, as he well knows and understands. That's why this environmental assessment hearing is ongoing at the present time, so that we can look at the appropriate way to have a diverse and flexible energy system in this province in the future.

The member also knows that there are more issues at stake around the Manitoba purchase than just the question of the electricity. There is also the question of the transmission associated with that electricity, and therefore the availability of access to the system by the very non-utility generation proponents he's talking about. All of those are issues that have to be interrelated and understood by the environmental assessment hearing so that we can hopefully come to some reasonable conclusions about an appropriate system for the future.

AIR QUALITY

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Recent reports indicate that air quality in Ontario's cities is fast becoming unbearable and that in fact Toronto has the worst air quality of six major North American cities of similar size. In a report on air quality the government is quick to point the finger at vehicle emissions as the major source of smog and ozone depletion.

On the heels of Earth Day, I was glad to hear that one of the world's worst air quality offenders, Los Angeles, had found one way to curb smog. It is by buying electric trolley cars, and in fact 400 new trolley cars are being manufactured for Los Angeles by a Winnipeg firm. If Los Angeles can see the benefits of an environment-friendly mode of transportation, one that is clean and efficient, why has your ministry avoided reviewing the environmental benefits of trolleys and not endorsed this transportation mode for Ontario's major cities?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I am happy to tell the member that I do endorse trolleys as an environmentally sound way of providing public transit in cities. I have made those views known to the Toronto Transit Commission, and as I am sure the member is aware, the subsidy payments through my colleague the Minister of Transportation that have been in place in the province for some time assist in the purchase of trolley cars.

Mr Cousens: I am pleased with that, because we have a major problem if we continue to use diesel-, propane- or gasoline-powered machines as methods of transportation. It is so much cleaner to go with electricity and I am pleased you're confirming that is your direction. I guess what we really have to do is something to fight for the issue that faces Toronto in the future. If we can do anything, and you in particular in your important capacity as Minister of the Environment, to help these municipalities go electric, it would be an outstanding move.

Could you tell us what you could do to personally help make sure that Toronto and other municipalities that are looking at options will take very, very seriously the importance of the electric option as being the best one for the long term? What will you do to help make that happen?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think what we can do is make our position very clear to the municipality and we have done that. We have also financed studies in order to assist the municipality and the TTC in doing comparisons of the benefits of trolleys as opposed to other kinds of transportation. But as the member will well know, the decision as to the mode of transit to have within Metropolitan Toronto lies with the responsible agencies within Metropolitan Toronto. We have made our position clear. As I am sure the member is aware, they have that issue currently under discussion and are inviting public comment. We were pleased to comment.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. People in London and Middlesex are profoundly concerned about the protection of agricultural land in the area identified for annexation in the recent arbitrator's report. Much of this land is class 1, 2 and 3 farm land. It is essential that it be protected. I would like to know how this land will be protected.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I appreciate the question from the member for Middlesex, who has talked to me on a regular basis about the annexation question in London. The first point, which I think the member would understand, and this point was confirmed by Mr Sewell when he was asked to comment about the annexation in London, is that it really doesn't matter whether agricultural land is within a city or within a county. What matters are the planning rules that we have in the province and that's why we have decided under the Sewell commission to redesign the planning process in the Planning Act.

Also, the arbitrator has put provisions in his recommendations that say, not that agricultural land will only be protected for 10 years, as the critic for the Tory party said today, but that agricultural land will be protected through the planning process; that a new official plan will have to be designed and will have to be put together; that agricultural land will be designated and protected, but then, even after a new official plan is designed, if there are any changes after that to agricultural land in addition to that protection, 10 more years of protection exist. That means agricultural land in the new city of London will be better protected than any agricultural land in Ontario.

Mrs Mathyssen: You talked about planning as the key to protecting this land. Will that planning requirement extend to the county? Because as you may know, Middlesex farm land is under duress in the county as well as being under duress from the new city annexed area.

Hon Mr Cooke: The specific recommendations in the Brant report in terms of planning and the 10-year protection after any official plan changes would not, of course, apply to the county, but the county will have to abide by any changes the Sewell commission will recommend in terms of the planning process. I'm absolutely convinced that his report and the new planning process will provide substantial protection for agricultural land in Ontario.

1440

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a question for the Solicitor General. In October of last year you made a commitment in this House that you would do something about automatic drivers' licence suspensions for persons convicted of dealing in drugs. Seven weeks later, instead of responding in this House to me, you wrote a letter saying, "I'm sorry; I'm no longer responsible for the anti-drug secretariat." Since the anti-drug secretariat is now shut down, will you make a commitment in this House, and act to provide our police with the tools necessary to fight drug traffickers, or will you become or be known as the modern-day Pontius Pilate, washing your hands of this problem and doing nothing while Toronto burns?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I would like to refer the question to the Minister of Health, not on the basis of washing my hands of it but putting it where the question properly belongs. I thought the member would have understood that after having been informed on three occasions now.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for the Provincial Anti-Drug Strategy): As the member well knows, the responsibility for the anti-drug strategy for Ontario was transferred to the portfolio of the Minister of Health last summer, and I have been working with people in the ministry and the staff who have come over from the anti-drug secretariat to develop a broader, more comprehensive substance abuse program. I can assure the member that in the context of that development work the interministerial capacity of our work continues, and that our work with the Solicitor General's ministry and other ministries around initiatives of enforcement, as it is related to the anti-drug strategy, continues to be an important part of our focus.

Mr Ruprecht: Unfortunately, that was not my question. I'll get to the Minister of Health some other day but today it's the Solicitor General. I ask him or you -- it doesn't matter who answers this question -- what about automatic drivers' licence suspensions for people dealing in drugs? That was my question. Now to my supplementary -- they simply don't understand this.

In the last five years in Metro Toronto, the number of individuals charged with drug-related offences has doubled. The annual police report shows 38,556 violent crimes in 1991, a 9.3% increase; arson in Toronto has soared 28.7%; robberies 18% and sexual assaults 10%. Our Community Against Drugs has now in frustration produced a card -- this one here -- which simply says that our Toronto neighbourhoods cannot survive another summer of drug trafficking problems.

Mr Solicitor General, will you commit today to come with me on a tour to these struggling communities and experience at first hand how your policies affect our real citizens?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member persists in directing the questions to the wrong minister if he's talking about the anti-drug strategy. He's now talking about policing questions. Since he had started off in that vein, perhaps he could've remained with the Solicitor General.

However, let me say that I do know this member has a genuine interest in this issue and that he has on a number of occasions raised concerns with respect to both the enforcement around drug laws and policing aspects, as well as treatment aspects. It's a broad-ranging interest he has, and I'd be pleased to work with the member to try to continue to address these issues. I want to assure him that the transfer from the Solicitor General to the Ministry of Health does not mean that we will not continue an enforcement aspect to the strategy, but it does mean we are going to look at major enhancements with respect to treatment.

ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. It concerns the recently announced improvements to environmental approval systems. In your statement to the Legislature on April 15 you indicated your reforms will fall into four categories: environmental assessment, land use planning reviews, certificates of approval and waste management approvals.

Minister, under the reforms you are proposing, would an existing eight-room rural school in Simcoe county be permitted to double the size of the property and double the size of the septic tank system to accommodate increased enrolment, or do the reforms you are proposing end rural schools in Simcoe county?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I have to say to the member that the announcements I made were strictly administrative and procedural enhancements of the way in which the ministry deals with applications; they were not changes in standards or in policies. But I know the concern he has raised with respect to rural schools and the servicing of those schools is one that is very real and that is felt across the province. I'm happy to be able to tell him that we are aware of that concern and, in conjunction with my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs, are certainly addressing that issue.

Mr McLean: In supplementary, it has been made very clear on different occasions that in some cases there may have to be 100 acres added to the size of the acreage in order to put in the septic systems. I have a copy of a letter, Madam Minister, that you had written to a member. It said, "In many cases, planning can eliminate the need for rural institutions entirely." This is your letter, Madam Minister. We are concerned that rural schools in Ontario will not be able to be expanded. That's really what the question is and it's what the school board members are really wanting to know. If there's an eight-room school, can that school be doubled in size? Can the lot be doubled, the septic tank doubled? Would your ministry approve, providing it meets all the requirements of the environmental assessment?

Hon Mrs Grier: The issue here is the servicing of schools and whether servicing of septic tanks is something that is any longer acceptable for schools, for homes, for shopping centres. We know the problems with contaminated groundwater across this province and we know the problems that municipalities have had in finding the financing to put in communal services.

We realize that is a very real issue. It is an issue that is being looked at by the Sewell commission with respect to land use planning in the province. It's an issue that's being looked at in my ministry with respect to servicing policies. All I can say to the member at this point is that he has a very valid concern, one that is shared by many members of this House and one that is shared by me as the Minister of the Environment.

1450

LEGISLATIVE CHANNEL

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. With the new programming schedule recently foisted upon us by our local cable companies, many of my constituents in York East are now unable to receive the other parliamentary station on the channels available to them on their converters.

In my riding the parliamentary program is available on channel 55, but quite a number of the older converters only range up to channel 39. This has been a concern especially of the seniors in my riding, who cannot afford to upgrade their converters. Although I realize the channel a program will air on is a decision that is made by the CRTC, I would like to ask, Madam Minister, if there is anything our government can do to restore programming to an accessible channel for the majority of our viewers.

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): Actually, thank you very much. I have been approached by other members with this very same question, because it does relate to the access by constituents to the legislative channel and their ability to watch their member in this Legislature.

I am aware of the situation. I have asked the people in my department to talk with the cable company and to check with the CRTC. Unfortunately the CRTC does not have any regulations in place concerning priority or channel location; therefore, Rogers has not violated anything with the CRTC. I have spoken personally to people at Rogers and I have asked that my department look at this situation. Officials at Rogers have indicated they are prepared to attempt to make some low-cost converters available to people who call them.

Mr Malkowski: I find your answer unsatisfactory. The problem with the response is that a lot of people are unaware that if they complain to the cable company they'll be able to receive this low-cost converter. As I have stated, the parliamentary channel should be accessible to all Ontarians. How do you intend to solve this problem?

Hon Mrs Haslam: Those who know me know how tenacious I can be. I'm going to be writing to Ted Rogers, the president of Rogers Communications, which is the parent company of the company we all deal with, Rogers Cable TV. I'm going to tell him how disappointed I am, how I am very upset about this situation. I have spoken personally to people with Rogers. I will ask them to move the legislative channel so it is as close as possible to the federal House of Commons TV service.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. No doubt everyone in this House will be aware that this week is National Consumer Week. The minister has been doing her best to do a good job. I know she's been working hard. She's been working really hard at it to become the champion of consumer causes. But I find it very difficult to stand up and say I support what this minister has done if she's not willing to bring in consumer protection legislation. How can this minister, who is part of a government that is self-proclaiming with respect to having been granted the support of the people, being a government of the people, stand up and say she is working on behalf of consumers this week and from now on as the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations if she's not bringing forward consumer protection legislation? After today's budget we're going to find out what she's done for consumers with respect to preventing them from being gouged by the Treasurer with all the tax increases they're going to see, which will further erode consumer confidence.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member complete his question, please.

Mr Cordiano: Can the minister stand up and answer what she's going to do on behalf of consumers after today's budget?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I must say I'm not surprised to hear that my critic across the floor is having trouble standing up and supporting anything I'm doing, given the role of the opposition over there to criticize everything, good or bad. I want to point out that consumer protection is indeed a major priority of mine, and I have had results in many of the things I've been doing.

In terms of the new consumer protection legislation, it continues to be a major priority. I've said before in this House and I'll say again that the draft the Liberal government did was not good enough. The marketplace has changed drastically and continues to change, and there are a number of issues that weren't dealt with adequately or weren't dealt with at all in that, and I'm now in the consulting stages again with the stakeholder groups which were involved at that time. They're very pleased with the process we're engaged in, and we're coming very close to a conclusion. I hope to be coming forth very soon with this new legislation, which will indeed be well improved.

QUESTION PERIOD

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for the Provincial Anti-Drug Strategy): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wanted to point out to the people here that this has been the most interesting, informative and productive question period I have seen since I was elected to these chambers. In your never-ending quest to find ways of bringing order and civility to this Legislature, perhaps you might look around and see what it is that's different that has brought about this occurrence today, and we might try to re-create that on future days.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On the point of order.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): As much as I would like to indicate that it is nice to have the leader of the New Democrats here in the House, I note again that he is not, although he's just coming back. The other two leaders are not here. Perhaps it has something to do with the generosity of spirit among the private members. They're watching, I know, from the lockup on their monitors from the media.

I must say, though, that I did find, interestingly enough, that there were very good questions very well put, although I note that in terms of length we again have accommodated the usual number of questions, just in case anybody was counting. I do that every day because I run a very big list as we try to organize the day, but I felt today was a very productive day and thank the ministers, obviously, for their responses, given civilly mostly. They may not have been the right answers for all of us, but there has been a bit of a turn and I think this has been a very productive day.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: If I might just say, I think the reason why question period has worked so well today is that Premier Bob has been seconded to the province of Alberta, and is doing a very good job there, I might add.

The Speaker: To the point of order raised by all three members, far be it from me to comment on the reasons why this particular question period went as well as it did. I'm simply grateful for good things when they occur.

JAYNE SUTHERLAND

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Following the rules of the House, I believe my privileges as a member are going to be impacted by the departure of Ms Jayne Sutherland from the service of our PC caucus to the service of the federal government House leader. I feel that in making notation of her departure, all members of this House would wish to convey to Ms Jayne Sutherland our best wishes for success in the federal House and her health and happiness always. She has been an exemplary employee of our caucus and of public service to everyone in this Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member's point of privilege, indeed, if it may be of some assistance to her, we're about to reach that portion of the proceedings where we have petitions. She may in fact wish to petition someone to stay on for a while.

PETITIONS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition. It says:

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession" -- and this afternoon we'll probably hear more about it;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I'm presenting a petition signed by 133 constituents. It states as follows:

"Whereas we believe that all workers in the province of Ontario should have the right to freely become members of a union; and

"Whereas we believe in the fundamental rights of union members to exercise their right to strike without threat of being replaced by non-union workers during a legal strike situation;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, members of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers Local 680" -- Port Weller Dry Docks, I might add -- "support the proposed reform of the Ontario Labour Relations Act and hereby urge all members of the Legislative Assembly to endorse these changes on behalf of working people across Ontario."

Please give this your utmost consideration. I affix my signature to this.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

That is signed by some 237 people in my area of the province. I too have affixed my name to this petition.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I'm standing to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents of mine who are looking at the economic circumstances of the province and where they think that money could be more appropriately spent -- in health and education and not on bilingual signs in the province of Ontario -- and that the minister and the Legislature reconsider or look at alternative plans for spending these funds in converting bilingual signs in the province of Ontario.

RENT REGULATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition that I wish to present to the Legislature against Bill 121, the rent control legislation. It's addressed to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the proposed Rent Control Act, Bill 121, will prevent apartment owners from carrying out needed repairs to apartment buildings; and

"Whereas this law, if enacted, will be detrimental to the interests of tenants and landlords across the province; and

"Whereas the rent freeze legislation, Bill 4, has already put thousands of workers on the unemployment rolls and Bill 121 threatens the permanent loss of 25,000 jobs,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To scrap the proposed Rent Control Act; to encourage the government of Ontario to work with tenants, landlords and all interested parties to develop a new law which will be fair to all; and to ensure that in this new legislation the interests of housing affordability and tenant protection are balanced with a recognition of the importance of allowing needed repairs to rental buildings to be financed and completed."

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Mr Speaker, I have a further petition. I've affixed my signature to the previous one, sir, as I do to this one. It is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations;

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a quick-fix solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Hansen from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the committee's report and moved its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 154, An Act to prohibit the Charging of Fees for the Cashing of Government Cheques / Loi interdisant de demander des droits pour l'encaissement de chèques du gouvernement.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to suspend the proceedings until 4 pm.

Agreed to.

The House recessed at 1504.

1600

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET SPEECH / DISCOURS SUR LE BUDGET

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, government notice of motion number 6.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): Government notice of motion number 6, Mr Laughren.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Mr Speaker, I rise to present the 1992 budget for the province of Ontario.

For this province, the budget is more than just a statement outlining income and spending intentions for the next 12 months. The budget represents an opportunity to bring to life important principles that the people of this province share with one another.

Greater social equity, economic renewal and fair and effective fiscal management go hand in hand. They cannot be separated. In this budget we bring these goals together.

For two years, our province has been in the grip of a recession. Many individuals, businesses --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): If the Treasurer could wait just a moment while the pages distribute. Before proceeding, I'd like to know if any members have not received their copies. With the indulgence of the House, may I say that our pages delivered those copies to you in 12 seconds.

Hon Mr Laughren: In view of the fact that members didn't have their copies when I started, could I move that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

The Speaker: Mr Laughren has moved, seconded by Mr Rae, that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government. Does the Treasurer have a few comments to make?

Hon Mr Laughren: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to make a few comments and I thought that I had best start from the beginning, as some members were preoccupied previously.

Mr Speaker, I rise to present the 1992 budget for the province of Ontario.

For this province, the budget is more than just a statement outlining income and spending intentions for the next 12 months. The budget represents an opportunity to bring to life important principles that the people of this province share with one another.

Greater social equity, economic renewal and fair and effective fiscal management go hand in hand. They cannot be separated. In this budget we bring these goals together.

For two years, our province has been in the grip of a recession. Many individuals, businesses and communities have been hurt by forces over which they have no control. Many more are concerned about their future.

In this budget, we reaffirm our government's commitment to the people of this province. We are addressing Ontario's immediate priorities in a way that is consistent with our principles and with a view to the long term.

The people of Ontario want to hear from their government about how we are taking action on their priorities. Their fundamental priorities are clear. The first is jobs. The second is human services, such as health care and education. The third is keeping the deficit in check.

We are responding in this budget. We are taking immediate steps to create jobs, we are maintaining the important public services, and we are controlling the deficit.

Nous prenons des mesures immédiates pour créer des emplois. Nous maintenons des services publics importants. Nous limitons le déficit.

This is not a quick-fix strategy. In the teeth of a tough recession, with massive changes in the global economy, we can best meet the priorities of the people of Ontario by building on the fundamental strengths of the Ontario economy. That is why this government is taking concrete steps to create jobs, train workers, increase business investment and sustain the public services that mark a decent and caring society.

I am sure all Ontarians reacted with pride to the recent news that a United Nations survey ranked Canada as the best place to live in the entire world. Our province, at the heart of Canada, is indeed one of the best places in the world to live, to raise a family and to do business. This government, working with all of our partners, is confident that Ontario will emerge stronger and better from these tough times with a dynamic business sector, a productive workforce and affordable human services.

I have heard from thousands of Ontario citizens over the last few months. In January, this government did something different: We opened our books to show the public the challenges we faced in developing our budget for 1992. We asked Ontarians to let us know their opinions. More than 16,000 people called or wrote to request copies of the pre-budget materials published in January. I received more than 4,300 letters and submissions with advice on the budget. My cabinet colleagues and I met with 225 different groups. Many of my caucus colleagues held public meetings on the budget in their ridings.

I want to thank all the people who gave us ideas and suggestions. The process has shown the value of sharing information and involving Ontarians in decisions that affect them.

The people of Ontario do not expect miracles, but they do want leadership. They want us to take action on their priorities. Above all, they want to see Ontario working. This budget meets Ontario's priorities, and I would like to highlight just how it does that.

We are creating three major funds to support new jobs. First, we are launching, in cooperation with private firms and community groups, the Jobs Ontario training fund. This three-year, $1.1-billion program will provide jobs and training for up to 100,000 of Ontario's long-term unemployed.

Second, we are beginning a five-year, $2.3-billion strategic capital program, the Jobs Ontario capital fund, to prepare our transportation, communications and environmental systems for the 21st century. Approximately 10,000 jobs will be created this year alone in building these lasting assets.

Third, we are expanding our support for non-profit housing by 20,000 units through the Jobs Ontario homes fund, generating some $2.1 billion in capital activity in the construction industry.

To support Ontario businesses in investing and creating jobs, we are reducing taxes on manufacturing, small business and resource industries. The benefits from this support will be available to more than 200,000 businesses in the province.

To fulfil our commitment to maintaining public services, we have begun the work of restructuring and streamlining programs to provide more effective service to the public and to ensure that public services are both affordable and sustainable.

We are maintaining our universal health care system. By working with the health care community to make the system more effective, we are limiting growth in health care spending to 2% this year, down from an average of more than 11% for the last 10 years.

We are continuing to reform our social assistance program, and we are providing training and jobs to help recipients get back into the workforce.

We are reforming tax grants for seniors to redirect support through tax credits to the lowest-income seniors, who need it the most.

1610

We have brought our deficit down from the unacceptable level we faced in January. In 1992-93, our operating deficit will be $6 billion, and our total budgetary requirements this year will be $9.9 billion.

We have found ways to cut our operating expenditure growth by over $3 billion this fiscal year. Fifteen ministries will actually have a drop in spending in 1992-93.

The overall rate of growth in total spending in this budget is the lowest in 39 years. Not since 1953 has the government of Ontario had a spending increase lower than this year's 4.9%. Excluding social assistance and public debt interest, total spending will grow by only 1.5% -- less than the rate of inflation.

We have endeavoured to strike a balance in meeting the priorities of creating jobs, maintaining services and controlling the deficit. To achieve this balanced approach, we have had to raise taxes. We have done so only after putting a tremendous effort into making government more efficient. And although personal income taxes are going up, combined federal-provincial income taxes for individuals earning less than $53,000 will be no higher in 1993 than they are now as a result of this budget.

This has been a tough year for this government, as well as for many workers and businesses in Ontario. The recession has taken a severe toll on our revenues and it has increased demand for services, such as social assistance, which support the unemployed.

Let me deal directly with the federal government's role in the Ontario economy and this recession.

The recession has been deepened and lengthened by the federal government's policy of keeping interest rates and the dollar high, and by its imposition of the GST. Coupled with the federal government's free trade agreement, these policies have devastated Ontario's manufacturing jobs. And the federal government has not delivered on the adjustment programs it promised.

Premier Rae asked the federal government in February to participate in a national program to create employment through capital works. They have yet to respond to our offer of cooperation.

As if all that were not enough, the federal government has also backed away from its commitment to Canada's health, post-secondary education and social assistance programs. In this year alone, the federal government's limits on its payments for these important programs will cost Ontario $4.5 billion -- a loss of more than $1,700 for a family of four in this province.

All the provinces have suffered from the diminished federal role in maintaining this country's human services, such as health care, but almost half the total provincial losses are being borne by Ontario alone.

This government is determined to maintain these programs. I believe Ontarians are willing to support accessible health care, post-secondary education for our students and social assistance for people who are most in need.

Ontario has always been a strong supporter of the federal equalization program, and I continue to believe that Ontarians are willing to share with others in less prosperous regions.

We will pursue aggressively new federal-provincial arrangements that are fair to Ontario, that respect Ontario taxpayers and that preserve the programs that play such an important role in the Canadian standard of living.

And we will shoulder our responsibility to deal with the fiscal pressures that have resulted from federal policies. We will ensure that the people of Ontario do not have to carry an unbearable burden of debt interest costs in the years ahead. We are managing spending better. We are preserving important services by making them more cost-effective. We are maintaining our commitment to fairness. And we are contributing to economic recovery and renewal.

This government took office when the recession was already under way. Throughout our first 18 months, we have been working to reduce the hardship caused by the recession and to increase Ontario's strength as a good place for people to live, work and invest. All of us realize profound changes have happened, and are still happening, to our economy. This budget addresses both immediate and long-term needs to create jobs and secure Ontario's place in the world economy.

The recession has lasted longer and gone deeper than most expected. Although it began as a made-in-Canada recession, it has been lengthened by the slowdown in other economies, particularly the United States.

I am heartened that some signs of an economic recovery have begun to appear. Since the turn of the year we have seen a pickup in the US economy and, more significantly, in Ontario's exports to that very important market. Last year's decline in interest rates and in the value of the Canadian dollar, while smaller than economic circumstances would warrant, have helped set the stage for economic growth this year. Real output is expected to expand by 2.3% in fiscal 1992-93, and by approximately 4% over the medium term as the recovery takes hold. The economy is expected to create over 125,000 jobs by the spring of 1993.

This government cannot control external forces such as interest rates or the pace of recovery in the United States. We can, however, help to secure investment in Ontario's future by redirecting policies towards increasing productivity and encouraging innovation.

The slow pace of economic recovery shows the importance of focusing on the fundamental challenge of economic change.

I do not need to tell the worker who is moving from manual to computerized production about economic change. Nor do I need to explain to the software entrepreneur what it means to look for a steady supply of innovative programmers. They know our economy is changing and that we must all change with it.

By setting our targets and taking concrete action on jobs, training and investment, this government is joining with business and labour to reshape our economy for the 21st century.

I want to turn now to the specific initiatives in this budget. We are determined to help the long-term unemployed. Many need training. Many need child care support so that they can return to work. And all of them want to find good jobs.

To respond, we are creating the Jobs Ontario training fund -- an innovative, three-year training and employment program. It will help the long-term unemployed who are social assistance recipients or whose unemployment insurance benefits have run out. It will also benefit employers and provide training opportunities for workers who are now employed.

The Jobs Ontario training fund will provide a one-year training credit of up to $10,000 to an employer for each eligible unemployed worker hired for a new job. At least half of the training credit must be used to train the new employee, and the rest may be used to train other workers.

We estimate that this $1.1-billion program will support up to 100,000 jobs over the next three years. It will also help provide training for as many as 80,000 other Ontarians who are already working.

In addition, funding for up to 20,000 subsidized child care spaces will be made available to meet the needs of program participants. Affordable and reliable child care is essential for ensuring that parents with young children, particularly women who are single parents, can participate fully in the workforce. These child care spaces represent an unprecedented 40% expansion of subsidized child care spaces in the province.

The Minister of Skills Development will be launching the Jobs Ontario training fund shortly and will be working with business, labour and community interests to expand it across the province as soon as possible.

This major new initiative is only part of what this government is doing to support Ontario's workers. We will spend $930 million on training and adjustment programs this year -- an increase of 24% from last year. This is the largest commitment to worker training ever made by a government in this province.

We are also working with business, labour, trainers, educators, aboriginal peoples, community groups and other levels of government to reform our training programs so that we get better value for our training dollar. This summer we will appoint the governing body of the new Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. OTAB will help make training and adjustment programs more responsive to the needs of employers, workers and communities by involving all of them in developing new approaches to training.

1620

Our elementary, secondary and post-secondary institutions will also play a vital role in the training and education of the Ontario workforce of the 1990s and beyond.

We are investing in Ontario's workers in another way by supporting pay equity for women. Pay equity means making sure women get paid fair value for the work they do, and it encourages more women to enter the workforce. Despite current fiscal pressures, our commitment to pay equity remains solid. In 1992-93, the government will spend $285 million to help implement pay equity.

This government remains committed to its plan to contribute almost $1 billion annually towards pay equity once it is fully implemented. That's commitment. Investment in people contributes to the skills and potential of our workforce.

Public investment in good roads, safe drinking water, reliable public transit and new schools improves our quality of life and significantly increases productivity and future private investment. This leads, in turn, to more high-quality, well-paying jobs in Ontario when business takes advantage of the benefits of locating and staying in Ontario.

To meet these needs, I am establishing the Jobs Ontario capital fund. The fund will invest $2.3 billion over the next five years to strengthen Ontario's infrastructure. In 1992-93, $500 million will be allocated, resulting in nearly 10,000 direct and indirect jobs in the first year alone.

Over the coming years this program will fund projects that support Ontario's transition to a more productive, knowledge-based economy, including: telecommunications projects that provide the basis for future business growth; environmental projects that ensure clean beaches and safe drinking water; new investments to support state-of-the-art upgrades and expansion of public transit; major highways essential to reach export markets and facilitate just-in-time delivery; and construction of new child care spaces to support the Jobs Ontario training fund.

The Jobs Ontario capital fund is in addition to our regular investment in roads, hospitals, schools, homes for the aged and other projects. This year we will spend a total of $3.9 billion on capital renewal, supporting over 75,000 jobs.

The government is making these investments now to secure more jobs and better jobs for Ontario workers in the 1990s and into the next century.

The government will also take a more innovative approach to capital investment and financing in Ontario. This will include consideration of changes in funding arrangements for schools, hospitals, universities, colleges and municipalities. It will include streamlined approvals and new ways to finance capital investments, such as in the area of transportation.

Over the next few months, we will consult with our transfer partners to restructure our capital financing arrangements, with implementation commencing in 1992-93. The expected impact of these measures is reflected in the medium-term fiscal outlook. With these measures, Ontario will ensure that the long-term nature of capital investment is more accurately recognized, as is the practice in other jurisdictions. Legislation necessary to implement this approach will be introduced. Later this year I will make a separate annual report to the Legislature on the province's capital budget and investments.

We are also moving in this budget to create jobs in the construction industry and meet the need for affordable housing.

I am announcing today the Jobs Ontario homes fund, with a commitment to support 20,000 new non-profit housing units. These homes will be allocated over three years and are in addition to the 10,000 non-profit homes that were provided in last year's budget.

Building these 20,000 homes will generate some $2.1 billion in work for the construction industry, a clear example of how we can create jobs and also meet important community needs.

Let me sum up the impact of these major budget initiatives. They will support jobs that provide training in new skills under the Jobs Ontario training fund; jobs in building strategic capital for the future under the Jobs Ontario capital fund; jobs in constructing and renewing our basic capital infrastructure; and jobs in building affordable housing under the Jobs Ontario homes fund. Together these initiatives will create or support 90,000 jobs for Ontario workers in 1992-93, and an even greater number next year. Scores of communities and thousands of businesses across the province will share in the benefits. These initiatives demonstrate this government's commitment to jobs.

We also know that private investment is the key to the creation of secure jobs in Ontario. Business investment brings with it new and improved technology and better ways of organizing production. This is the basis for improving our competitive position in the global economy. For investment to be effective and profitable in the new economy, it requires a highly skilled labour force, a stable and secure social system and first-rate transportation and communications facilities.

Ontario ranks with the best in the world in meeting these needs. But they cannot be taken for granted. We are undertaking important measures in this budget to maintain and build on these strengths. I am introducing tax measures that will encourage investment and promote restructuring and will make Ontario an even better place to do business.

For most types of business, Ontario's corporate tax system is competitive with other jurisdictions when payroll taxes and employer-paid health care costs are considered. Yet we cannot be satisfied with our past successes in attracting investment. Strategic investment in plant and equipment and new technologies are vital to Ontario's economic renewal.

In this budget, we are taking concrete steps to foster private sector investment and innovation and help create jobs.

Ontario's corporate tax rate on manufacturing and processing profits, as well as farming, mining, logging and fishing profits, will be reduced from 14.5% to 13.5%.

Ontario will increase the capital cost allowance rate from 25% to 35% for new investment in manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment.

To help modernize the transportation industry, Ontario will increase capital cost allowance rates on large trucks and tractors as well as railway cars and specified equipment.

Ontario will broaden eligibility under the research and development superallowance to increase research and development in the province.

Ontario will enrich its labour-sponsored venture capital corporation legislation by increasing the maximum annual investment limit to $5,000 and maximum firm size to $50 million in assets.

Together these measures will provide over $90 million in support to investment on a full-year basis. These tax adjustments will benefit businesses, large and small, across Ontario.

We are also providing additional support for small business.

We will reduce the corporate income tax rate for small business from 10% to 9.5%. This rate reduction is effective midnight tonight and will provide small business with $20 million in tax assistance this year alone.

We will reduce the paperwork burden on small businesses by allowing them to pay the employer health tax in one annual instalment instead of four times a year.

We will complement the small business financing program announced in the federal budget.

This government will place a new emphasis on working with industry sectors to address common challenges and improve the prospects for investment.

In today's economy, both competition and cooperation among firms contribute to strong economic performance. Competition is an important driver of innovation. Through cooperation, firms in a sector can accomplish projects that an individual company would not undertake. The benefits from this cooperation can be shared by all firms, enabling them to move to higher value added activities.

1630

My colleagues are already working with many important industries to strengthen Ontario's competitive fundamentals, and we intend to expand these efforts. We are allocating $150 million over three years for the creation and operation of a sectoral partnership fund. Assistance will be available to cooperative projects in an industrial sector that lead to higher value added activities. Projects will emerge from consultations between the government and representatives of business, labour and other parties critical to the success of a sector. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology will provide further details.

As members of this Legislature will know, Ontario is a large and diverse province with unique communities and regions. Economic development strategies must include a recognition of local strengths and needs. The people who live and work in these communities know their areas best and must be involved in developing new economic solutions. We are working with local leaders to plan for economic renewal at the community level.

Over the past year a number of communities in northern Ontario have had to face the harsh realities of recession and restructuring. The government has been there to help. Through the northern Ontario heritage fund we will provide $30 million to strengthen and diversify the northern Ontario economy this year. This will bring the government's total contributions to the fund to date to $165 million.

In Kapuskasing the government worked successfully with the Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co, its workers, a new investor, the community and Ontario Hydro to bring in new ownership and a mill modernization program. The Ontario investment and worker ownership program helped bring about this new partnership.

In Elliot Lake and the surrounding area we are assisting the transition to a more diversified economy through a special $65-million Ontario Hydro package.

In Sault Ste Marie, Algoma Steel, the United Steelworkers and lenders have concluded a historic agreement to restructure steelmaking operations and ensure that Algoma continues to generate jobs and income for the community through a revitalized worker-owned company.

To assist forestry-dependent communities, Ontario has been working closely with the industry and the federal government to overturn the latest efforts by the United States to impose an import duty on softwood lumber. The government has also been working with the industry to launch a European lumber marketing venture that will help diversify markets, increase value added and improve the industry's longer-term viability.

Supporting the development of mining communities is a priority for the government. This summer the Ontario geological survey will be moving its headquarters to Sudbury. This will enhance Sudbury's role as a centre of mining development and expertise.

Ontario has accumulated a large and valuable store of information on its geological resources which is key to continuing mineral exploration efforts. A total of $11 million will be allocated over the next three years to computerize the geoscience records and maps of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. This will help to encourage and improve the effectiveness of exploration in the province. The government will also be working with the mining industry in northern communities over the next few months to review incentives for mineral exploration and development.

In our rural communities, agriculture is the mainstay. The government has been working with the farming community to bring long-term stability to this sector. Through the new commodity loan guarantee program we are providing farmers with low-interest working capital. Ontario farmers are expected to benefit from $50 million or more in operating loans from this program in 1992-93. The Minister of Agriculture and Food is continuing to work with the farming community on other innovative solutions to address the need for long-term financing.

At the same time we are working with the federal government to preserve the benefits of the supply management system under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Supply management offers farmers a measure of stability in the face of international subsidy wars. And we are continuing to work with the food processing industry to support innovation and productivity enhancements that will ensure a steady demand for Ontario's farm products.

While provincial and federal efforts to reduce tobacco consumption are generating significant public health benefits, a substantial burden of adjustment is falling on Ontario's tobacco farmers. An earlier adjustment assistance program, cost-shared with the federal government, successfully helped farmers to get out of tobacco production. The province will continue these efforts and will seek federal participation in this initiative.

Ontario is home to a horse breeding and racing industry that provides a substantial number of jobs and other economic benefits. The Ontario Racing Commission will be working to strengthen the industry by expanding simulcasting and allowing teletheatres. In addition to the benefits provided to the horse racing industry, the government will realize over $10 million this year through these measures.

Many communities, especially those in border areas, have expressed interest in expanding gambling as a way of promoting tourism. The government will establish casinos by working with interested communities and consulting with charitable and other organizations. In addition to the tourism and employment benefits, this measure will provide the province with new revenues.

We are working with the federal government to implement its offer to collect provincial tobacco taxes and alcohol levies at border crossing points. Collection of these charges will reduce tax-based differences in price between products sold domestically and those brought in from the United States.

Recently the Chair of Management Board of Cabinet announced a program to move government operations to many communities across the province. Among those to benefit will be St Catharines, whose economy has been rocked by major plant closures. A total of 1,400 jobs will be moved to that city. Other communities benefiting from the program include Windsor, Chatham, Brantford, Niagara Falls, Guelph, Orillia, Peterborough, Kingston, Elliot Lake and Haileybury.

In total, over 5,000 jobs will be involved in the moves over the next five years. These moves will diversify the economic base of many communities.

I have spoken at length about jobs, the first priority of Ontarians. I turn now to two other priorities addressed in this budget: maintaining services and keeping the deficit in check.

The people of Ontario want us to preserve important human services such as health care. But they also want government to control its costs.

This fiscal year we have reduced the growth in provincial operating expenditures by over $3 billion. In the face of lower-than-expected revenues, our operating spending this year will be $50.9 billion -- $800 million lower than the target we set for ourselves a year ago, despite the demand for services caused by the recession. We are holding the increase in total spending to 4.9%, yet we are still meeting the priorities of Ontario citizens.

The $3-billion reduction in expenditure growth has been achieved through a number of measures, including internal government efficiencies, limits on transfer payments and major program restructuring.

In January a $160-million transition fund was provided to help hospitals, schools, colleges and universities restructure and reform their public services. In doing so, we will also preserve services and minimize job losses. Ministers are working with representatives from these sectors, including employers, employees and their representatives, clients and their communities, to make services more cost-effective and efficient. Similarly other transfer partners such as municipalities and community agencies are also working with their ministers to develop strategies aimed at making their services both affordable and more effective.

The government has also provided leadership in the area of labour relations by negotiating a settlement with its employees' union that responds to the need for cooperation and restraint. The government is encouraged by public sector unions and employers who have recognized the difficult economic times and who have responded with balanced, creative and affordable settlements. Maintaining services and preserving jobs will require a continuing commitment to achieving innovative and affordable settlements through the collective bargaining process.

One thing that came through loud and clear in our pre-budget consultations is that people want politicians and public officials to tighten their belts the same as other people across the province have had to do. We have heard the message to control our own spending, and we are responding.

1640

Salaries of cabinet ministers and MPPs are frozen for the second year in a row. Salaries of the 3,900 most senior managers in the government are also frozen for 1992. The government and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union have negotiated a creative agreement which includes a wage increase of 1% in 1992 for government employees. Non-salary overhead costs for all ministries are being cut by 10% this year, saving about $200 million. This includes reductions in spending on items such as consulting services, supplies, equipment and travel. Ministry spending on communications is also being cut by 10%.

In both public and private sectors, front-line workers are being empowered and organizations are being streamlined. We will be reducing the size of the public service by at least 2,500 from its 1992-93 level over the next two years through attrition, early retirement incentives and redeployment.

To help meet the challenge to do things better and smarter the government will appoint a small group of people from outside government to advise on innovative ways to restructure the public service to improve efficiency, accountability and the quality of service.

Difficult fiscal times also call for flexibility and options that allow employees greater choice when it comes to the balance between work and home. Ontario public service employees who wish to take unpaid leave of up to two weeks will be encouraged to do so where this saves money and does not jeopardize services. The Chair of Management Board will announce further details of these plans.

Ontarians are fiercely proud of our universal and accessible public health care system, but maintaining the quality of Ontario's health care system while reducing rapid expenditure growth is essential to preserving medicare. Total health care costs have increased at an average annual rate of 11.2% over the past 10 years. This high level of growth is simply not sustainable.

Since the tabling of the 1991 supplementary budget paper Managing Health Care Funding the Minister of Health has made significant progress in cooperation with our many health sector partners to manage health spending. Because of this cooperation we are able to hold the increase in total health care spending to 2% this year.

The Minister of Health and the people she works with deserve an enormous amount of credit for her efforts.

We will implement new measures within OHIP to achieve additional savings in 1992-93. For example, the government will consult with the Ontario Medical Association on tightening billing criteria to ensure that the services provided to the people of Ontario are of real medical benefit.

The ministry will also reform the Ontario drug benefit plan. Guidelines will be established for prescribing drugs under this program.

Important reforms have been undertaken in the hospital sector. The reforms will develop new and better ways of allocating resources to maintain hospital services while moderating the overall expenditure growth rate. These reforms are being coupled with an emphasis on providing long-term care and community-based services.

This government has placed a high priority on putting services for seniors on a solid footing for the years to come. Last year we announced a $647-million program to reform the long-term care system for the elderly and for persons with disabilities. This program will expand health and support services, with an emphasis on providing services at home. Despite the financial pressures we face this year we are providing an additional $100 million this year to move ahead with these absolutely essential reforms.

We are also reforming property and sales tax support for seniors. The existing seniors tax grants program will be replaced with refundable property and sales tax credits, which seniors will receive each spring when they complete their income tax returns.

The new tax credits are designed to provide higher benefits to low-income seniors. Over 350,000 senior households will receive increased benefits. For senior households with incomes under $23,000, average benefits will increase by $135 per household. Most senior households with incomes between $23,000 and $40,000 will also receive benefits under the new program, but at a lower level than under the current program.

Reforms to this program will result in savings of about $100 million per year, primarily by ending benefits to most senior households with incomes over $50,000.

Seniors will receive their full tax credits for 1992 when they file their 1992 income tax returns next spring. To assist with the transition to this new program, seniors will also receive tax grants under the existing program in 1992.

More than one million people in Ontario now rely on social assistance. Expenditure on social assistance in this province has more than doubled in just three years, growing from $2.6 billion in 1989-90 to an estimated $6.2 billion in 1992-93.

We must continue to remove the barriers that prevent many social assistance recipients from moving into the workforce. A major objective of the Jobs Ontario training fund is to ensure that people who were employed until the recent downturn and who now find themselves on social assistance can regain their independence and upgrade their skills. We expect the Jobs Ontario training fund to reduce the need for social assistance over the next three years.

To maintain our commitment to a fair social assistance system and to respond to those most in need, the system must achieve greater efficiencies. Limited resources must be used in the most efficient way possible. The Minister of Community and Social Services will provide further details on a number of measures to increase the efficiency of the existing system.

These include: improving information technology to enhance the responsiveness of the system, reduce paperwork and improve program and policy planning; providing greater assistance to recipients to gain access to other sources of income to which they are entitled, such as Canada pension plan and child support systems; improving mechanisms for the prevention, detection and recovery of overpayments and fraud, including the greater use of direct deposit of benefits; and improving the effectiveness of the supports to employment program, which is designed to provide incentives to employment and remove barriers that prevent social assistance recipients from finding jobs.

These measures will be implemented within the government's continued commitment to the reform of social assistance.

Total savings to social assistance from these new measures will exceed $300 million in 1992-93, with additional savings expected in future years.

We are taking important steps in this budget to manage our health and social services more efficiently, but these cannot completely replace the revenue loss due to the recession and restraint on federal transfers. For every dollar in new taxes this year, we have found $4 in costs that we are avoiding through better management of government programs.

We are raising taxes in a way that shares the tax burden fairly. It is vital that the costs of public services be shared as fairly as possible among all of the people of Ontario.

As part of our commitment to providing broad public access to the budget process, we have ensured that the working groups of the Fair Tax Commission represent a diversity of communities and interests. In making my decisions on tax matters, I will continue to consider the analysis and options identified in the working group reports, and I appreciate the perspectives they provide.

We are increasing the Ontario personal income tax rate to 54.5% of basic federal tax for 1992 and to 55% per cent of basic federal tax in 1993 and subsequent years. While this is not an easy decision, the personal income tax is Ontario's fairest revenue source; more than any other tax, it is based on ability to pay.

1650

To improve the fairness of the personal income tax system, we are reforming the Ontario surtax. At present the surtax is paid only by individuals with incomes above $84,000 a year. Beginning in July 1992, individuals earning more than $53,000 will pay a surtax at a rate of 14%. In 1993, the surtax rate for individuals with earnings above $69,000 will increase to 20%. In total, these personal income tax measures will raise $660 million in 1992-93.

These measures will ensure that tax increases are not borne by those with low or moderate incomes. Combined federal-Ontario personal income taxes for individuals earning less than $53,000 will be no higher in 1993 than they are now, as a result of this budget.

Perhaps I should remind members that at incomes over $53,000, that represents 10% of Ontario taxpayers; 90% of the taxpayers in this province will not be affected by the surtax whatsoever. I really do want to put in perspective that for a married couple with two children earning $60,000 a year, it will represent extra taxes of about $1 a week. I don't think that's too much to maintain essential services in this province.

It is also important that profitable corporations contribute to public services in a fair way. The Fair Tax Commission's working group on a corporate minimum tax estimated that in 1989 about 6,700 corporations reported book profits but paid little or no Ontario income tax.

This government recognizes that there are legitimate reasons why profits reported for accounting purposes may be higher than income reported for tax purposes. For example, companies are allowed to deduct dividends received from other corporations for tax purposes to avoid possible double taxation. In addition, the tax system allows companies to offset losses incurred in other years against income in the current year. This moderates the impact of the economic cycle on corporations. The government believes that these provisions of the tax system are fair and appropriate.

In recognition of the complexity of this issue and in response to the recommendations of the Fair Tax Commission working group for further analysis, I will be releasing a technical paper this fall. Following the release of the paper, the government will consult on its recommendations before legislation is introduced.

The technical paper will build on the work of the Fair Tax Commission working group in identifying an appropriate corporate minimum tax for Ontario. The design of the corporate minimum tax will be governed by the following principles: intercorporate dividends and equity income would be excluded in order to avoid double taxation; loss carryovers would be allowed; the corporate minimum tax would be sensitive to concerns regarding retroactive taxation; a carryover mechanism would ensure that any corporate minimum tax paid is creditable against regular income tax liability, and small businesses would be exempt in order to avoid increasing their compliance costs.

How Ontario's corporate tax burden compares with other jurisdictions will obviously be a factor in this government's approach as well. In this respect, it is worth repeating that Ontario's corporate tax system is competitive. It is clear, for example, that Ontario's payroll taxes compare favourably with competing jurisdictions. It is also worth recalling that the United States has a federal corporate minimum tax.

While corporate profits in Ontario have declined significantly throughout this recession, the banking industry as a whole has increased its profit level. Although banks already pay a significant amount of tax to the Ontario treasury, we are asking banks to contribute further since they are better able to sustain a tax increase at this time. Therefore we are imposing a temporary income tax of 10% that will automatically sunset on October 1, 1993.

We are increasing the capital tax rate on banks from 1% to 1.12%. In addition, an offsetting adjustment will be made to the capital tax base of bank mortgage subsidiaries to improve the fairness of the corporate tax system.

As noted in the recent federal budget, income tax revenues from the life insurance industry remain low despite the industry's high profits. As a result, the federal government is reviewing the taxation of life insurance companies with the industry, to ensure that they pay their fair share of federal tax. In consultation with the federal government, Ontario will also introduce legislation to ensure that life insurance companies pay their fair share of Ontario tax.

These measures are expected to raise $40 million on a full-year basis, and a lower amount after the temporary surtax is sunsetted in 1993.

While all employers pay employer health tax on behalf of their employees, self-employed individuals do not pay this tax on their own earnings. This inequity in the current law will be remedied.

Effective January 1, 1993, individuals earning more than $40,000 net self-employment income annually will be required to pay the employer health tax. This measure will generate $45 million on a full-year basis.

Every year the government receives many complaints about sales of used vehicles. For example, some buyers have had their vehicles repossessed because the seller failed to disclose outstanding liens.

To provide consumers with better information, sellers will be required to purchase a vehicle transfer package in order to conduct a private sale. This package will contain a vehicle description and history, including any liens, a fair market value of the vehicle based on an average wholesale price and other consumer information. This information package must be made available to the prospective buyer before ownership is transferred. This package will be required starting April 1, 1993, and will cost $20, raising $13 million in a full year.

As well, the government does not always receive the appropriate retail sales tax due on transfer of used vehicles. This is not fair to those who pay the full amount. Effective October 1, 1992, I am proposing to change the retail sales tax treatment of these transactions to ensure that the appropriate tax is paid. I expect this measure to increase sales tax revenues by $35 million in 1992-93, and $95 million in a full year.

This government is committed to the 3Rs: reduce, reuse and recycle. In support of the Minister of the Environment's waste management initiatives, I am expanding the environmental levy to apply to all non-refillable beverage alcohol containers, including beer cans. In addition, effective May 25, 1992, the levy will be increased to 10 cents per container.

Also effective May 25, the volume levy on beer will be increased by five cents. These changes will increase the price of 24 bottles of beer by 50 cents. The price of 24 cans will increase by $3.10. Together these changes will raise $85 million in 1992-93.

I want to bring the Legislature up to date on our fiscal situation and on our targets for the years ahead. 1991-92 proved to be a more difficult year than anticipated for working people, for businesses and for government. The recession was deeper and lasted longer than predicted.

While revenues were forecast to decline by 1% in the 1991 budget, preliminary results indicate they actually declined by 4.8%. The province faced almost $700 million in increased costs, including additional social assistance case loads due to the recession.

1700

To meet these challenges, the government implemented reductions to ministry operating budgets as well as to specific operating and capital programs. As a result of these measures, total expenditures in 1991-92 were held $470 million below the original budget level. Despite all attempts by the government to meet our original $9.7-billion deficit target, the revenue shortfall was simply too substantial. The 1991-92 budgetary requirements will be $10.9 billion.

For 1992-93, provincial revenues will total $44.9 billion, which is $2.3 billion less than we had originally planned a year ago. This reflects the severe and adverse impact of the recession on provincial revenues.

To meet this revenue shortfall while maintaining public services, vigorous efforts to control costs will be essential. As a result of the measures announced in this budget, total capital and operating spending will be held to $54.8 billion in 1992-93, which is $1.3 billion below the target we set a year ago. This represents a 4.9% over last year's spending.

Ontario's operating deficit for 1992-93 will be $6 billion. Adding in capital spending of $3.9 billion, our budgetary requirements will be $9.9 billion. Despite continuing fiscal pressures, this level is $1 billion below that of last fiscal year.

As in last year's document, I am presenting a medium-term fiscal outlook extending to 1995-96.

We remain committed to the fiscal goals stated in the 1991 budget: to reduce the operating deficit steadily as the economy recovers; to reduce the operating deficit as a proportion of the gross domestic product and total revenue; to reduce the rate of expenditure growth, and to stabilize our debt servicing costs.

This year's medium-term fiscal outlook reflects the changes that I said earlier will be made to the province's capital financing arrangements. The outlook shows how we intend to work towards balancing the operating deficit by 1997 as we promised last year.

The operating deficit will decrease from $6 billion in 1992-93 to $1.9 billion in 1995-96. Taking into account capital expenditures, the government's budgetary requirements are projected to decrease from $9.9 billion in 1992-93 to $4.1 billion in 1995-96.

The real test of this outlook will be the commitment of the government to manage its expenditures. Revenue growth is largely linked to economic activity, but stronger economic growth alone will not eliminate the deficit.

Critics will call for more rapid declines in the deficit and I share that wish. But the government refuses to publish targets that could not be met without introducing extreme tax measures or arbitrary and disruptive cuts to vital public services. This outlook takes into account the severity of the recession and federal offloading, and it reflects the time needed to restructure our economy and our public services.

In conclusion, on the surface, budgets deal with dollars and cents -- economic forecasts and fiscal statements. But they are really about people.

This budget is about putting the men and women of Ontario back to work -- supporting some 90,000 jobs in 1992-93.

It is about people who have been out of work for a long time -- assisting up to 100,000 of them with jobs and training over the next three years.

Le présent budget veut donner la possibilité aux hommes et aux femmes de l'Ontario de retourner sur le marché du travail. Ce budget vise les personnes qui sont sans emploi depuis longtemps, en favorisant la formation et la création d'emplois pour environ 100 000 d'entre elles au cours des trois prochaines années.

It is about people who need affordable housing -- providing support for 20,000 new non-profit housing units and generating $2.1 billion in work for the construction industry in the years ahead.

This budget is about the people who build our communities and the capital works that form the foundation of our prosperity -- investing $3.9 billion in these lasting assets.

It is about people who live in the north, who rely on our natural resource industries -- about ensuring the communities not only survive but prosper in the future.

It is about farmers -- and maintaining the stability of our rural communities.

It is about the people who run businesses in Ontario -- and supporting them in the innovations and investments that will help shape our future.

It is about all the people who provide and use the many important services that our taxes pay for -- sustaining those services and finding new ways to manage programs better.

Under the strong and committed leadership of Premier Bob Rae, my colleagues and I formed a government 18 months ago with an agenda to serve people and to lead them. We have been tested by the forces of global change and domestic uncertainty. Yet we remain proud of our heritage and we stand firm in our willingness to extend the hand of partnership to all of those who seek to build on Ontario's great strengths.

We have made this a budget for Ontario and for all of the people who have made Ontario strong and who seek to build a better future for their children and their grandchildren. Let us go forward to build the Ontario that we want our grandchildren to inherit -- a strong and productive province within a united and prosperous Canada.

The Speaker: I take it the Treasurer has concluded his remarks. The member for Bruce.

On motion by Mr Elston, the debate was adjourned.

ESTIMATES

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): As promised yesterday afternoon, to table the estimates, I have a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, signed by his own hand.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending 31 March 1993 and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): If I might have unanimous consent to revert to introduction of bills.

Agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Laughren moved first reading of Bill 16, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund / Loi autorisant les emprunts garantis par le Trésor.

Motion agreed to.

On motion by Mr Cooke, the House adjourned at 1709.