Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1005.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SCHOOL BOARDS AND TEACHERS COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE ENTRE CONSEILS SCOLAIRES ET ENSEIGNANTS

Mr McGuinty moved second reading of Bill 14, An Act to amend the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la négociation collective entre conseils scolaires et enseignants.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 94(c), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I look forward to the debate I hope will begin this morning and take place over perhaps the coming years so that we can address a problem I feel is very real. I will consider it an accomplishment if I can convey to the members the seriousness and extent of the problem which faces our students and hence all of Ontario.

Let me first say that I intend to spend a significant amount of time this morning describing the problem and less time describing my proposed solution. In 1975 this Legislature passed the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. The situation at the time was that there was no legislation governing negotiations between teachers and trustees, so that bargaining then was taking place in something of a vacuum, and the relationship between the trustees and the teachers was in a very bad way. The purpose of the legislation was to bring some order to this confusion and lay down some ground rules for collective bargaining.

Essentially, the legislation took great pains to address the concerns of trustees and teachers. Hence it gave them some very powerful bargaining tools, the traditional tools available in the collective negotiations sanctions; that is, the right to strike was given to the teachers and the right to lock teachers out was given to the boards. But effectively the right that was given was the right to bring classes to a halt in order to exert pressure on the other party. It's my feeling that although the legislation may have addressed the rights of teachers and boards, it really failed to adequately address the rights of students, particularly their right to attend school. I believe the act is deficient in three ways.

First, there is no limit at present on the length of time the parties can negotiate. Hence we have today's situations where we have settlements today that are retroactive to September 1991. So we have negotiations that have been going on for 16 months. I have spoken to a number of people who are more expert in these matters than I am, and they tell me that in these kinds of negotiations more time is not better negotiating time. There's perhaps something to be said for the United Auto Workers approach, which says, "If we don't have a contract, we will not work." It's effectively a "high noon" provision. I'm not advocating that specifically, but I think there's something to be said for it.

The second thing the act does not do is place restrictions as to when a strike may occur. As a result, most of the strikes or lockouts take place in the spring; that is, February, March and April. The reason, of course, we do that is the same reason the National Hockey League went out on strike just before the playoffs: because you exert more pressure. In the case of students, obviously they're more sensitive to lost school time. That is a natural and realistic outcropping of the existing legislation.

Also, in terms of another limitation in the existing legislation, there's no fixed maximum duration for strikes or lockouts. The Education Relations Commission, a body created under the existing legislation, makes a determination as to when a school year is in jeopardy, and as a result there is some authority available to determine when a strike or a lockout has gone on for too long. But I want to recount to you some statistics, which I think you'll find interesting, that were supplied to me by the Education Relations Commission. I'm thankful to Mr Doug Saunders for his assistance in this regard. Although the raw data have been there, I'm not sure many people were aware that anybody had compiled it and put it all together.

1010

Since the academic year 1975-76 to 1991, but not including this year, there have been some 56 strikes. During those 56 strikes we have held out of class 789,675 students and we have held them out for a total of 1,331 days, which is about seven school years. On average, we evict our students out of class for 24 days every year, the longest strike being about 56 days. In terms of an important statistic, we evict 50,000 -- in fact, it's 49,354 -- students every year for a strike and we evict them for one calendar month; in fact, a little more than one calendar month.

The Education Relations Commission, of course, plays a role in all this, but what it has done is that it has made the determination that a student's year is in jeopardy only eight times. It has made this determination, on average, when they've been out of school for some 40 days, which works out to two calendar months. That's 40 school days. I think the important point is that under the existing legislation in Ontario, 50,000 students are evicted from class for over one month every year.

There have been lots of changes since 1975 -- that's the date the legislation came into place -- and I'm sure I don't have to recount all of them. The Berlin Wall has come down, the Russian republic is no more, the European Community has formed an economic union, Japan has displaced the US as the world's economic leader, we have an NDP government; significant changes have taken place. But I think most importantly we have come under the ever-increasing influence of the outside world.

Our economy has got to be viewed as part of a larger global economy. Our competitors are now the world over, no longer in other provinces or merely in the US. We recognize that we've had a significant devaluation of our natural resources. We are no longer hewers of wood and drawers of water. We can't make it that way any more, and we truly understand that our greatest natural resource, as I say, is not under out feet: It's between our ears. Hence, we understand that our education system now has to be measured in terms of international standards and not merely by Canadian standards.

I want to quote something the Economic Council of Canada recently said about our education, in its report just released, I think, within the last month. In the matter of literacy and numeracy they tell us that "28% of those between 16 and 24 are below the everyday reading level and 44% failed to meet the requirements for functional numeracy." What they are saying is that 28% can't understand a comparatively simple newspaper article and 44% can't perform the calculations needed to add up a restaurant bill or a mail order form.

It goes on to say that in science and mathematics, in an international test of 14 industrialized countries, Canada placed significantly below average, and Ontario, out of all the provinces, in terms of science and math came last. It goes on to say that we are now covering only half of the math curriculum that we tested for in the early 1980s. I think it's fair to say we've got a problem.

Of course, in 1975 we didn't really address the issue of how we were competing against the Japanese and how we were competing against the Germans. That wasn't a major factor. As I say, times have changed, and now I think we have a responsibility to ensure that we reflect society's strengthened conviction of the importance of education, and I think this demands that we place limits on the amount of time our students can be forced out of school.

My bill does not extend the school year; it merely places limits on the number of days our students can be, as I say, evicted from the classroom, and I say they cannot be held out of school for longer than 20 school days. That's about the equivalent of a calendar month.

It also goes on to say that it places restrictions on what part of the school year we can hold them outside the class. My bill says that no strike or lockout can begin after October 31, again reflecting the fact that students are more sensitive to lost class time in the latter part of a year.

I also make the process governing the negotiations at the present time more settlement-directed, and I require that the fact-finder's recommendation, an impartial third party's recommendation, be voted upon by the union members -- there's now no obligation that they do so -- and I impose the same obligation on the trustees: There's now no obligation on them to vote on this, so I require them to vote.

To reflect the importance that society gives to educating our students, I say you only have to pass it by 40%. If 40% adopt the recommendation, then that will be deemed to be that party's position. I didn't come up with that number out of thin air. I got that from Ohio, and I understand that is a provision that's in other American states.

I look forward to hearing from my colleagues on this matter and responding to some of them.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): We in this party would like to thank the member for Ottawa South for bringing this issue to the floor of the Legislature. It's an issue that is of great concern to parents and students, and I'm sure teachers and school boards across Ontario.

There have been many who have looked for solutions to the problems of teachers' strikes and work to rule. In the big picture, one should understand that Bill 100 is long overdue for review.

I should point out to the members of this assembly this morning that some of us did sit on a committee of this Legislature recently. The standing committee on public accounts did make its report within the last year, and one of the recommendations was taken very seriously and was under considerable debate. One understands that the majority of the members of this committee are government members. I'll read the recommendation:

"The current localized bargaining system for teachers shall be the subject of a Ministry of Education review. This process has raised concerns among trustees, administrators and the Ministry of Education."

This was a recommendation of the committee within the last year. I think it's the duty of this government to seriously consider that, given the environment we have been working under, especially in the last few months.

I believe my colleague Norm Sterling did bring some legislation before the House. It wasn't considered seriously by the government, but it would have stopped the strikes and the work to rule in Ottawa-Carleton. So there was an opportunity to move forward with that legislation within the last few weeks.

I would like to say that we've talked, as have I in my position as critic for our party, to the school boards and to the Board of Education for the City of London, and we have had some good advice on this particular piece of legislation, Bill 4.

With regard to the areas the member is trying to address, first of all, as we take a look at the student advocate, there are questions in our minds. Who will it be? How much will it cost? What background would this person have to have? With regard to the minimum contract term, where it is stated in the bill that the term cannot be less than two years, the boards are advising us they do need the flexibility to negotiate one-, two- or three-year contracts. So that is something we would have to consider.

The chairman of the Board of Education for the City of London believes teachers should be legislated back to work, and now the minister is saying he almost had to legislate the Ottawa teachers back to work, which is a very weak statement, I feel, on behalf of this government, given that the students are ending their school year right now and ought to be in class.

We witness here the Metropolitan Separate School Board, which has been out on strike, in my opinion -- work to rule is a form of strike -- since some time in February or March. Those young people have missed some of the most important opportunities in education, that is, their extracurricular activities, which are all part of the responsibilities of teachers and school boards in order to provide them with the kind of training and opportunities that were available to their parents and ought to be available in these times to them, probably more than ever.

The fact-finder recommendation: the report to be voted on on that issue. The explanatory notes state -- and I speak to my colleague -- that if at least two fifths of them vote in support of the terms of settlement recommended in the fact-finder's report, the report becomes binding on the teachers for the purpose of making or renewing a collective agreement. On both sides, whether we're talking about the interests of the teachers or the school boards -- which of course should be common but aren't always during these processes -- I would have to say that one would be looking for a majority of the vote, especially with regard to the trustees who have been elected to represent the tax-paying public in that regard.

The students' right to minimal class disruption: The bill states that teachers may not begin a strike and boards may not lock out teachers after October 31. Within the existing legislation, final offer selection is mandatory after 20 school days are lost. Personally, I would take a look at that one. I think that's far too long.

1020

Again, if one is still prepared in this province to give the teachers the right to strike, one has to understand what goes with that. You can't tell them when and for how long they can strike unless, in my view, the students are in jeopardy of losing their school year. I feel, then, that we are looking to the government for some leadership. It should be stepping in, especially right now in the Carleton Board of Education.

With regard to the students themselves, I don't think there's a member in this House who doesn't recognize that students have a right to an education. That's why I'm so keen to have Bill 100 revisited. Since 1975 we have had an opportunity to take a look at the success of that piece of legislation. I think there have been many successes, but we also have the responsibility to take a look at how that legislation can be improved. It's something I personally have been involved in and asked for since I've been here in the last four years. I'm somewhat encouraged that the majority of the members on that particular standing committee on public accounts agreed with us that this ought to be something the government takes a look at, certainly within this term of office. I encourage them to get that high on their agenda.

With regard to the precedent-setting of strikes in the province of Ontario, there are those who would argue that we haven't had a lot of strikes in this jurisdiction compared to other jurisdictions, either in Canada or the United States. I don't feel we should be afraid to take a look at improvements, but I think the bottom line for all of us is affording students the opportunity to be educated. At this point, I don't think very many of us are particularly proud of the strikes going on in Ontario right now. We look to the leadership of both the teachers and the school board trustees to solve those, but because we are now in the middle of the month of May we ought to be looking to the government to step in.

There's no doubt in my mind that young people are in jeopardy not only of losing their school year but of losing confidence in the system. We're setting up a model that we shouldn't be setting up as adults and certainly not as elected representatives.

At this point I would like to refer to an article written in a magazine called Education Today. Those of us interested in education and who have been for a long time will know that one of the true experts with regard to this legislation -- I have to date myself and say I was part of the negotiations around Bill 100 from the school board trustees' point of view in London, Ontario. At that time, we had the pleasure and certainly the honour of working with Bruce Stewart, who has continued to be an expert. He's from the law firm Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, Stewart and Storie. He wrote a very interesting article that I would refer to all of you for information. He states:

"The November 1990 Provincial Auditor's report states that the ministry has not yet dealt with the recommendations of the 1984 Macdonald commission and observes that trustees and board administrators 'have expressed concerns with the present localized collective bargaining system.'"

So we know, with his expertise, that there are concerns. We've had the recommendation since 1984 and I urge this government to get on with it.

Under the heading "Does the Negotiation System Work Efficiently?" he states in this article: "Certainly the perception of many participants in the process is that it does not. I have never experienced a labour relations environment where negotiations were so time-consuming, protracted and ultimately exhausting."

We have to take these observations coming from the Ontario expert seriously. For the sake of our young people, our students and certainly in the interest of my colleague the member for Ottawa South, who had the courage to bring forth an opportunity for this debate, we've got to move on with this.

He goes on to say, "One can fairly conclude that the system is not working efficiently when 70% to 80% of contracts are not resolved by contract expiry." There's no other field of collective bargaining where we would have 70% to 80% of contracts not concluded by the expiration date. We're talking here about children and education.

"Behind the cold statistic of unresolved disputes there are the dynamics of acrimony: teachers without a contract, the partisan rhetoric of media releases, the barrage of righteousness at fact-finding hearings; and gossip and discord in staff rooms and boardrooms. Invariably, the effects seep into the classroom, disrupting the educational environment.

"In my view, improvements in the present system must be centred on certain structural flaws in the legislation," and with respect to the bill today that's exactly what the member for Ottawa South has attempted to do.

I could go on and talk about pressures for settlement. I could talk about the teacher unions with regard to the aspect that compulsory fact-finding may obstruct the settlement. I could go on within this article and talk about work to rule and specific structural changes required. In fact, I end by saying this:

"Perhaps Bill 100 should be revised to require teacher joint bargaining by elementary and secondary branch affiliates at a board. It may be possible to devise a form of two-tier bargaining whereby at one level the two branch affiliates could pursue common benefit and salary interests, and at a separate level each branch affiliate could pursue other issues singular to it.

"In any event, I suspect this problem will become more visible in the next round of bargaining." This was a year ago. "Boards should now start assessing how significant the problem is and what mechanism should be constructed to deal with it."

On that note, I've raised even more issues that must be dealt with. I conclude that although the member in fact has brought this to the floor of the House and has made an effort, his bill should be considered along with a total review of the old Bill 100 and we should get on with making the collective bargaining process more efficient in Ontario.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I always appreciate the measured comments of the member for London North, because she has a vast knowledge of education and the educational field.

I think, however, the salient question about the bill we're looking at this morning is whether or not this bill contributes to the solution to the problem. I would indicate that very clearly it does not. In fact, this bill would aggravate the collective bargaining process by tipping the balance of power in a draconian, undemocratic way into the hands of the trustees.

When we talk about this bill, I think we need to take a look at what it actually does. There seems to be a lot of skating around the issue of this bill by the member for Ottawa South by injecting a lot of information which -- while important and which as legislators we should be cognizant of; that is, the problems that exist in the education system -- is not relevant to whether there are strikes or not.

What is wrong in the system -- and I am a firsthand participant in that process -- is that there are built-in problems in the collective bargaining process, as the member for London North has indicated. Saying that 60% of the teachers are irresponsible or that 60% of the teachers don't know what they're doing or that 60% of the teachers who vote on these contracts are incompetent or that 60% of the teachers do not care about what is happening and that a small élite is the only group of people within the teaching profession who care is indeed an insult. I take it personally as an insult, as I have spent 15 years in the education system, participated in the collective bargaining process and been on strike, albeit only for one day.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Why didn't you stay there and teach?

Mr Wiseman: In keeping with the totally undemocratic nature of this is the heckling that is coming from the member from the Tory party, who is not in his chair.

What is interesting about this bill and why I do not support it is that under the fundamental principles of democratic choice it has always been maintained that on a clear question of yes or no, the majority rules. In this House, 40% of these members do not pass a bill; it is 50% plus one. What this bill says is that only the élite, only a small group of people in our society are able to make decisions in a competent, responsible way.

1030

I would like to talk a little bit about that, because 15 years in the teaching profession has really brought to me how much teachers agonize and take care when it comes to their students. They wouldn't be there if they didn't have great care and concern for their students. This is demonstrated by the long hours teachers voluntarily put into coaching teams, intramural sports, clubs, recreational activities, environmental clubs, astronomy clubs, field trips and all the activities they do after school and on weekends with their students.

To come along today and say, by this bill, that 60% of those people are incompetent, irresponsible and not concerned about their students is an insult to every teacher in this province. It harks back to a day when the élite ruled, when it was okay, for example, in Britain in the 19th century that only a small part of the population was even allowed to vote. It harks back to the day when it was said that women were not persons and therefore should not participate in the democratic process, and that's within this century. It harks back to the day when they said democracy was only for that small group of people who are part of the aristocracy of wealth or the aristocracy of whatever methods they wanted to use to determine who should rule.

If you're saying now that 40% of the population is good enough to make the decisions, then in what other areas do you start bringing in that rule? Do you bring it in here to this legislative body? Do you bring it in to all the other negotiating processes? Do you attribute it to all the other unions and all the other votes? Do you put it to the board of directors at corporations that minority rules? Where do you end when you start to erode the democratic principles of equity and fairness.

I say to the member that what you're doing with this bill is telling the teachers and educators of this province that they are not worthy, and I reject that categorically.

He also indicates that he doesn't understand the process, and indeed he does not. There are things that can be done to make the process much better in terms of collective bargaining. For example, why does it always take so long to get a contract on the table from the trustees? In the 17 years that I followed negotiations in Durham region, it was only on maybe two or three occasions that we had a contract on the table before the expiration of the contract currently in force, and it took 12, 14 or 16 months to get a contract that both parties could sit down and take a look at.

Therefore, it's important we look at what can happen. Changes need to be made. The books of the boards of education should be open to all parties, including the taxpayers who happen to pay all the bills. There should be early tabling of contracts and statements of interest earned on money. This is the biggest bone of contention. One of the reasons contracts take so long is because interest earned on the money that is retroactive is not paid to the teachers; it stays in the coffers of the boards and becomes part of their capital. There is therefore no incentive for them to settle in a reasonable amount of time.

I'm going to wrap up. When you talk about the 20 days, some boards will say that and build it into the negotiations process. They'll say, "We'll take the $20 million or so that we can save on negotiations and use that as a ploy against bargaining in fairness." It is because contracts are open and teachers enter into it in good faith and do not take going on strike easily that they will negotiate and negotiate fairly. But if you take away those rights and tilt it in favour of the boards, then you will have greater chaos, greater problems and greater dysfunctioning of the system than you have today.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I'd like to begin by congratulating the member for Ottawa South for a bill that is both timely and puts the focus where it belongs, on the students. I think the two strikes in Ottawa and the work-to-rule campaign in Toronto have focused attention on these matters at this time.

First, let's look at the present system. How does it work and what does it do? It gives rights to teachers' unions and it gives rights to boards of education, but what about the students? Who protects their rights? Who expresses their concerns? Under the present system, nobody. I do believe that at the beginning of negotiations both sides keep the interests of students in mind. However, as a strike is protracted and as the negotiations lengthen, animosities develop. The struggle becomes institutional, union versus board, and after becoming institutional it becomes personal. At this stage the student gets forgotten.

I want to refer to an article from the Ottawa Citizen which quotes a teacher in the recent strike as saying the following: "The teachers are the unimportant people at the board. I'm just a number in the school system, and that's the way I'm going to behave in future." I think that says a lot about what the present system does. What about the students? They've just missed 23 days of school. Don't they need extra help? If he's to be taken at his word, no. He's just a number. He's going to act like a number and not like a teacher.

In another article, the Ottawa Citizen goes on to say, "Months from now, the Education Relations Commission will quietly arrange an intensive workshop session to help OBE teachers and trustees work through the acrimony caused by the strike."

Let me repeat that. Teachers and trustees will work through the acrimony caused by the strike. Once again an important word is missing: students. What about the students? How many will have dropped out? How many will have failed their year? Who will soothe the disruption in their lives and the threat to the future? Do you still think the present system works?

Let's look at it another way. According to research done by my colleague the member for Ottawa South, as of August 31, 1991, strikes and lockouts have affected over 789,000 students. That's 1,331 days of instruction lost. This works out in my calculations to over one billion student-days lost due to strikes and lockouts since 1975 -- one billion student days lost, and that's not including this year. This is mind-boggling. Do you still think this system works? Perhaps that is why Ontario students don't measure up to university entrance standards. How many Japanese students could afford to lose six weeks of school and perform? Aren't their superior results due to longer school days and longer school years, which means more instruction, not less, as well as more stringent curricula? Let's give our students a chance and support this bill.

This bill would establish students' interest advocates to represent students at negotiations during a strike or a lockout. It would limit the duration of strikes to 20 days. It would limit strikes to early in the school year, when students have the greatest chance of making up for lost time. It would up the minimum term of agreements from one to two years. Most important, it would give each teacher the right to vote on the terms of the settlement rather than merely ratifying terms signed by the union. This would enable them to use their personal judgement, which I think would, in the main, place the interests of the students first, ahead of even their own. Isn't this why they chose this profession?

Recalling my own days at school, I remember my teachers in the separate system working for 20% less than their counterparts in the public system because of their dedication and deep commitment to their students and their calling. I believe the same ethic prevailed in the public system. I believe that many, if not most, of the present-day teachers are just as dedicated. The present system prevents them from demonstrating this. As Jim Coyle of the Ottawa Citizen so aptly puts it, "This bill gives students the right to attend classes." Let's all support it.

1040

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm pleased to rise and speak for just a couple of moments on the member for Ottawa South's Bill 14 today. I want to say from the outset that although I very much appreciate what the member for Ottawa South is trying to do, I find that the bill is riddled with a number of flaws and therefore in the final analysis I won't be supporting it.

I would say as a quasi-positive comment that I do understand the provision of the bill which would in effect prohibit strikes when students are most vulnerable. Particularly, we've seen a real trend of strikes in February, March and April by teachers, at a critical time in the school year where certainly the situation arises where the students' school year and obtaining of credits could be jeopardized. We've seen, I think, a disturbing trend.

I know the bill tries to deal with that issue, and while half of me is supportive of that thrust, the other half says that you really can't have it both ways. You either believe in the right to strike and the collective bargaining process or you don't. Really, I don't think a bill that attempts to have it both ways, although it is trying, I suppose, to strike a balance, would really be acceptable to the teachers. On the other hand, I don't think it would be really acceptable to the school boards.

Second, I just want to talk about fact-finders in the bill and our experience with them. The bill says that if negotiations break down, a fact-finder is appointed whose recommendations for settlement are binding. Section 5 of Bill 14 states that a fact-finder's report is to be voted on by school teachers and trustees. If approval is received by two fifths of each membership, then the report is binding.

I contacted my local public school board, the Simcoe county public school board, and the chairman there, Richard Boswell, says that the fact-finders will not prove to be helpful to school boards. I just wanted to put that on the record. He points out that two-fifths approval does not even represent a majority.

Fact-finder reports often lose sight of fiscal reality and recommend outrageous settlements. A recent Toronto Star article of March 30 documents exactly this, and I'll just quote it. It says:

"In one report this January, the fact-finder highlighted the rationale for restraint, referred to Premier Bob Rae's television address advocating restraint and noted that a wage increase of 6.1% or anything close to it was completely out of the question.

"The fact-finder, by adjusting the timing of increases, then recommended an increase which would raise the teachers' salaries by 4% by the end of the school year."

This report came out in January, when it was clear that inflation was coming in at 1.6% and that the government's transfer payments to school boards would be 1%.

I think I also want to point out here that arbitrators have proved to be rather costly too. We've seen recommendations between 4% and 7% over one year and 12% over two years.

At approximately the same time as this fact-finder's report in January, I just want to point out that Leeds-Grenville and Lanark also had a fiscally irresponsible increase come in at 6.1%.

I don't think the bill really tackles these issues, and there are a number of other issues for the time I don't have, but I would just point out that I appreciate the thrust but will not be supporting it.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I wish to commend the member for Ottawa South for his bill, and I'm sure the situation in his area, in the Ottawa-Carleton region, deserves the concerted attention of all the involved parties and a great deal of goodwill. I can well understand the concern the member has for the quick resolution of those difficulties. Students, parents, trustees, administrators and teachers are all crying out for a resolution of an impasse that none could have wished.

When I worked as a family therapist, virtually all the families who consulted with me had reached an impasse in their family lives. They were blocked and needed assistance in going beyond their traditional ways of handling problems. They wanted me to provide them with solutions that would help them transcend those difficulties, those impasses. Often their pain and the threats to their previously healthy and joyous lives would tempt me to offer them simplistic solutions, a magic potion that would return them to health.

Sometimes, when these situations occur, it's easy to reduce the dynamics to a quick win-lose solution. It's tempting to find a simple solution wherein the answer descends from heaven like a deus ex machina. The rendering of divine justice from a towering height would indeed seem a welcome prospect.

Teachers, students and trustees are all involved in a system where they hold some common values as a group. They all want to preserve the values of education and the development of schools to become the best they can be.

At the same time there's always some tension, as in any family and any social system. When they reach an impasse, the system seems to threaten to burst apart at the seams. The parties start to blame each other. Some students become angry with the administration. They feel betrayed by their teachers. Teachers can feel they are misunderstood by the community and that they are dealing with intractable administrators. Trustees and administrators can feel they are dealing with competing and irreconcilable interests. The conflicts and differences between them become the defining characteristics as far as the other groups are concerned.

These healthy and vital groups come to see each other as antagonists. How can they return to a spirit of cooperation and partnership? Does it happen easily after a solution has been imposed upon them from above by a mechanism that all parties are not in agreement with? No. Most emphatically no.

We've seen the results of back-to-work legislation. After such legislation, the bitter feelings engendered by the impasse continue and even worsen. When the next negotiations occur there's been no healing and the same level of conflict recurs, and again like the deus ex machina the provincial government is called upon to enact back-to-work legislation.

The history of collective negotiation exemplifies this. Bill 100 was enacted some 17 years ago by the Progressive Conservative government at the time. One would say they were progressive when they brought in the act, but they soon resorted to conservative back-to-work legislation to resolve the impasses that emerged. This only produced another form of impasse. Boards didn't have to settle, as they could rely on Big Brother to help out. Later, when back-to-work legislation wasn't regularly and automatically used, teachers' strikes became shorter and less frequent. The parties were able to gather to resolve their difficulties.

This is not back-to-work legislation -- I certainly acknowledge that -- and yet in some very clear ways it is very much like it. It is a heavy-handed and, I would suggest, lastingly ineffective solution. I am sure my friend does not want to have the earlier Tory errors repeated in his community. It would create more problems by far than it would solve.

I might offer a temporary solution -- anyone could; those problems in my friend's regions are, I'm sure, very vexing -- but, like back-to-work legislation, it will only be a temporary solution whose shortcomings will cripple its effectiveness. As long as this mechanism is not owned by the parties involved, its results will be despised and disowned by them.

As a family therapist, I understood that families need to develop their own tools, their own mechanisms for the resolution of their difficulties. If those disadvantaged families could learn how to solve the problems they consulted me about, if they learned how to resolve other difficulties, other impasses in their lives, they left the therapeutic process with much.

Teachers and school boards are sophisticated and caring groups. Their problems with process should very seldom be resolved from on high. They need that help from on high much less than most of the families I worked with. How demeaning that would be for these sophisticated, caring, resourceful people.

1050

I've worked with some of the least-skilled families in my community, families that traditionally resort to violence and power to resolve problems. With that backup of violence, solutions inevitably came with stultifying simplicity. Children growing up with violence learn to be violent and in turn pass on their violence to their children and their community. Imposing a process without the consent of the parties involved is surely as poor a solution to the vicissitudes of conflict resolution as imposing a solution itself. I'm wearing a button that says, "Without consent it's sexual assault." Equally here, without consent to a mechanism it's an assault, an assault upon the dignity and the goodwill there on all parts.

As a family therapist I learned that I had to resist the temptation to provide from on high instant and obvious solutions to family problems, both to the problems and to the process. Anything so simple was well within the grasp of the families I worked with. What they needed was to find the tools to resolve their own problems, to overcome their own impasses. Similarly, we must resist the temptations here.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I rise in support of my colleague Dalton McGuinty, the member for Ottawa South, and also in support of his bill, which seeks to amend the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act and provide reasonable grounds for protecting the students when there is a strike or lockout.

What exactly will this legislation do? Equally as important, what will it not do? First, let me dispel any suggestion that this legislation is an exercise in teacher-bashing. Teachers perform one of the most valuable services and functions in our society: the education of our children. This legislation seeks not to limit teachers' rights but rather to ensure that their rights are in tandem with the rights of the children, the students. I believe an awful lot of teachers out there would believe this is a laudable goal.

Let me also repudiate the notion that this bill is meant to impinge on the authority of school boards. Just as we recognize the rights of teachers, we also recognize the difficult task our school boards face when they're trying to meet the competing demands and impossible combination of taxpayer fiscal demands, teachers' negotiations and concern for the student.

This bill seeks neither to destroy teachers' powers nor to severely limit the mandate of the boards. In both cases nothing could be further from the truth.

Now that we've talked about what this bill is not, let's talk about what this bill is. This bill provides a vehicle to ensure that the student is the first priority of both the negotiating parties in the collective bargaining process. The legislation proposed by the member for Ottawa South will help ensure that the student does not end up as a pawn caught between two powerful players as they negotiate with what appears to be the most expendable item on the chess board -- that's right, the student.

So much for the theory. What does this bill actually do? First, it limits the time the parties have to negotiate, so that contracts can no longer drag on and on. I think all members of this Legislature would agree that we should try to avoid the situation which now exists, where teachers can be two years without a contract.

Second, it will impose some restrictions on when a strike or lockout can occur. As the member for Ottawa South has mentioned, the spring is a popular time to strike because it creates a very real pressure to end the strike quickly so that students can complete their year. Unfortunately, this is the time of year when students are most vulnerable, because unless the strike does settle quickly there will not be sufficient time for the students to recover and save their year. Also, according to Bill 14, any strike or lockout must commence no later than October 31. This would give the students sufficient time to recover from any strike and complete their year.

Third, the duration of the strike would be limited to 20 days. This too is an added protection to ensure that the students' academic progress is not in jeopardy. That's a weakness in the current act that Bill 14 seeks to remedy. At present we don't have much in the way of criteria or definition of what actually constitutes jeopardy. It is left to the sole discretion of the Education Relations Commission to determine when the student is in jeopardy. After having survived the 1987 Toronto strike, I can tell you that there is not unanimous agreement among parents, students, teachers and the Education Relations Commission as to when jeopardy occurs.

The fourth thing Bill 14 will do is compel the education relations commissioner to appoint an impartial third-party fact-finder, who must recommend terms of settlement. Then the teachers must vote on the recommendations and the board must vote. In each case, if 40% vote in favour, the report is binding on that party. I believe the member for Durham West said he could not vote for this legislation because that was not a majority. I say to him, do not let that keep you from supporting this bill. We can hash out in committee what is a reasonable time, and many of us probably feel that a majority is a reasonable figure to work with.

There's one final important provision I'd like to touch on: the appointment of a students' interest advocate. The students' interest advocate would be present at each negotiation so that he or she could represent to the parties the impact the strike will have on the students. It is true that the students' interest advocate cannot vote. It is also true that the advocate cannot interfere or comment on the matters in dispute. What the students' interest advocate can be is a constant reminder to the parties that the stakes are much higher than money, higher than benefits or higher than saving face. The real stake is the future of our young people.

Mr Speaker, I say to you and to the honourable members of this House: Let us have the courage to face this controversial issue and once and for all act in the best interests of our children.

This bill will not solve all the problems facing the educational community. We must also deal with curriculum changes and look at innovative solutions such as year-round education. The bill isn't perfect, but at least it starts the discussion. Let us have the courage to open up the debate. I think we, as members, cannot do less.

I commend the member for Ottawa South for his initiative, and also for his courage and for his caring of the children of this province.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I too commend the member for Ottawa South, but I would like to say to the House that I will not be supporting the bill. I think there are many creative suggestions in here. Particularly the focus on the students is commendable. I also agree with the previous speaker that the member has opened a necessary debate.

The reason I won't be supporting the bill is that I have had a fair bit of experience with this. I was the chairman of a fairly major school board before the right to strike was available to teachers and the only recourse they had then was something called work to rule. I found that a very limiting sanction that I think everyone in the education system found wanting. I very much have supported the right to strike for teachers.

My problem with the bill is really that I don't think it will be effective in resolving the conflict between boards and their teachers, for a couple of reasons. First, my problem is that once you set a deadline on how long a strike can run, one side or the other, I'm afraid, determines it may be in its best interests to let that time run out and then the strike is over. Similarly, my concern with a date at which time the contract must be resolved, that is, October 31: The challenge there is that one side or the other determines it's in its best interests to let the clock run until that date arrives and then the dispute is over.

So as supportive as I am of many of the intentions in my colleague's bill, and as much as I appreciate the new approach he has taken, my concern is that this will not be helpful in the resolution of disputes between boards and teachers and may in fact exacerbate the problem. We need not stop on finding a better solution, but I cannot support this particular solution as outlined in the proposed bill.

1100

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Ottawa South may want to complete the debate.

Mr McGuinty: I want to extend a special thanks to all members on all sides of the House who made a contribution to this debate. It's my sincere hope that we will come to some kind of grasp of the extent of the problem that faces us. I've counted 58 students facing me in the viewers' gallery today. What we are doing under the present system is taking 50,000 of our students every year and closing the school doors on them. It is my distinct impression that it is not in the public interest for this province to hold 50,000 of our students outside class as a result of a dispute between other parties.

In case people confuse the perspective from which I speak, I want to make it perfectly clear that I don't speak today on behalf of the students, I don't speak today on behalf of teachers and neither do I speak on behalf of trustees or parents. I hope I am speaking on behalf of the public interest. It is my feeling that the public interest demands that we address this problem, that we address this system which has, on average, 50,000 of our students held outside their classrooms every year for over a month.

It is my impression that while those kinds of casualties may have been acceptable before, they are no longer acceptable. As a member of the opposition, there are severe limitations of course in terms of how I can advance this cause, but it is my hope that the members of the government, those who have the privilege and honour of bringing forth legislation which stands a much greater chance of making it through and becoming law, will take up the challenge and come forward with their own creative solutions to a very significant problem.

Some of the things I did not touch on were other problems associated with students who are kept out of school. Today there are fewer and fewer families where one of the parents is at home. Both are out working. What we have is a situation where many of the students are at home on their own. I haven't been able to gather the statistics in this regard, but it's my impression -- I think it's a safe assumption -- to say that more of those students are going to get into trouble.

I have also learned from speaking with teachers and board trustees that not every student who is affected by a strike or lockout returns to school when the school is reopened. That is an issue we have to address.

I don't think there's anybody in this House who would not argue that our future, the future of this province, lies in our youth. Surely we have every responsibility to address a problem whereby we are keeping our students out of school.

The Acting Speaker: This motion will be dealt with at the end of the second private members' hour, which is beginning now.

ACID GAS EMISSION CONTROL

Mr Cousens moved resolution 4:

That, in the opinion of this House, since each of the four major sulphur dioxide sources in Ontario reported in November 1989 to the standing committee on general government that they would meet or surpass the emission reductions required for 1994 by the Countdown Acid Rain program, and since the committee subsequently recommended that the Ministry of the Environment should "vigorously" plan for the post-1994 stage of acid gas emission control with respect to the four major polluters, and since the four major polluters only account for 80% of Ontario's sulphur dioxide emissions, therefore the Ontario government's Countdown Acid Rain program should be extended beyond 1994 and expanded to include the other 20% of emitters, and this government should introduce new regulations under the Environmental Protection Act that will:

1. Establish specific emission limits and schedules for each of the four major acid gas emission sources (Ontario Hydro, Inco Ltd, Falconbridge and Algoma Steel) for the period 1995-2005, and

2. Establish specific emission limits and schedules for all other emitters of sulphur dioxide and nitric oxide.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Cousens moves private member's resolution 4. The honourable member for Markham has 10 minutes in which to open up debate, at which time all recognized parties will have 15 minutes to participate. The honourable member for Markham will then have two minutes to sum up.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This is an important issue that we have an opportunity to review for at least the next hour. When one looks at the environmental concerns that make up the whole issue the Minister of the Environment and all of us are concerned about, there are really four subjects. We're dealing with land and the resolution of landfill problems and contaminated soils. We're dealing with water and what we can do to make sure our waterways are clean and pure. We're dealing with air and what we can do to make sure the air we breathe and the air we have is as clean as possible, and fourth, all the regulatory and legal establishment around the Ministry of the Environment to make sure the Planning Act, the Municipal Act and those other acts that are part of the development of this province have an environmental emphasis. So primarily we're dealing with air, water and land.

My resolution this morning allows us to look at what we can do to deal with what is still an existing problem: acid rain. Far from having gone away, it's been something we have addressed for the last number of years, in which there has been significant progress made, and I'll certainly touch on that during my presentation. But let us not forget that acid rain is still a problem. It is a problem where sulphur dioxide, nitric oxide and their reaction to sunlight creates a very damaging substance. It pollutes the air; it pollutes the water; it destroys our lakes and forests. I know the number of maple trees that continue to die, and you somehow see it. They start dying at the top, and then before you know it the whole tree is dead. This acid rain is certainly something that slowly and continuously, unless we stop that source of acidity, will destroy more and more of our trees.

Indeed, acid rain contributes to the greenhouse effect and global warming. We're all more and more concerned as we have seen the changes in the climatic structure of our country and the world over recent years. If there's anything we can do to preserve and protect earth from ourselves, then we must do it. I'm told acid rain also contributes to ozone depletion.

So as you start looking at all the contributing factors, not only to our own local natural environment and the destruction of trees and lakes and our waters, but also when you look at the long-term implications throughout the globe and the atmosphere, we too must be very genuinely concerned about the long-term impact of acid rain.

Over a number of years, our Legislature, starting back in 1985 and earlier, was able to sit down with the four major contributors to the problem of acid rain and give them targets and involve them in finding a solution to it. Since then, those four major polluters and causes of acid rain, who are Inco, Falconbridge, Algoma and Ontario Hydro, have done an incredibly excellent job in trying to reduce their acid rain levels. Whereas in 1985 Inco had levels of 728,000 tonnes per year, by 1994 it will have brought that down to almost a third: 265,000 tonnes per year. In 1985 Falconbridge had 154,000 tonnes, and will by 1994 have brought it down to 100,000 tonnes per year; Algoma Steel, from 285,000 tonnes down to 125,000; Ontario Hydro, almost in half, from 390,000 to 175,000.

1110

So often in the Legislature we, in our legislative freedom to say what we want when we want, are quick to reject the efforts made by industries and accuse them of having failed society in different ways. Far from that, I would like to at least take this moment to commend them.

Although there was some arm-twisting and pressure was brought to bear from ourselves in the Legislature, not to coerce but at least encourage them to meet these targets -- and there would have been serious penalties had they not -- none the less, they've done it and will have accomplished what would once have seemed impossible in having reduced significantly the amount of emissions of acid rain from their plants.

We continue to see a problem, however. I have so many statistics around this. A committee of the Legislature spent extensive time on it. Our standing committee on general government, which met back in 1989, reviewed this and came up with a series of recommendations. These recommendations continue to stand. Among the recommendations they made was that the Ministry of the Environment should continue to plan beyond 1994 and they stated a series of projects that the government, in cooperation with industry, could develop for a long-term strategy.

I believe that long-term strategy and working with the four major polluters, which I include in my resolution, can be done through sitting around a table where there can be discussion and dialogue, knowing that they've come an awful long way and knowing that to go the next yard or mile, however far it might be, could be a very expensive step. But there may be methods in which we can look at a continuing strategy between the province and those four major causes of acid rain and continue to develop a solution over the long term.

Let's not just leave 1994 to come and go without there being some peace of mind that there's an ongoing strategy for the future to continue to reduce our own emissions of acid rain in Ontario. That is the first part of my resolution.

The second part deals with another aspect to the whole problem, and that is those 20% of the people or companies that continue to provide far more acid rain. They don't have the regulations or controls the four major polluters had. I think it's terrible that I continue to call them polluters; they're corporations, responsible companies and they've done a great deal to address this problem.

We, as a government and as legislators, must look at the other sources of this problem. As you look at it you realize that petroleum refineries, primary metal refineries -- it's not just the great big nickel refineries that are causing the problem; pulp and paper mills contribute 2.4% of sulphur oxide, chemical manufacturing some 0.9%, different forms of manufacturing end up generating additional sources of acid rain and nitric oxide.

Our concern then is, what can we do about it? The first thing you had better understand is that certain parts of our province are more affected than others. The worst-affected areas happen to be in southwestern Ontario. The five worst-affected communities are Colchester, Merlin, Port Stanley, Wilkesport, Alvinston and Huron Park.

In the map provided here by the Ministry of the Environment, there isn't any doubt that they have a problem. I also have to believe that a large part of their problem isn't from Ontario and that we have a problem in the United States where, rather sadly, the Clean Air Act has been put on hold by the US government during an election year when they are trying to win other points with their electorate, causing our constituents and the people in our province to suffer unduly.

What we have is a system where you've got communities continuing to receive in excess of what is seen to be an acceptable rate of acid rain per year. The guidelines the Ontario government has say that 20 kilograms per hectare is an acceptable rate. In Minnesota there is another rate, 11 kilograms per hectare. What I would like to see through the continuing dialogue and discussion on this whole subject of acid rain is what an acceptable level is and to what degree we have a problem. I am not a scientist, but I would like to have a sense of understanding that the government is doing everything within its power to reduce those levels and to make sure that whatever level we have we can continue to live with in comfort and with some sense of security.

Something has been done in an acceptable way for the four major causes of acid rain. As to those other 20% that are producing such a great amount of it, can we not begin now, before the end of 1994, as a provincial Legislature to develop a strategy to deal with them?

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Mr Cousens's private member's motion?

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I welcome this chance to speak for the environment this morning. As members of this House are well aware, this government and the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Ruth Grier, have a profound commitment to the environment, a commitment to bring about the kinds of measures that will renew and help sustain a healthful environment.

As has been indicated in the resolution of the member opposite, there are concerns about the kinds of industrial emissions that go into the air. In the past few years environmentalists, citizens and governments have become more and more aware of the health problems and environmental damage created by such emissions. As we become better informed and gather more scientific data, we can make better-informed decisions about the steps we must take to safeguard our future.

A good example of that action, based on scientific data and better information, is the decision taken by the Minister of the Environment in April 1991 to ban all future incinerators of municipal solid waste.

Last winter, the standing committee on social development heard once again from a number of people, including Dr Paul Connett, Dr Helen Henrickson and Dr J. Walter Ewing. They told us clearly that the incineration of municipal solid waste was irresponsible and unsafe. Dr Ewing told us that airborne emissions from incinerators contain heavy metals such as lead, solvents such as benzene, and complex hydrocarbons such as dioxins and furans. Dr Henrickson provided tables and data to illustrate the folly of incineration, while Dr Connett spoke eloquently of the absolute lunacy of burning the resources that we will need in the future.

This was the kind of information that supports the minister's decision to ban all future incinerators of municipal solid waste, a decision, I must say, that was soundly criticized in this House and in the standing committee on social development by the opposition and, ironically, by the very member of the third party who has brought this resolution to establish emission limits and schedules for the four major acid gas emission sources. I can only assume that the member for Markham has had a change of heart when it comes to what is going into the air. I'm pleased that the minister has effected this marvellous change in attitude. I might add that controlling emissions also supports our principle to prevent pollution in the first place.

I would like to turn my attention to the specific resolution introduced by the member opposite to establish emission limits beyond 1994 for sulphur dioxide and nitric oxide, two of the gases associated with acid rain. As with all decisions taken by this government, and as was the case with the decision to ban future municipal solid waste incinerators, any action will be based on reliable information. Let me be clear: We agree with the principle of the resolution. There is a need to move beyond the 1994 targets. The Ministry of the Environment is currently assessing various technologies to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions. When this study is complete and we have the data we need, the ministry will be in a position to decide on the appropriate action. The study is expected to be complete later this year, but we need reliable information to make good decisions, not premature decisions.

I would like to tell the House about some of the current activity to reduce other emissions. Nitric oxide from mobile and stationary sources is addressed under the federalprovincial nitric oxide volatile organic compounds management plan of November 1990. Under this federal-provincial arrangement, nitric oxide emissions from light-duty vehicles and trucks will be limited to 0.4 grams per vehicle-mile travelled as of 1996. This will provide a 60% reduction in these emissions.

1120

The Ministry of the Environment is currently evaluating regional initiatives to reduce nitric oxide emissions from stationary sources, with plans to develop a reduction program for Ontario. New source performance guidelines for a number of industrial sectors are being developed jointly by multistakeholder working groups. This would limit nitric oxide emissions from gas turbines and industrial boilers and would control emissions from future sources. These will be adopted by Ontario.

At this point in time industry involved in the Countdown Acid Rain program is on target. As of 1994 the emission limits for the four major acid gas emitters are capped. There will be no increase from those limits. In fact, Falconbridge, as has been mentioned, has announced that it will further reduce the 1994 limit, by another 25 kilotonnes by 1998. So you see, when it comes to sulphur dioxide and nitric acid emissions, industry realizes the environmentalists, the citizens and the government are concerned with acid rain and is moving to address those concerns through positive action.

I will conclude my remarks because I know my colleague the member for Peterborough would like to speak. I would, however, like to thank the member for Markham for his interest in the quality of air Ontarians breathe and assure him that once we have the data we need our minister will be in a position to make the informed decisions to safeguard our future and protect our environment, just as she did in April 1991.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I am pleased to rise in support of the resolution of the member for Markham and congratulate him for bringing forward this important issue at this time.

There are so many threats to our environment today that we as individuals feel very helpless to do anything to really change them. Just last week I was reading in the Sunday New York Times the sad story of the plight of our oceans and the degradation. Things like that, and the weakening of the ozone layers, we really can't individually do much to change, but as the member for Markham has aptly pointed out, acid rain is an issue we as legislators can change, so I think it's really timely that he's brought forward the opportunity to set new targets for the reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions in Ontario.

We can't do it alone. Half of Ontario's acid rain comes from the United States, mostly coal-fired power plants, so we need cuts on both sides of the border to solve the problem. But as far as we still have to go in Ontario, there's no doubt we have come a long way in the past seven years.

The cooperation from Ontario's four major emitters -- Ontario Hydro, Inco, Falconbridge and Algoma Steel -- has been exceptional, to such an extent that not only are they meeting the target set by the Countdown Acid Rain program, but it even appears that some of them are surpassing the targets. They are certainly to be commended for their efforts and their commitment to finding new technological ways to solve the problem.

The Ministry of the Environment recently sent out a news release, dated March 25, 1992, where it reported that Ontario's Countdown Acid Rain program was on schedule, and some of the things the ministry reported were very heartening.

They stated that there were increased budgets for the sulphur dioxide abatement projects at both Inco and Falconbridge's copper- and nickel-smelting operations in Sudbury. They reported that Ontario Hydro plans to install limestone slurry scrubbers, which will reduce sulphur dioxide emissions at the Lambton generating station, by 1994. They reported the possibility that Falconbridge may be able to cut its sulphur dioxide emissions by one quarter of its 1994 target, to 75 kilotonnes by 1998. They reported that Ontario Hydro had a 77% cut in imported electricity for the six months ending July 1991 over the same period from the previous year. All those things signify that we are going in the right direction.

I also have to commend the former Minister of the Environment, Jim Bradley, who did so much, not only in initiating the Countdown Acid Rain program in December 1985, but in fostering the development of the program. I'm sure all members in this House will agree that his efforts and contributions to the success of the Countdown Acid Rain program should not go unnoted.

By the way, the member for Middlesex mentioned and gave credit to the current Minister of the Environment for the ban of municipal solid waste incineration. I would like to bring to her attention that here too, Jim Bradley was way ahead of his time. In May 1989, Jim Bradley, as Minister of the Environment, had already banned the operation of 1,200 apartment building incinerators.

As positive as all these initiatives have been and as the program has been, the magnitude of the problem is still very serious. I would like to give you two examples of the impact of acid rain.

Did you know that between 2,000 and 4,500 lakes in Ontario may be acidified to the point where they can no longer support fish species? Scientists estimate that by the year 2000, another 48,000 lakes in Ontario could be dead. Pretty frightening, isn't it?

The maple syrup industry in Parry Sound has been affected to the point where the dieback rate of maple trees has more than doubled, from 2% to 5%. Trees that have not died have become weakened and more susceptible to disease and insect infestations. This has implications for Ontario's $22-billion forest industry as well as our tourist and sports fishing industries.

I think these few facts illustrate that the problem has not gone away. I think it is very encouraging to find what the four major emitters have been doing, but another 20% of emitters in Ontario have not been touched. So, as the member for Markham has stated, now is the time to take the next step. Now is the time to plan the new targets. Now is the time to include those other 20% of acid rain emitters. Right now we do not have to meet targets, so I urge all members of this House to rise in support of the resolution that I am glad the member brought forward today.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Mr Cousens's private member's resolution?

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): It's really a pleasure and an honour to rise today and support my colleague the member for Markham and his resolution. I think it is a very commonsense resolution that really recognizes the work that's been done in the past to stop acid rain emissions, to cut down on those emissions, and asks the government to be a bit visionary and to look beyond the 1994 planning framework that's in place now and to set emission reduction targets for those emitters, those many companies that are not included in the Big Four: Ontario Hydro, Inco, Falconbridge and Algoma Steel.

I think it's appalling that the NDP member who spoke earlier is not supporting this resolution today. I think it sends a terrible message to the 19 communities, some of which were alluded to in the member for Markham's remarks, communities like Alvinston, Campbellford, Cloyne and Gloucester, Coldwater, Dalhousie Mills, Dorset, Huron Park, Mattawa, Merlin, Port Stanley, Shallow Lake, Turkey Lakes, Uxbridge, Waterloo, Wilberforce and Wilkesport. I think it's a terrible message that the government has just sent out.

Really, it doesn't care about those communities and it doesn't care about the fact that currently, under the Countdown Acid Rain program, there's an unacceptably high amount of acid rain today being dumped on those 19 communities. It's information that's public from the Ministry of the Environment. We believe the information to be true. It's totally unacceptable for the government to pretend that the status quo is fine and that everything's going along hunky-dory. It isn't true at all.

I do want to talk for a moment about the Countdown Acid Rain program. I note that it has capped total sulphur dioxide emissions at 665 kilotonnes by 1994 for the four major producers of acid rain gases: Ontario Hydro, Inco, Falconbridge and Algoma Steel.

1130

In Ontario, the government's strategy over the years was to regulate each of the four major acid rain emission sources. The program and the regulations under the Environmental Protection Act were passed in December 1985 and established specific emission limits and schedules for the Inco and Falconbridge smelters in Sudbury, the Algoma Ore Division's iron ore sintering plant at Wawa and Ontario Hydro's fossil-fuelled electricity generating stations across the province.

I just want to point out that according to a March 25, 1992, MOE news release, "The four companies which produce more than 80% of Ontario's sulphur dioxide continue to meet the targets set by the six-year-old Countdown Acid Rain program."

I point out, as the member for Markham has pointed out, that these four companies have invested millions of dollars to rein in their sulphur dioxide emissions. The record at Inco, Falconbridge, Ontario Hydro and Algoma Steel is quite commendable. They've done a tremendous job of bringing down their emissions and spending really huge amounts of money. I note that Inco has increased its sulphur abatement projects budget from $494 million to $600 million and from 1986 to 1990 it has reduced its emissions from 685 kilotonnes to 525 kilotonnes.

Our own standing committee on general government in November 1989 noted that Inco "does not look at the 1994 targets as being the end of the road and is committed to supporting research and development to further limit emissions of acid gases."

That's really what today's resolution calls upon the government to do, to think beyond the program that's in place now and to deal with those 20% of polluters. As the member for Markham says, you hate to call companies polluters, but there are a significant number of companies out there that continue to emit harmful gases into our environment and they're not being dealt with under the current regulations or programs.

Again, it's appalling that the government would not at least signal today, in support of a private member's bill, its intent to be helpful in this area, its intent to support what the Ontario PC Party really began in 1984. I think it was alluded to by the member for Markham. Some very tough decisions were taken by my party back in 1984 to begin the process of dealing with acid rain gas emissions in a significant way. I think we have a proud record there.

It's appalling for the socialist government, which certainly has campaigned over the years on being holier than thou on environmental issues and always better than Tories could ever be on environmental issues, to say today that it's not supporting this resolution. It is frankly mind-boggling.

I note the support of members of the Liberal caucus. I think that's very good because what the member for Markham is again trying to do is to bring us further into the future and to bring in some reasonable and fair reductions in those emissions harmful to our environment. I'm very supportive of it.

I would note that there's even more work to be done in the Big Four companies. They certainly understand that. While Ontario Hydro has been able to cut down its emissions at home, it has increasingly imported electricity from other jurisdictions, including the United States. Although in early 1991 it began to cut back its reliance on foreign power, it still remains too high and we have very little control or influence over what the emission targets are in the United States, where we're buying a significant amount of our power.

It's incumbent upon this government to work with its neighbours across the border to try to bring our standards into line and to get agreement, because when we import electricity, we're also really importing the problem back. The prevailing winds in North America bring a lot of the acid rain from the US, and to simply slough off our problem by having them generate the electricity there and us import it is not acceptable.

I think the resolution today is very worthwhile. It's unbelievable that all parties would not get together to support it.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much. Further debate on Mr Cousens's private member's resolution.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I'd like to congratulate the member for Markham on raising the important matter of acid rain. There really is no quarrel here, I think. I would like to believe that his motives for doing this are non-political, because this, like other environmental questions, is truly a matter that concerns us all, and particularly those who look more than a year or two into the future or even, like our aboriginal friends, are concerned with seven generations ahead.

The only reason I shall not be voting for the resolution being put forward by the member for Markham is that I believe the matters which quite rightly concern the member are receiving attention. Specific limits on emission levels for 1995 to 2005 will be considered, I understand, if and when they become necessary. But, as has been pointed out, the four companies that are participating in the Countdown Acid Rain program -- Inco, Falconbridge, Algoma Steel and Ontario Hydro -- have submitted their 11th progress report. Their emissions are being cut 67% by 1994 from the base case 1980 levels. Target reductions are being met or exceeded, and planned technological improvements will yield further reductions.

I also understand that the ministry is currently assessing various technologies available to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions and related control costs from other uncontrolled stationary sources. When this study is complete, the ministry will review the results and decide on future actions.

I do agree that at no point, whether it be in 1994 or beyond, should we relax our efforts to cut down on acid gas emissions. As population, economic activity and energy use increase, so do the pressures which lead to pollution.

The term "acid rain" is relatively recent, but as a child in Britain I used to wonder why many varieties of plant that flourished in rural areas simply would not grow in cities. Of course everybody then heated their homes with open coal fires. I remember the choking yellow fog that hit London in the early 1950s, causing many deaths.

However, much of Britain's acid rain emissions are blown eastward to Europe. This unwelcome gift has devastated lakes and forests in Scandinavia. Germany's Black Forest is suffering massive dieback. The collapse of eastern Europe and the USSR is probably as much due to unbridled environmental destruction, which undermines both the health and wealth of people there, as to any other cause.

We only need to look at the moonscape the Sudbury area became as once-productive farms were forced to close, or at dying maple trees and the reduced productivity of the sugar bush in many areas, and at those lakes where the water looks clean and pure but nothing lives and onetime salmon streams from which the salmon have disappeared, to realize that we must take acid gas emissions very seriously indeed.

It has been said that half the acid gas pollution we experience here in Ontario originates in the United States. This also means, of course, that half of it originates right here. We have to fix our own half of the problem if we're to have any credibility when we complain about what is coming in from outside.

At least we are making good progress, and the situation is already a great deal better than it would have been if no action had been taken. Inco is switching to new technology which will lead to the production of marketable sulphuric acid, an indication of the positive economic effects that can accrue from pollution control. Ontario Hydro is fitting scrubbers to its coal-fired generating stations at Lambton and Nanticoke and is buying low-sulphur coal.

Nitric oxide, largely generated by vehicles but also by stationary sources, is the major cause of lung-damaging, ground-level ozone and the photochemical smog which this can generate. Toronto is particularly badly affected by this, as a recent survey of North American cities has shown. I believe that federal programs are addressing this problem.

1140

It's difficult to separate the acid rain problem from the related problems of global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer. To address these, we need to look also at the emission of carbon dioxide and of methane and chlorofluorocarbons. We need to all work together on these problems because we all have our health and our world to lose. Recent experiments have shown that in my own area, Peterborough, climatic stress rather than acid rain is causing tree dieback.

We are playing a grizzly game of roulette with the ozone layer, arguably the most threatening problem at this time. There was an article in the Globe and Mail, I think just last week, that described the situation in Patagonia, southern Chile, where the ozone layer is down to something like half of normal levels. Wildlife such as rabbits and fish are going blind. There was a market gardener who was increasingly finding that his crops would not grow out of doors. They were being shrivelled up by the ultraviolet radiation and he was having to put more and more of his plants into greenhouses. Unless we want to keep our children indoors during the day and grow all our food in greenhouses, give up our sunbathing habits, we're going to have halt the release of CFCs and halons into the atmosphere.

It is in the best interests of business, large and small, to be in the vanguard of progress rather than clinging to out-of-date methods of production and even out-of-date products. By using products such as gypsum and coal ash for construction and producing sulphuric acid, we can substitute valuable byproducts for what used to be hazardous waste.

I commend the Ministry of the Environment for what it has done and is doing. I hope and believe that they will maintain and increase their efforts.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to rise and speak to the resolution of the member for Markham that is before us this morning.

I want to comment very briefly on the comments made by the member for Peterborough and tell her that I appreciate very much her overview and the very sincere concern the member has. She has been noted for her concern and involvement in environmental issues, even prior to her election to this place. You are to be commended for that, I say to the member for Peterborough, and I thank her as well for the overview in terms of looking at this not only from our point of view in Ontario but also on an international basis and recognizing that, when all is said and done, we are all one people on this earth. What we do here affects people elsewhere in the world and what people do elsewhere affects us.

Pollution knows no boundaries. It knows no international or provincial boundaries. The air that we breathe, the water that sustains our life and sustains our planet is part and parcel of the world that we live in and travels literally around the world. In that lies one of the great concerns that the member for Markham seeks to address in his resolution today.

I also want to thank my colleague the member for Eglinton for her thoughtful presentation on the resolution this morning, in laying out some of the factual concerns in terms of acid rain and its impact in our jurisdiction of the province of Ontario.

I don't think coincidental -- perhaps it is coincidental -- the fact that before I came in here this morning I was walking down the hall and ran into a group of young people together with their teacher, as it turns out, from just outside the city of Guelph, and they asked who I was and what I was doing. I mentioned my role as Environment critic and I chatted for a while with the students. The teacher said, "What's happening about air emissions with automobiles?" "Very little," was the response, although we have seen some initiatives taken by the government in terms of tax initiatives, looking at a tax incentive to buy automobiles that would not use as much fossil fuel that would ultimately contribute to acid rain.

I think that points out the thing the member for Peterborough was touching on, that for young people, and people of all ages, this is not a political issue. It's an issue that touches on all of us and indeed will touch on generations to come.

Again, I say to the member for Markham, thank you very much for what you're doing here today. As the member for Simcoe West said, I hope the government members will consider the spirit in which it is put forward. It is not a challenge to the government. It is a challenge to each and every one of us to move beyond the point we will be at in 1994, when the regulations set by the Countdown Acid Rain program expire, and say by way of resolution, not binding on the government but directive, that we will move together to go beyond 1994, recognizing that was a significant step in dealing with the four major polluters in the province but that there is much more that needs to be done.

I think it interesting as well to read into the record some statements made in 1989 by the now Minister of Environment with respect to this very issue which would lead me to believe that if the minister were here today she would be in full support of the resolution put forward by the member for Markham.

For example, in October 1989, when we were considering the Countdown Acid Rain program before committee, she had some concerns about CAP, the clean air program, and was concerned that it was bogged down. "This is serious, because in a number of other contexts, when you ask about air pollution and air regulations, a lot of credence is put on CAP...we were told that the control of small sources, of course, would rely on CAP." If I can digress from the quote, the small sources are the other 20% not covered by Countdown Acid Rain. "If CAP is long overdue and not proceeding apace, when do we get to control the small sources?" We are going to have to be controlled under Countdown Acid Rain through until 1994. "What about all the others? What about post-1994?"

Is that not the very question the member for Markham puts in his resolution? What about post-1994? What are we going to do beyond that? The minister went on to say, again in October 1989: "Is there planning beyond Countdown Acid Rain? What preparation has been made to bring the major polluters below the limits that they are going to be reaching in 1994?" I might add parenthetically that some of them will reach them before 1994 and will exceed the limits. But surely that is the essence of the resolution put forward by the member for Markham today. Those were the words of the now Minister of the Environment, the leader of the government today in terms of environmental issues.

Not only that. As Minister of the Environment, she has the role in terms of leadership for this entire province. I hope that in her absence her colleagues will recognize that and will in effect speak on behalf of the Minister of the Environment in support of the resolution by the member for Markham, because I cannot for the life of me see any distinction, quite frankly, between the questions that were put and the concerns that are implicit in those questions raised by the minister in 1989. They seem to me to be fully supportive of the resolution by the member for Markham.

I also might add that in the last Parliament the now Minister of the Environment was very supportive -- as you know, Mr Speaker, much of what happens in this place that seems to get all the attention is when there is some difference of opinion and issues of contention. But the now Minister of the Environment, Mrs Grier, was very supportive, over and over again, in giving recognition to the work by the member for St Catharines in initiating the Countdown Acid Rain program and the tremendous accomplishments that achieved.

I hope you will accept, I say to my friends of all three parties and my colleagues in this caucus, in the spirit that I hope will prevail with respect to the resolution by the member for Markham this morning, a series of comments made by the Honourable Ruth Grier, Minister of the Environment, on April 30, 1992, just a week ago. A week ago today in the morning Mrs Grier said, "But industry is not the only key factor in preventing pollution. It's a challenge that transcends...economics," among other things. She said it "transcends engineering, technology and economics. Preventing pollution is a social challenge. It calls for education, adjusting habits and attitudes and inducing positive changes in the way we think, work, do business and live." She also went on to say -- I hope I can find the quote -- that we needed to change the way we conduct ourselves in government, because the environment is too important to allow it to get caught up in partisan issues.

1150

I would urge my colleagues opposite, particularly, to look at the substance of what Mr Cousens is saying. He's not being critical in any respect. He recognizes that advances have been made in terms of the Countdown Acid Rain Program, but in the words of the Minister of the Environment today, "That's good, but there's more to be done." Mr Cousens recognizes that and says, "Let's move ahead and move forward." So I would urge my colleagues to support Mr Cousens's resolution this morning.

I would hope that the government members, in fact all members of this House, would support the resolution because of the spirit it embodies. Nobody pretends they have all the answers, but we have a series of many solutions that can be brought to bear on a massive problem.

I commend the member for Markham. I thank him for his initiative and I thank my colleagues on this side of the House and opposite who have risen in support of that resolution and I hope we would accept it, I say to my friend Mr Cousens, the member for Markham, as a challenge. As well, each and every one of us can contribute and be vigilant and do what we can in our own communities as well as on the level we serve for the province of Ontario.

As the member for Peterborough so very well brought to our attention, what we do here affects women, men and children, literally, around the world. We share this planet together. Certainly this is the kind of thing where we can work together in bringing some solutions that will move us ahead, and not just rely on the past but look forward. Again, I commend the member for Markham.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): In the very brief time that's allowed me, I also want to commend the member for Markham for bringing forth this resolution and indicate to him that I have every intention of voting with him on this matter.

There's no question that in Victoria-Haliburton, the area I come from, there's a significant problem with our maple forest. It has been affected significantly by acid rain. There's no question that the kinds of measures Mr Cousens puts forward would be helpful in trying to ensure that this matter is grappled with.

We have had many accords with various jurisdictions in terms of the northern United States and in terms of the United States as a nation, and I've found this has not been enough to ensure that acid rain is diminished. I think the kinds of things that are suggested in this resolution are not only timely but essential if we're going to be able to combat this particular problem. As I said, as I represent an area where there is a significant maple forest, I would like to assure the honourable member of my support for this resolution.

Mr Cousens: I thank all members of the House for their participation in the debate on this important issue. I particularly appreciate the support I've received from one member opposite, the member for Victoria-Haliburton, and I also very much appreciate the comments from the member for Eglinton and the member for Brampton North and from my colleague in our own caucus, the member for Simcoe West.

The fact of the matter is that I see this as very much a non-partisan issue and certainly a non-threatening resolution to the present Ministry of the Environment. You just have to go back to when the standing committee on general government met in 1989. The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Ruth Grier, was on that committee as a substitute. She was part of the group that made recommendations from that committee. There were a series of nine recommendations. One of those, the first one, is that "the Ministry of the Environment should vigorously plan for the post-1994 stage of acid gas control." She was part of that recommendation.

I now hear the member for Peterborough and the member for Middlesex almost indicating that the minister is backing off from a committee report that she was part of, and that is what I really have concern with, because I also concur with the member for Brampton North, Carman McClelland, who said that if the minister were here, she would probably support it. Certainly she did then, unless it's an example of where she's had a change of heart.

Nine recommendations were made by that committee to have an ongoing monitoring of air emissions, a series of recommendations that we just don't want to take for granted, that we just don't want to leave to chance. We as legislators have a responsibility to fulfil, and we can fulfil that responsibility in such a way that we work in consultation now with the four major problem generators of acid rain and nitric oxide. We can work with them. They have proven goodwill and they have gone beyond the guidelines, and there may be ways in which they, in cooperation with the government and with technology, and we can together move further into the future to have even better successes.

The concerns that are raised by the member for Simcoe West about the number of Ontario municipalities and communities that are suffering inordinate amounts of acid rain is a matter of concern. Don't take it for granted. We can do all we can, and we must. To just let it happen in post-1994 is to take a chance, whereas if we sit down and plan it together, we can come up with some remedies and some long-term strategies.

The United States government has proven how bad it can get on this issue, and I don't have any excuses for that group. You come along and have President Bush say, "Every American expects and deserves to breathe clean air. These principles will guide us as we turn the promise of the act into a legacy of clean air" -- that's when he was talking about the Clean Air Act of 1990 -- and yet they're sitting on them. The United States government is sitting on this as a possible issue on which it could be working, and I have a good feeling it is doing it because it's election year.

This is not an election issue. This is one of the fundamental issues that have to do with the whole society, the wellbeing of our hemisphere, the wellbeing of this globe. Sure, it's manifested in the destruction of trees, lakes, river systems and soil, and yes, it goes beyond that to the destruction of the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect. All of these are still rampant within our society, and unless we as a society, men and women in responsible positions, can develop a plan for the future, then what legacy do we leave for our children -- our children deserve more than what we are giving them -- if one of the gifts we bestow on the future is acid rain?

I read some of the same articles that the member for Eglinton referred to on what happened with the Soviet Union and the way it got rid of its leftover products in the generation of atomic energy, and there are a number of things there. Eastern Europe has a major problem with acid rain. It doesn't have the scrubbers and it doesn't seem to be able to afford them now. It's not part of the restoration program for Eastern Europe.

You just have to go to the Black Forest in Germany and you realize how bad it can be. There are degrees of badness. We are in a position where we can have degrees of goodness. You notch upward step by step, and over a period of time when we've developed a model for excellence, a model for environment survival, then we in our society and our children and their children's children into the next and the following centuries will have a legacy to fall back on.

When you look at this motion, it's purely a way of giving the government a chance to move ahead. The government came forward with a news release on March 25, 1992, prior to my resubmitting this resolution to the House for debate. When they put forward this news release, they were able to give an update which indeed corroborates much of the information we've all shared this morning. But the one thing the government has failed to do, and what I see the member for Peterborough and the member for Middlesex also failing to do, is have long-term goals. There is a certain joy in the successes that have been achieved with some of the major problems, but they have not developed a long-term strategy to deal with other, smaller, operators who are causing the problem. Two of the operators are you and me when we drive our cars, so we have to do more to reduce the amount of emissions coming from there.

There isn't anyone in our society today who doesn't expect the best of his or her legislators. If we are to do what we can to protect the environment for the long term, not just concentrate on the garbage problem alone -- which has probably consumed Minister Grier for the last year and a half -- but expand it into some of the other issues that have to deal with our air and our water, then we will begin to deal with all those issues.

This is a government that has an opportunity now to get rid of the partisan dividing walls that separate us and make us gang up into groups and instead work together for the betterment of all society. We can do something significant about this whole problem of acid rain.

As we move into the next century we have a chance to do something about it. It's not a matter of having confrontation. We've been able to do a great deal with Inco, Falconbridge, Algoma Steel and Ontario Hydro, and the next stage can be one where we work with all those other organizations and companies that are part of the problem today. We know who they are, who is talking to them, who is working with them, who is developing that strategy. That is the intent of my motion.

I do not want to go after the four major polluters. I think they have done a great deal and gone beyond it. Let's keep the dialogue going. Let's not break down the discussion levels. Let us continue to work it through and develop those strategies.

One of the recommendations that came out of the standing committee on general government, which looked at this issue back in 1979, is also worthy of continuing interest. That was that the standing committee on resources development should be given the continuing mandate to review compliance with the Ministry of the Environment's acid gas emission regulations. In our Legislature we have not had a committee looking at this for the last couple of years. It's time we did it. It's time the minister did something. Together we'll come up with further recommendations that do something.

I take pleasure in the reaction I have had from a large number of people in the House this morning. I thank them for the support they have shown and the commitment they continue to display for environmental matters. I sincerely hope that as we proceed into the vote there will be enough people in this House who will cause the minister to move ahead in a positive way.

SCHOOL BOARDS AND TEACHERS COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE ENTRE CONSEILS SCOLAIRES ET ENSEIGNANTS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item 5 standing in the name of Mr McGuinty. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr McGuinty has moved second reading of Bill 14, An Act to amend the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

ACID GAS EMISSION CONTROL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item 6 standing in the name of Mr Cousens.

If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Cousens has moved private member's notice of motion 4. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

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

The House recessed at 1205.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BUDGET

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Over the last few days our caucus has been bringing the public's concerns about the NDP budget to this House, but the NDP refuses to pay attention. Why doesn't the government listen to the housing industry analyst who told us: "Creative accounting belies the NDP's inability to face facts and make tough decisions. The income tax and surtax increases undermine federal efforts to give consumers some spending power"?

The government is also disregarding municipal problems, according to the eastern Ontario mayor who says, "The transfer of funds from the provincial government to municipal government have been cut tremendously, therefore creating even more financial hardship for the municipal level."

The people of the province are trying to send the NDP a message about how to solve the government's financial crisis, but this government just doesn't seem to care. Why is the government ignoring the concerns of a Toronto resident who says, "Once again the single-wage-earning family is being treated unfairly." Does the government not realize the impact that its budget is having on the people of this province? Why is it not listening to the analysts who have called this budget flim-flam?

ORANGEVILLE FARMERS MARKET

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to bring to the attention of the Legislature today a very special event that takes place every Saturday in my riding of Dufferin-Peel from now until the middle of October. The Orangeville farmers market will open for business this Saturday. Local and regional merchants will present their produce in an open-air market that takes us back to the days of our founding fathers. Farmers, merchants and service clubs working together will make a farmers market which is well worth the drive to Orangeville.

I welcome the members of this House to see a great example of free enterprise at work. The Orangeville farmers market was started last year by an enthusiastic group of individuals who worked long and hard to see their dream of having a market in Orangeville succeed. Every Saturday from now until the middle of October the Orangeville farmers market will be open for business. I would like to wish them much success in their second year and look forward to seeing you all at the market.

RECYCLING

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): Environmental issues seem to be never-ending, but Wentworth East has witnessed the solving of a major concern. The Ministry of the Environment, the township of Glanbrook and a community group called FASE, also known as For A Safer Environment, worked together with a private company to begin the dismantling of the largest tire dump in the province of Ontario.

Almost a million tires were being stored unsafely at P and L Tire Dump in my riding. Residents and politicians were worried that another potential fire situation existed. Other ministries have tried to defuse the problem, but a solution had to be found that included the removal and recycling of these tires in an environmentally correct fashion.

What happened? The Ministry of the Environment found a Canadian firm, Animat, that will ship the tires to its plant in Quebec and turn them into rubber mats. Besides this bid meeting the technical requirements, it was also the lowest of 10 submitted. Therefore, the taxpayers of Ontario received the best value possible. Yes, the Treasurer is very happy, the Ministry of the Environment is happy, the residents are happy and a potentially dangerous situation no longer exists.

It is very simple to sit on the other side of the House and criticize this government for what they consider a lack of action, but I know at first hand that we are working hard to clean up the environment, especially in sensitive sites.

TVONTARIO

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): As the member for Eglinton, I am proud to count TVOntario as one of my constituents. As one of the founding members of Friends of TVOntario, I am particularly proud to salute TVOntario today during Education Week.

TVOntario is at the forefront of educational television, not only here in Ontario but across the world. For the past 20 years it has played an invaluable role in creating educational opportunities in our communities. TVO leads the way in dealing with such topics as literacy, substance abuse, skills training, the environment and multiculturalism, and it responds to the need for commercial-free children's programming reflecting our standards and values. I know many of the members have children who grew up with Polkaroo and Muffy. TVOntario has also come to occupy a very important position in the cultural life of Franco-Ontarians by virtue of the extensive French-language programming provided by La Chaîne française.

The network has continued to evolve in response to changing circumstances and needs. In 1991, TVOntario launched the Teachers' Awards, which honour achievement and innovation in the use of education technology in the classroom. The list of achievements is long, so I believe that during this week, when we are recognizing and celebrating the role of education in this province, it is very fitting that we pay tribute to the unique treasure we have in TVOntario.

VIOLENCE IN PUBLICATIONS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I bring to the attention of the House a serious and alarming situation which has angered and upset my community of Burlington. A California-based company called Eclipse Comics is currently marketing throughout North America a series of trading cards which are similar to the popular baseball and hockey variety which children swap and collect, with the difference that these cards feature serial killers and mass murderers.

In addition to illustrations of psychopathic killers, the cards also describe the unique details of their perverse violence. Among other features, there is the story of a charity clown who raped and murdered teenage boys, and then there is the 11-year-old girl who strangled babies. Jeffrey Dahmer and his tale of human dismemberment and cannibalism, together with Charles Ng and many others, are also considered hot items by the manufacturer in this children's card series.

The NDP track record against violent pornography is a poor one. Last year Bob Rae and his Attorney General silently ignored appeals by the people of Burlington to support the police in their crackdown on hard-core pornography, including child pornography, distributed by the Triple-X video stores in their community. At a time when police are currently investigating a series of teenage murders that may be linked to a serial killer in the Niagara Peninsula, it is unthinkable that such cards are being marketed as a desired collectible for impressionable children.

My community is angry and concerned about these cards. I call on the Premier and his government to do everything within their power to block the entry of these perverse trading cards into Ontario and to ensure that they do not find their way into the children's playgrounds of our province.

TVONTARIO

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): This is Education Week and I would like to join my friends from the other two parties in praising the work of TVOntario. As a former educator, I've had the benefit of the fine programming TVOntario creates. On many occasions, I have used all or parts of shows to make a class more interesting or relevant to the students. Students use all their senses to learn, and TVOntario provides thought-provoking programming that draws the viewer's interest, whether it is in history, science, languages or philosophy. Students of all ages can learn from the programs on TVOntario.

Just the other day I was watching a program on physics. It was about surface tension. The instructor said that a paper clip could float on water. My children were interested in this, so we took a glass of water and they floated paper clips. Some eventually sank, but their interest was definitely stimulated.

The programming is suitable for all viewers. Who hasn't watched Elwy Yost on Saturday night interview actors and actresses about their roles in films and the history of films? What child hasn't watched Polka Dot Door and been fascinated by Polkaroo? Their history show, Origins, not only was educational but helped bind the country together by showing viewers that all parts of Canada share a common history.

In closing, I'd ask that all Ontarians continue to support TVOntario and its fine programs.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE / CONFLIT DES ENSEIGNANTS

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): For 24 days, high school students in Ottawa-Carleton have been out of school as a result of the Carleton Board of Education teachers' strike. Nearly 15,000 students in total have been affected by this strike, which began on April 2, when 12,000 teachers first walked out.

The ensuing negotiations between the school board and the teachers collapsed late yesterday afternoon. Now that things have reached an impasse, what does the Minister of Education plan to do to help solve this problem? If the strike continues, there is the possibility that students will lose their year. Many irate parents in my constituency of Carleton East are concerned that their children will not be able to make up the lost curriculum. The longer we wait, the further we jeopardize the future of our youth.

Cette génération va souffrir de notre incapacité de résoudre la grève des enseignants. Il est déraisonnable que nos enfants paient de leur éducation ces négociations infructueuses et cette grève prolongée. Nous devons chercher une meilleure solution.

To ensure that members are kept abreast of this issue, I would ask the Minister of Education to make daily announcements in this House.

Je fais confiance à l'honorable ministre de l'Éducation. Je m'attends à ce qu'il prenne toutes le mesures nécessaires en vue d'encourager les intéressés à reprendre les pourparlers afin que sous peu les élèves retournent en classe.

1340

CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'd like to speak today about the cancer society of Ontario. Last weekend, on Sunday, I had the opportunity to bicycle some 15 kilometres to raise money for cancer.

Interjection: Was there a motor on it?

Mr McLean: There was no motor. It was an interesting exercise, so to speak.

I was very pleased to be part of that great ride for cancer, because there are so many volunteers who put their time into raising funds for that very worthwhile cause. I felt it a real privilege and an honour to be part of it.

I remember when Terry Fox crossed this great province. From the east he got as far as Thunder Bay. I was in Thunder Bay the day they unveiled the monument in honour of Terry Fox and I thought that was a pretty exciting day. When Terry was going through Orillia, I had the opportunity to invite him and welcome him to the city as he was passing by. As a matter of fact, the Sanderson Monument Co in Orillia is the one that dedicated and put most of the granite in that monument on the Trans-Canada Highway in honour of Terry Fox.

I compliment the volunteers in this province. I know many have had friends who have died of cancer. I hope everyone here will take part in it and have more influence, because cancer can be beaten.

ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETY

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I stand in this House today to call attention to Elizabeth Fry Week being celebrated this week until Sunday. The Elizabeth Fry societies in Ontario are joining together to celebrate over 40 years of providing services for women in conflict with the law.

As members may know, the first agency was established in Kingston in 1949. The agency was named after the 19th century English reformer of the penal system whose work among the women and children of Newgate prison began a long tradition of addressing the special needs of incarcerated women. Other Elizabeth Fry agencies were established in Toronto and Ottawa in the 1950s.

A particularly important inspiration to the establishment of these agencies was a passionate speech on the plight of women in the criminal justice system given by Agnes Macphail, one of the first female members of Parliament.

Today in Ontario there are six autonomous agencies, plus two in development. There are 19 others across the country. The Ontario agencies are represented collectively by the Council of Elizabeth Fry Societies of Ontario.

Events this week are being held in Hamilton, Kingston, Ottawa, Brampton, Sudbury and Toronto. Included in these events is the screening of the documentary Locked In-Locked Out, which describes the situation of incarcerated women.

I would like to acknowledge the important work that Elizabeth Fry societies do in Ontario. They work with women in conflict with the law who are often women who are poor, unemployed, undereducated and single mothers. Many of the women they work with are also abused as children. Elizabeth Fry societies also work to increase our awareness of issues concerning women and the law.

I encourage all members to participate in activities this week.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before continuing with routine proceedings, I would invite all members to welcome to our midst this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, Mr Fatu Vaili Afamasaga, who is the Speaker of the Parliament of Western Samoa. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING FUND

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Skills Development): One week ago today the Treasurer stood up in this House and delivered a budget with three clear directions for Ontario: jobs, preserving services and controlling the deficit.

He told us that services are not maintained by uncontrolled spending. A service that is not cost-effective is a service at risk, precisely because it is not cost-effective. In other words, the social wellbeing of this province and the wise use of tax dollars go hand in hand.

The Jobs Ontario training fund I am announcing today reflects expressly this principle and launches a direct attack on the recession. It also reflects this government's belief that business talent plus the tremendous human potential of Ontario's workforce is the combination that will bring this province out of the recession and into prosperity.

The principles of employment equity are integral to the Jobs Ontario training fund. We shall be working with various organizations representing the racial minority community, aboriginal peoples, people with disabilities, francophones and women to ensure that the Jobs Ontario training fund will truly provide employment and training opportunities for the participating long-term unemployed, from a wide range of communities.

All of Ontario will benefit from this strategy, especially our young people, many of whom feel that right now they have no real alternative to unemployment.

The Jobs Ontario training fund is a three-year, $1.1-billion initiative to get the long-term unemployed trained and back to work.

After the 1981-82 recession, people forced out of work and on to welfare stayed right there. Right now, we have over one million people in Ontario, families, neighbours and friends, reliant on social assistance. Not only is the hardship this involves unacceptable, but we literally can no longer afford this tragic waste of human potential.

The Jobs Ontario training fund will also make it easier for parents of young children, especially single parents, to get back to work by creating up to 20,000 subsidized child care spaces. Initially the government of Ontario will pay 100% of the approved costs of this expansion, both capital costs and fee subsidies. This action will be very important for municipalities and other funding partners, who are usually responsible for meeting 20% of the costs, as you know. This will relieve them of a heavy financial pressure.

For employers, a key element of this program will be the training credit. The costs of hiring and training new employees are significant, and especially so for small businesses. Now employers will be eligible for a training credit of up to $10,000 for each newly hired program participant over one year. At least half of that will be used to train the new worker coming into the workplace thanks to this program. The rest, however, may be used to train existing employees.

I want to stress that we are not talking about wage subsidies here. The Jobs Ontario training fund will not be paying the wages of participants in the program. We shall instead be investing in their training and in the training of current employees.

The Jobs Ontario training fund will go even farther. If an employer is ready to hire a person under the program but that person lacks some generic or specific skills, she or he will be eligible for pre-employment training before actually moving into the workplace. Pre-employment training will itself be tailored to specific employee and employer needs. It can include communication and computer skills and upgrading of the basic literacy, math and second-language skills needed for jobs in a complex and changing economy. Pre-employment training will be tailored to specific employee and employer needs.

This morning at George Brown College I announced that as of today, under this program, the province is making available over 1,100 training spaces in seven centres across Ontario, in Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Windsor, Hamilton, London, Ottawa and Toronto. You can imagine how pleased I was, as minister of both Skills Development and Colleges and Universities, to make this announcement at a site where my two portfolios intersect. Thousands more such places will be available throughout the entire province by midsummer, and the training base will be expanded to include other community training agencies.

To streamline the administration of this training and of the program itself, we will be supporting a network of community "brokers" across the province. These brokers will be local and community-based: municipalities, chambers of commerce, local labour councils, community colleges, other information and referral centres and so on. They will select and then connect employers, training services and applicants, determine child care and other support needs and monitor program development. There will also be an economic renewal initiative to this program and that will be aimed at supporting specific projects which promote recovery and boost employment.

1350

Focusing on large employers and industry-wide activities, we will work with private companies, unions and community groups to encourage large-scale hiring and skills upgrading. We will also assist small local ventures, support feasibility studies for community business projects, and through co-ops, non-profit groups, entrepreneurs and native business development plans, we will encourage jobs in areas with vulnerable private sector economies.

I think it is clear that the Jobs Ontario training fund is a new departure from the make-work projects of the past. Employers will be buying into this program because, again, it makes good economic sense, because it helps them develop the highly skilled workforce they will need to have that competitive edge. UI exhaustees and social assistance recipients will also want the program because, more than anything, they want and need to get back to work.

As the Treasurer announced last week, the Jobs Ontario training fund is only the first of a three-part strategy to create tens of thousands of new jobs and to support tens of thousands of existing jobs this year and in the future. The two other parts of this program of course are the Jobs Ontario capital fund and the Jobs Ontario homes fund.

All told, this government will be training employed and unemployed workers to the tune of $930 million this year, an increase of 24% over last year. This is the most Ontario has ever invested in training workers, the largest proportion of the overall provincial budget ever used for training in Ontario. On top of that, we've also undertaken to reform, as you know, our training system. That will in all likelihood become a model for other provinces and other countries.

This government knows where Ontario's strengths lie: in its people, in its business people and the people they employ. The Jobs Ontario training fund is a commitment to them all.

Mr Speaker, if you'll permit me, as a final word I'd like to recognize the deputy minister of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board project and the person who is chiefly in charge of this particular project, Joan Andrew, and their staffs, who are sitting in the members' gallery and who have spent a great amount of work developing a most imaginative program which will benefit all of us in Ontario in the future.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): I join with others in this House in expressing my concern about events in the city of Toronto. I acknowledge that many elements of our justice system are having trouble adapting to the multicultural face of our province, although progress is being made in a number of areas. Police and police services boards are trying hard to implement employment equity and race relations training, but there is an important role that others within the justice system can play.

I am announcing today some initiatives that we have been working on for some time, in consultation with community groups, to respond to the need for greater knowledge, sensitivity and skill in this area.

I would like to announce the establishment of a race relations unit in the Ministry of the Attorney General to aggressively implement anti-racism training and hold the ministry accountable for rapid progress on race relations initiatives.

This unit will set and evaluate short-term and long-term direction for the ministry's anti-racism initiatives. In particular, this unit will expedite the delivery of already tested race relations training for crown attorneys and court staff. It will ensure the ministry's law reform initiatives and programs are sensitive to racial discrimination, with particular emphasis on the administration of criminal law, court services, family law and services to children, youth and the elderly. It will work with the community to identify community-based initiatives that reflect the needs of racial minority groups.

This unit is being established in response to long-standing community concerns about the barriers faced by racial minorities in the justice system. It is another step in keeping with the ministry's mandate to provide accessible, affordable, representative and responsive justice services for all Ontarians.

In addition, we believe we must look at the jury selection process. It is important that jury panels, that is, the individuals considered eligible for jury duty, include all members of our society, and it is important that the selection process for the final 12 jury members for a given trial is fair. It is critical that jurors are not only impartial but are perceived to be impartial.

Achieving this goal involves answering a number of questions, such as, should residents of Ontario who do not yet have full citizenship be eligible for jury duty? Do the present methods of paying or dealing with the expenses of jurors and/or the lack of wage protection make it unduly onerous for low-income persons to serve as jurors? Are there more steps that we need to take to ensure that visible minorities, aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities can serve as jurors? Should we consider additional methods of picking those who receive jury notices beyond reliance upon assessment rolls, because this may effectively exclude eligible candidates who move frequently?

I have instructed the Ontario Juries Act review team that is presently looking at the Juries Act to provide me with answers to these and other questions within 60 days. I will be working with the Solicitor General to identify steps to ensure that jury selection for coroner's juries is an open, formal process so that the goal of broad representation is achieved here as well.

While the province determines who is available for jury duty, it is the federal government that, through the Criminal Code, regulates the selection of the jury itself in criminal trials. At present, the federal government is proposing legislation to amend the Criminal Code regarding jury selection. We are calling on the federal government to eliminate any possibility that visible minorities are being excluded without cause as jurors in criminal trials. It is imperative that the jury selection process under the Criminal Code be fair.

We are asking the federal Minister of Justice to consider including a statement of principle that it is inappropriate to eliminate jurors on grounds such as race, religion or political belief. We are also asking the federal Minister of Justice to look at the entire way criminal juries are selected, including the ability of jurors to be disqualified by counsel at trial for other than valid causes. This will involve examining the use of peremptory challenges.

The initiatives we have outlined are an important step, but we must recognize that real change will take some time. While we work hard on these initiatives, we ask all people in Ontario to keep the public peace. In these trying times, we ask for tolerance and for understanding.

1400

POLICE USE OF FORCE

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I rise to inform this House that I met this morning in Ottawa with my federal counterpart, the Honourable Doug Lewis, federal Solicitor General. We discussed a number of items of mutual concern focusing on subsection 25(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada. This section, often referred to as the fleeing felon clause, deals with the amount of force that police are allowed to use in the pursuit of a fleeing felon.

This morning's meeting followed my previous communication with the Honourable Kim Campbell, federal Minister of Justice. I urged her, on behalf of this government, to amend the Criminal Code so that police officers can only use lethal force in the protection of their lives or for the protection of the lives of others.

I am happy to announce that in response to the vigorous efforts of this government, the federal Minister of Justice has announced this morning that she will be introducing amendments to the Criminal Code within one month. This government will continue to cooperate with the federal government to support this important initiative.

I am also pleased to inform the House that my ministry has taken significant steps towards the development of a regulation under the Police Services Act dealing with use of force by police officers in carrying out their duties and responsibilities. This matter has been given the highest priority in my ministry. It will be dealt with expeditiously and thoroughly.

Within a month I will be releasing for public comment a draft regulation on the use of force, including issues on training, accountability and the use of less than lethal force. After comments are received we will quickly enact a regulation that balances the need for effective law enforcement with police accountability.

The police force and the public agree that there are many situations where the police need to subdue or arrest a suspect, and a gun should not be the only available option. We must make available the use of alternatives to firearms so that the police need not resort to deadly force in these situations. Other jurisdictions use these kinds of devices rather successfully, and we must implement them in order to reduce or eliminate deaths.

This course of action, I am pleased to say, has the full support of the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Association of Ontario, the chief of the Metropolitan Toronto Police, and other police forces as well which have participated in discussions over these past number of months.

Public confidence is indeed the foundation of effective community policing. Preserving the peace and preventing crime are goals of quality policing. These goals must be achieved with the least risk to the police and to the public that they serve.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask consent for a minute and a half. I don't have a written statement. I made a statement earlier this morning because I wanted to get a message out publicly early on in the day. I'm sure that people will know, and I want to inform members, of a couple of things.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous agreement? Agreed.

RACE RELATIONS

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I will be very brief. I've asked Stephen Lewis to consult widely with members of the Legislature, with members of the opposition, as well as with members of the governments and members of the community, with the police, with everyone, with respect to future steps that we should take with respect to the criminal justice system and with respect to the problems of systemic discrimination in many of our institutions. I would ask members to cooperate in that consultation in as positive a spirit as is possible, recognizing that people can express their views and have differences of opinion but that my appointment of Mr Lewis was done in a constructive way, given his experience.

I can tell the House that I spoke with the Prime Minister this morning. The Prime Minister was enormously supportive of the steps we have been trying to take and of the work that's been done by different levels of government, and we're working in full cooperation at all levels of government in this area.

I also want to inform the House that I have decided today to appoint the member for St Andrew-St Patrick as my parliamentary assistant. The member comes to this task with enormous personal experience in the field of education as well as with the respect of the members of this House. I'm sure she'll have your support as she undertakes this work.

Finally, I want to advise the House, as I'm sure people already know, that I will be away, starting tomorrow morning, in Japan for a week. I want to say to members that I know I go with all of your best wishes, and I feel that when I'm there I will be speaking for all of Ontario as we encourage stronger and more vibrant relations with the people of Japan.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, there was agreement by the three House leaders that, because of the nature of the statements today and the fact we did go over, each opposition party would have 10 minutes to respond.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Agreed? Agreed.

RESPONSES

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING FUND

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I hope the Premier returns from that trip with a bell for the chief whip of the government.

I'd like to congratulate the Minister of Skills Development for finally announcing a program of skills training that's going to help an underprivileged group of people in our society, the people who need this program the most, a program we've certainly been asking the minister to come forward with. On first glance it looks like a good program.

As the minister understands, people who find themselves on unemployment insurance and social assistance find themselves particularly disadvantaged as they are now out of the habit of getting to work. They start to lose their job skills. They start to lose their skills in trying to apply for a job and gaining access to a job, let alone any particular skills of work available today. As the minister knows, jobs are changing so fast that we all are going to have to upgrade our skills training.

I hope the minister will also maybe find a way to integrate some of the existing programs that are out there and have been proven successful, not just abandon those programs and the people who have supported and built those programs in their attempts to help the clients out there.

I particularly want to salute the minister for highlighting today the principles of employment equity as applied to this program, something we will all have to do in all our programs in government today.

I would like to just ask the minister that he ensure that the local brokers are accountable to the government and to the hard-earned taxpayers' money being spent and to make sure we choose the appropriate brokers in the municipality that all the municipalities and local agencies will work with.

As a last point, I also want to say that I hope the minister will ensure not only that the employers are accountable, as they should be, but also that they're given the freedom to supply the training that is most appropriate to their workers and their workplace.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): This government seems to have been demonstrated into action. We must again maybe await another demonstration to push the government into another action. We hope it's not the case that each time we have a demonstration we see some action out of them.

The Premier announced -- you have heard and I welcome the announcement -- earlier today the appointment of Zanana Akande and Stephen Lewis as his special advisers to deal with the race relations problems we have in Ontario.

The issue the Premier wishes this task force to address is not new; it's been around a long time. Even the Minister of Citizenship herself recently commented on "underlying racial tension just below the surface," so it should not have caught this government so much by surprise that it erupted in these very tough economic times.

Last year the government announced its anti-racism strategy, and many of the announced initiatives still have not been implemented. Programs like the minority youth project at the Ministry of Education seem to be at a standstill.

Legislation, as we said, that has been passed since 1990 and has been there for two years has not been implemented. This is in regard to the Police Services Act. We have had public consultation on this and we have just heard recently an announcement that this is now coming forward. It's been a long time and the wait has caused many lives and visions and dreams to be destroyed. The community has been calling for these reports, it seems without any avail. We hope this is an action.

I feel today's initiative is a positive step, and may indeed be the catalyst, towards getting communities working together to address this very serious issue. But while I have the greatest respect for Mr Lewis and of course for my colleague Mrs Akande and for their abilities, I believe this process would have been more effective and representative if it had involved members of diverse groups representing various communities and speaking for themselves.

1410

For example, the Liberal government Lewis Race Relations and Policing Task Force engaged representatives of many communities who worked together in a positive manner that led to real change in Ontario. I had hoped the Premier would have at least asked the former Lieutenant Governor -- I don't know if he's available -- whose credentials, as we know, are undeniable, to be involved in this review process. In fact, he was apparently interested in doing so. I was in Senegal with him a month ago and he showed great interest in and concern on where our community is going.

If members of the Legislature are going to be involved in this process, I would have preferred an all-party process approaching this issue in a non-partisan way. Mrs Akande and Mr Lewis, who are quite credible people, are also members of the New Democratic Party, and it may take a week or so to climb over those perceptions. I know they have the ability to do so. We have four weeks, and I'm sure by the time six weeks or seven weeks have passed by, when the Premier will take a look at that, the concerns many young people have will not have been addressed. Later on I hope to raise some questions in the House in that regard and we may make some suggestions.

I am convinced of the sincerity of the Premier that he wants this thing to be resolved. We hope we can have some tranquil moments of peace during which we can sit down reasonably and resolve this issue. It's a painful issue. It's a real issue. Some of us have not yet come to grips with that, that, yes, there is racism within our society and there is racism in all societies. We have a beautiful country and we'd like to make sure it continues, and we can improve upon that.

The Attorney General today announced of course his race relations and Ontario Juries Act reform. I wonder what minister will get up tomorrow and announce an anti-racism strategy in that ministry. It is not a ministry problem; it's a province-wide problem. We don't want pockets of anti-racism groups being developed within ministries, because we will then feel it's only that minister who has the problem.

I have always fought over the years to take a serious look at the Ministry of Correctional Services, which has shown racism and exploitation of many minorities in that group. I hope the minister, whom I have full confidence in now that he's been demonstrated into some action, will look at that ministry.

I have gotten concerns about the Ministry of Revenue over the years. I'd like them to look at that.

Therefore, let us not be demonstrating each day another ministry setting up an anti-racism strategy, but let us make sure that the entire province and entire government are making sure we don't have racism within our government.

I want to say that the concerns we have and the concerns we will be addressing today are not temporary situations. Today we have a demonstration, and I know we all, as legislators, would like to see a very peaceful, democratic demonstration. I know that will happen.

There are many reports, Mr Premier, that are sitting on desks and on shelves. We don't want to put another one on the shelf and then have to dust it off later on. Let's dust those off right now. They are telling you that many visible minorities are being denied the access to trades and professions to then have access into the workforce. We don't need another bureaucracy set up to tell us what to do. I could write the report Lewis and Akande will bring forward. It's easy. Take all those reports, implement them and enforce them, and I think we will have a good province.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Further responses?

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): I'd just like to take the extra minute to join with my colleague the member for Scarborough North in thanking the Premier for his statement today. Those who had occasion to see his appearance at the press conference at 10 o'clock may share my view that the tone and substance of his remarks were absolutely appropriate. Our party wants to join with him in supporting the efforts that Mr Lewis and Mrs Akande are going to undertake, understanding well the difficulty and challenge they present.

I thought one of the most telling observations the Premier made and one which I share is that, with all the anxieties that underlie this series of difficulties we confront as a province, there is none the less a challenge and an opportunity for all communities in Ontario to begin to work effectively again together in order to make this the province we believe it can truly be. For our party, this aspect of the issue has no partisan characteristic.

The Speaker: Responses from the third party.

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING FUND

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I am responding to the Minister of Skills Development with regard to his Jobs Ontario training fund. I would like to begin to compliment him and to advise him that our party certainly agrees and supports the initiative and we certainly want our social assistance recipients back in the workforce. In today's environment, more than ever before, the best social policy for anybody is a job.

Mr Minister, I want you to know that with regard to the $10,000 credits for training when an employer creates a new position and hires a social assistance recipient, there are some problems that we want to draw to your attention and that we hope you will deal with, in our usual way of giving you the best advice we can. Our question there would be, will the private sector create new jobs, and what is the incentive? We want this to happen. Is this good enough?

The press release states 32,000 jobs, but the budget stated last week that this is probably equal to some 10,800 full-year positions. I think that should be clear, if we are looking at full-time jobs -- and I think we should be looking at full-time jobs -- so that we don't raise the expectations of the public beyond what we can reasonably do.

I am disappointed in one regard, $50 million to go the administrative costs associated with community brokers. I don't really like the term "brokers." I think we should be using as far as possible the existing community industrial training committee infrastructure, because in many communities they have been particularly successful, and where they have the expertise, they ought to be used as far as possible. That would give a boost to people who have helped us during the tough times and haven't been as successful as they would like to be. The staff has the expertise, and it's $50 million, or at least part of that, if you take my advice, that will probably be part of the money that could be saved and we could put it to other good uses in job creation.

With regard to child care, I have to say, Mr Minister -- this will not be new coming from me -- I think it is unacceptable that we learn today that the subsidies will only go to non-profit centres. What if non-profit centres are at capacity in a community? Will the individual wanting to access the program miss out? If that's the case, I think this government should look very carefully at bragging about parental choice and accessibility. I would say, Mr Minister, you should be looking at child care subsidies where spaces occur and where they're close to the person's place of employment, no matter what.

We should remember that once this three-year program has expired, of the subsidy costs that are 100% now, if we keep the same subsidy program, 20% of the cost will go to the municipalities, and they should be consulted on this at this point in time.

I would like to emphasize that governments should not be in the business of creating jobs, that government should provide a favourable regulatory and tax-competitive environment so the private sector can create the jobs. On that point, Mr Minister, I would encourage you to speak to the Minister of Labour and get those labour law reforms off the table.

Remember at the same time in your other capacity, Mr Minister, that is, as Minister of Colleges and Universities, you and your colleague the Minister of Education should be looking equally hard at creating meaningful training programs and apprenticeship programs in our schools, our colleges and our universities. Today our young people, no matter who they are, those people who are out on the streets right now are looking for jobs. That's their first goal.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I would like to respond briefly to the statement by the Attorney General. I'm pleased to see that the Attorney General is realizing the importance of the jury system in Ontario, and I certainly applaud his efforts to ensure that trials are abundantly fair and that the juries represent the whole cross-section of the community. I'm pleased he's taking that initiative.

POLICE USE OF FORCE

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I would also like to respond briefly to the statement by the Solicitor General. I'm pleased that the initiative he's undertaking has the support of police and police associations. I hope that in the course of the work he's doing, he will continue to involve the public in a dialogue and involve those who are knowledgeable in law enforcement in drafting the regulations he's attempting to draft.

1420

RACE RELATIONS

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): There isn't any doubt that the city of Toronto lost its innocence with what happened on Monday night, and there isn't one of us who isn't genuinely concerned with what happened and how we can make sure that it doesn't happen again.

I commend the Premier for his appointment of Canada's former ambassador to the United Nations, Stephen Lewis, to the important and sensitive responsibility he has given him to try to work out some remedies, some recommendations and some approaches that we here in Ontario might be able to use.

What Mr Lewis may well come up with are suggestions that many of us have had, but maybe it's just an opportunity for those ideas to be tabled and given a fresh start. In fact, what I'd like to see is that all of us have a fresh start on that and that it gives everyone, all parties alike and all people who make up our province, a chance to say, "We're part of making this a continued wonderful place to live."

I'd like to share part of the recommendation by the member for Scarborough North and also invite the Premier and hope, through his giving this responsibility to Mr Lewis, that the Premier then would also consider involvement by the member for Scarborough North and members from our party so that this does not have partisan overtones to it. There is nothing partisan in what's going on within our community, and if we're in a position to all work together to address it and resolve it, then we'll be a step farther.

I have some concerns about the appointment of the member for St Andrew-St Patrick to her special responsibility inasmuch as there are immediate issues with youth that can be addressed. Certainly in the budget we saw last week there was no reference specifically to employment opportunities for young people. Young people in February made up 18.7% of the unemployed. Young people between 16 and 24 are the largest single group looking for work, not just university students but young people of all types.

Last year this province reduced by 800 the number of jobs for young people through the Experience program and other programs. What we can do immediately, before the heat of summer and the heat of May, is begin with remedies for young people to find opportunities for fulfilment, for work so that they have something to do and to benefit by.

I also suggest that what happened here in the House -- 24 hours ago this chamber was in an uproar. A lot of things were said that shouldn't have been said by members of all parties. We've all had a chance to cool off since then. What I would like to see today involves the need for a cooling-off period for this city as well.

This afternoon another demonstration is planned for outside this Legislature, a demonstration that has the potential to be yet another powder keg for unrest in this city. The first step in trying to address the concerns we all have might well be that the Premier -- and I ask this as sincerely as I can -- please ask the organizers of today's rally to consider postponing their assembly until tensions in this city have eased.

Metro council and the people who represent this city have called for a postponement of today's demonstration. They didn't make that plea because they wanted to interfere with anyone's right to peaceful assembly but, like all of us, they have a genuine concern about the safety of this city and the people in it. I sincerely hope, since there is still time, that the Premier will do what he can within his power to try for a postponement of this assembly.

I know that Mr Harris, the member for Nipissing, and our party want to be involved in facing the future needs that face us immediately as we address all the concerns that are coming out of the worries we all have about our city today. May we resolve them by working together to address any racial concerns that are there, but also the need that underlies the concerns of those others who were involved in the demonstrations and problems we saw on Monday evening.

We will not hide from this responsibility. We will do everything we can to work together to address it and resolve it.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I would just like to say very briefly in the very short period of time that we live in one of the greatest countries, if not the greatest country, in the world. This province has often been recognized as having some of the greatest resources, but I think the greatest resource we have is the people themselves. I think if we approach this issue and this problem and concern in a truly non-partisan way, people of goodwill and generosity of spirit can work together to make this province and this country even a better place in which to live.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Mr Speaker, I'm rising on a point of privilege. The point of privilege arises out of events which took place at the Ministry of Housing this morning. I believe what took place compromised my rights as a member and my responsibility to represent appropriately my constituents of York Centre, and in particular the residents of the town of Richmond Hill.

Just to give you a brief bit of background, for many months now the people of Richmond Hill and the local council of the town have had some concerns about the development of and placement of so-called social housing or affordable housing in their town. On January 7, the mayor and a councillor of the town of Richmond Hill wrote to the Minister of Housing, the Honourable Evelyn Gigantes, requesting an opportunity for a meeting. Because there was no response to that letter they asked me to intervene, and subsequently I wrote to the minister to change her mind and intervene and meet with my constituents and the representatives of the town. The minister replied to me that she had indeed arranged to have a meeting, and that meeting took place this morning.

I was invited by the town councillors and the residents of the community to participate in that meeting. Yesterday, a member of my staff phoned the secretary of the minister to advise the minister that I indeed would be attending, along with my constituents and the mayor and councillors of the town of Richmond Hill.

I arrived at the meeting moments after it began. Indeed the mayor of Richmond Hill, William Bell, was introducing the delegation and as I walked in he introduced me as "Greg Sorbara, our MPP." At that time I simply said, "I apologize for my lateness," at which time the minister said to me: "That's okay. You're not invited to this meeting anyway." At that point I excused myself from the room and left and returned to my office.

I have no comment to make on the manners of the minister. What I simply say is that if I am not allowed to participate in a delegation of municipal officials from my own riding and residents of the community to put forward a position to the minister, if I am excluded from that process, I simply say that my right and my responsibility to represent my community have been compromised.

To do her justice, I will conclude by saying that before we began the proceedings this afternoon the minister came to apologize for the way in which she ejected me from the meeting. I simply say to you, sir, that if it is the policy of this government that members are not allowed to participate in those sorts of meetings, the minister has simply missed the point. I don't comment on the manners. What I complain to you about, sir, is what has been violated: my responsibility and my right to represent my constituents when they are attempting to speak to this government. I ask you to rule accordingly.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): If I may, in response to the member for York Centre, as he has indicated, I quite regret what happened this morning. I must confess that I felt very startled when he arrived in the room. I had heard in fact --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Will the minister take her seat, please. Minister.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I was very startled by the entrance of the member for York Centre, and it is my regret that at that time I did not walk out with him to chat with him. I sought him out as soon as I could to speak to him when I arrived at the Legislature and to explain to him what had happened.

We did have a very good meeting with the representatives from the municipality of Richmond Hill. I think it was very helpful for me to be able to fully hear their points of view openly and freely discuss with them. I told them at the time that I would be pleased to discuss with Mr Sorbara the matters that we had under discussion at that time.

1430

The Speaker: To the member for York Centre and to the Minister of Housing, the matter you raise is one which obviously is of concern both to you and indeed to many members of the House. Because it is something which occurred outside the precinct, it is not within the Speaker's responsibility to rule that you have a prima facie case of privilege. I think that what the member draws to our attention is either a matter of policy with an individual minister or a matter of courtesy, but unfortunately it is not anything that is against the standing orders or rules of this House and thus I cannot be of any assistance to the member at this time.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): On a point of privilege, and I think I speak of the privileges of most members of the House, Mr Speaker: We understand the ruling you've made, which is traditional with the authorities under which you're obliged to govern, but this matter is so important and represents a decision taken by a very senior and experienced minister of the government. I hope the leader of the government will express his view today about whether he regards that conduct as proper in the circumstances. I ask him to do it today because I am aware he will be away from the Legislature for some period of time and I would like the matter cleared up as quickly as possible.

The Speaker: The member raises what is not a matter of privilege, but indeed the information has now been imparted and all in the chamber and beyond are well aware of the issue and the feelings.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Later on in question period we will be questioning the Premier about his announcement today and the very serious matters that have taken place in the city of Toronto, as well as some taxation matters.

I want to begin by asking a question on an issue that really has a much simpler solution. All of the newspapers in the Toronto area today have reported an apparent showdown in Toronto and elsewhere around the province on this troubling issue of Sunday shopping. We hear on the one hand that many stores intend to open their doors. We hear that the Solicitor General does not intend to enforce the law with a great deal of vigour.

The Premier has, over the course of the 18 months of his administration, tried to portray himself as a leader who is flexible and who is open to responding to changing conditions. Indeed, when he changed his position on public automobile insurance, this party acknowledged that and celebrated that.

I simply put it to the Premier now, given that the Solicitor General does not intend to enforce the law as it stands now and given that 70% or perhaps 75% of the people think there should be freedom of choice on this issue, will the Premier announce today in this House, before he scuttles off to the Far East, that he intends to put into place a moratorium to allow freedom of choice and to continue to protect retail workers in the way that currently exists under the law?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I've been in this House for about 10 years and I think that for many of those years governments of all political stripes, sizes and abilities have struggled with this issue. The member knows that full well. I want to say to the honourable member that this House, this Legislature, has considered this question over a number of years.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): You guys aren't any better than anybody else.

Hon Mr Rae: I've learned very quickly that I'm not better than anyone else, I say to the member for St George-St David.

Mr Scott: I want that in writing.

Hon Mr Rae: I'll put it in writing and send it over to you by way of parliamentary note.

I want to say to the member for York Centre who refers to the word "showdown," I think in ways that are typical of Liberal Party research, drawn from a headline in one of the daily newspapers today, that over a period of many years there have been occasions when retailers for one reason or another have decided to do things in the way they want to do them, regardless of the law that has been passed. I would say to the honourable member that we have an obligation as a government to indicate that the law is in place.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm happy to ask the Solicitor General and others to continue to meet with members of the retail industry and with others who are involved in and concerned about this issue, but the law is there and he could hardly expect me to stand in my place unilaterally on one day and say that all by myself I'm somehow unilaterally going to suspend the operation of the law. There is a process in place. The law is in place.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: That is the direction of the government.

Mr Sorbara: I'm not asking the Premier to unilaterally do anything.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): On a point of order, or perhaps a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The member for York Centre has either said or suggested strongly that I, as Solicitor General, have somehow altered the question of enforcement with respect to this issue.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order. It certainly is a point of debate. We are in the middle of question period. No doubt there will be an opportunity to question and an opportunity to respond.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. The member's remark attributed to me, which is incorrect, should and did merit correction to the House and to the people of the province.

The Speaker: Members can correct their own records but not the records of anyone else.

Mr Sorbara: The problem with the Solicitor General is that he more and more desperately tries to defend a piece of legislation that isn't working in the province. I want to simply say to the Premier that it is not our intention or suggestion that you act in some sort of unilateral or dictatorial way. We are aware the cabinet is considering a new approach to Sunday shopping. What we are suggesting you do, in order to avoid the kind of confrontation that is existing, is simply to announce that during this period of reconsideration of the virtually unilateral ban on Sunday shopping, you are putting into place a moratorium on prosecutions.

The Premier will be aware that such a moratorium existed in the province for about nine months as a result of the decision of the Divisional Court. I want to say to the Premier that this ban on Sunday shopping is very costly to the taxpayers of the province. It costs several million dollars in scarce police resources to enforce it. It costs several million dollars within the government to maintain the legislative framework to keep the stores closed. What we are saying to you is that if the words in your budget mean anything and you are really anxious to allow business, small and large, to flourish in this province, would you simply announce today to the public or some time before this Sunday that there shall be a moratorium and there will not be prosecutions when stores open this Sunday?

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the legal advice from the member for York Centre who, I think, probably practised only slightly longer than I did before being called to an even higher profession, that of a member of the Legislature.

I would say to the honourable member that while we may disagree on some issues with respect to this question, I would hope that we would at least recognize that there is a slight difference between taking the kind of step you have suggested, when a Divisional Court or when a court has made a certain decision, and in the present circumstance, when the law has been passed.

The law has been widely respected up until now, in recent months. It has been in place. The applications for tourist exemptions are proceeding before the Ontario Municipal Board. The decision by the municipal board with respect to Windsor has been made. I think there's a clear signal to people that there's a way to work this through, and that's something that, obviously as the first minister of the province, I have an obligation to stand in my place on this Thursday and simply reiterate.

1440

Mr Sorbara: I simply say to the Premier, if he thinks costly applications for exemptions, with appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board, are the way in which he, his government and his Treasurer presume to simplify and unclog the regulatory burden that is now being borne by our businesses, both small and large, retail and otherwise, he hasn't even understood the written words that were in the Treasurer's budget.

At this point over 70% of the people of this province believe there should be freedom of choice on this matter. When this Legislature considered the ban that is currently in place, there was really only one rather small trade union that represented the voice of the people who were against Sunday shopping: the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. The Premier's stance and his government's stance simply represent the last vestige of the anti forces on the Sunday shopping issue in the province.

The Premier has spoken eloquently about a new era of labour relations in this province, that labour is taking a new approach, that business must take a new approach and that government will as well. Will he call in the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and simply say it is time now to forgo their opposition, to let commerce proceed and to let freedom of choice dominate when it comes to this question? Will he do that now?

Hon Mr Rae: I think it's fair to say I will be happy to meet with members of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, with the retail and wholesale workers and with workers who are not organized, as well as with leaders in the retail trade. I will tell the member that even over the last five months, I have had meetings with those individuals, as well as with the presidents and leaders of the large retail chains across the province. We continue to meet on a regular basis, as does the Solicitor General, and we continue to monitor the situation.

I want to tell the member, whose views I always listen to with care, that it is important for us to recognize there is a law in place and it simply isn't possible for the Premier on a given afternoon to say the law is no longer in effect. That isn't the way we can do business in this province.

JOB CREATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier as well. It has to do with the budget and jobs. As the Premier knows, tomorrow we'll see the unemployment numbers for the month of April. In the budget, Premier, your first objective was, "We are taking immediate steps to create jobs," and on page 9 you have a chart that outlines 90,000 jobs. Would you indicate to the House today how many of those 90,000 jobs are new jobs?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): When you refer to new jobs, since you're asking for some kind of definition, I could equally well answer, "What do you mean by new?" Unless these investments were made, it's our view and the view of the economists in the treasury and elsewhere that those jobs would not exist. They would not be there. By means of an almost $4-billion capital program and other measures we're taking on the tax side with respect to corporations, we believe we're helping to sustain job growth in the province, and unless that investment were made, those jobs would not be there.

Mr Phillips: Premier, as I've said many times, your credibility is at stake in the budget. You say in the budget you are taking steps not to maintain jobs but to create jobs. As we look at that chart with the 90,000 jobs, in our opinion there is not one new job; there is not one incremental job that wasn't there last year. Your capital spending is exactly the same as it was last year. The amount of money you're spending on non-profit housing is actually less than you had last year. I think it's close to misleading the public to say you are creating new jobs.

I say again, in this chart your spending is actually lower than it was last year; there are fewer jobs, not more jobs, than you had last year. I would like the Premier to outline for the House today where on that chart the new jobs are that weren't there last year. Why are we wrong when we say you have fewer jobs in that area than you had last year?

Hon Mr Rae: I've been in opposition a lot longer than I've been in government, so I think I know something about being in both places. I would dare to suggest to the honourable member that everybody's credibility is on the line, because if you go back to last year -- and I have a fairly good memory for the questions, particularly coming from the member for Scarborough-Agincourt because there is a certain consistency in the questions he asks -- he was saying last year that the jobs we were creating weren't real jobs. Now he's saying, "The jobs you're creating next year are not real jobs either."

You tell that to the construction workers in the housing industry. You tell that to the construction owners in the housing industry, who know that if we weren't in the marketplace, those jobs and those businesses wouldn't be there. You tell that to the people in the child care centres, who know full well if that investment wasn't here from this government, those jobs wouldn't be there either. You go down and talk to the people who are building our schools, the people who are building the bridges and the roads and making the improvements to the infrastructure of the province, and say to the fellow who's making $12 or $14 or $16 an hour or the woman who's making money working at a child care centre that the job she has isn't a real job. Those are real jobs, and that's the truth, and those are the facts.

Mr Phillips: Yes, I said that last year, and we have record unemployment. There are 609,000 people out of work. We have 12% unemployment, and that's the reason, exactly as we predicted. You said you had a $700-million anti-recession program. You cut half of it out. That's exactly right. You cut $400 million out.

The Premier said in this budget he was reducing taxes for many people. On page 28, as we look at the taxes people are going to pay this year, the federal government initiated a tax reduction effective July 1, 1992. What did this government do? It stepped in and put in a tax increase effective January 1, 1992. It not only took away what the federal government cut; it made it retroactive.

Premier, how can you say that by taking more money out of the people than the federal government put back in their pockets that you are going to create jobs? In our opinion, $1 billion worth of new taxes out of the economy is 25,000 jobs. Tell me where we're wrong on that one, that the people of Ontario are going to have less money. I'm not talking about well-to-do people; I'm talking about a $30,000 income with more taxes, not less tax. Tell me if I'm wrong.

Hon Mr Rae: If I've succeeded in nothing else, I've succeeded in animating the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, and I regard that as a success. If he'd hit that stride earlier, he might be in a different seat.

I say to him in all sincerity that the Liberal Party can't have it all ways. They say they want a lower deficit, then they say they want to have more spending and then they say they want to have less taxation. As I've said before, to describe that as "voodoo" is to pay it a compliment.

The fact of the matter is that the federal government has failed to pay its share on social assistance. We know that's true, that it's gone from 30 cents. We have decided that somebody has to pay. There's no magic around here; you don't have a printing machine in the basement. You know that full well because you were a minister in the cabinet as well. You know the only way we can do it is either to raise the revenues from the economy of the province or to borrow. There's a limit to how much you can borrow, and there's a limit to how much you can tax, and there's a limit to how much you can spend. Everybody who's been on this side of the House knows that lesson. Don't tell me you don't know the answer to the question, because you know it full well.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Maybe you should be thankful, Mr Premier, that the member for Scarborough-Agincourt didn't hit his stride earlier, or you might be in a different seat.

1450

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Since the acting Treasurer is not here today, I'll go to the Premier. Despite the Treasurer's wild imagination, Ottawa said, "The cheque to you, Bob, is not in the mail." If you read Mr Mazankowski's quote today, he said, "I don't think Floyd is seriously figuring he will get all this money" -- that he's suggested he's going to get, the $1.2 billion -- "in the current fiscal year."

Mr Premier, you said the deficit is $9.9 billion. You counted on $1.2 billion from the feds. The federal government has said, "You're not getting this much money this year." That takes your deficit up over $11 billion. The question is, considering those comments, considering the credibility, how do you respond?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, many things will be said, but let's listen to what other people have said, apart from the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I think the guy who really counts is the guy you want the cheque from.

Hon Mr Rae: Just listen for a moment. You asked a question and you're going to get an answer. It may not be the answer you like.

Listen to the chairman and CEO of the Bank of Montreal, who says, "There are aspects of the budget that I liked a great deal."

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): He's not paying you the $1.2 billion.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: Listen to what Mr Carl Beigie said: "I was impressed with this budget. I think people are going to be impressed with the fact that there is a significantly lower deficit than many people were anticipating. Most important, Laughren has said, as I had been hoping he would, he has looked into the 21st century and he says that what we've got to do is get the people of Ontario, both those who are employed and especially those who are unemployed today, geared to be able to be productive in a bold new world out there."

I can tell the member that I've just come back from New York. Ambassador Enders, the former ambassador to Canada, said to me, "It was a very fine budget, something of which you can be very proud," with respect to sending a clear message to the world and sending a clear message to the people of this province that we are realistic, we know what we're doing and we're heading in the right direction.

That has been the clear indication we've had from capital markets. That's been the clear indication we've had from the people of this province. People understand you have to run things realistically and that's what this budget is all about. I'm proud of our Treasurer, proud of what he's done and I'm proud of what we're trying to do.

Mr Stockwell: You might as well ask him if he likes rice pudding, because the answer he gives you has absolutely no relationship to the question that's asked. I didn't ask about ambassadors, Mr Premier. I didn't ask about who you met with in New York. I didn't ask about what their comments were.

The treasurer of the federal government has said you're not going to get your $1.2 billion this year. That means your deficit goes from $9.9 billion to over $11 billion. Are you going to come clean with the public, Mr Premier? Please answer the question. Mr Mazankowski said you are not getting $1.2 billion. When will we see the adjustment to your deficit figures?

Hon Mr Rae: In answer to the first question the member asked, let me say to him that I don't simply like rice pudding, I love rice pudding. If the member wants to ask me where is the best place to get it in the entire world, I will tell him where it is. It's the Mars restaurant at the corner of College and Bathurst streets; the best rice pudding anywhere in the world. You want to talk about world class, that's world class. In fact, as the sign says, it's out of this world when it comes to rice pudding. So I make no apologies with regard to that question. You asked me a question and you're going to get an answer.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): The province is broke and he's talking about rice pudding. That is straight from Bill Davis's garbage.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St George-St David ordinarily has a sense of humour and I hope he doesn't lose it.

Let me say in all seriousness to the member for Etobicoke West, who is asking the question, that I have looked through the record very carefully. I don't see the Finance minister of Canada making any such definitive statement and I will tell him very directly that the projections of our minister of finance and Treasurer, with respect to money that is owed, to accounts that are receivable and to a clear understanding of how the process is supposed to work, are based on the Treasurer's best judgement in this regard. I have full confidence in the judgement of the Treasurer when it comes to this.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Premier, I'm certain you've read this article. I'm also certain you've had this article explained to you. I'm also certain you're very aware of the statements that were made. This, Mr Premier, is why your credibility on the fiscal management of this province is in tatters, because you refuse to accept the obvious.

Mr Premier, you must also know today that the ScotiaMcLeod analysis of your budget was announced today. They said you will need revenue increases this year of at least 13% to meet your midterm targets. Let me be very clear. At best, it's 6% -- at absolute best.

You've obviously danced around the $1.2-billion deficit question; you're not going to answer it. Will you please answer this very poignant question: How do you expect to achieve a 13% increase in your revenue?

Hon Mr Rae: I think we've indicated very clearly, in terms of the medium- and longer-term objective of this government, that it is to get expenditures under control. We have done more on expenditure control than any government. No government which you supported was as successful as we are going to be with respect to controlling expenditures in critical areas. I can say that to the member.

I can say to the member as well that we look forward to reaching the targets that we know we have to reach. As the Treasurer has already indicated, we are determined to reach these targets and we are determined to act responsibly in this regard. I'm confident we can do it. What I do know is we should be doing it and should be making every effort to get there.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Minister of Labour, who I believe might have stepped out. In his absence, maybe I could ask it of the Premier. If he hears me in the back -- I'll proceed with the question rather slowly so that he can get here. My mother loves it when I'm on TV this long, anyway.

Earlier this year, the leader of the Conservative Party had a survey which asked about the labour legislation. Mr Harris's survey came in and 88% of the people who responded said they are opposed to the labour legislation. In fact, when the question was asked, they were "strongly opposed" to the plan of this government.

My question to the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Labour, is this: Will you go back to the table with business, like you've said you want to do, and with labour and come back and work with those two groups to truly come together with some concrete improvement in labour relations in Ontario?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The short answer to a long question, if you're asking me whether we are going to be meeting with business and labour to come up with the best possible plan, is yes. That's exactly what we've been doing. We wouldn't do it any other way. I'm also determined to do more to get people in the same room.

But I want to say this to the honourable member, and I mean this and say it very directly to him. I believe a balanced approach to labour relations which improves the interests of both sides, which improves a sense of mutual respect, which ensures there isn't a lot of wasteful energy and conflict-oriented stuff that surrounds organizing or that surrounds the resolution of disputes, will be matched by improvements in productivity and by improvements in the workplace in terms of morale and in terms of how the workplace operates.

I believe the kinds of labour relations we must practise in this province must be good for business, must be good for the economy and must produce positive results. I profoundly believe this is the kind of approach we are going to take, and that's the kind of approach that's going to have an impact.

Mr Carr: I have some replies that have come in in just a few weeks. These are the people from just Oakville South who disagree with you. In a few weeks, this is what has come in. The member from Waterloo, the critic for the Conservative Party, has even more. This has come in in just a few weeks. These people disagree with you. These are average people out there, workers and business people, saying that you are wrong.

What they are saying in some of these replies, if I can sum them up, is that your legislation will kill jobs, kill investment and hurt the economy. What these people are saying to you, Mr Premier, and to your Minister of Labour, the people of Oakville and Burlington who sent these in, is that this is not a good piece of legislation, this is not a good time to bring it in, it will hurt the economy and would you please withdraw it. I am saying to you today: Will you withdraw your legislation in light of the fact that the people of this province, in droves, en masse, do not want it?

1500

Hon Mr Rae: I can only say to the honourable member that just as I'm sure it's true to say you can't stop a shot on goal that hasn't been shot yet, so it's true that you can't withdraw legislation that hasn't been introduced yet. We have not introduced legislation yet. We will be introducing legislation. It will be based on consultation. When the legislation is introduced, there will be an intensive period of consultation, in this House and directly between labour and management, which I am going to do everything I can to encourage. The legislation will then, by virtue of its importance to people, and I'm sure to members of the opposition, go to committee in the summer. We will be listening carefully to the suggestions that are made and it will then be considered in the fall.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): No, it won't.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for York Centre says, "No, it won't." That's the democratic process. I know that, in his heart of hearts, he wouldn't want to upset the democratic process.

Mr Sorbara: How many days are you giving us for second reading? Give me a break.

Hon Mr Rae: I will say to the honourable member, before he gets too agitated, I want to assure him that we want to have a very fair discussion in the House and with the people of this province. I ask the honourable member to perhaps do something we would all be well advised to do: Withhold your judgement on the wisdom or quality of legislation until you've seen the legislation.

Mr Carr: I too didn't stop too many shots. I think that's probably why I'm here.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for York Centre.

Mr Carr: I don't know if that's a good or bad thing. But reading through the people who have written in is extremely depressing reading.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member for York Centre come to order.

Mr Carr: The reading of this material is extremely depressing. I want to pick out one short letter from a chap who wrote in. These are part of the literally hundreds that are here.

"My company has 500 employees. If this legislation is passed, I will move to the United States immediately. This is the last straw."

There are pages and pages of replies saying this, similar to what was heard during the consultation process. It is going to hurt jobs. The very people who voted for you are now going to be the ones hurt. I say to you again, if it's going to cost jobs, if it's going to cost investment, will you withdraw the legislation, sit down with business and labour as they've talked about, stop with the one-sided issues and put everything on the table to discuss it so we don't lost any more jobs in a province that is already being ravaged by job loss here today?

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate, for rhetorical reasons, why the member is doing it. The people who are watching, perhaps the people who only watch the questions and not the answers will get the wrong impression. I'm sure the member would want to stand in his place and ask himself and ask the people to say, "I didn't mean 'withdraw'; I meant 'change' or 'adjust.'" There is no legislation in place. He keeps saying, "Will you withdraw the legislation?" There isn't legislation. There has been a discussion paper which has been discussed. The cabinet will now consider what legislative approach to take. There will then be second reading, there will then be committee consideration and there will then be third reading. During that entire period there will be an intensive period of consultation between labour and management.

I am more convinced by the actions of a company like Ford, which has made a decision to invest an additional $1.5 billion in this province in two major centres and which is, I believe, indicating clearly its confidence in this province, the future, the workforce and in a healthy pattern of industrial relations in Ontario. That is a message that speaks far louder than the rhetoric of the honourable member. I must say, having listened carefully to the three questions, I really wonder whether he is being fair in continuing to demand we withdraw a piece of legislation which hasn't even been introduced yet.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I want to follow up on a question that my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt had in regard to unemployment rates. My question is to the Minister of Skills Development.

Within the province of Ontario the youth unemployment rate is as high as 19%, I think much higher; 167,000 of our youth are without jobs. The rate for minorities and native youth is even higher.

As you know, in this economy the job opportunities continue to decline, and the dreams of those who pursue higher education as an alternative have been taken away by the budget, where government cut the OSAP assistance to students by as much as $10 million. This has left young people feeling very frustrated and with little, if any, hope for their future.

My question to the Minister of Skills Development is: While the initiatives announced this morning are welcome and I was delighted to hear them, it will take some time before any concrete action will be seen. Where are these students who are looking for jobs now to go? Could you tell me, Mr Minister, where they are to go today to look for jobs?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Skills Development): There are a number of observations and parts to that question. It's quite clear that when one initiates a new program, it does take a few weeks, perhaps a couple of months, to get things up and running, so I am not sure exactly what he means by "today."

It is quite clear that the program Jobs Ontario training fund is addressed to young people, as to middle-aged people, as to all persons who might find themselves out of work, on social assistance and having to depend on other kinds of support than earning a living in a workplace.

The simple answer to the member is that this program is indeed directed at those young people. In addition to that, we are actively extending and expanding the school workplace apprenticeship program through more and more boards in this province. There are 35 of them now involved in that program. We've got money invested in the new budget that will go into expanding that program into more and more schools to put more and more students into apprenticeships. We've got expanding cooperative education programs, and there are, of course, all the other options for seeking work that are out there through a number of agencies which help facilitate young people to find work through my ministry.

Mr Curling: The minister has explained to me the job opportunities in the future and what he has in place to happen later on. I'm talking about immediate. I know the announcements that are made will, in maybe six or nine or 10 months, give some hope to those people. What they need now is immediate hope, and I know you, Mr Minister, are capable of providing those individuals, especially the disadvantaged and the minority youth of this province, with some hope they so desperately need.

My question then again to the minister is: Today the government has access to such programs as the Futures program, which you are quite familiar with, which was specifically designed to assist disadvantaged youth find and maintain jobs through counselling. Why isn't the minister building on what we have in place and putting some money in place there? At the moment, they are in place. All it needs is for the money to be flowed there and I am sure that students could immediately get jobs. I think you can build upon that. Will you commit to that, that you put some funds in there now?

Hon Mr Allen: We are doing the best we can with the resources at our disposal to expand and enrich as many programs as we can, directed both at the young persons in need of skills training and others, of course, who are in need of that same training.

Most of those programs also have very clear equity considerations in them. In the program that I announced today, we will be specifically asking the brokers who field the program to meet certain kinds of targets with respect to equity considerations and designated groups so that across the spectrum of the people of Ontario there will be appropriate availability of training for all of them in terms of race, of background of any kind, of youth, age or whatever.

1510

AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Agriculture and Food: You'll remember well the emergency hearings last summer where everyone, including yourself, admitted that Ontario agriculture was in serious economic difficulty, and I do know that your briefing book material says, "The Ontario agricultural sector has undergone severe farm income reductions during 1990-91." The budget clearly had a 6%-plus reduction in your ministry. Is it the government's position that agriculture will do so well this year that it merits one of the biggest spending cuts?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): As outlined by other members of the government, we tried to balance things in the budget. We tried to cut back carefully in terms of savings and also put forward new programs that are going to benefit those people who need it the most. In fact, we did make sure that agriculture did get some new programs, which were announced by the Treasurer.

The member will also recognize the fact that he has been lobbying very hard to maintain the farm tax rebate; that in fact was farmers', and I believe the member's, priority for this government in terms of a budget. He will know that program was retained, and in fact additional moneys were put into the farm tax rebate to ensure universality for that program for farmers in Ontario.

I think the Treasurer, the cabinet and the government have done a very good job of trying to support agriculture to the extent that we have dollars available for it.

Mr Villeneuve: Yes indeed, the farm tax rebate went up by 8%. Why? Because rural taxes went up very considerably, and in order to reimburse taxes that farmers already were being reimbursed, it had to go up by 8%. That's not support for farmers; that's just maintaining a status quo. These increases in the program are robbing your ministry of dollars needed to provide necessary farm programs. Do you, Minister, really believe that farmers have been treated fairly in this budget with a 6% reduction plus the tax rebate?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes. In terms of being treated fairly in this budget there were new initiatives announced, over $20 million in terms of new long-term programs which will allow farmers to do long-term planning. They will know what the future looks like in terms of government support for agriculture. Those are the kinds of programs farmers and farm leaders have been calling for over a number of years. If the member thinks about it, he will recognize the importance of having long-term programs. That's what we announced in the budget, and that's what we intend to pursue in the future.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Through you, Mr Speaker, to the Minister of Health, I would like to relay to you a story of the Sudbury General Hospital in my riding which in 1986 was designated as the trauma centre for northeastern Ontario. In 1987 it was reconfirmed and in 1990, when we became the government, it was again designated the trauma centre. To this day we have yet to have a trauma centre in our riding. Because of the review, there is some delay. Will the needs of the region in terms of the need for a trauma centre in northern Ontario be one of the considerations in the review process?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): The frustration that this community and a lot of other communities feel about how capital projects get announced and reannounced and reviewed and then reannounced -- this has gone on a lot. On a personal level I feel really badly for those communities where this happens, but I think the capital review we have put in place right now, given the level of transfer payments for operating costs and our need to ensure that the capital redevelopment is in line with the new planning guidelines and doesn't produce additional strains on operating costs, is important.

The regional interests and needs that would be served by a new trauma centre of course are important in terms of the kinds of considerations we will look at. When we look at the planning guidelines, we do look at the issue of regional needs as well as things like the bed-patient ratio.

The member for Quinte asked me a question similar to this last week and the answer is similar: Those sorts of things will be taken into consideration and we are trying to proceed through the reviews in an expeditious way.

Ms Murdock: I understand the need for the review, but it's just that when you have the trauma centre and you can only handle no more than two patients, it's an important issue. When can the Sudbury General Hospital and northeastern Ontario expect a positive decision?

Hon Ms Lankin: There was a touch of sort of a loaded nature to that question: When can they expect a positive decision? They can expect the results of the review, as I said, as expeditiously as possible.

We announced the review in January. In March the first response with respect to the Princess Margaret Hospital was released. Before April we announced 10 projects that we released. A couple of weeks ago we announced Peel and Simcoe. Last week there were a number of other projects we made the announcements on. We are moving as quickly as possible.

I said we are shooting for the end of May. I can't promise we will make that deadline, but we are trying to do it by that period or as soon thereafter as possible. I know how anxious the community is, and we will try to get a response to them and the other communities that are waiting in response to this review.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): To the Premier, through you, Mr Speaker: We all heard the point of privilege raised by the member for York Centre. I would ask the Premier to advise the House if he found the actions undertaken by his Minister of Housing to be acceptable? If not, what is he prepared to do about it?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): There will obviously be differing accounts of a particular event, and I think the minister has already indicated that she has apologized to the member for her sort of immediate response to the situation.

Let me make it very clear to the member opposite, to ministers and to everybody that I expect ministers -- as I have done and as I will continue to do -- to meet regularly with members of the opposition and to include members of the opposition in the delegations which make presentations to them as a matter of course. I would also say to the member that from time to time ministers may meet with groups and members may not be present. But I certainly don't think it's part of the policy of this government or the direction of this government to exclude members of the opposition, or from anywhere, from meetings to which they have been invited.

Mr Elston: The words are nice, but this is the second incident I know of with respect to matters related to the Housing portfolio. I remember quite clearly that when the member for Windsor-Riverside was the minister, he apologized to the member for Oriole for having had her refused entry to a public meeting on behalf of her constituents.

Now we find that the minister herself ejected a member who was with his own constituency's representatives in a meeting to which he was invited by them and which he had helped to arrange. Mr Speaker, I guess I am asking the Premier, through you, to advise this House that it is the policy, ironclad, that if the constituents of any member ask her or him to join them in a meeting with ministers of the crown or officials of the ministries, the member will be, without exception, allowed to participate in the meetings with the officials, with the officials of any part of the government of Ontario or with any minister or parliamentary assistant. I only wish to have that assurance from the Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: I would only say to the member -- and I don't mean to be contentious -- that I was once asked to leave a room by an assistant to the Attorney General in the middle of the constitutional discussions.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): That's when you were Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: That's when I was Leader of the Opposition. These things happen, and I would say to the honourable member that as a basic pattern, as a basic rule and as a basic observation I believe members should be allowed to participate as members of delegations, where that's the wish of delegations, to have access to officials and to have access to meetings with ministers. As a basic principle --

Mr Elston: If they asked you to be there, why did they throw you out?

Hon Mr Rae: If the member will give me a chance to respond, as a basic principle I think it's important for members to know that I think they should be included in meetings, and I think that's the direction of this government. Where private meetings are being held, it should be made clear that that is the nature of the meeting at the request of all the people concerned.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question. The member for Carleton.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): Tell us what you told Evelyn. We can lip-read. "Unacceptable" is what you told her.

The Speaker: Order, the member for St George-St David.

Mr Scott: That's only an ideological comment, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: That's very nice, but the member for Carleton has the floor.

1520

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Mr Premier, I have had no luck with the Minister of Education with regard to the Carleton Board of Education strike. You may or may not be aware that the talks have collapsed. Nothing is happening at this time. There are 15,000 high school students who now have missed 24 days of school, one more than the Ottawa board when the minister at that time was threatening back-to-work legislation. Will you, Mr Premier, advise the parents, the students and this House what you are going to do to get the students in the Carleton area back to school?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I will refer the question to the Minister of Education because he's much more aware of the day-to-day and hour-to-hour activities and negotiations than I am.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): That certainly is coming down to a day-to-day and hour-to-hour event as things unfold. As the member knows and has indicated, negotiations had broken off. I've been advised that as a result of discussions the Education Relations Commission was involved in with the parties this morning, negotiations are resuming as of Saturday morning.

In fact, the ERC has decided to postpone a hearing that was scheduled for tomorrow dealing with these same parties on the bad-faith bargaining allegation, because it believes proceeding with that hearing would not be appropriate and would not be helpful to the negotiations, but after discussions with the parties, they have agreed to resume negotiations on Saturday morning. My understanding also is that the ERC has scheduled a meeting for Monday morning in the event that the negotiations don't result in a successful negotiated agreement over the weekend.

Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I've got to tell you I'm getting very angry with the minister and his lack of action. The parents and students in my area are calling my office. I'm getting hundreds of phone calls from parents asking: "What can we do to get our students back in school, Mr Sterling? Should we withhold our taxes?" Today the students of the elementary panel are now staging walkouts across the Carleton area because the elementary school teachers are working to rule.

Mr Minister, when are you going to display some leadership, a firm hand and tell the teachers to get back into the classrooms and teach the children? These students are going to miss their year because of you and the lack of action by your government. When are you going to take some action? Why don't you bring forward Bill 6 this afternoon, or your own legislation? I'm sure this Legislature would pass all three readings right now if you'd bring that legislation forward. We're getting desperate, Mr Minister, and you're not showing any action or leadership at all.

Hon Mr Silipo: I won't apologize to the member for not bringing forward back-to-work legislation, which is what he would like me to do. I have indicated numerous times in this House that I believe that not only is it useful and necessary, but appropriate and possible, for the parties in this dispute to resolve the dispute between themselves. I believe that's still possible.

The other thing I would say is that with respect to the school year for the students, I have indicated again, and I will be very emphatic in this, that we will make sure, no matter how this issue is resolved, that the year for the students is protected. We will take whatever actions are necessary to ensure that happens.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Housing. I've been getting several phone calls and letters from councils in my riding and also from some of the contractors, and of course concerned individuals. There seems to be some confusion and concern in regard to access to affordable housing. The federal government's decision to cancel its cooperative housing program has a lot of people in my riding worried. They're quite concerned about the federal government's commitment to provide affordable housing. Could the minister please clarify things for the House and the people in my riding as to her efforts on access to affordable housing?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I welcome the question. We have had a real blow from the federal budget. As I've told this House before, we'll be losing access to funding for units from the federal budget. We had previously thought that would mean 6,700 units over the next five years. In fact, as we learned more details from CMHC, it's going to mean that we'll be losing about 8,500 units over the next five years. Because of that, the provincial ministers of housing have met. I will be meeting next week on their behalf with Elmer MacKay, the federal minister of housing, hoping to reverse that decision. We will of course be moving ahead with our own programs here in Ontario.

Mr Hayes: Just as a point of information, twice in 1986 it happened to me that the Liberal government barred me from coming into any meetings with my councils. I want to let people know that.

Madam Minister, you mentioned the 8,500 loss of homes because of the decision by the federal government, but you also mentioned that we're going to gain 2,000 because of our new program. Is our new Jobs Ontario homes fund a response to the federal government's cutbacks?

Hon Ms Gigantes: We'll be moving ahead with a very vigorous program, as the member has indicated. We expect over three years that we'll be able to get 20,000 units going because of the provincial budget moneys. That will be 36,000 jobs in addition to the 25,000 units we'll be completing this year, which are generating 45,000 jobs in construction this year.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to the Minister of Health. Madam Minister, the people of northwestern Ontario, particularly in the ridings of Kenora and Rainy River, are confused and were certainly looking forward to your visit of some four or five weeks ago. It's truly unfortunate that you were unable to make it and your plans had changed.

Madam Minister, you will know that the former Liberal Minister of Health announced $15 million in capital to upgrade the hospitals in the area covered by the Kenora-Rainy River district health council. At the 1991 Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association conference in Fort Frances last May your Premier came into the northwest and said the $15 million in capital funds that were allocated was news to him and that he was not prepared to commit to the same.

Madam Minister, on May 27, 1991, you rose in the House to answer my question and stated that you would look into the fund, and you did: On June 27 you affirmed in a letter to the district health council that the allocation still stood and that the proposals were in a review process.

I was at the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association convention last week to hear the Attorney General say that the hospital boards affected will "be hearing within the next two weeks from the Ministry of Health that their original proposals will have to be reworked." I tell you, Madam Minister, news of further delays was so discouraging to those in attendance. Can you explain why the proposals will have to be reworked and why yet another hurdle is being thrown in the way of these capital projects?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): With respect to the response within two weeks, as I've indicated to a number of members in this House when they've been asking me about capital projects, we're very hopeful of being able to get out responses on the next group of those capital reviews by the end of May. I think that two-week period is referencing my comments in terms of attempting to do that.

Let me just reaffirm what you said, that the commitment for the $15-million capital allocation has been maintained through the period of review. You will know, as the member and I have talked about directly in the House, that the district health council made recommendations with respect to that $15-million allocation. The total amount of the recommendations exceeded that $15 million by a substantial amount. As we work through the capital review, that poses a problem for us, but we're not trying to put up any more hurdles or delays in the process. I think perhaps the member has misunderstood.

Mr Miclash: Madam Minister, I guess my bottom-line question is, when can the Kenora-Rainy River district health council expect some announcement and some action from you?

Hon Ms Lankin: I hope to have a response to the district health council, as I have indicated, with the next batch of responses on the capital review. I am hopeful that it's by the end of this month. We may be able to move on the Rainy River one in advance because it's a bit of a different situation: There's still the issue of what the DHC has proposed with respect to these projects and the actual amount of money available. I will be doing everything I can to expedite it, though.

Let me assure the member, as I have assured the Attorney General, who speaks to me frequently on this as well -- the people up there need to know that both their representatives are representing them well on this issue -- that we will attempt to get them a response and work with the community to try to match the priorities to the moneys available.

1530

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Minister, while in Elgin county last Friday, you said that you'd planned a committee to discuss the effects that gambling casinos and sports betting will have on existing sports lotteries, bingos and raffles. Mr Minister, will you make a commitment to this House today that you intend to make this committee an all-party legislative committee and not just one of your usual touring ministry road shows?

Hon Peter North (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): The comments that I made were basically concerning casinos. My intention in my explanation to the people I was speaking to was simply to say that we're putting together what we call a project team. It's certainly in conjunction with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations as well as our ministry, and the public in general will have an opportunity, I believe, to be part of this, people from the organizations that represent charities and people who would be representing the horse racing industry, as well as people who represent municipalities.

Mr Tilson: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations said she's going to want an impact study after they implement the gambling casinos. I wonder if you can tell me when you're going to have this project team formed. Is it going to be before or after the gambling casinos are implemented?

Hon Mr North: The member can insinuate basically anything that he likes in this House; that's his prerogative. What we've said very clearly from the start is that we were at one point considering casinos. We're still considering casinos and the way we'll approach casinos in this province. Our intention is to make sure that people get an opportunity to speak to us about casinos and that they get an opportunity to voice their opinions and their understanding of what they perceive a casino to be in this province.

BUSINESS PRACTICES

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Members of the House are well aware that within the budget was announced the curbsider provision in order to afford the motorists of this province who purchase used motor vehicles some protection. I know my office has received a lot of calls from individuals who have purchased used vehicles. In the latest instance, Mr Bob Good from Kitchener purchased a used motor vehicle and the odometer had been turned back. He has been having some difficulty getting the matter straightened out.

Could the minister outline for the residents of this province some of the positive features of this program, when it will come into effect, where it can be accessed and how it's going to be effectively put in place in order to reduce the amount of illegal activity that currently surrounds the purchase of some used motor vehicles?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I don't think the Speaker will allow me to answer all of your questions today. This was a very important part of the budget. This will take effect in April 1993. Indeed there has been a problem out there for many years with so-called curbsiders who sell cars in private sales and, quite frankly, to coin a phrase, rip people off frequently. People buy cars and there are often liens on these cars, they've been tampered with, there are all kinds of things. People buy these cars thinking they're getting a deal and in fact they're being ripped off.

Starting in April, people will be able to purchase this vehicle transfer package, which means the private dealer will have to supply to the purchaser all this kind of background information so he knows exactly what he's getting.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

SPEAKER'S RULINGS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe it was last week, you will recall, that the member for Simcoe West raised a point of order. Actually I believe it was a point of privilege. He had asked a question in this place about the cost of a certain drug that was being used by the medical community. His point of privilege or request to you to examine his point of privilege was based on the fact that Dr Morton Shulman, a member of the New Democratic Party and a former member of this Legislature, circulated documentation that took issue with the member's concern in his statement.

My point of order to you, sir, is that at that time you took the question of privilege raised under advisement, said you would report back to this place with a report and subsequently, I believe, did so, indeed with a written report, if I recall correctly, and I believe your finding was that the member's privileges had not been violated as a result of the fact that it did not occur in this place.

I'm curious, sir, as to why you did not do something similar to that on the point of order today raised by my colleague who was summarily expelled from a meeting with the Minister of Housing, why you would not have taken that under advisement to investigate it in a similar way, yet just simply rose to the conclusion that because it wasn't taking place in this place, it didn't affect his privilege as a member.

I'd like to know what the differences are in your mind on the two issues. They both would involve the right of a member to operate freely without intimidation. Clearly it would be intimidating for a Minister of Housing, a minister of the crown, to eject a member of this place from a room in front of his or her constituents, and clearly would affect his right and his ability --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Mississauga West, first --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I appreciate the fact that the member inquires with respect to points of order and privilege which are raised. Indeed he is correct that earlier the member for Simcoe West had raised his point of privilege and indicated that there was certain documentation and cited his research and parliamentary authorities. Naturally the most appropriate thing to do under those circumstances would be to reserve judgement so I had an opportunity to both examine the documents and to consider the documentation he presented from parliamentary sources. I needed an opportunity to do that and did it at my earliest convenience and brought a written response to the chamber on Monday of this week.

The matter which was raised earlier today by the member for York Centre was one that clearly, in my mind, fell outside the precinct and hence was not a matter for consideration by the Speaker. Indeed, as I think I indicated earlier on, the situation he described is affected either by a minister's policy, a government policy or simply a matter of courtesy. As such, it's something for the members to decide. If it is seen by members to be a somewhat larger issue, perhaps it's something they may wish to have the House leaders discussing.

I note also that it was a matter of a question in the House to the Premier on the same lines and that there was both a question and a response to the issue. If the member wishes to pursue the matter further, he may wish to discuss it with his House leader and hence as part of the agenda of the regular weekly meeting, but I appreciate the matter having been raised with me.

Mr Mahoney: I know it's improper to challenge the ruling. I'm not doing that. I'm just asking for some help on clarification on how you or anyone in the chair would make such a ruling.

It would be clear that both matters, regardless of whether or not they were substantiated with documentation -- I'm sure the concern Mr Sorbara raised in regard to that meeting could be substantiated with documentation. It's not a matter of whether or not the member for Simcoe West had documentation to substantiate his privilege or our member had documentation. Both issues are clearly issues that took place outside the purview of this Legislature.

One you took the time to analyse and study, and one involved a private citizen, albeit a member of the NDP, but still a private citizen. This one involves not only a member of the political party involved but clearly a minister of the crown. It would seem to me one is substantially more serious than the other, yet, sir, with due respect, you took the time to analyse and report on one, and the one that would be clearly more substantive and more significant to me, a member of the cabinet throwing a member of this Legislature out of a room, is something you dismissed out of hand. I'd like to understand on what basis these rulings are made.

The Speaker: To the member for Mississauga West, I can assure him, as I can assure all members of the House, that I take each issue that's brought to my attention seriously. The ruling I delivered this afternoon to the member for York Centre in fact, I believe, was commented upon by his House leader, who indicated that indeed that's correct, that the Speaker does not have the ability to deal with issues which occur outside the chamber.

I understand fully the concern members have with respect to their privileges. I am, as I will always try to be, the guardian of those privileges within the precinct. I will do my utmost to do that. I'm sorry the member is disappointed with the way in which your Speaker has handled the issue, but I dealt with it as it occurred and as quickly and fairly as I could, and I believe I delivered the proper resolution of the matter. If the member wishes to pursue that particular issue further, I would certainly invite him to discuss it with his House leader, who may in turn want to discuss it at the weekly meeting of the House leaders.

1540

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: This is something new?

Mrs Caplan: Yes. On that point of order, members of the Legislature are aware that the Speaker, while he rules here in the Legislative Assembly, has some influence over what happens within the legislative precinct.

There are two issues that have been raised. One is the conduct of the minister and that's why the question was placed to the Premier. While my colleague the member for York Centre said he didn't question the behaviour, manners and judgement of the minister in throwing him out of her office, that is a code of conduct and behaviour that the Premier, who appoints the ministers, must answer for. On the other hand, the issue of rights of members to represent their constituents is, I believe, an issue which you as Speaker of this Legislature, of this House, and also as the person who has responsibility for what happens within the precinct, could consider and perhaps have a ruling on.

I understand that when a similar circumstance, although not the same, occurred with me, that was in my constituency. It was not in a constituency office; it was in a library building that had been rented by the ministry. The result of that was that the former Minister of Housing rose in this House, apologized to me and assured me and other members of this House that it would not happen again.

Not only has it happened again, but it's even worse because a minister of the crown told my colleague that he could not attend a meeting in the office of the minister, which is part of the precinct of this Legislature, in front of his constituents after he had been requested by a constituent to --

The Speaker: Would the member for Oriole take her seat, please. I must say to the member that while I appreciate her concern about the issue, the matter to which she refers did not occur within the precinct. It did not occur in this chamber. It did not occur in this building. A minister's office is part of a government complex. It is not under the jurisdiction of the Speaker.

I understand full well the matter the member raises. Indeed, I listened carefully to the questions, the concerns and the response from the Premier. All I can say to the member is that this issue is important to members. I understand that fully. Unfortunately, your Speaker cannot be of any assistance to you in this matter.

Perhaps the House leaders, at a meeting they normally hold once a week or at some other specially called meeting, can deal with the matter, which obviously is of concern to many members. If there's any way in which the Speaker can assist in facilitating a meeting, as always, I am more than pleased to do so, because above all else I want members to feel their privileges are never abused -- each and every member of this House.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Because of the time constraints, Mr Speaker, I'd like to give notice under rule 33 that I am very dissatisfied with the Minister of Education's answer today and I will be requesting an opportunity to debate that at 6 pm tonight. I have already notified the minister that I will be doing this.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Carleton has raised his point of order. I trust he will file the necessary document with the table.

Mr Sterling: I am very unhappy as well with the correction the House leader pointed out to me.

SPEAKER'S RULINGS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, not to go over the same issue again, perhaps you could help us by taking under advisement the issue I'm about to raise and report back to us.

My concern and the reason for raising the issue is there are two issues that, while different, have some similarities. Both occurred outside of this Legislature; both involved members of the Legislature. You took time and gave a detailed ruling on one, and gave what I would call, with respect, a snap judgement on the other.

What I would like to ask is for us to understand what consistency we can expect from the Speaker's chair on rulings of that nature. I recognized that a minister of the crown is not under your control and that, if the Minister of Housing decided to expel the member for York Centre from the room full of his constituents, clearly that would seem to me to be the minister's prerogative, but it does impact on this member's ability to represent his constituents, and at the very least is behaviour not befitting a minister of the crown.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I understand your question. Would the member take his seat, please. Rather than occupy the time of the House, I would invite the member to visit me in my chambers. I would be more than pleased to discuss this matter further with him. All I can do is assure the member and all members of the House that I take seriously each and every point of order and privilege which is raised. I handle it to the best of my ability, with advice and knowledge, and I will always do that.

PETITIONS

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My petition is to the government of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"We, the concerned parents and ratepayers in the region of Peel, protest the recent Peel board's decision to eliminate the junior kindergarten program. This decision is unjust, unfair and highly discriminatory against children who were born in 1988, are non-Catholic and who reside in Peel.

"The ministry's own booklet, entitled Report of the Early Primary Education Project, stipulates that children who have a good early education beginning at age three have fewer learning problems, less delinquency, higher employability, greater productivity, more self-sufficiency and are characterized by fuller participation in economic life than children who do not.

"The Dave Whycark research paper has stated, 'That for every dollar a society invests in quality early childhood programs, the return is $7.'

"We formally request you, the government, to mandate the junior kindergarten program now.

"We further expect all parties to put aside their own political differences and cooperate in legislating this program for the benefit of all children. The time to act is now. The educational needs of these children must be attended to or we, as a society and province, will have failed."

This petition is signed by over 1,000 people who share this very urgent concern.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a petition here to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the report of Mr John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended a massive, unwarranted and unprecedented annexation of the city of London;

"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process, resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregarded the public input expressed during the public hearings; and

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report would lead to a destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the remnant portions of Middlesex potentially becoming economically unviable,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I will affix my name to this petition.

TAXATION

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here, and I'll read it.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Honourable Floyd Laughren, Treasurer of Ontario, not to proceed with any additional tax on real estate gains."

That's been signed by 12 people from my riding.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I have a petition signed by 61 constituents, and it reads as follows:

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

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

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

"2. repeal the discriminatory and unconstitutional Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, in the province, and all areas designated as French-language."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 31 Middlesex constituents, who urge the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reject the report for the greater London area by arbitrator John Brant. Many of us in Middlesex have grave concerns regarding the size of the annexation and recommendations within the report. This is an issue of the utmost importance. I have signed my name to this petition.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition, with the same preamble, to the Legislature of Ontario.

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I too have signed my name to that petition.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature with the same preamble as the previous two:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I affix my signature.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Reports by committees.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): The member for Mississauga West was making a hasty exit and I assured him that this was an all-party committee; he didn't have to be so sensitive about sitting beside me.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Pursuant to standing order 58(a), I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on estimates on the estimates selected and not selected by the standing committee for consideration.

Reading dispensed with [See Votes and Proceedings].

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 58(b), the report of the committee is deemed to be received and the estimates of the ministries and offices named therein as not being selected for consideration by the committee are deemed to be concurred in.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L'ESSENCE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act / Loi portant modification de la Loi de la taxe sur l'essence.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Please check and see if there's a quorum present, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1555

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for York Centre, you have the floor.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With all due respect, when debate resumed the member for York Centre was not in the House. He only returned after the quorum call.

The Deputy Speaker: The point of order was raised and was recognized immediately. That is the rule. The member for York Centre.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As I recall --

Mr Mahoney: Go for an hour.

Mr Sorbara: I thank my whip for indulging me for an hour on this topic. I don't propose to be very long at all. I think we can move resolutely through this issue.

As I recall, when we adjourned this House yesterday afternoon we had just heard a rather long and, I think, regrettable speech from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Interjection.

Mr Sorbara: My friend across the way thought it was a great speech. It certainly was a great speech for us, I tell him, because if we could simply send the videotape of that rhetoric and nonsense from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology around to the business community and remind it that this is the kind of representation it has in the cabinet of Ontario, I think what little support there might be for the New Democrats among fairminded people in the province would dwindle even further.

We're debating Bill 86. We're debating a further levy of 3.4 cents on the cost of a litre of gasoline. We're debating a matter that was introduced in a budget that has already been discredited over the course of the past year. I remind my colleagues in the House that we are still debating last year's budget. I think the fact we have not even been able to proceed with the legislation arising from last year's budget is itself a commentary on the ability of this government to manage matters in this House and manage them effectively.

I want to spend just a few minutes on the substance of this legislation. It's pretty simple. It's pretty straightforward. It's pretty easy stuff. The members of the government shouldn't have very much difficulty with the issues relating to this rather simple bill.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Are you simple-minded?

Mr Sorbara: My friend the member for Cochrane South says we're simple-minded. Therein I have to agree with him: The matter is simple. What the Treasurer did last year, in the face of advice from all over the province that he shouldn't do this, was levy an additional 3.4 cents on the cost of a litre of gasoline.

Yesterday the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, when he was speaking on the issue, went over the history of tax increases on gasoline from time immemorial to the present, but that's not the issue. The issue for us was: Was it a good idea for the Treasurer to put this additional levy on gasoline at that time in that budget? The answer has clearly been for the past year, "No more taxes on gasoline." "No more taxes, period," the people are saying. "We can't bear any more taxes. We're losing our jobs. We can't pay our mortgages. We can't pay the rent. Our friends and our family are going to food banks and we can't bear additional taxation, but in particular we can't bear more tax on gas. We can't pay this additional three cents."

Listen to the people of Windsor, for example. Listen to the gas station owners of Windsor who said to us, and are still saying, that this levy was the straw that broke the camel's back. That was the levy, along with additional taxes on gasoline and cigarettes, that has sent a whole community across the border to do its shopping in Detroit. Listen to the people of Cornwall, listen to the people of Sault Ste Marie, I tell the government members. Listen to the people of Thunder Bay. Listen to the people throughout the north of the province, who have said to us, and I suggest have said to you: "We spend so much more time travelling; gas for us is so much more a factor in the monthly bills we pay. We can't afford to pay more," they said a year ago when the Treasurer levied this additional tax.

It's clear what should have been done at that time. In retrospect, the magic the Treasurer could have exacted would have been even a slight, symbolic reduction in the cost of a litre of gasoline. Just a slight reduction would have given the people of this province a sense of hope. That was the one tax measure that could have given us all a sense that the government was going in the right direction, because it affects virtually all of us.

It had a particular effect on border communities. They just gave up hope. Mr Speaker, I know you travel around the province a lot and I know you've heard the same thing I've heard, at the time of that budget and over the past year, the very same thing: "We've given up hope."

I went to Windsor, in fact, shortly after the budget was brought down. The first thing I heard was that several gas stations had closed as a result of the budget increases, that there was just no more business. People simply didn't buy gasoline in Windsor any more.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In looking across the way, I notice that there are only two Liberals and two Conservatives in the House, and I don't believe we have a quorum present.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1603

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is now present.

Mr Sorbara: I quickly say to my friend the member for Downsview that it's your government House leader who is so anxious to get this bill passed. If he wants to delay the debate and make quorum calls, that's up to him. He can explain to his constituents why at one and the same time he's trying to delay the passage of this bill and will, when the vote comes, stand up and vote in favour of the Treasurer's measure. I say to him that it's the people --

The Deputy Speaker: Please debate the bill.

Mr Sorbara: I say to him that this bill affects the people in the riding of my friend the member for Downsview. It's this bill that they've said represents the last straw in taxation.

The one measure the Treasurer could have brought forward, as I was saying before the quorum call, is a slight reduction in the cost of a litre of gasoline.

What would that have done? Just look at what would have happened in border communities. Gas station owners would have said: "Ah. Maybe I can make it through the summer and the fall and the winter months. Maybe, as a result of this little reduction, I can do a few other things to encourage people to buy gas in this community." Retailers would have said, "My goodness, it looks like the government has heard our plea, has understood that these kind of measures, these taxation measures, have a dramatic effect on cross-border shopping."

We could have done something very important for border communities. We didn't, and we saw what happened. We saw the job losses. You see the stores for rent in Windsor. You see the stores for rent in Cornwall. You see the stores for rent in Niagara Falls. You see the stores for rent all around the province.

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): It's called a recession.

Mr Sorbara: My friend says it's called the recession. It certainly is, and this budget increase, this 3.4 cents a litre, has helped this recession expand into 1992 in ways he probably doesn't even realize.

It's not only border communities that would have benefited from a tax break on gasoline. It's also people in northern communities. As I said earlier, the cost of transportation for those who live in our northern communities is far greater than what we who live in more densely populated urban areas spend. You just have to talk to the people from the north to find out how much of the monthly paycheque goes into transportation. You get in a car and you drive for an hour or two hours to get to your destination, whereas here in more densely populated areas the trip is maybe 15 or 20 minutes.

So northerners would really have benefited from a tax break on gasoline, but what did we get? A Treasurer who said: "I'm not interested in the benefits of a tax break on gasoline. We're going to collect 3.4 cents additional per litre of gasoline."

A tax break on gas is as well the kind of tax measure that can have a generally beneficial effect on the average citizen around the province. It helps. It's not everything, it doesn't solve all the problems in the world, but it's a gesture and it helps. It could have been the one thing in an otherwise now completely discredited budget.

Even the Treasurer has had to admit four times over the course of the last year that his budget was not working, just as he will have to do with the budget he recently presented to the House. That one measure, I say through you, Mr Speaker, to the Minister of Energy, who's listening attentively -- he knows, as the Minister of Energy, how critical these little messages can be and how much it can affect the pocketbook of the average working woman or man in the province of Ontario.

I wonder whether, during that time of budget-making a year ago last March, the Minister of Energy made a pitch on behalf of his residents for a little break on the cost of gasoline. I suspect the answer is that he did not.

A tax break on gasoline, something we had been arguing for throughout the budget debate subsequent to last year's budget, is something that has fallen on ears that will not listen.

We're not debating this year's budget, so I'm not going to comment other than by way of a passing reference to the $1 billion additional taxation that we see in this year's budget. The additional tax of last year wasn't enough for the Treasurer. I simply say to you, sir, that the people of this province have said: "We can't take any more taxation. We can't afford to pay. Metro's taxes are going up 14%. School taxes are going up all over the province. We can't take any more."

It's no wonder this budget measure has been such a difficult measure for this Legislature to pass, because in the face of an economy that has been reeling in recession for over two years now we haven't seen one single thing, in two budgets from this Treasurer, to relieve the pressure.

Last year's budget was hailed as this government's attempt to fight the recession with more spending and more taxation: 3.4 cents a litre, says Bill 86, on the cost of a litre of gasoline. The people of this province should remember that when they go to the pump to fill up their tanks with gasoline: In the first budget of the New Democratic Party, in the face of a terrible recession, record high unemployment and the worst economic times, admitted by the Premier, since the Great Depression -- the second Great Depression, as I call it -- during that time the Treasurer had the audacity to say, "And we're going to make you pay more to get to work, we're going to make you pay more to go on your holidays, we're going to drive business out of our border communities, we're going to make it more difficult for northerners and the average man and woman who work in this province are going to have a tougher time because we want to spend an additional 14.5% over the last Liberal budget to pay off the friends who got us elected."

That's the real budget. The real budget of 1991 was a big NDP payoff to its friends. Where did they get the money? From those of us who drive around in this province in our cars.

1610

Look at how difficult it was for retailers, Mr Speaker, particularly in border communities. I recall visiting Windsor shortly after the budget. I looked at the gas stations in Windsor, and a litre of regular gasoline cost 54.5 cents. Then I went across the border into Detroit and it was 37.5 cents a litre when you combined all the factors you have to combine, including converting litres to American gallons and Canadian dollars into American cents. What option do the people have? Are they foolish? Can they not count? Do they have no sense? They have no money, but they have a good deal of sense. They say: "We have no option. We fill up our tanks in Detroit now." While they're over there, they buy a case of beer and it costs half the price, and if they are smokers, they buy a pack of cigarettes or a carton of cigarettes and it costs a third of what they pay in Windsor. While they're there, they shop like any reasonable citizen might.

We have been asking the government for over a year now to come to grips with this problem. We have been asking the government to give the merchants in Ontario, and particularly in border communities, the freedom to decide whether or not they're going to open their stores on Sunday. We have been asking the government to reconsider this harmful tax on gasoline in light of the depression and in light of the differential between 54.5 cents a litre in Ontario and 37.5 cents in Michigan and New York state. The government has done nothing, and then it's surprised that this bill takes a while to pass in the House.

They criticize us for opposing, for wanting to speak to the issue, for wanting to remind the people of Ontario that when they pay more at the pumps in the midst of this vicious recession, it's because of a government that is insensitive, that is out of touch and that had the audacity to raise the cost of gasoline during this depression.

I simply encourage the government members who are really concerned, not about their political careers but about the interests of their community, to stand

up for the people of the province when we vote on this bill and oppose this tax and force the Treasurer to rewrite that budget of a year ago and give the people of the province what they really deserve, that is, a refund of the millions and millions of dollars the Treasurer has taken by way of this tax measure.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'd like to compliment my colleague Mr Sorbara, the member for York Centre, for very thoughtful remarks in the debate on Bill 86. I think what he has said is very significant, because he laid out the history of where this tax originated from, he put it in the context of the damaging fiscal policies of the Treasurer of last year, and in that context he has made us all realize how misguided the fiscal policy was in raising taxes in the midst of a recession.

He has pointed out to us the impact on jobs and job loss. Since this government came into power we've seen almost 300,000 jobs lost in this province.

He also pointed out very well the impact on cross-border shopping, which this NDP government has not only ignored but exacerbated, made worse, by its misguided policy of increasing gasoline taxes.

The one thing that all of us in this House know lures people from border communities across the border is the differential in gas price. The mayor's task force asked the government to allow a differential to be reduced in those border communities, and that met with silence from the government side.

I want to compliment my colleague. I think he spoke extremely well on behalf of his constituents, as he always does, but more, I think he showed a real understanding of the impact of Bill 86. I think he pointed out to the government and to the Treasurer some alternatives they should consider.

Mr Mahoney: I'm surprised that members of the government aren't interested in commenting on the thoughtful presentation by my colleague, but if they're not, I'm delighted to do so myself. I want to congratulate the member, and I know the member for York Centre has a lot of concern, for example, about the impact this gasoline tax has on the small business community.

Is there a problem?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): No, that's fine. Go ahead.

Mr Mahoney: Are you going to put 30 seconds back on the clock then for that little bit of confusion? Mr Speaker, nice to see you back.

I believe this member understands that impact, and we had some alternatives put forward. I hear them say, "It's time the opposition stop just criticizing and put forward some alternatives." You heard the member for St Catharines put an alternative to the Treasurer, to take away from this what he refers to as an auto workers' tax, because in fact you're penalizing the auto workers in putting this tax in place. He put forward an alternative that I thought made a lot of sense, and this opposition is continuing to do that because we know you're having such difficulty coming up with alternatives that make any sense to the people in the small business community.

Just think about the impact if you are running a business with five or six trucks that you need to deliver your product around the community. Just think of the impact this has on your operating costs, and what it could do if you put more money back into the hands of the small business operator. Just maybe that person could afford to hire somebody else; just maybe that business could afford not to lay people off in times of recession.

You are just a little backwards. You think the way to solve the recession is to tax more and take money away from people, when you should be doing exactly the opposite.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I just want to comment as well on the previous speaker's comments. I think what we've got is a situation where, as he pointed out, we've got these tax increases coming -- this year it's the gasoline tax, then next year we go to the percentage of the personal income tax -- and what we seem to be doing, as was pointed out, is just rotating the taxes. We increase them a little bit this year, 3.4 cents, ahead of the rate of inflation. Next year it goes to the percentage of the personal income tax, and it almost seems like we have a situation where they look down and see the revenue that is coming in from the various sources and say, "On odd years we increase the gasoline taxes; on even years we increase the personal income taxes," and it's this legacy of layer upon layer of taxes that I think gets to us.

It's interesting that we point out that it isn't any one specific tax like this particular bill, the gasoline tax. That's on top of everything else, with the increase in the property taxes and the increases that are coming at all levels of government. That is where the cumulative effect gets us.

As we sit here today, as we pointed out, the 3.4, which is relatively high versus the rate inflation, has a cumulative effect on top of everything else. I will expand a little bit on that as we go on into the next speaker, but I think it's very important to realize that what we're looking at here will affect, as he said, the border towns. I think the key factor in Bill 86 is, what will it do to the border towns?

Unfortunately, in this day and age we are so close to border towns. Virtually 90% of the population in this province can get to a border town very quickly, and it is those people who are the ones who are crossing the border and filling up with gasoline. So I think people in this House would do well to listen to some of the comments being put forward.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Comments have already been made today that Mr Sorbara made some very interesting remarks, and of course he drew attention to a number of issues that are very important in terms of this gas tax.

What is becoming very clear today is that this additional tax is going to have a number of effects; it's obvious. One is the whole issue of visitors from the United States and other parts of the world. Tourism, there is no doubt, is going to be decimated by this tax. We are already experiencing, when we look at the numbers of tourists coming to Ontario, a really significant decline. Yes, it is true that about a year ago I asked the Minister of Tourism and Recreation how much tourism was down. If I recall correctly, he said it wasn't down by very much. But today, just about a year later, we know that the impact of whatever it is we're doing here is significantly reducing visitors coming to see our beautiful city and in fact to see Ontario.

The gas tax this government is now imposing on the people of Ontario is going to add significantly in order to destroy tourism. This will be what some people might term the last nail in the coffin. Of course we in this party are not here to ensure that tourism in Ontario will stop. Because it is significant, we have to ensure this government understands that to go ahead with this tax is not in the best interests of Ontario.

There are other numbers of significant issues at stake and other effects that this tax will have on Ontario, but since I'm running out of time I will take another opportunity later to discuss the additional information I have.

1620

The Speaker: The honourable member for York Centre has two minutes to summarize his comments.

Mr Sorbara: I really appreciate the comments from my colleagues and regret that we didn't have some critical analysis from the government members. I appreciate indeed two points.

First is the point my friend the member for Mississauga West made in respect of the trucking industry because, again, when you look at a tax you have to see what the positive impact will be in terms of revenue and balance that against the negative impact on business. Do you remember, sir, the pain the trucking industry was in a year ago? They were asking government for some break or other. We had just gone through deregulation. The industry was being swamped by American competitors. Our industry said: "We can't compete. We've got a cost structure that is breaking us and making us uncompetitive in the market." A reduction in the cost of gasoline in that budget would have been a very positive signal to the trucking industry and would have helped that industry survive in a very difficult time.

My friend the member for Parkdale mentions tourism. This of course is another extremely important point. The loss in tourism during this recession has been unparalleled compared to any other time in our history, including the period of the Great Depression of the 1930s. Among other things it was the additional cost of gasoline that made it so difficult for our tourist operators to remain competitive. Those who had traditionally come to our tourist venues simply were not coming. The Americans were saying: "It's too expensive up in Canada. We can't afford gasoline." Indeed, last July, I was in North Bay and I spoke to Stan Lawlor, the mayor of North Bay. I recall him saying to me, "So far, Greg, I have seen 12 American licence plates," and this was at the height of their tourist season.

Who do we blame, sir? The government on the other side of this House that imposed that crippling tax.

The Speaker: Before continuing with debate, I beg to inform the House that pursuant to standing order 33, the member for Carleton has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Education concerning the Carleton Board of Education teachers' strike. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

Further debate, the member for Oakville South.

Mr Carr: I was very interested in the last comments from the member about the trucking industry. For those who probably don't know, my background came in the trucking industry. It goes back a little. I actually was a teamster who started out unloading the trucks during that period of time and I know it well. Through my career I was able to move up through the ranks and get involved in the sales and marketing aspect of it. I've done everything from loading the trucks in the summertime, so I think I can speak with a little perspective about the truckers and what they're facing.

In fact, one of the companies I was with, a division of TNT, Alltrans, actually went out of business because of some of the high costs we're talking about. I think a lot of people don't appreciate where a lot of the cost for some of the truckers lies. A good portion of it is through the gasoline and the fuel. I suspect a lot of members don't realize that something that seems very small, like this Bill 86 with a 3.4-cent increase, really takes a dramatic increase when your overall costs of fuel are so high.

It was interesting to note that many of the trucking companies that were surviving during the period when I was involved in the industry, which I guess was after the hockey-playing days in the early 1980s -- most of the Canadian companies -- have struggled and have gone out of business. One of the things we did during the deregulation period was to assume we would be able to keep competing with the Americans on an even playing field. The problem is, the Americans have such cheap fuel. For those of you on the other side who don't know, some of these trucks have very large tanks, so what happens is that the US carriers will fill up in the US and virtually can run from here, the Detroit border, all the way through on US fuel.

In fact, what we're looking at here is a circumstance where the middle class is going to be hit as a result of this tax.

I'm always interested in standing up and talking about any taxes, because I believe, as I mentioned in the statement, that we have far too many taxes in far too many areas. I think, as we reflect on Bill 86 and the reason it came in place, we would do well to look at what this particular tax generates. For those of you who haven't had a chance to look through the budget books, whether it's this year or last year, going all the way back, the budget does outline where the taxation measures come from and where the gasoline tax is coming from.

This particular tax wasn't drawn out because people said it's a good thing and we'll introduce it. It has come as a result of the spending pressures that are there, and in order to meet those spending pressures they say, "Where are we going to find the revenue?" So they do as many treasurers do. They look down the budget, on page 81 of this year's, and they talk about the gasoline tax and they say: "Okay, we're going to increase it. How can we phase it in so that it doesn't affect people? But we need to get a bottom-line total." I think that's what happened. Even some of the speakers who talked about it yesterday talked about the 1.7 cents per litre.

What we're looking at are two phases in this. I think it's important to reflect what we're looking at, when you look at it, is the case of having to find the revenue. They look down, they see the personal income tax, they see the retail sales tax, which is the highest, then corporation tax, then the employer health payroll tax, which was slid in, and then gasoline taxes. The total cumulative that comes in from that would make it about the fourth or fifth total revenue for the government. I think that's why we're seeing the dramatic increases that have come about. With the spending pressures that are out there and the corresponding taxation pressures that are out there, they have to look at very, very large increases in tax revenue in order to meet the spending expenditures, even with the deficits that we're at and, of course, we're into the dramatic increases in the deficit regardless of how much we increase it with revenue.

Really I think it's important to reflect that's what this bill is all about. It's about trying to find more revenue for a government that is finding it very difficult over the last little while to meet its spending pressures.

As I said earlier, this really hits the middle class, because it's something that the average person can't do anything about. Now, there are some areas in my area where we have transit, but it really does affect the middle class, the working person out there, the man or woman who goes out every day, because they're the ones who are affected by this.

It was interesting to reflect this year that the Treasurer said he increased the percentage of the personal income tax because he thought it was a fairer tax. Last year he didn't say, however, when he increased the taxes with Bill 86, that this was an unfair tax. But this year, when he doesn't touch it -- and I suspect the reason he didn't touch it this year is because of the dramatic increase last year -- the reason is that he says this year the fairer tax is to increase your percentage of the personal income tax. I guess a year from now we will argue how fair that is, particularly when we see the percentage increase going on salaries over $53,000. So what Bill 86 did last year has just been further heightened this year.

It seems almost like governments go down and they say, as I said earlier: "It's an even year so we're going to increase the gasoline tax. It's an odd year, so we'll lay off the corporation tax and then we'll go to personal income tax."

Mrs Caplan: It's not just the year that's odd.

1630

Mr Carr: Yes, it isn't just the year that's odd, as the member for Oriole points out. But that's essentially what we're looking at. Last year when we had these dramatic increases we didn't say anything about the middle class. Yet this year we talk about the percentage of the personal income tax being a fair way of doing it. I say the people who are going to be hurt by Bill 86 and the tax increases are the average working families which need to be able to get out and meet some of the demands and go to work, and in a lot of cases can't cut back. In Metro Toronto, of course, they can with some of the public transit and some of the other areas, but it makes it very difficult for the working men and women whom this tax affects.

The worst part is that during the last campaign the now Premier of this province went around and made all the promises and, as I mentioned, I think a lot of it is tied to the expenditures. He didn't talk about where the tax increases would be. He said, and I'll paraphrase a little bit: "Mike Harris is right. Taxes are too high. It's David Peterson's fault." But he didn't explain where the revenue was coming from. I wish we'd been able to see very clearly during that summer of 1990 these dramatic increases. If people had known Bill 86 was coming in with the dramatic increases in gasoline, I suspect a lot of them might have made a bit of a change in the way they voted.

Because what the Premier said is, "We can have all the spending, we can have the Agenda for People with $5 billion more, but don't worry; somebody else will pay." Through these measures and through Bill 86, we see very clearly that the people he was talking about are the average working man and woman who are being hit by this. So I would hope that some of the members opposite would reflect on that particular point. The very people who are being taxed to death, whether it's property taxes, whether it's the federal taxes, the municipal level or the provincial level, were looking for some type of help in terms of the tax rate that has been hitting them over the last little while. Bill 86 certainly does not help.

I want to touch on some of the people who are really being affected in some of the border towns. We had one of the members from I guess the Dylex corporation come in before the Sunday shopping committee. He was talking about some of the cross-border shopping issues, as they are related. He said, "You know, I can compete with the US, whether it's suits or sweatshirts," and I pointed out to him that this particular suit was a Tip Top one, so I remember he thanked me for that at the time. I remember my friend Mr Mills, the member for Durham East, also had a suit that was from the Tip Top corporation. He said: "We can compete, when it comes to suits and when it comes to sweatshirts and so on, with the Americans and cross-border shopping. The problem is that we can't compete with three items. Those three items are the cigarettes, the liquor and alcohol as well as the gasoline."

It's very interesting to see what lengths people will go to to not pay those taxes. Bill 86 will mean very clearly more people going across the border to fill up. It's similar to the taxation over cigarettes, the so-called sin tax. My constituency office was broken into about a month or so ago. They spent literally one hour tunnelling through the offices to get through to the variety store next door. We were amazed that they would break into an MPP's office, because of course we give everything in there away for free, whether it's brochures or government information. They went in to get the cigarettes because of the high taxation on those, which is similar to Bill 86 with the gasoline.

What you're looking at is that people will go to a lot of measures, whether it's to avoid cross-border shopping or whether it's buying cigarettes that have been stolen. They spent virtually an hour tunnelling through the walls of my constituency office because there was such a market for cigarettes on the black market nowadays. Of course, I was a little bit shocked when they had done that and I said to the policeman, "I guess it is strange that they would do this," and the officer said, "No, we get occurrences like this all the time." It's little wonder that we have people going across when we see the dramatic increases we've seen with Bill 86 in terms of the gasoline.

My son plays hockey. We went down to Rochester to participate in a tournament. I hadn't been over to the United States for many years. We went back. Ironically, Rochester was where I used to play and we had a chance to see some old friends. I was amazed at the lineups at the border coming back across. Of course, the big reason is that people are going over to fill up; you can get to 90% of this province within about an hour's period of time. I was shocked to see the lineup.

We actually had to plan how we would be coming back from Rochester and what night, because we knew the border was virtually going to be packed, as it often is. One of the reasons is that they go across to fill up on gasoline, and one of the reasons is that we increase it like this by 3.4 cents per litre and the people of this province get fed up and go to any lengths to try to avoid it.

As the other side said, it isn't because we need this taxation for the programs. The hardworking men and women right now who care about those programs are finding it tough to meet ends as it is now. They don't go across because they want to avoid paying taxes and not give the revenue to the province of Ontario. The reason they're going across is that they cannot afford it. I think most people would say, "Yes, we need the programs; we'll pay a little bit extra," but the people who go across are average working men and women who basically go across not in big cars, not in the big Corvettes or Porsches; they're going across trying to fill up because they are being stretched to the limit and will do anything to try to save a little bit of money.

The problem is that, as we realize it -- and I guess most of us didn't till we got into this business -- the total cents-per-litre cost is made up, very high proportionally, of taxes. As you know, there are different levels involved. People don't understand that. They don't understand that a little bit goes to the province in the percentage that goes in the increase with this particular tax. They don't understand what goes to the federal government. All they know is they cannot afford to fill up like they used to and they can't afford the pressures of the property taxes and other taxes, so they attempt to avoid it by fleeing to other jurisdictions. That's why we have the problems of cross-border shopping. The chap from Dylex said it best: "We can compete in all these other areas. What is killing us is the taxation levels, taxes on the booze, the cigarettes and the gasoline. That's why people are going."

How can you, as a retailer, compete with that? When people are going across, they'll fill up because of the taxes introduced as a result of this Bill 86. While they're over there, they'll pick up some of the other products as well because they happen to be over there. Quite frankly, I don't think it is people trying to cheat the system who are doing it; it is the average hardworking person in this province who said: "I'm sorry, I cannot afford it. Even if it is going to the best programs in the world, whatever they may be, whether it's health care, education or the environment, I cannot afford it any more." If they said that last year with this bill, they're really going to get a whack when they get their percentage of their personal income tax.

The problem is, as you look at the gasoline tax as a percentage of the budget, it is all driven by the expenditure side. If we could get a handle on our expenditures we wouldn't need to introduce these measures that come about. For some of the members who were there, I spent last year on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs doing the pre-budget hearings to introduce this piece of legislation, as well as this year. One of the problems with taxation is that when you increase it dramatically, as you do, the next year you often get less revenue out of it because people will do different things, whether it's stopping driving or going across to the border to fill up down there. You actually get a net decrease in revenue even though you increased the amount. That's at the level we were at both this year and the previous year as it relates to this particular piece of legislation. As the economists said, if you increase it any more, whether gasoline tax or a percentage of personal income tax, you're actually going to get less because people will flee the province because they want to have a job in Manitoba, Quebec or the United States. They'll also flee to afford some of the taxes for gasoline fuel and so on that are out there.

As I look through the catalogue of taxation over the last little while -- and I'll go briefly through the gasoline taxes that have come up. We say with Bill 86, "It's just a small increase," but when you look at the legacy since 1985 -- as we refer to it, the catalogue of greed -- they increased the gasoline tax a little bit this year and then the next year they rotate to something else. It's pages upon pages of tax increases. Again they go five cents per litre here, three cents here and two cents here. The cumulative effect seems to be that each government has tried to outdo the other in trying to have this tax grab. Pages and pages of tax increases have resulted. You can't point to just the gasoline taxes; it's the cumulative effect that has now made us the most highly taxed province in Canada and the most highly taxed jurisdiction in all of North America.

As a result of this bill, people will do whatever they have to to avoid the taxes that are so strangling the middle class. That's what's so unfair about it: It's the middle class that is paying the price for this. That's why I think Bill 86 is so detrimental to the economic wellbeing of this province. If we were able to control our expenditures, then surely we wouldn't need the tax grabs we see through Bill 86 here today.

1640

Last year, spending -- and as we know, that's what drives the tax increases -- was up dramatically; this year the same thing. I suspect next year we're going to have to have another gasoline tax. We'll call it something different. It will be Bill 96 or something. It will increase it a little bit, because we haven't been able to control our expenditure, which is going up 4.9%, well above the rate of inflation. In fact, these taxes that hit us on a per-litre basis take out a real whack percentagewise. That's why we are the highest-taxed province, because of the cumulative effect of taxes such as this.

Instead of coming in when they had the chance in 1990 and saying, "Here we are, we've come in, and we realize the Liberals were defeated over the tax issue, so we're going to try to attempt to control them," they've done the same thing. They're in the midst of rotating the taxes.

I say very clearly to the members, there will never be any opportunity for tax relief on gasoline or the percentage of personal income tax or any taxes until we get our chronic overspending in this province under control. That's why people are fleeing across the border. That's why we have people like myself who are shocked when they go over there for hockey tournaments and other things to see the tremendous lineups. It's just as bad down in the Kingston area. I suspect even in the Oakville-Burlington area, people go across.

In one of the places very close to my constituency office, the chap who runs the gas station has had to move his particular station into a higher traffic area in Burlington. He said the reason is that even people from the Oakville-Burlington area are going across to fill up. So it doesn't just hit the Windsors, the Niagara Falls and some of the other people we hear about; it stretches well into our province. That's why we have the situation we have.

Again, going back to November, we talked about the gasoline tax in our New Directions: A Blueprint for Economic Renewal and Prosperity in Ontario. We touched on that issue as well as some of the other issues. I wanted to share a few thoughts with you on what we said in that particular piece. We talked about spending controls, but on page 23, we say: "Gasoline and fuel taxes should be immediately cut by 10%. This would benefit all sectors...including transportation," which we've heard about and which I've talked about from my background as a Teamster and then as a member of management of a company in that industry.

It would benefit the transportation industry and the tourism industry, which is such a big part of us. As we all know, tourism is such a big factor in this great province of ours. They're the ones who are being hurt, because a lot of Americans are coming up here, seeing the cost of our fuel and the increases through Bill 86, and saying: "To heck with it, we'll stay at home. We'll go to Rochester. We'll go anywhere where we don't have to pay the high prices for gasoline." They are shocked, quite frankly.

As well, there is manufacturing. As you know, a lot of the cost of manufacturing -- being the critic for the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology -- is passed on. When you increase these taxes and take a lot of revenue out of the average working person, that affects all industries. People who would have gone out to buy new suits can't do it because of the bigger slice they're paying as a direct result of taxation in the province. We talk about that.

We talk about some of the things we would do, going back virtually a year ago. One of the things we said very clearly is, "Do not increase any taxes." That's why it gets a little frustrating for the Premier to stand up and say, "We want to work with the opposition," because when we present a proposal -- and by the way, we also talked about where the expenditures would come from to replace that 10% revenue drop. So it wasn't just a case of saying, "Don't do it" and "Cut it." On page 23, we talk about some of the expenditure controls and how we would save there. What drives this whole process of revenue is the expenditure side, so we tried to be practical in calling for that. That's why we believe very strongly that this particular piece of legislation will be bad for the people.

What we've got is almost like a lottery. When the Treasurer sits back and decides on his budget, that's basically what he does. He looks at the revenue and holds a lottery. He spins the dial and says, "What will we increase?" Last year it was the gasoline tax. Then he turns around this year and says, "No, what we've got to do is be a little more" -- I forget the exact words he used. "We have to be fair, so we'll increase the percentage of personal income tax," when last year what he did with Bill 86 and the gas tax was hit the average person and hit them very heavily with these increases. Basically that's what we've done: We spin the wheel, and we picked a tax last year and we pick a tax this year.

The problem with being what is referred to as employed or a breadwinner here in Ontario is that the government is in for such a big slice now. This bill, Bill 86, is going to really take a whack out of the average person who can't afford it. That will be compounded with property tax increases because of the downloading because of the transfer payments, and that is also talked about in A Blueprint for Economic Renewal.

We talked about the gasoline tax as being a major component to transportation, tourism and manufacturing. I think a lot of people don't realize that when you take money out of the system through taxes, what you do is penalize a lot of people in the retail industry and in the manufacturing industry, because people are not spending. That's why we have the problem we have right now: People are not spending. They aren't spending because they don't need a new shirt, a new coat, shoes for the kids; they're not spending right now because they're going to spend more and more of their money paying taxes like this particular tax.

All you need to do is look at the bottom line as the percentage of the gross domestic product. In 1985, taxes represented about 8.8%; now it's up to 12%. It's inch by inch. Things like this gasoline tax, this Bill 86, inch it up a little bit this year, compounded on the inching up that went on through the previous years and the legacy of greed, the 55 tax increases. That's why we are here right now with the average citizen, people of low income, middle income and high income, feeling so many of the effects of the tax increases.

I guess that's why so many people are disappointed with this government and this particular legislation, because they believed the Premier in the summer of 1990 when he said, "Yeah, your taxes are too high, but somebody else will pay for it." Well, he didn't tell them it was going to be through gasoline taxes. I guess that's a little of the reason we get so cynical about politicians at all levels and, unfortunately, of all political parties, because during that period of time when everybody realized we were facing a tax crisis, he never once said we would be increasing them dramatically. If they knew what he was doing this year, I suspect it would have been worse.

As I read through this piece of legislation over the last couple of nights, the increase on unleaded gasoline going up 1.7 cents, I got a comparison of where some of the tax revenue goes. I think there was mention by a couple of the other speakers of exactly what percentage of it is taxes. We see the 1.7 cent per litre, and we don't realize that the provincial share of the taxation keeps going up. It squeezes everything out when it comes to the revenue of the oil companies, because in there you've got dealer margins, the provincial tax, the federal excise tax, the goods and services tax, the refinery manufacturing cost, and you've got the crude oil transportation.

The one that's increasing most is the provincial tax because of bills like Bill 86. You've got the federal wellhead share, you've got the provincial wellhead share -- whatever that is -- you've got the industry wellhead share, upstream operating cost payments, crude oil. The big increases, when you look at it on a year-by-year basis in Ontario, is the percentage of the provincial sales tax. In comparison to other provinces across this country, you can't blame that on other levels of government, because versus BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba we have been the real grabbers of tax revenue at every area that's listed here, but in particular with gasoline over the last little while.

So that's why the Treasurer starts out every year looking at the budget as he does and says, "Okay, where does my revenue come from? Well, the gasoline tax gives me basically the fourth-largest share of it. Let's inch it up a little bit here," instead of doing what we've called for and what I believe needs to be done, which is controlling expenditures.

1650

What we're looking at in this bill is a dramatic increase in government picking the pockets of the average person in this province. In our minority opinion, going way back to the cross-border shopping issue, we talked about the gasoline issue, not only in New Directions but in the minority report of the finance and economic affairs committee looking specifically at cross-border shopping, because the people who came there -- I wasn't on the committee at the time. The member for Etobicoke West and, I guess, the member for Carleton were on it at that time. But I read the report, and what we said in there in the minority report -- which obviously wasn't adhered to by the government, because of Bill 86 and the dramatic increases; they obviously didn't listen -- is that the cross-border shopping issue is directly related to gasoline taxes imposed by the 1991 budget.

We put together in that particular report -- I don't know how many of the members of the House had a chance to read it, but that's what we said needs to be done to avoid the cross-border shopping issue that is devastating this province, right from the eastern all the way through to the western part of this province.

That's why we've got retailers, like the people from Dylex and Tip Top, coming in and saying, "The reason we can't compete is because of governments." I will say that they took a shot at all governments too. They talked about the gasoline tax, like this Bill 86, but they took some shots at some other ones as well. They said, "As a manufacturer we can compete." We spent a lot of time talking about training. They said: "Our employees are trained. We've got good employees. It isn't that they don't know how to operate and can't compete with the Americans, but the problem is that governments are the problem with the taxation increases we've got over the last little while."

That is why the situation arises. The retailers and the manufacturers that support the retail industry are saying it is the government that's at fault. It's not the workers in the store who can't compete; it's the fact that through your gasoline tax you're driving people out, and the people you're driving out are the hardworking men and women.

The current gasoline tax looks dramatic when you see the increases over the last little while and when you compare it to the other provinces. I'll just briefly do that before I wrap up. I understand there's a couple of other members. I know the member for Oriole and the member for Etobicoke West wanted to say a few things on taxes as well.

When you look at the increase, we've got taxes across this province where we are inching up to try and beat the other provinces. In some areas and some taxation we aren't, but we're inching up on the unleaded, and on the leaded we are the highest taxed of all the provinces. Then on the unleaded we are right there at the top, third, very close to second versus the other provinces.

That's why with this Bill 86, when you increase them like this, you're simply adding another layer to a province that is taxed out, that can't afford it any more, and that's why a lot of people are fleeing, and it's leading to some of the crime, like the situation over at my office with the break-in, and it's why people are leaving.

I think it's important to note that with taxation on this Bill 86, which is what we're talking about, I had a talk with a chap regarding the taxation when the gas guzzler came in and they were going to add the $75. He said, "If you told people that we were going to add $75 to the price of your car and we were going to wash it for $75, they'd pay it in a minute and say, 'That's great, away you go.' When you immediately tell them that it's going to the government in the form of taxation, whether it's provincial" -- like this particular tax -- "or federal or municipal, they immediately rear up their backs and say, 'Uh-uh, I'm not giving them one more dime.'"

It isn't even the amount. It is just the fact that people in this province, whether it be the gas guzzler or this tax, are taxed to death and can't afford it any more.

That's why we see the resentment that is out there towards taxation. That's why we see the protests that are out there. You won't see people coming out and talking about protests over this particular bill, because the average person is saying what we've got is a cumulative effect. We nickel-and-dime them to death, up a little bit here, up a little bit there, Bill 86, next year it's a percentage of the personal income tax, the year later we go back to the gasoline tax, and I suspect next year we'll need to be probably not quite as dramatic as this, the 3.4.

But the problem is that even the members, when they talked about this bill, didn't know what the amount was. They were talking about the 1.7. It's phased in. There are two. Again, I think that was just because they hadn't read it. That's what the problem is. We have these increases, and then we phase them in over two whacks at people over a period of time like we did. That's why we're up 3.4.

When you look at it and when you relate to it, the cost of marketing -- most people think the gasoline companies are the ones that get all the increases. It's the provincial government and the federal government through their taxes that are taking a whack out of it.

I know the gasoline and the oil companies are now putting out a pamphlet, which you may have seen. You can pick it up at any garage, any Shell, any Imperial or any Petro-Canada station. They're outlining what the costs are, because they want people to know that it's taxation, because it's a hidden tax. Until they brought it out, most people weren't aware of it. They just pay the cents per litre and aren't aware of where the money is going. When we see the prices fluctuate we think the company is getting a lot of it, but the problem we've got is that the governments through their quest, through their inability to control expenditures, need to have these dramatic increases.

These are a few of the thoughts on this particular bill. As you know, during the last campaign we spent a lot of time talking about the tax issues and we'll continue to bring them up at every opportunity. I say to the members on the other side that if we in this province could ever learn to control our expenditures we wouldn't need to have Bill 86, where we increase them a little bit here, a little bit there.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not think there is a quorum present. I think the words of the member for Oakville South would be of benefit to everyone.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1659

Mr Carr: I hope I didn't break the microphone in the interlude. For those members who were quietly sitting in their offices watching me on TV and who probably wanted to tape me and weren't here, I won't start over unless you want me to.

Interjections.

Mr Carr: Some of the members are taping it. You can catch it on the late show tonight, those of you who didn't.

But it is important, because what we're talking about is a cumulative effect of taxation where right now people are saying to us as legislators that they cannot afford it any more. I would say to the government, which I know will be intent on pushing ahead with this bill and I suspect a year later we'll be debating the percentage of the personal income tax -- if we could do anything but just say it to you -- "Let's take a hard look at some of the expenditures so we don't need to do it, because the people who are going across the border to fill up to try to avoid the gasoline tax, like Bill 86. They are not doing it because they are bad people. They are not doing it because they don't care about the hospitals and they are not doing it because they don't care about education or their kid's education. They are doing it because they do not have any more money."

I know that similarly to many of the members who have three young kids, when you are trying to raise a family it is very difficult even when you have a job. Lord knows there are a lot of people who do not have the jobs and who are even in worse shape.

We say to you that you are probably going to pass this bill, but let's take a look at it because the people you are hurting the most are the people to whom you said in the summer of 1990 you were going to help them; that is, the average person. I say to you that when you pass this, you let them down. You let them down because the people honestly, truly are fatigued with taxes at all levels and through all parties and they have done it municipally, federally and provincially.

We're not going to change your mind on this one, but hopefully let's not have the roulette wheel next year where the Treasurer of this province spins it and says, "Well, we didn't have a gasoline tax so it's back to that again," because people can't afford it. All you will do, as every economist will tell you, in terms of supply and demand, is drive more people to find alternatives across the border. The people who will be hurt are the people who don't deserve it; quite frankly, they are the people who have made this province the greatest province in the greatest country in the world.

I will conclude my remarks and say to all members present that I appreciate the opportunity to share a few thoughts with them. Let's get a handle on the taxation, because the people don't deserve it.

Mr Ruprecht: I didn't know my colleague wanted to say a few words. If he had mentioned anything to me, I certainly would have sat down because I know his remarks are going to be right on the button. But I'm also sure that he will be able to speak right after me.

The member for Oakville South makes an important point. In fact, he makes a number of important points, but one that everyone in Ontario ought to listen to: When you add up all the taxes this jurisdiction has, federal, provincial, municipal, school board taxes, and you add on a tax on gasoline, you are really placing a nail in the coffin of Ontario. That has got to stop.

We are asking the government today to stop this nonsense of adding taxes upon taxes upon taxes. Two years ago, the members who were in the opposition said to this government: "Stop. You're already increasing too many taxes, which is going to cut into jobs." Today they are the government, and I would be very surprised if their tune would be changed today. What we're asking for now is to be reasonable, because what you're doing is to destroy the very competitiveness of Ontario. I think what the member for Oakville South has said is hitting it right on the nail.

Tourism is already down, and I think tourism might go down in future to an even greater degree. But this will be even more destructive in that it is going to undercut the edge Ontario had vis-à-vis the United States: our competitiveness. If we don't stop this tax, if we don't stop destroying to some degree the transportation industry, the tourism industry, and the very people of the middle class who support all these programs this government is introducing, we're going to be in very bad shape, and in the future we may not be able to compete on the international front.

Mrs Marland: I want to commend the member for Oakville South for his comments on this very significant piece of legislation of this Bob Rae socialist government. It's significant only in its devastating impact on the people of this province. When you talk about gasoline and the cost of gasoline, you're not talking about a luxury. Most people do not drive their trucks, their vans, their commercial vehicles for luxury, and a large number of people do not even drive their privately owned family vehicles for luxury. They drive them because they need to, they do not have a choice; if they're in business and industry they certainly don't have a choice. When people have no alternative form of transportation, then they have to pull up at that service station, fill their vehicle, whichever category of vehicle it is, with gasoline, at whatever the cost of gasoline currently is.

What we have with this government is a further demonstration that it really doesn't care. They don't care that this province now, today, is full of beleaguered people who cannot make it, simply cannot make it. When this government decides it's okay to increase the gasoline tax yet once more, it's saying to the people of this province: "We don't care. You'll manage some way. We, the government, need the money."

Well, I say this government has money. Their big problem is that they don't know how to prioritize in terms of spending the money, and their fiscal mismanagement is grossly evident.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I listened intently as my colleague the member for Oakville South spoke today on this. Considering the debate we've heard on this bill so far, I think his comments have probably been more on the debate of this bill than any other comment we've heard so far.

One thing we must remember, though, is that taxes and tax increases are not always an easily acceptable part of the responsibilities that we have as Ontario citizens. Tax cuts we've heard about from the opposition members are really interesting. I would suggest that I would be concerned enough to allow them to respond and talk about some alternatives they have suggested.

In our budget, as we just introduced it not too long ago, we talked about maintaining services, keeping the deficit in check, which is so important, and jobs through additional programs. All those do of course happen through revenues, which are part of how the government works.

Concerning the gasoline taxes that have been referred to, if all Ontario gasoline taxes were removed from the price of a litre of gasoline, we'd still have a larger amount to pay for gasoline in this province than we would if we were across the border. I guess that's kind of -- it doesn't really bear relationship to the cross-border issue.

The member also spoke about the surtax and the $53,000 amount. Now, 90% of the people of this province aren't going to be affected by the surtax. I don't think I could find even 10% of the people in my riding who would make that $53,000 mark. It's incredible.

Earlier today a petition was presented by the member for Mississauga South about junior kindergarten. I thought that was really important, because this is of course a program that is funded through taxation, and it's really something we should pay close heed to.

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): I want primarily to make the point that it seems to me that this government, as pointed out so well by the member for Oakville South, is showing either great political bravado or great political folly in moving towards a tax increase in the current political climate. To be sure, it's a few cents per litre, but as the member for Oakville South pointed out, it's a few cents here and a few cents there, and it's a few cents provincially and a few cents federally and a few cents municipally. It's taxes on top of taxes on top of taxes. The government is showing great bravado or great folly in moving towards tax increases at this time.

We may know that we have the finest education system in the world, and we may know that we have a good health care system, and we may know that we have a good social welfare net, but to say to the people of Ontario that we need tax increases now to support this program or that program or some other program is the wrong answer. The constituents know they just can't pay more. The businesses in Ontario know they just can't shoulder more.

The right answer is that we need taxes held constant, perhaps taxes rolled back in selective cases. That's the right answer. Citizens know there is just too much taxation, too much regulation and too much government.

A moment ago, the member for Parkdale showed me a headline that pointed out that municipalities across Canada are dealing with a cash shortage by slashing their services. In Ontario we don't want to slash services. We don't want to be in a position where we have to embark on radical cutbacks because of a dead economy.

The time to do something about that is now. We have to pay attention to sound fiscal management, and I invite my colleagues on all sides of the House to join with our party in pledging to hold the line on taxes and to take a very searching look at the growth and expenditure of government.

The Speaker: The member for Oakville South, two minutes to wrap up.

Mr Carr: I appreciate the comments from all the members. I tried to speak about what it was really about, rather than ranting and raving about the taxes, and talk about the long term. I realize that this tax increase will probably go through, unfortunately, but I think we have seen things change in a year. A year ago the members on the government side were championing, saying that's great. Now that we've got them talking about a few things, they realize that the higher deficits will mean higher taxes. It's taken a year, but the process has worked.

I think all members on all sides are realizing now that some of the way we operated, and I guess that's the same in all areas, whether it's in business or whether you're working or so on -- that things are different, and the way we operated in the past is no longer acceptable. That's what happens in the workplace, and it's the same with the government.

1710

I'm hoping that the old ways of doing things, where we go down the list and say, "Boy, the gasoline tax is an easy hit so let's give her a spin," and the only question is whether it will be one cent, two cents, three cents -- hopefully we'll be at the point where we realize this can't be done any more and then we'll take a step out of the old ways of doing things which governments for too long have done and which have made us now the highest-taxed province in Canada and the highest-taxed jurisdiction in North America.

I say it for the people out there who are feeling that. With all the problems we have, we can't continue to do it because the people of the province are fed up. They won't come after us over Bill 86 -- this one will go through -- but they will come after us with the total effect at the end of the day, the bottom line. They will take a look at the revenue you had before and the revenue you had after, the percentage of the personal income tax, your gasoline tax, your liquor taxes, and that's how you'll be judged.

I don't think I'm going to change you on this, but let's take a hard look at it. Let's put the pressure on the Treasurer to control costs. Then we will be able to afford the opportunity for tax release for the beleaguered people of Ontario.

Mrs Caplan: I'm pleased to rise today as the new Revenue critic for the official opposition.

[Applause]

Mrs Caplan: Thank you. It's a task that I'm enjoying already and looking forward to. I use the term "enjoying." I know many of my constituents ask me if I'm enjoying the role as the member of the official opposition and as a critic. I think the reason they ask me that question is they know I had the opportunity to serve in government between 1985 and 1990 and they're curious to know whether I find the role as a member of the official opposition critic for the Ministry of Revenue, critic for the new treasury board and Management Board, as enjoyable.

I want to take this opportunity, because I know many of my constituents watch the debates in the House, to say that when I stood for elected office as Liberal candidate in the riding of Oriole I did so because I wanted to serve my constituents in this great Legislature. I didn't know what role I would have as a member of this Legislature. I did not know because there's no certainty. The determination of whether you serve as a member of the government or as a member of the official opposition is made by the people of the province in all 130 ridings. It's made when we see how many people are elected in each of those ridings from each of the different political parties. As we know, the leader of the party that wins the greatest number of seats forms the government and becomes the Premier. He or she, as the case may be in the future, then selects the members of the government, the members of cabinet. For those who are not in the government caucus, the additional role to the role as the member of provincial Parliament for their specific riding is that of member of the opposition.

I can recall back to 1984 when I decided to seek office for the very first time at the provincial level, with a view to really hoping to win -- I remember I was asked in 1980 if I would run for provincial office in a riding which was at the other end of town, the riding of Wilson Heights. I was asked then by the leader of the Liberal Party, Stuart Smith, and I told him that I was enjoying my role as alderman in the city of North York. At that time the aldermen were called aldermen; now they're called councillors. He said that the democratic process was an important one, that an election was expected shortly, and he asked if I would be the candidate in that riding.

It was during that campaign in 1981 when I realized the important issues that were on the agenda here in the Legislative Assembly at Queen's Park. I believed then, as I believe now, that every member of this Legislature, whether he or she sits on the government benches or on the opposition benches, can make an important contribution to the people of this province.

I remember at my nomination meeting in September of 1984 saying that my expectation at that time -- and remember, that was the time when the Conservatives had governed this province for some 40 years; Bill Davis was still Premier -- was to join the Liberals as a member of the official opposition. I realized on September 6, 1990, that it had taken me some six years to achieve the goal I had talked about that night in 1984.

I want to say tonight that I have very few regrets about the time I served on the government benches -- not that I was perfect or that we were perfect as a government, but I am proud of the fact that we always put the public interest first, that we remained true to our Liberal values and our Liberal principles, that the policies and the programs we developed were the kinds of reforms we believed would lead Ontario into the future, that would create wealth and create jobs and create a climate of confidence in this province, at the same time as we were attempting to eliminate the systemic barriers to full participation in our society.

As I stand today, as a member of the official opposition I want to reiterate my commitment to serve my constituents in the riding of Oriole as their member of provincial Parliament, to criticize in an effective and responsible way the policies of the New Democratic Party government, the government of Premier Bob Rae, to critique its policies and its programs, to point out to the people of the province what I believe is in the public interest and what I believe is not in the public interest. I pledge to remain true to my values and my principles in opposition, as I did in government. I also pledge to hold the government accountable by explaining its policies to my constituents and to anyone else in the province who is interested in hearing my point of view about the policies and the programs that are developed by this new government. When I use the term "new," I realize that it has been some 18 months since they have assumed the mantle of governing, but they are still new to governing.

Not only do I pledge to be appropriately critical when that is what I should be doing, to be properly critiquing the policies and programs of the new government, to hold the government accountable for the decisions it makes, for the programs it puts forward, for the way it approaches the complex issues of the day, but I hold it accountable and I will hold it accountable to do what it says it is going to do and to hold it accountable for what it said it was going to do when it made promises and commitments to the people of this province.

Further, I see my role as a member of the official opposition in offering suggestions, alternatives and advice to the government. I believe it is an important opportunity I have in serving my constituents to offer my help to the members of the government and give them my very best advice along with my criticism, along with holding them accountable, along with critiquing.

So as I rise to debate Bill 86, which is part of the fiscal policy of the government, part of its taxation policy, I felt I would take a few minutes at the beginning -- and I appreciate your patience, Mr Speaker -- because this gives me an opportunity to very clearly define what I'm about to do as the critic for Revenue as I critique, criticize, hold accountable and offer some alternatives for the government on this piece of legislation.

1720

I would like to begin by explaining to those who are interested in this debate that this piece of legislation has been around for some time. This was tabled immediately after the budget of April 29 of last year. It said that effective April 30 of 1991, the budget of 1991 and Bill 86 increased gasoline tax by 1.7 cents per litre to a total of 13 cents per litre for unleaded gasoline and 16 cents per litre for leaded gasoline. It went on further, and this legislation says further, that effective January 1, 1992 -- that was January past -- that budget of a year ago increased the tax on gasoline by a further 1.7 cents per litre for unleaded gasoline, bringing the total tax up to 14.7 cents per litre on unleaded gasoline. It also increased leaded gasoline tax by the same amount, bringing the total tax on leaded gasoline to 17.7 cents per litre.

The question my constituents and those watching this debate might ask is, why are we still debating this today? This tax is being collected and has been collected for the past year.

The reason we are still debating this today is twofold: first, because to raise the gas tax, I believe and my caucus believes, was a misguided taxation policy of the new government. I'll go on to explain why I think it was a mistake to do that. We believe very strongly that the midst of a recession, when the government is trying to create a climate of consumer confidence and business confidence and when the economy is shrinking, is not the time to increase taxes. The time to increase taxes is not in the midst of a recession. The time to take money out of the economy is not at a time when you want consumers to spend and business to invest.

The best example of what not to do is Bill 86, because it had other implications. Not only was it the wrong fiscal policy, the wrong taxation policy at that time a year ago; it continues to be the wrong policy for today. Today, one year later, we see the effects of having taken that money out of the economy. We have had a delay in the recovery from the recession, a delay which I believe and I know was not predicted by any of the economists or the treasury officials.

What I would like to share with the House is that in the spring of 1989 the predictions for the province said that yes, there would be a recession in Canada, but the prediction for Ontario in the spring of 1989 was that we might be fortunate enough to have what was then being called a "soft landing." By the fall of 1989, six months later -- primarily, I will grant you, because of the policies of the federal government -- high dollar, high interest rate --

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Are you going to take that, Margaret?

Mrs Caplan: The Minister of Labour is interjecting, but in fact that was what the officials of the treasury told us: that it was predicted in the fall of 1989 that we would not have a soft landing, that we would slip into recession, but because of the fundamental strength of Ontario, the recession would be short and shallow. The Minister of Labour interjects and suggests that I am being partisan in some way when I mention the policies of the federal government. I'm being consistent. I have said that repeatedly in this House, whether I was a member of the government or a member of this Legislature. We have acknowledged the policies of the federal government have not been helpful to Ontario. I'm not casting the finger or pointing blame to anyone here in this House; I don't think that's helpful. That's the reality. The high interest rate, high dollar policies of the federal government pushed us into what I believe was an unnecessary recession.

Having been there, I say to the Minister of Labour, sitting opposite smiling, finding ourselves in the midst of that recession with a new, inexperienced government, the policies of this NDP government, policies like Bill 86, an increase in the gas tax, kept us in this recession longer than we had to be there, stalled the recovery from the recession, and when I speak to the new budget which has been tabled this year, we see the same misguided fiscal policy.

A year ago we had a spending level that was higher than any other jurisdiction in Canada. What we heard from the Treasurer was, "We're going to spend our way out of the recession and we're going to raise taxes to do it." That's what the gasoline tax was going to do: raise the revenues so the Treasurer could support an almost 14% rate of growth of government expenditure in the midst of a recession. One year later we know that did not work.

We pointed out to the Treasurer and to the government a year ago that cross-border shopping was a major, significant problem in this province. Here I stand, one year later, saying that cross-border shopping is still a major, significant problem costing Ontarians jobs and the treasury revenue because people are crossing the border. And what is luring them across the border? Gasoline prices. People in border communities, whether it is Windsor or Niagara or Sault Ste Marie or Cornwall, are telling us, and we heard from the mayors' task force, that the single biggest lure across the border is to fill up their cars with gasoline, which is up to 30% cheaper than it is in Ontario. That differential in gas prices between Ontario, Canada, and the United States is a major factor of why people cross the border to shop. First they fill up their tank with gas, and while they're there, they do some shopping.

The Treasurer has heard this. The Premier has heard this. The government has heard this for over a year now. There are members on the government benches who represent those border communities. They know it, they've been telling the front bench, they've been telling the cabinet, and there has been no positive response.

That was another reason why we wanted to debate Bill 86 and why we wanted to wait until we had an opportunity to show the Treasurer and the government what the implications of the passage of this bill would be, in the hopes they would correct it in the new budget that was tabled in this Legislature on April 30 of last month. But in fact the Treasurer did not reverse the misguided policy of a year ago of raising gas taxes and the bill is still before us today. Cross-border shopping continues and jobs are being created, but these jobs, which could be and should be created here in Ontario, are being created in the border communities of Detroit, New York state and Michigan.

The new gas tax that was levied in Ontario one year ago by the New Democratic Party government has cost the average Ontario driver over $88 just in this last year. That's how much more they had to pay to fill up their tanks for a year, and that's in southern Ontario. I see the member for Sudbury is here listening to this debate. She will know that the price of gas in northern Ontario has been a major issue of concern for the New Democratic Party over the years it was in opposition. I heard them make promises and commitments that they would differentiate for the people in northern Ontario, yet Bill 86 --

Mr Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Sorry to interrupt, but I don't believe we have a quorum present.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1733

The Speaker: There being a quorum present, the member for Oriole may resume with her comments.

Mrs Caplan: As I was saying -- and I appreciate the fact that there's now a quorum here from the government bench -- the impact of Bill 86 has been even greater in northern Ontario as far as the cost for the people who live there is concerned. I see the member for Sault Ste Marie. He's here now for this debate. I know he has a problem, when he goes home to Sault Ste Marie, explaining to his constituents how the Treasurer could raise gas taxes on northerners when the party promised it would do exactly the opposite.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Sault Ste Marie should resume his seat.

Mrs Caplan: This tax, Bill 86, is really an example of the kind of policy which has kept us in the recession longer than I believe we had to be. I mentioned to you how the predictions had changed, how we slipped into a recession because of the policies, primarily of the federal government, but what everyone has realized is that it is the creation of uncertainty, the loss of confidence of both consumers and the business community in the fiscal and economic policies of Bob Rae's government that has stalled and slowed the recession -- the recovery from the recession.

This gasoline tax increase is an example of the NDP's policy, which has hurt small business and stifled economic growth. This policy was brought in at a time when we had hoped the province was going to be recovering rapidly from the recession.

I spoke to the budget last year, and I said this province will recover. The province will come out of this recession, because fundamentally --

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to refer to a comment that the honourable member made when she said, and it's true and she's absolutely right, that this government has slowed the recession and has moved us into a recovery much faster than would ever have happened under the Liberals. Absolutely. It's true, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I always appreciate it when members agree with each other. It's not a point of order. The member for Oriole has the floor and she may continue.

Mrs Caplan: I've been in this House since 1985. There are very few occasions when I have had a member stand in the House not only to question the motives of a member, which is unparliamentary, but to take a statement and attempt to distort it in the way in which the member for Downsview has just done. I resent that and I'd ask you to intervene, Mr Speaker. He is a new member and he may not be too bright, but he should not try to distort in the way he has.

The Speaker: To the member for Oriole, it would be very helpful if we did not make disparaging remarks about other members. I would ask the member if she would address her remarks to the Chair and continue with her debate.

Mrs Caplan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would at this point say to you that I am very aware that sometimes the comments from other members can irritate to the point where I will respond in a way that I'm not then as proud of as I should be, so I withdraw the remark.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I appreciate the fact that the member withdrew the remark.

Mrs Caplan: I withdraw the remark, but I would ask at the same time that you caution the member about behaving in a way that will provoke members of this House unduly.

As I continue, without the interjections from members opposite, in what I believe is an important debate on an important issue, to see it trivialized in such a way from a member of the government bench is of great concern to me, because what it suggests to me is that there is a lack of respect in this House at this time from members of the government benches. I find that this is very offensive to a member such as me who is attempting to participate in this debate in a responsible way.

As I was saying, following the budget of last year, I participated in a task force that toured this province and listened to leaders and individuals, consumers and business people in communities across this province. Over and over again, the tax that they felt was the most difficult for communities to bear and was going to have the most severe impact in a negative way on cross-border shopping --

The Speaker: The member for Yorkview. If members would like to carry on private conversations, perhaps they would find someplace other than the chamber to do it. Allow the member for Oriole to continue with her debate.

Mrs Caplan: The tax that we heard the greatest number of complaints about, the tax that communities were most critical of, the tax that irritated the most, was Bill 86, the gasoline tax. Each community, for different reasons, whether it was the negative impact on the economy, the wrong message that was being sent out in border communities, the lack of responsiveness from the government to the petitions of the mayors who said, "Do not do this," I can't say which was the response that was the most critical, because they were all very critical and very concerned about the imposition of the gas tax at that time.

What they were also concerned about was that the Treasurer was presenting this gasoline tax in some way as an environment tax. I'd like to speak for a minute, because I think my colleague Mr Bradley from the Niagara region has been most articulate on this. The suggestion he offered was a very reasonable one. He called the tax a tax on auto workers. That was the gas guzzler tax.

1740

I think all members should pay attention for a moment because it makes a lot of sense. If your goal is a cleaner and improved environment, if your goal is greater efficiency, if your goal is cleaner emissions, then the point he makes is that you should have an incentive so that people will trade in their old clunkers, trade in the cars that are fuel-inefficient, trade in the cars that do not have clean environmental emission systems, give people an incentive to stimulate the auto industry, and do that not by raising gasoline taxes, not by adding on a gas guzzler tax, but by creating an incentive for people to trade in their cars.

The revenue you would generate from increased car sales would more than cover the revenue requirements of the treasury. Further, not only would they generate additional revenue for the treasury, they would stimulate economic activity in Ontario in the car industry, which is suffering right now. We know what is happening with General Motors. We know the jobs that are being lost.

This particular tax is one which is of concern from a number of policy directives. It is of concern because of the overall economic policy that not only says don't take more taxes and money out of the economy during a recession, but also says consider how to stimulate the economy through your tax policy by creating an environment where people will trade in their cars and stimulate the auto sector which is so important to Ontario. That good idea and good suggestion has been ignored by the Treasurer and the government.

I will be voting against this bill, although the tax has been collected for over a year. I'm hoping we will have an opportunity to vote on it in the very near future. It has been in place for a year. In voting against it, I know that with a majority government in place, with a new budget that did not repeal this legislation, that did not lower the gas tax, we in the official opposition and myself as Revenue critic will just be sending a signal and a message to the government on behalf of our constituents. That message will be, "You made a mistake last year by levying the tax increase on gasoline."

This piece of legislation is being opposed as a symbol, but an important symbol, on behalf of my constituents, who every time they fill up their cars at the local gas station or every time they cross the border to fill up their cars in the United States realize the impact of this piece of legislation on them and their families. But our vote will be somewhat symbolic only because this tax has been collected and the government has decided not to do anything about it.

We have a new budget in place and I'm hoping to have an opportunity to participate in that debate, because I believe that with the policy of this year, which is to raise taxes in other areas even further, and the predictions in this budget of a very low and slow rate of economic recovery over this fiscal year, we know we will continue to have high unemployment. We have seen a lot of very questionable accounting in both the first budget and particularly the second budget tabled by Treasurer Laughren.

The people of this province, I believe, my constituents in the riding of Oriole, expected more from Bob Rae, expected more from a New Democratic government. They've waited 18 long months for the government to learn how to govern, and I'm sorry to say that Bill 86 of a year ago has not been replaced by an economic policy that will create the climate of confidence that will create the kind of stability and security that would give the consumers the confidence they need to go out and start spending, which would lead us out of this recession faster and better.

This piece of legislation, the increase of taxes of a year ago and the increase of taxes in this latest budget, will not create a climate of confidence for the business sector and particularly for those looking to invest in Ontario for the first time; that's not happening. I would urge the government to reconsider its fiscal and economic policy and to put economic recovery at the top of its agenda; that hasn't happened.

We know its number one priority is its labour legislation, and we can understand that from a labour-socialist government. But I would urge this government, on behalf of my constituents, to reconsider its priorities, to put the economy first and to not raise taxes. I will be voting against this bill.

Mr Mahoney: I'd like to congratulate our Revenue critic for a very well-thought-out presentation --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): New Revenue critic.

Mr Mahoney: New Revenue critic; thank you very much -- because she points out the folly of this government's general philosophy to simply pass on its problems. It's not only tax increases, if you take a look at the reduced transfer payments that have gone on. This kind of tax we're dealing with here in Bill 86 affects the very agencies that are being impacted by the reduction of the transfer payments. The government seems to want to have it all ways: It wants to reduce the transfer payments down to 1% this year and 2% next year and yet tell the municipalities, the universities -- I mean, look at what it did in this recent budget in eliminating $10 million out of OSAP. You don't think that affects people who are directly affected by this budget?

Everything you're doing here is having a negative impact, ultimately, on the person in the street. It's affecting students, it's affecting small business, it's affecting municipalities, it's affecting school boards, it's affecting anybody that has to simply go to the store, for goodness' sake, to buy milk or bread for the family. It's everything that is counter to what the NDP has always said it stands for, and that is supporting the little guy, so to speak, supporting the average person in the street. They're simply not doing that, and they're showing a very strong tendency towards what you have to consider to be anti-business sentiments and movements by simply blindly, both in the last budget -- it's ironic that we're dealing with Bill 86, which refers to their first tax grab in a form of a gas tax -- and then they're coming up with another $1-billion tax grab in the latest budget that came out last Thursday, April 30. It's simply more negative news for the consumer and the business people in this province.

1750

Mr Perruzza: Just a quick response to the member for Oriole: I think when we talk about taxes there's never a pleasant way to talk about any form of taxes. As you know, Mr Speaker, today the municipalities are issuing their tax bills, and in my municipalities people have been hit with a whopping property tax increase.

To say that the NDP government is the government responsible for the way property taxes are collected in Ontario is simply ludicrous, because, as you know, the NDP formed the government September 6, 1990. The system we have in place now we've had for many years, and for the member for Oriole to just simply say it's this government which is taking money from the pockets of people across the province and across our cities is simply, to put it mildly, a yarn which is spun with all kinds of glitches in it, because it's simply not accurate to paint the kind of picture she's painting.

I think this government has taken some steps and some initiatives in offloading and in ensuring that middle-class people, that working people in Ontario, are to some degree given a break, for the first time, probably, in the history of this province and in this country where a government has taken on this kind of initiative.

Just to a point the member for Oriole made with respect to gasoline taxes, I remember the Liberal government when it introduced its concentration tax. She says, "Leave the money in the pockets of people." What their tax did was raise the price of parking spaces in the city. So what does it do? With this tax revenue here that we're talking about, gasoline tax revenues, people are forced to drive to work. They no longer TTC because it's not feasible or --

Mr Speaker, yes, the clock.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: I know that in the rules of order I'm actually to comment on the member for Oriole's comments, but it is very difficult to ignore the comments of someone who himself was a member of a municipal government. It just blows me away to sit here this afternoon and listen to the member for Downsview comment on the speech made by the member for Oriole. When this government talks about a whopping property tax as though it's concerned, I wish it would get out in the real world and find out why there are, to quote the words of this government, "whopping property taxes."

In the real world, if the government members knew what was going on, they would know the municipalities and the school boards have no choice. Where do you expect them to get the money from? They don't pull it off a tree. If they don't get the money in transfer payments from a responsible provincial government -- which collects the income tax in the first place, I might say -- if they don't have that source of funding, municipalities and school boards -- and municipalities such as the one you served on, sir, the member for Downsview -- the only thing they can do is go on to the beleaguered taxpayers through their property taxes.

That's why people in Ontario today are being taxed out of their homes, because they cannot afford the property taxes, because this Bob Rae socialist government does not fulfil its obligations in transfer payments to the local municipalities.

When you go to so much trouble to claw back any tax benefits that were given to the people of this province by the federal government, then it's a double penalty for the people in Ontario. It's time you went out on the streets, I say to every government member, and found out what the real world is about and what is going on today in Ontario.

Mr White: Entering into this debate a year after our budget was presented in 1991 seems like a touch of a time warp. We've heard the plaints about border communities, about the high price of petrol etc. I wonder a little bit if the members opposite have actually visited gas stations in their ridings, because in fact the cost of gas, the cost of petrol, hasn't actually risen in the last year. The market is actually a little bit lower than it was a year or so ago.

The members are talking about the gas guzzler tax and about the tax on petrol. There was no increase in the cost of petrol. There was no increase in the cost of the gas guzzler tax in this last budget. The workers in the community I represent who make the Buick Regal that I drive and the other fine automobiles that General Motors makes in Oshawa are, I'm sure, quite happy with this budget, but the members opposite are talking about the last one. Transportation issues are, there again, the game.

The members of the official opposition and of the Conservative Party were here, I am sure, yesterday when our Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology talked about the incredible hikes, much greater hikes that occurred under their governments. Did either of those governments ever reduce the taxes on petrol as they're asking us to do? I think not. I think it's again a touch strange. There has been no increase in this budget. We did in the last budget, but the cost of petrol really hasn't increased.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole has two minutes to wrap up her contribution.

Mrs Caplan: I'd like to begin by thanking the Ministry of Revenue officials for their excellent briefing material. It's been a privilege for me to represent the people who live in Oriole riding over the past almost seven years now in this House.

I want to point out to members of this House that there is a time to raise taxes. It's important to have the revenues to be able to fund those things which are appropriate. The time to raise taxes is during a buoyant economy and during times of strong economic growth. Then, I believe, government has an obligation to raise taxes and provide the kinds of goods and services that are needed in the province. It is inappropriate to raise taxes during times of recession and that's the policy I have been trying to point out to this government. To compare times of buoyancy and strong growth and the policies of those times to the times of recession and economic difficulty shows how misguided members of the opposition benches are if they do not realize the difference.

I'd also like to state I have attempted in my remarks to be critical, to hold the government accountable and to offer alternatives in a positive way. I've also tried to be as helpful as I can in explaining the importance of good policies, policies which will be in the public interest, which will create a climate of confidence among both consumers and those in the business communities because my constituents in the riding of Oriole want a bright future, secure jobs, safety in their streets. They want the kind of society that will offer equal opportunity for them and for their children and they want a place in the province of Ontario where they can have confidence that the government in its taxation and fiscal policies will understand what is in the public interest. This bill is not.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: It's very difficult, when the opposition's hammerheads are spawning, to continue debate. We have two of the biggest hammerheads sitting there across the floor. What we must do is bring this debate in light --

The Speaker: Although the member has managed to capture everyone's attention, perhaps this would be an appropriate place for him to adjourn the debate so that we could hear the business order for next week.

On motion by Mr Stockwell, the debate was adjourned.

1800

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I would like to indicate the business for the House for next week.

On Monday we'll resume the third reading debate on Bill 86, followed by Bill 130, followed by Bill 121 and Bill 118.

On Tuesday we have an opposition day standing in the name of Ms McLeod.

On Wednesday we'll return to the unfinished business from Monday.

On Thursday afternoon we will complete the unfinished business from the day before. On Thursday morning, private members' public business: ballot item 7 standing in the name of Mr Gary Wilson, Kingston and The Islands, and ballot item 8 standing in the name of Mr Brown.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Pursuant to standing order 33, the adjournment of the House is deemed to have occurred.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Carleton had filed dissatisfaction with the response to his question by the Minister of Education with respect to the Carleton board teachers' strike. The member for Carleton has up to five minutes to make his remarks, and the Minister of Education has up to five minutes for his response.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I thought it necessary to express my dissatisfaction with the answer of the Minister of Education today.

This morning I was in St John, New Brunswick, at the constitutional conference. I got a call from my office here about the fact that not only was there a strike happening in the Carleton Board of Education and that it had gone on now 24 days, one day longer than at the Ottawa Board of Education, but that talks had broken off; neither side was talking at this time.

But I guess what was more alarming was the news that was coming from the Ottawa area that the young people in our elementary schools were staging sit-down strikes, they were boycotting classes and they were staying out of school. I can't help but think that some of those young people, in grades 6, 7 and 8, in most cases -- it's not sporadic; it happened in two thirds to three quarters of these elementary schools -- are taking their example from the teachers at the secondary level who are out on strike.

What a wonderful day it is for Ontario when teachers across this province, and particularly in the area I represent, have shown students how to be disobedient in terms of what is required from them in the education system. I think the steadfast refusal of this minister to take any significant action with regard to the strike lays the blame squarely at his feet and at the feet of Bob Rae and the Bob Rae government.

I want to say also that I'm very disappointed that I have been the only member of this Legislature from the Ottawa-Carleton area who has raised this issue in the Legislature. I understand it would not be correct for the member for Ottawa Centre, who is a member of the cabinet, to stand in her place, therefore I understand her reluctance to rise in a public forum and do that. But I must say that I am very upset with my Liberal colleagues, the member for Ottawa-Rideau, the member for Nepean and the member for Carleton East, who have not raised this issue in the Legislature. Granted, their Education critic has. But I think representing your constituents requires the member from the area to raise the issue here, and I am very disappointed that they have not raised or escalated this issue.

Bill 6, which I put forward some three or four weeks ago, which would legislate the teachers back to their classrooms, calls for binding arbitration with regard to the first contract on a final selection process; that is, the school board would have one offer to make and the teaching profession would have one offer to make and the arbitrator would have to choose 1 or 2, not in between. I think that is the only way we are going to be able to deal with our public sector in terms of arbitrating settlements here.

I also want to indicate the tremendous support I've had not only from my riding but from people from the city of Nepean, represented by the member for Nepean, Mr Daigeler, from the city of Ottawa and from people in Ottawa West when the Ottawa Board of Education was out on strike. People have called me and thanked me that one member of the Legislature is standing up for their rights.

I am very, very much concerned that if a settlement is not reached this weekend, in effect some kids, those who are in their last year of high school, are going to miss an opportunity to get into courses at universities and colleges which they might have been able to get into had this strike not taken place.

I believe the minister, notwithstanding his reluctance to enter into a labour dispute because of the ideology of the New Democratic Party, has no choice now, and he should have done that this afternoon. If the kids are out on the street next year or next week, the blame will lie squarely at his feet. He should have taken action, and I condemn him for not doing that.

The Speaker: The Minister of Education has up to five minutes for a response.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): This is actually an interesting process we have in this House in situations where members are not satisfied with an answer given by a minister, because I think we need to first of all clarify. I think it would not be inappropriate for me to say -- I think even the member would agree -- that in fact what we are talking about here is not so much a situation where the member isn't satisfied with the answer that I've given but rather a situation where he doesn't agree with the position I've taken in terms of what we should be doing in the Carleton dispute.

I think the member would be, as an experienced member of the Legislature, one of the people who most would know the process that's followed around these issues, and therefore would understand the role the Education Relations Commission has in this issue and in monitoring the negotiations and encouraging the parties to come to a resolution through collective bargaining, which is something that I also believe is the appropriate way to go.

But I think that beyond the process, which I know the member opposite understands very well, there is an issue of substance here in terms of what a Minister of Education should be doing or not doing in situations like this, and I think the member indicates that is a refusal on my part to take any action. I think he would, if pressed, probably also agree that my not bringing in wage control legislation, which is what I think he has been advocating and has reiterated tonight, is different from my refusal to take any action. Indeed, if I were to press him on this point, I would venture to say that he might even agree that I have actually taken a number of steps in terms of monitoring the situation very closely, looking at what in fact can be done by staying in constant contact with the Education Relations Commission, and in ensuring that in fact everything that should be done is being done to try to get the parties to resolve the issue between themselves.

Again, he would be, I would think, among the first to indicate that the best solution to any dispute, particularly one like this, is in fact one in which the parties are able to resolve their differences between themselves because they are the ones who are going to have to live together with each other and continue to work with each other for the benefit of the students beyond the immediate situation.

I think that as I monitor the situation I become aware that there is a good prospect of settlement, as was the indication I received earlier this week, and that in fact the parties made substantive progress towards a resolution. I think the last thing anyone in this House would want me to do would be to break that process in any way, as opposed to letting it continue to a successful completion.

As I indicated earlier this afternoon in answer to the member's question, while negotiations have broken off, negotiations are resuming this Saturday morning, and the Education Relations Commission has indicated very clearly that it is meeting on Monday morning to assess the situation. I think I've indicated in this House and outside this House that I continue to monitor the situation very carefully. I don't mind saying here, as I have said on more than one occasion, that the situation is serious, that I believe the parties are in fact able to come to a conclusion and should be able to come to a conclusion, and that obviously if the situation is not resolved this weekend, then we are all going to be asking ourselves some very different questions into next week.

I want to conclude by reiterating comments I have been making with respect to the school year and the impact this strike is having on the students. Again I would say that while, yes, I definitely support and continue to take the position that teachers in fact have the right to strike, I also take the position that they and the boards have a responsibility to deal with the issue of the impact of a strike on students; and that upon the completion of the dispute I will be looking very critically, as I am doing now with respect to the Ottawa situation, at the kind of proposal that comes to me for approval around making up the time that's been lost in the Ottawa situation, indeed in this case around making up the time that will obviously have been lost as a result of the strike. In that, I will not hesitate to take whatever actions need to be taken by me as Minister of Education to ensure that the school year is protected for the students, for all students and particularly for those students going on to post-secondary education.

The Speaker: There being no further matter to be debated, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock Monday next.

The House adjourned at 1811.