Hansard Transcript 1993-Jun-28 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): As a parent of four school-aged children, I want to pay special tribute to a large group of volunteers active in my riding and, I am sure, throughout the rest of Ontario as well. The people I am referring to are those good people who give so generously of their time in community-based sports programs for children.

As a result of the good efforts of these volunteers, children in Ottawa South and indeed across the province are given the opportunity to develop their skills in a variety of sports. In addition, they learn important lessons that will serve them well throughout their lives. Our kids are learning lessons about sportsmanship, playing as part of a team, learning to live with victories and defeats, hard work and having fun.

Contrary to what many of us think, our children are not all little darlings and we as parents are not all perfectly reasonable. As such, parents and children alike can present real challenges to the coaches, assistant coaches and other volunteers who, smiling all the while, help to set up the teams, arrange the schedules for practices and games, train the kids during practices and coach them during the games. Then, of course, they must involve themselves in the mandatory celebration at the end of the season.

I tip my hat to the volunteers of the Canterbury Minor Hockey Association, the Alta Vista Little League and the many, many other volunteers throughout the province who give so freely of their time in community-based sports programs for our children. I'm sure all members will join me in thanking these people for their dedication, their patience, their genuine interest in our kids and their sense of community spirit.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): The Leeds and Grenville County Board of Education is facing budget cuts of $3.6 million as part of the requirements of the social contract. To a small board with a budget of just $90 million, that's a lot of money.

The board understands and accepts the need to curtail the cost to present and future taxpayers. However, the board is also looking for credit where credit is due. The Leeds and Grenville board is already in year two of a three-year plan to cut $15 million from its costs. As part of that plan, the board this year slashed $5.7 million from its operating expenditures. Unfortunately, that cut was made before details of the social contract became known.

The board now faces the unpleasant possibility of slashing another $3.6 million from its compensation costs without ever getting credit for the proactive approach it undertook in 1992-93. These cuts included returning 10 teaching consultants to the classroom, not replacing a retiring superintendent, eliminating seven speech therapists and six teaching assistants and axing seven maintenance and cleaning jobs. A three-year salary freeze in place this year will save the board $1.1 million alone.

The Leeds and Grenville board -- and I understand there are three or four other boards that have made similar sacrifices -- is extremely concerned these substantial cost-cutting measures will go unrecognized. The board wants the opportunity to demonstrate to the Minister of Education and Training how the cost reductions have been achieved and to make its case that they should be recognized as meeting the social contract plan.

I'm looking for assurances from the minister that some flexibility will be built into the Social Contract Act and its regulations to allow for such special circumstances.

CHILD WITNESS PROGRAM

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to express my pleasure that the London Family Court Clinic child witness program has finally received permanent funding from Ontario in its efforts to help child victims and witnesses understand the criminal justice process and their role as witnesses.

In 1987, the London Family Court Clinic was established with funding from the sexual abuse initiatives program of the federal government for a three-year demonstration project on child witness court preparation. In 1990, federal funding was terminated and since 1991, the province provided temporary funding on a year-to-year basis. Now, with permanent funding in place, the child witness program can continue to help children learn to identify and reduce their fears and stresses, such things as what an oath is and the difference between the truth and a lie and how the court operates.

This preparation is making a positive difference. Findings of guilt occur in 70% of cases with prepared child witnesses versus only 40% where the child witnesses are unprepared.

There is also a wider benefit. Young, impressionable individuals are being shown that caring and concern are at the heart of our justice system and that access to and respect for the laws are for everyone. This understanding will abide with them throughout their lives, making them better citizens and better people.

I congratulate Dr Peter Jaffe, Dr Louise Sas and the other members of the project team, who have laboured to make this program a successful model for the rest of the province to emulate.

MULTICULTURALISM

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Seneca College's commitment to multicultural workplace programs and its principles is well known and highly regarded. Seneca College's multicultural workplace program is the college's conduit for addressing many multicultural issues with the college's business partners.

The Ministry of Citizenship should be very proud and supportive of Seneca College's achievements. In fact last May, in 1992, Minister Elaine Ziemba awarded Seneca College a certificate recognizing the college's five-year contribution to multicultural workplace issues and program. On that certificate, it was cited that Seneca College was a partner of the ministry.

Guess what's happened? Today Seneca College has notified me that the ministry is no longer committed to that program and is recommending that the program be discontinued. Seneca College's multicultural workplace program is now questioning why this partnership is being arbitrarily dissolved, because the past 18 months have demonstrated that the multicultural workplace program makes economic sense for both business and industry.

The riding of Oriole contains 5% of everyone. The multicultural workplace program is an important link, and I stand here today speaking on behalf of that program, saying to the minister that we believe the decision is wrong, and we ask you to reconsider your position prior to a formal appeal. We hope that you will continue the important multicultural workplace program at Seneca College.

1340

CANADA DAY

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): July 1 marks Canada's 126th birthday. A number of my Don Mills constituents will be celebrating their country's birthday in a very special way at the East York Canada Day celebrations. This East York tradition, which has been ongoing for decades, marks not only the pride we feel as Canadians but also the pride we feel in our local community. It is only fitting that the celebration is planned and executed by hundreds of hardworking volunteers under the able guidance of chairman Les Anthony.

The kickoff will begin with the swearing in of new Canadian citizens at the citizenship court at the East York Civic Centre. The community parade, with its marching bands and many floats, will then take to its route, proceeding to Stan Wadlow Park, where a full day of activities has been arranged.

During the day, about 40,000 people will come to enjoy the many events, including the talent shows highlighting the creative energies of our young people, multicultural shows, dozens of booths brimming with information on community programs, historical and cultural exhibits, sporting event demonstrations, the Kiwanis bingo, the fireworks, the petting zoo, singing and dancing and community service exhibitions from the Metropolitan Toronto Police and the East York firefighters.

On July 1, East York residents will celebrate a giant birthday party, but they will really be celebrating our rights, freedoms and heritage as Canadians and how we truly are distinct as a culture and a nation. I welcome everyone to take part in East York's tribute to Canada.

BILL BERG

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to pay tribute to an up and coming NHL star from my riding, Bill Berg of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Bill is well known throughout Beamsville, the quaint little town where he played minor hockey. He is also a celebrity just down the road in Grimsby, where he played for the junior B Peach Kings. After being traded to the Leafs from the New York Islanders, Bill quickly proved himself worthy of wearing number 10, the number once worn by the legendary George Armstrong.

Bill's aggressive style was important in helping the Leafs make it to this year's Stanley Cup semifinals. I'm sure we can expect more, possibly a Stanley Cup, from Bill and the Leafs next year.

I had the pleasure of meeting Bill a couple of weeks ago. I must say that he's a polite young man, an excellent role model for the young people of Ontario. Bill Berg is an inspiration because he is an example of what can be achieved through hard work and dedication. He shows that dreams really can come true.

I would like to congratulate Bill Berg for his outstanding contribution to hockey, and I'd like to thank the minor hockey people of Beamsville for guiding Bill through the early years of his athletic career.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Last Tuesday, I think it was, on June 22, the member for Victoria-Haliburton gave what I consider an extremely perceptive and excellent speech. I recommend this speech to all the members of the House and in particular the members of the government.

Just to whet the appetite, in particular the Premier's, since he's here, I would like to recall a few of the passages that the member from Haliburton put on the record here in the House. I understand the member for Victoria-Haliburton is still a card-carrying member for the NDP. Now, I'm not sure about this, but I'm told that this is still the case. In fact, he used to be the caucus chairman of the current government. Well, here's what the member for Victoria-Haliburton had to say about Bill 48, the social contract negotiations.

He says this bill is the most draconian "that has ever come before this Legislature; in fact a bill that I would say is going to have a disastrous effect on the relationship between trade unionists and the government for years and years to come."

The member for Victoria-Haliburton goes on to say one would have expected that in our current economic climate "a social democratic government would have put a priority on the creation of jobs and a need to reaffirm its commitment to labour.... Rather, the government has chosen dictatorial uses of power and a total rejection of social democratic principles.... It's a government that has moved decidedly and decisively to the right."

I welcome these comments, and I recommend them to all the members of the House and particularly the members of the government.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The people of York Mills are deeply concerned about the actions of this government on the economic front. Bill 40 drove investment out of this province, and the Premier's statements in Davos, Switzerland, sent a confusing message to the international community about the merits of investing in Ontario.

The $2-billion tax grab in the 1993 budget does nothing to stimulate our economy as the tax hikes will have a devastating effect on disposable income levels and result in reduced consumer spending.

A provincial unemployment rate of 10.7% and a Metro Toronto rate of 10.1% are unacceptable. We have seen no long-term solution proposed by this government.

Jobs Ontario announcements, made with such relish, are not a long-term solution but a Band-Aid, short-term fix that creates temporary jobs.

Tax hikes in the budget will eliminate 50,000 jobs, one job lost for every $40,000 in new taxes, whereas the government will spend $700 million in Jobs Ontario Capital to create 12,000 jobs. For every two jobs the government creates, it will eliminate three.

The best source of job creation is a revitalized economy and a tax level which encourages consumer spending.

Hundreds of constituents on fixed incomes and seniors on pensions have written to me calling for expenditure reduction as means of restoring prosperity as opposed to tax hikes, as fixed-income households are defenceless in the face of tax hikes. My constituents demand concrete solutions to these problems and not just empty rhetoric.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): As you well know, certainly since our election in 1990, the biggest issue facing the Ontario public and the Canadian public at large has been the question of unemployment. While unemployment has been raging in this country and in this province for the last two and a half years, the federal government has sat idly by and done nothing in terms of getting Ontarians and Canadians back to work while our government has tried to deal in a very meaningful way with this particular issue through a number of programs: the Jobs Ontario Training fund, the Jobs Ontario Capital fund and, with respect to youth, the Jobs Ontario Youth program.

However, the ability of this government to create jobs is fairly limited and the federal government has refused to respond in any way to this particular issue. What they should be looking at is a national youth employment program. The federal government refuses to do that.

I believe Kim Campbell, as the new Prime Minister of Canada, should call an election as quickly as possible and put these issues before the Canadian public so that the public can have a say with respect to their idleness on this issue.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Earlier, during members' statements, the member for London South stood in his place and announced that within his area, within London -- it may not even be within his riding, or it may be; it's not that relevant -- the government had permanently funded a witness protection program.

The member for London South is also the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General. If the government wishes to make statements during ministers' statements, then it is welcome to do that, but there were no statements today, as just witnessed by your previous call for ministers' statements.

By allowing the parliamentary assistant to make in essence a government statement, it denies the opposition the opportunity to respond. I don't think the statement today was that significant -- it's probably somewhat unnecessary -- but the principle whereby a parliamentary assistant stands and in essence makes a government statement, thereby denying the opposition, should be addressed.

I ask you to review the Hansard and perhaps rule on that so we can keep the government straight in the future on these matters.

1350

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): On the point of order, Mr Speaker: Perhaps to save you a little time, I think the statement that was made by the member for London South was in fact, as the member opposite has suggested, an inappropriate statement for him to be making as a private member. We concede that and just would like to say on behalf of the member that it was an honest mistake on his part. He saw it as a local issue that dealt with his local community, and from our perspective, the resolution which the member seeks is inappropriate.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): So you're agreed to a short response?

To the member for Carleton, he indeed, it would appear, has a valid point of order. I trust the member realizes that it's very difficult for the Chair to know whether or not something which is being said by a member is in fact an announcement of government policy. But the member's point is well taken, and the government House leader has offered that if members, one from each of the opposition parties, wish to respond, then of course that is in order. Is there a member from the official opposition who wishes to make a response?

CHILD WITNESS PROGRAM

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'd just like to respond that we're happy to see the child witness program, which was put in on a trial basis some time ago, I think 10 or 15 years ago, and has been continuing on an ad hoc basis. It is the type of program within the justice system which the member for Burlington South has included in his victims' rights bill and something which we support very much.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the statement by the parliamentary assistant. As he well knows, we've been discussing the issue of assistance to victims in the justice committee for some time. I hope this is an indication that not only are they going to fund the child witness program in his riding but, as we've heard in evidence in that committee, expand that program to across the province.

There's a crying need for protection of victims all through the criminal justice system. Child witnesses of course are a particular problem and need to have particular regard paid to them, but also victims of violent crime who are providing evidence against the perpetrators.

There are only 12 or 13 programs in this province, and we've heard a crying need for the expansion of those programs across the province.

A ministry official came and testified before our committee that the expansion of that program would not be a significant amount of money. We would like to see the government expand that program. It's a fine initiative that was built on by my predecessor in this very seat, the Honourable Ian Scott, when he was Attorney General, and I hope the government will take this as an opportunity to expand those programs available to victims.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question will be for the Premier. I want to note in raising this question that we have had yet another example of this government making an announcement of its totally arbitrary actions on a Friday when it hopes no one is watching. I say to the Premier that I am completely dismayed that we have yet another announcement from the Minister of Health which will have devastating effects on the health system of this province.

The Premier will be well aware that the minister has announced that as part of the government's long-term care reform, the private home care sector will be limited to providing 10% of home care services. The minister has made this announcement with the full knowledge that the private sector currently provides approximately 45% of these services. There is no doubt from the minister's statement that this government's ultimate goal is to shut out the private home health care providers altogether, yet everything I hear from seniors, from their families, is that the private sector is providing quality services and people are satisfied with the kinds of services they're getting. The private sector is currently providing 45% of the service, and with that fact in place, there surely is no doubt that it is filling an important need.

I ask the Premier, can you tell us what evidence you have that the services that are currently being provided by the private sector will be somehow better provided by the public sector? How will the services continue to be provided at all if you shut out the providers who are giving 45% of the service?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I will refer that question to the Minister of Health.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Thank you, and I apologize for being late.

Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that this government has been very clear, from the beginning of our discussions about the expansion of community-based services for long-term care, that it favours those services being delivered by the not-for-profit sector.

I would remind her that this is a growth sector. There are going to be 5,000 more jobs delivering home care than there are at the present time, and as we spend very scarce taxpayers' dollars, we believe it's more appropriate to spend those dollars on not-for-profit services, that they make sure they all go to wages and to services, not to profit.

Mrs McLeod: I suppose I'm not surprised that the Premier referred the question, but let me say that I am really dismayed that the Premier stands by while this Minister of Health dismantles the public health care system, the health care system this province enjoys.

This is pure ideology, and this is costly ideology at a time when we simply cannot afford it. We have seen this government charge ahead before with ideological blinders on, and in fact we've seen this minister charge ahead with ideological blinders on.

The minister does not need to remind me of what this government's intentions are. In fact, I say advisedly that this is a dismantling of the public health care system, because we simply cannot afford to replace the services which this minister is removing which the private health care system has been providing in support of the public health care system.

We have raised this issue before, the fact that, in writing, the government's response on this issue has shown that it is more costly for the public sector to provide these services. I ask you to tell us today how much more it will cost the taxpayers of Ontario to deliver these services under your new policy, I ask you whether you have done any studies to assess the full cost of your policy preference, and I ask you, how much money should Ontario taxpayers have to spend so that home care services can be provided in a way which is more ideologically satisfying to your government?

Hon Mrs Grier: There seems to be some confusion in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition. She says we are dismantling the public health care system. In fact, what we are doing is strengthening and expanding the public health care system. I would say to her again that under our expansion of the integrated homemaker program we are not cutting any services, we are not cutting any hours, we are not cutting any workers; we are in fact putting more dollars into the system, expanding the system and creating new jobs.

Let me also say to the Leader of the Opposition that this is entirely consistent with the basis of our long-term care program and with what we heard in a very extensive public consultation about this program. What we heard was that people want accountability in the delivery of these services, and they want these services delivered by community-based agencies with community boards that respond to the needs of their particular communities.

Mrs McLeod: I say again to the minister that there are private health care providers who have been providing an important support and supplement to our public health care system. We don't believe you can continue to maintain the high quality and accessibility of health care to the people of this province if you keep trying to take under the public health care system all of the costs of the services that are now being provided by those private health care providers.

I simply don't understand where you are hearing that there is a lack of accountability, a lack of quality in the services that are being provided in those areas. That's not what any of us hear from our constituents who are making the choices, who are satisfied with the quality and who want the access to those services to continue.

Nor do I understand how you can say that there's no job loss. The private health care providers are clearly saying that there could be at least 10,000 jobs lost as a result of the policy decision which you made on Friday. You don't seem to be worried about this. It's almost as if, in your philosophy, jobs that are provided in the public sector are somehow better jobs than those that are provided in the private sector. I say to you again, as we have said before, a job is a job is a job, and the people of this province need health care; in fact, they need jobs more than they need NDP ideology.

I ask, how can you simply put 10,000 people out of work? Please don't tell us you're doing it to save money, because this is not what you're doing to save money. How can you justify a policy that is going to cost taxpayers money, that is going to reduce access to home health care and will put people out of work all at the same time?

1400

Hon Mrs Grier: First of all, whether or not it is 10,000 people in the private sector who are now providing the services which the province pays for or whether it's 5,000 people is very hard to determine.

Secondly, let me say to the Leader of the Opposition, no matter what the number is, we are not putting people out of work. We are in fact creating new jobs and putting new people to work. For those people who have currently been working in the private sector, if they choose to apply for the new jobs that are going to be created, that transition will be assisted as part of long-term care.

To hear a member representing a party that was in power for seven years and talked about long-term care and never expanded long-term care now accuse us, as we move to take action on long-term care, of being ideological is a little hard to take.

Mrs McLeod: I simply don't think this government cares how its policies are affecting either the jobs or the people who hold those jobs. They are real people and they are providing real service, and there's no acknowledgement of that whatsoever.

TAX INCREASES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): As I move to the second question, I would also recognize that this government did not pay a whole lot of attention to the way in which its budget was going to affect jobs or the economy of this province. I direct my second question to the Premier as he even now anticipates the question and refers it to his Finance minister.

Premier, I do think it's important that as we prepare to celebrate Canada Day, we recognize that July 1 is also going to mark the date when over $1 billion of your $2-billion tax grab comes into effect. I remind people that it is the largest tax increase ever and the largest since the Tory government budget of 1982.

From July 1 to the end of the fiscal year, Ontarians are going to pay $1.14 billion more in income taxes. That is $1.14 billion that could have gone back into the economy to create more jobs. I ask once again, what impact is this tax grab going to have on Ontario's fragile economy? Will you explain whether the $2-billion tax grab is the reason why your Finance minister is now predicting continued double-digit unemployment for the next three years?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm going to refer that to the Minister of Finance.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The leader of the official opposition is correct in that the income tax changes take place on July 1. I would remind her that even with these income tax changes that will take place, for 90% of the people in this province, Ontario will be the third lowest in all of Canada in terms of its income tax rate. For people in the top 10% of income earners in the province, we are second highest. I say that with some pride, because I do believe that we have moved towards making the tax system fairer than it otherwise would be.

Finally, I would remind the leader of the official opposition, when she talks about $1 billion, that $1 billion is not taken out of the economy. It's put right back into the economy for services that she herself often demands more of in this province and also for capital projects which will go to benefit the private sector as well as the public sector. So I'd ask her to put it in context as to what that money is used for. It's used to keep the essential services in this province and to continue to invest in our infrastructure.

Mrs McLeod: Interesting response, given the Minister of Health's response to my first question, because it seems to me you can relate the two and say that the $1 billion in taxes or a significant portion of it is going to go right back into creating the jobs to replace the private sector jobs in home health care, which this minister is just in the process of destroying.

Treasurer, I would suggest to you that people were dismayed by their tax increases in your budget coming at this very difficult time in our economy, but they were absolutely disbelieving that you brought in income tax increases that were retroactive to last January. You are implementing your retroactive increase by doubling the tax increase that you're going to collect between now and the end of this fiscal year. I ask you, how do you justify retroactive tax increases? How do you justify getting the taxes from a full year of tax increases in just six months and how can people develop any investor confidence when your government not only raises taxes for the future but raises taxes for the past?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'd stand that question on its head and say to the leader of the official opposition, how can the people of this province have any confidence in the leader of the official opposition and the party that she leads in this province, namely, the Liberal Party of Ontario, who consistently say that they don't want any tax increases, consistently say that our deficit's too high, that they don't like what we're doing in the social contract legislation to contain costs in the public sector and that they want more money spent on various programs across the province? Don't talk to me about credibility or confidence. You're the one who's lost any you had when you first took over that position.

Mrs McLeod: I should remind the Finance minister they're supposed to save that stock response for the second supplementary and not the first supplementary. That's usually when it is trotted out. Usually when this government has absolutely no response and doesn't even want to acknowledge the legitimacy of a question being asked, it saves that stock response for its fallback position.

I would remind the Finance minister that it is our very firm belief that you do indeed have to meet your deficit target with expenditure reductions, and we have given you many suggestions on how that could be done, but that we have also always said that unless you can get this economy going again you are not going to be able to meet your deficit targets, and unless you can really get people back to work again we are not going to solve the most essential challenges facing this province. That's why we have said you should not have brought those tax increases in and that's why we continue to say, "Did you even look at the impact on the economy of those tax increases?"

But my second supplementary was related to the fact that in addition to raising taxes you managed to slip in about $220 million in 35 new fees; at least, 35 is as many as we have yet been about to count. The fee increases are going to affect people literally from the cradle to the grave, and as you well know, they have affected virtually everything you could find to tax, from birth and marriage and death certificate fees, to road test fees, to driver's licence fees, to land registration fees. I simply ask you again, how many jobs are these fee increases going to cost the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: In many instances, when we talk about increases in fees that are non-tax revenues, such as licences and stumpage fees and those kinds of things, there hadn't been increases for some time and it really is saying to people that for those services delivered, it's time that people paid for the cost of delivering them. I would say to the leader of the official opposition that now she's not only against any tax increases to solve our problem; she's against any non-tax revenues to solve our fiscal problems as well.

So I really would like the leader of the official opposition to stand in her place one day before this session adjourns and tell us how she would accomplish a reduction in the deficit at the same time as she's calling for no tax increases, more spending and no reduction in public sector compensation. I would like to have the leader of the official opposition tell us how she would accomplish that.

FIRST MINISTERS' MEETING

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Premier. Given that the economy should be the number one priority and given that you spent the weekend whining that Ontario no longer has a voice at the federal cabinet table, would you please explain why you would play partisan politics and refuse to attend the first ministers' conference?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I would be the last person to play partisan politics. I would say to the honourable member, given the comments that were made by his leader last week vis-à-vis Ontario's relationship to Quebec, the member for Oakville South has a lot of explaining to do when he criticizes me for having raised the fact that in the federal Conservative cabinet Ontario's position is weaker in terms of representation, compared to Quebec and compared to western Canada, than at any time in living memory. If he doesn't understand that and doesn't see this as an issue that's of concern, then I think he's going to be quite wrong.

1410

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Then go to the meeting; all the more reason to go to the meeting.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Willowdale.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that I remain sceptical of a dinner session --

Mr Harnick: Go to the cottage, Bob.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale, please come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- and would say to the honourable member that the issues --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): You are just a disgrace. You are bringing this province down.

The Speaker: The member for York Mills, come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- that need to be dealt with are issues that can be resolved only after a federal election. They can be resolved only when a federal government has a clear mandate to deal with them and where there's a long-term agenda that needs to be dealt with. That's precisely the position that I put forward as Premier of the province in defence of the interests of the province of Ontario.

Mr Carr: This from a Premier who has done more to destroy this province economically, politically and socially than any other Premier in the history of this province.

If you'd done the same thing as the federal government in scaling back the cabinet when the member for Perth left the cabinet, what you should have done is not replaced her instead of having cabinet ministers, second-stringers, whose only function is to ride around in the cars.

My question as a follow-up to the Premier is this: Canada's economic position cannot be put on hold; neither can Ontario's. When these premiers are going to this meeting, and apparently all of them will be going, I ask the Premier, who is going to speak on behalf of Ontario if the Premier for Ontario is not there? Who's going to speak on behalf of Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: I would only say to the honourable member that there is a major federal-provincial agenda that needs to be addressed. All I've said from the beginning is, first of all, Ontario's positions with respect to these issues are well known and well documented to everyone concerned and, second of all, very clearly these are major issues that need to be resolved once the federal election is out of the way but that we have to recognize that the issues are so complex and so important to this province that --

Mr Turnbull: They're so complex you're going to stay home.

The Speaker: The member for York Mills, please come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- they are not something which can simply be handled in the space of a couple of hours meeting in Vancouver. It's as simple as that.

Mr Carr: This is the same Premier who got together with the two NDP premiers, Harcourt and Romanow, for a photo opportunity and said that those three were going to tackle the deficit. Yet, when other premiers are going to be out there, maybe he'll learn something from Clyde Wells of what he's doing with his civil servants, maybe he'll learn a little bit from Premier Bourassa, he may learn something from Premier Filmon out there. It is not just dealing with the provincial or the federal government. He will have an opportunity to speak to his colleagues about what is happening.

The G7 meeting is coming up. The Prime Minister will be going to that meeting. In your budget you talk about how trade is so important to the province of Ontario. As the Prime Minister goes to the G7 meeting, quite simply, do you want Ontario's view on global trade to be represented at the G7 meeting or not? If not, how are we going to get our message through to the major industrialized countries which are dealing with important issues? Who's going to speak on our behalf?

Hon Mr Rae: Obviously, the Premier of this province has to do everything in his power to advance the interests of the people of this province, which is what I've been trying to do since the election. I would only say to the honourable member that I am truly astounded that the Tory caucus in this province wasn't out there on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, since, as I say, his leader was so critical of us, saying he would take a two-by-four to Premier Bourassa.

Here we have a clear instance. You have the federal Minister of Industry, who is now also responsible for Quebec regional development and the Deputy Premier, you have the Finance minister from Quebec; you have the president of the Treasury Board coming from Alberta. Where are Ontario's interests being represented in the heart of the Conservative Party?

You can go out and campaign for that cabinet. You go out and campaign for the Tories' negligence to this province and for their historic determination to seriously underrepresent and misrepresent and misunderstand the people of this province. You can wear that the next election campaign; that's the way it should be. When the election is over, then we will have a major federal- provincial conference to deal with these issues, and let me tell you, we will be there representing the people of Ontario and the interests of the people of Ontario.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is for the Attorney General.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Burlington South has the floor.

Mr Jackson: Minister, yesterday in Burlington more than 250 people gathered at Brant Bible Church to remember those who have died of violent crimes in Ontario. This memorial service was organized by Burlington resident Debbie Mahaffy, who two years ago tomorrow received the shocking news that her daughter was dead.

Among the victims who were commemorated at this service were Andrea Atkinson, Elizabeth Bain, Nina de Villiers, Kristen French, Christine Jessup, Kayla Klaudusz, Leslie Mahaffy, Alison Parrott and more than 30 others. After the service, Debbie Mahaffy and many of the parents of victims of violence, of this violent crime, came to speak to me about the importance of what they believe should be an observance for Ontario, a victims' rights day to be declared for Ontario. This would be a day set aside for observances for all of our province to understand the trauma and the victimization that continues for victims of violence and their lack of rights.

Minister, my question to you is, will you stand in the House today and pledge in a spirit of humanitarian concern on behalf of Ontario victims and their families your government's full support for a private member's bill through first and second and third readings that would enunciate a clear day, a victims' rights day for Ontario, and to have that implemented within the next three or four weeks so that this can become an annual observance for those families?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I think it sounds like an idea that would have the support of everybody in the House and it sounds very feasible to me. The only concern I would have is that I think we should talk about how that crosses over with the December 6 day of memorial and mourning that is now a nationwide and certainly a provincial day of mourning for women who have been victimized by violence. But I understand that the member is suggesting a specific day around victims' rights, and I certainly am quite prepared, if he brings forward such a motion, to support it myself and to urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr Jackson: During yesterday's commemorative service, Sergeant Paul Welsh, who had been seconded to the Ministry of the Solicitor General's office for some years and is now back with the Halton Regional Police, said that people are starting to realize that the current criminal justice system is not victim-centred in Ontario. It is in fact accused-centred, but we are starting to realize that the victim is an integral part of the justice system.

As you are aware, Minister, an important part of the balancing of the roles of victims is the victims' perspective, as obtained through the victim impact statement, a point that was also contained among the many recommendations in the Jonathan Yeo inquest. Yesterday Mrs Mahaffy shared with me her concerns and showed me her victim impact statement that she wishes to present today. But the minister would be aware that the utilization of victim impact statements is not a consistent policy throughout our justice system.

Again, on behalf of Mrs Mahaffy and Mrs de Villiers, who have raised this question, could the minister confirm your willingness to ensure that victim impact statements become required in Ontario as an integral part of the due process of law? This is within your mandate. Actually, within your current law, you can do this through regulation. But on behalf of those two parents, could you please indicate to the House your willingness to pursue this in the name of justice?

Hon Mrs Boyd: As a matter of fact, this is one of the items in the victims package that I released on Friday. There will be a province-wide, standardized victim impact statement policy introduced in the fall. It will follow the model that has been piloted in the Metropolitan Toronto area. The police will give the victim impact statement forms to their witnesses in these cases, encourage them to make use of them, and crown attorneys will certainly use them as part of the sentencing if a conviction is obtained during a trial.

1420

Mr Jackson: Minister, as you know, the justice committee is currently looking at victims' rights issues. The justice committee has been meeting for the last month. I'm delighted to hear of your news, but it gives limited comfort when you go behind the back of a legislative committee to make these spotty announcements as opposed to working with the legislative framework and victims who came before the committee and made presentations.

Several of the victims who came forward during the course of the justice committee hearings included, of course, Mrs Priscilla de Villiers, who spoke at length about the fact that our courts need to realize that the victim is in fact a person. Although your comments give some limited relief, they still do not acknowledge the victim as a person in our justice system.

The Jonathan Yeo inquest report contains a very clear recommendation that there should be a victims' bill of rights for Ontario. As one of only two provinces without that bill, Minister, and on behalf of those who participated yesterday in the memorial service, I want to ask you, would you please advise this House that you are willing to establish a bill of rights for victims of crime on behalf of all potential victims in Ontario, including those families who have currently been victimized?

I remind you that your predecessor, Howard Hampton, voted in favour of the bill of rights for crime victims, which I tabled in this House back in 1990, when the Liberal government opposed it.

The Speaker: Could the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Jackson: Now that you are the government, would you please be consistent and now support the very bill which, while in opposition, you and your party were so keen to support? On behalf of those families, will you support a victims' bill of rights?

Hon Mrs Boyd: When we were in opposition, we were not in a position to actually put into place the kinds of services victims require. We are now, and that is how we are proceeding. We are spending our legislative efforts and our administrative efforts in refocusing the criminal justice system to balance out the rights of the accused and the rights of victims.

We certainly agree with the member that this is an ongoing perception of those who have been victimized by crime, not only in our jurisdiction but frankly in most jurisdictions. It is important for us to find ways to give the kind of support, the kind of centredness to a system that really takes into account the pain and suffering that victims and their relatives feel, particularly in serious crimes of violence.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Health. On July 1, via regulations out of your long-term care legislation, there will be dramatic increases passed on to residents of nursing homes around the province. Indeed, in the Tyndall Nursing Home in my own community, but certainly everywhere throughout the province, people have been finding out recently the impact of these regulations; regulations, I might add, that were not clearly spelled out during the debate of the legislation and that certainly did not give anyone any indication that they would be facing increases of the magnitude they'll be hit with on July 1.

Residents in a ward, very infirm in many cases, very ill, are facing increases of $12 a day, seven days a week. That's $84 a week. That's a $361-a-month increase to these citizens who in most cases are on fixed incomes and who have no alternative but to reduce the amount of money that is available to them on a monthly basis because they have to pay you more. In essence, it amounts to a tax on the sick, on the elderly, on the infirm. How can you justify this tax?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I would certainly reject the member's categorization of the impact of Bill 101 and the accommodation charges that are currently going to be put in place. I would remind the member, who I think was part of that long discussion, that what we are doing under the levels-of-care funding is in fact creating for the first time some equity in accommodation costs across the system. Costs currently range from $26 a day to $90 a day. We are now saying there will be a flat charge of $38 a day for accommodation costs. In many cases that means a reduction in costs for, I think, about 10,000 people, and for people at the lowest level of the income bracket there will be no change in their costs.

I would also remind the member that the way in which ability to pay is being calculated under the new system -- and nobody will be denied accommodation because of inability to pay -- is strictly on income, not on assets. For many old people in nursing homes, the threat of a lien on their house or of having to sell their assets has been a very real cause of fear. What the new system will do is provide reassurance in that respect and fair funding across the province.

Mr Mahoney: Well, I find that answer really quite remarkable. Could you explain the fairness to Dennis Jackson of Mississauga, who waited for two years to find accommodation somewhere in Mississauga so he could be close to his mother? He waited for two years and found her a room. It had to be a private room because there was no room in the wards. It had to be a private room, so he had to agree to pay $1,407 a month to have his mother taken care of. She needs 24-hour care. It's not something that can be done in the home when both parents have to work. You understand that. Now Mr Jackson's being told, at a meeting last week, that he's going from $1,407 up to $1,863 a month.

He's told he has an option. He can downgrade his mother's accommodation. His mother is quite ill. He might be prepared to downgrade her accommodation because of the financial hardship that this will place on the entire family. But then he's told there's no room to downgrade her to a ward. So what choice does he have? He brings his mother home. Either he or his wife has to take time off work, perhaps quit their job, at a time when they're trying to survive as a family, or he has to somehow magically come up with over $400 a month to take care of his mother.

You're putting families into situations that are just breaking their hearts. We have seniors who are sitting there breaking down in tears because you're passing on these costs. Minister, you're supposed to have some kind of compassion. We're talking about seniors who have worked hard to build this province and this country and --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Mahoney: -- whom you are now just telling that there is no choice: they can downgrade their accommodation, even though there's no accommodation at a downgraded level, or they can simply pay more money to this government. It is clearly a tax on the infirm. It is penalizing --

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Mahoney: It is making victims out of helpless senior citizens. How can this government, of all governments, justify this insidious grab of money from our seniors and our sick mothers and fathers?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me say again that the member's description of the long-term care and the levels-of-care funding system is absolutely wrong. I'm aware of the case that he described -- I read the article in the newspaper today -- and let me say to him again that there will be one income-tested charge for accommodation. There will also be what is known as a comfort allowance so that nobody will have to pay their entire income, and the levels-of-care funding will be entirely determined on the needs of the person who is there and based on their income, not their assets. It will be a fairer system, it will be a clearer system, and it will be a system that makes sure we can continue to provide the care that people need where they need it.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Finance. I've recently been contacted by the township of Woolwich staff. This municipality will have extreme difficulty in meeting the requirements of your social contract legislation. The township employs 46 full-time employees, 36 part-time employees, and 115 volunteer firefighters. Of these 197 employees, only 17 people make more than $30,000. Now, in order to meet the requirements of your bill, these 17 people will have to take an 18% or 19% pay cut.

This is a problem facing many other small municipalities across the province of Ontario. They are being required to meet their cost-saving objectives through reductions to the compensation paid to employees making over $30,000 a year, despite the fact that very few of their employees earn that much. Minister, what suggestions do you have for these smaller municipalities to enable them to meet the requirements of your legislation.

1430

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): We have been aware, since the social contract legislation was introduced, that there are some particular problems in some areas of jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, I have in my own constituency some small municipalities where this is a particular problem, and that's why the negotiations with that particular sector are still going on. We do need to resolve some of those problems.

Mrs Witmer: I'm afraid that your answer is going to be of little or absolutely no comfort to the municipalities that really are struggling very hard, I have to tell you, to meet the requirements of your social contract bill.

Most of these municipalities, already in their 1993 budgetary year, have reduced their staff complement. Can the previous cuts they have made be used towards achieving the social contract budget?

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the fact that when the expenditure control plan was introduced and that impacted on the unconditional grants to the various municipalities, those municipalities took action in accordance with those reductions, and it didn't have to involve public sector compensation.

The social contract legislation is designed to extract compensation from public sector compensation as opposed to other forms of service out there at the municipal level. Our intention, and I believe there's general consensus, is that if we're going to get our financial house in order, we need to reduce the level of compensation in the public sector. I don't deny that there are going to be some glitches in the system as we work it through, and that happens to be one of them, but that's one reason why we're sitting down with the municipal sector in trying to resolve some of those issues.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. On May 12, the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario submitted to you their report called Restructuring Resource Management in Ontario: A Blueprint for Success. As the minister will know, the report contains proposals and recommendations on how the government can fundamentally restructure delivery of natural resources management programs in this province, and in doing so save itself substantial amounts of money while not jeopardizing our natural conservation heritage.

Recently, I met with the chair and other members of the Credit Valley Conservation Authority to discuss this proposal, and was impressed by the constructive approach to the problems of duplication etc. While I have some concerns about some of the suggestions, I feel that these problems do need to be addressed, and the report certainly represents, in my opinion, a valuable contribution to the discussions.

Can the minister indicate to the House his position with respect to this report and more generally with respect to the issues of integrating and streamlining the roles of the various government agencies and levels of governments involved in resource management in Ontario?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I've held two meetings now with the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario, and we have received the report, which is called A Blueprint for Success. The report is helpful in some respects, although some of the savings that are claimed in the report, frankly, we find hard to substantiate, and we've asked the association to do some more work to substantiate the savings which it indicates are present.

We have a couple of other studies that we're looking at. The options which the association of conservation authorities presented, as I said, are helpful options and will be considered with the other options that we have before us as well.

Mr Duignan: I appreciate the answer from the minister. I want to know, what efforts has your ministry made to identify those areas where some changes could be made, and to begin to address some of the issues that the CAOs have raised and how governments can begin to work together with the CAO and other parties to come up with solutions to some of the issues raised in that report.

Hon Mr Hampton: We have invited the association of conservation authorities to meet with us again towards the end of July or August. We have asked them to consider again some of the specific points they have put forward in A Blueprint for Success and to consider again the cost savings which they indicate they believe are present.

We have also undertaken with the association of conservation authorities to convene some meetings with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Environment and Energy to look at some areas where we can cooperate more fully in the future in terms of the delivery of services. I think, again, that the options that have been put forward by the association of conservation authorities, while not providing all the answers, give us some helpful options and we'll be exploring those options in the next four or five weeks.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the Attorney General. We have seen an increase in the distribution of hate propaganda literature, an increase in active recruitment of our youth by white supremacy groups and neo-Nazi groups. We've also seen an increase in racially motivated acts and crimes in our society, and also some violent racist demonstrations.

Your government and its anti-racism initiatives are really awfully ineffective. You would agree on that. The reality is that your programs are not working. Given the situation, what alternative plans do you have to combat this racism that prevails in our society today?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): We have discussed this in this House before and have agreed, all three parties together, that we all deplore and are quite concerned about the rise in racist activities and that we know that there needs to be a many-pronged community response to this. The Minister of Citizenship has called together an anti-racism cabinet round table, which has only met once --

Mr Curling: It's not working.

Hon Mrs Boyd: No, it isn't working yet -- at which we decided very clearly at our first meeting that the issue of this kind of material and how we were going to react more effectively to it would be our first order of business, and we will move ahead with that.

The Solicitor General and I have been discussing and are prepared to meet with those who are expressing concerns about the enforcement of what laws we have, and we understand very much the kind of concern that people have around the apparent ineffectiveness of our current laws to curb this material. We share that concern.

In addition, as I said in this House, the federal- provincial-territorial ministers believe very strongly that if we do not couple hate and bias crime issues to sentencing in terms of the Criminal Code, all crimes under the Criminal Code, we will not be effective, and we have made that the first order of business at our fall meeting, once the consultation has been held with our officials as to how that can be accomplished in an effective way in the Criminal Code.

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I can just say to the member that we share the concern. We're working in an interministerial way and with our partners at the municipal level to do what we can to ensure that this is taken as seriously as you obviously take it.

1440

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): As the Attorney General will know, there is a demonstration being organized in my riding today, coordinated by the Tamil Ealam Society of Canada, which is bringing together thousands of Tamils across Metro to protest a series of three recent attacks that have been racially motivated, including one that unfortunately occurred in my riding. These people are demanding action now. We appreciate round tables but we need action now.

I see from the almost-always-accurate Toronto Star that your officials are quoted as saying that they want to wait till they get a rock-solid case before prosecuting. Madam Minister, I'm asking you, what is rock-solid? How long do these people have to wait? We can be prepared to go ahead; we should be prepared to go ahead. We need action now.

Rather than having Michael Code fighting to prevent the release of the Grandview report, why don't you direct Michael Code to direct all of the prosecutors in this province to proceed with zero tolerance on hate crimes and to prosecute hate crimes now? There's a concrete action you can take today to help out on this issue, and I ask you to undertake to do it.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I must say that I wish members would refrain from using the names of civil servants in this place. We as elected officials are responsible, and I certainly am prepared to take the responsibility that is mine.

I should say to the member that I agree with his surprise that a member of our ministry would be quoted as saying we need a rock-solid case before we go forward, because, of course, that's not at all what I believe ought to be the standard. If indeed the police come forward and say they have reasonable and probable grounds to lay a charge, and they bring forward a case to us, obviously we would look at the strength of that case, as we do in most cases.

But I certainly would say to the member that my standard on these cases would not be anything rock solid. None of us, in taking anything into court, can be assured that we have a 100% possibility of getting a conviction. What we do need is to have the police bring forward those charges and do thorough investigations. The same story suggested that the police were confused as to whether they should be investigating. Of course they should be investigating. They should be investigating very vigorously.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: They should be bringing forward cases if they have reasonable and probable grounds to assume that a crime has been committed.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Finance. As you well know, Metro Toronto public school boards receive no provincial funding. Will you commit that any savings achieved through the social contract will be rebated directly to the Metro property taxpayers?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I'll refer that question to the Minister of Education and Training.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I'm not sure I heard the last part of the question because the Finance minister was instructing me as to my answer. I've said in the House before that we are working with boards that are in a negative grant position. I am quite sure and hopeful and optimistic that we'll be able to work something out with the boards that are affected.

Mr Turnbull: One of the great problems we're having on this side is that we've had various answers from various ministers on this particular question over a period time. I want to point out that the Fair Tax Commission, a commission which is costing the taxpayers of this province $2.3 million, concluded in a recent report, "Relying on property taxes to finance education is regressive."

Clearly, if you force the Metro school boards to remit property tax dollars to the province, you're absolutely trashing the recommendation of your own very expensive commission. If you are going to not unequivocally say that you're going to rebate this to the property taxpayers, why are you ignoring the advice of your own property tax commission?

Hon Mr Cooke: I understand the member's position, but I guess I would just say that if the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and the Ottawa Board of Education were not part of the social contract process and, therefore, if money wasn't coming back to the province, just like it is from every other school board, that would mean an additional cost of 20%, 25%, 30% for the rest of the school boards across the province in terms of the contribution towards debt reduction at the provincial level.

I hardly feel that would be important, since the reason that the Metropolitan Toronto taxpayers and the Ottawa Board of Education get nothing in the way of grants from the provincial government is because they have a lot in the way of commercial and industrial wealth. Therefore, during difficult times, we must all share in the pain, and obviously Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa have to as well. It wouldn't be fair to the students of the rest of the province it that weren't the case.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Attorney General. As you know, in the Niagara area, our community has been severely affected by violent crimes. As a member of the standing committee on the administration of justice dealing with victims' rights over the last four weeks, we have had the opportunity to listen to citizens' groups.

They are very concerned about the increase of violence in our society, about the treatment of victims and about justice for women. Groups such as CAVEAT -- Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination -- Voices for Children's Rights and the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters all made presentations and recommendations and we are presently writing a report.

We have seen the inadequacies of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and we have heard about the inadequacies of the victim/witness assistance program. Madam Minister, what are you presently doing to make the justice system more responsive to the needs of victims?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I think all members should recognize how valuable our committee hearings are because they raise our consciousness about problems the citizens have, and clearly the number of questions around victims' issues in this House from members of that committee show it's an important aspect.

There are many things we need to do. We have announced an eight-point program that is directed specifically at trying to improve our responses to victims of crime.

With respect to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, even though $2.5 million has been withdrawn from federal funding to that board, we've increased its funding by about $1.25 million for the coming year and we have required it to make some changes in its process and its administration according to the kinds of recommendations that were brought forward by the victims' advisory panel. We expect that will change.

In terms of the victim/witness program, we have made a commitment that we will expand that program to all jurisdictions in the province as quickly as we can, as soon as we get funding.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: In order to get the funding, we will be charging a victim fine surcharge on provincial offences as well as the federal offences victim fine surcharge and dedicating that money to the expansion of victim services.

Ms Harrington: From what I have heard in committee, certainly these are going to be welcome changes, and I urge the minister to continue. This is very important to the people of Ontario. The government of Ontario, as we all know, is cutting spending by $6 billion. My question to the minister is: How are we intending to finance these increased expenditures to help the victims of crime?

Hon Mrs Boyd: One way will be the imposition of a provincial victim fine surcharge and the dedication of the current federal victim fine surcharge. We certainly have heard from judges and from others in the system that our lack of ability to dedicate those funds has meant that we have not had the revenues from victim fine surcharges that other provinces have had. Given our circumstances, we think it is quite useful for those who perpetrate violent crime to understand the importance of the victim; indeed, for all those who commit crimes in our society, offences of any kind, to realize that it's not only the direct victim of those offences who suffers but the community as a whole. That is the rationale behind that.

But I agree with the member that we have had to work very, very hard to try and be sure that our expenditure control plan has not impacted on these services, which certainly require the kind of support that you advocate.

GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Would the minister tell us why her government is establishing gambling casinos in Ontario?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I thought the member was going to ask me about the Bread Sales Act today. I'm disappointed; maybe another time.

The province's decision to establish a pilot project of one casino in Windsor, Ontario, was based on several factors, as he well knows, one of which was that some border communities had requested that the government look at establishing casinos as a way to help counteract cross-border shopping. As you know, border towns were very hard hit.

As well, of course, the government was looking at new forms of non-tax revenue and at the same time noticing that other jurisdictions across Ontario and indeed in North America are looking at establishing casinos. There are many other factors as well, but Mr Speaker wants me to sit down now.

Mr Bradley: In view of the fact that the city of Detroit in its plebiscites has rejected casino gambling by rather overwhelming ways in the past but then in the last municipal ballot, which I believe took place on June 2, the vote was only 51% to 49% now opposed to casino gambling, it can be anticipated that the vote is due almost entirely to the fact that the province of Ontario says it's going to establish a casino in the city of Windsor. Can you tell me what possible justification you could have for ruining the reputation of Ontario, completely reversing the position of the New Democratic Party on this issue, inviting organized crime into our province, adversely affecting charities and the horse racing industry and, finally, playing to compulsive gamblers? Could you tell me what the possible justification can be when the only reason you have for doing it, that you're the only game in town and you can make money, is going to be lost in the next vote in Detroit, when they finally approve it?

1450

Hon Ms Churley: There are a lot of problems with some of the statements in that question. First of all, as the member knows, gaming in general is a $4-billion industry in Ontario; we have to keep this in perspective. There is horse racing, there are lotteries, there is charitable gaming, bingos. So this is hardly new to the province of Ontario.

One of the things I should say is that if Detroit does decide to go ahead with a casino, that was taken into consideration at the time it was decided to put a casino in Windsor. There are many advantages to Windsor. For one thing, the winnings aren't taxed here in Ontario and Canada, as they are in the United States. For another thing, Windsor is a safe city. I think people will want to come there, and we intend to make a very competitive casino in the Windsor area. As I said, we factored it in, and we feel the casino will be able to remain competitive.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and it pertains to the funding of waste management in the province of Ontario. As you're aware, I'm sure, Bill 7 is currently before the standing committee on general government, and many of the deputants who are coming before this committee are asking, where is the money going to come from to fund the expensive programs: the blue box program, the compost plants, the material recovery facilities, not even to mention the Interim Waste Authority, which is spending about $35 million?

We have a regulation that requires municipalities to have a blue box program and a compost program, but they have no blueprint, no plan as to where the money is going to come from. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has said that the current funding system is not sustainable.

Will you today stand up and tell us what plans you have for each sector -- for the municipal sector, for the private sector, for the public through the user-pay system and for the provincial sector -- or when those plans will be released --

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

Mr David Johnson: -- so that each sector will know how much it has to pay for waste management in the province of Ontario?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I believe the Minister of Environment and Energy has already answered the question regarding the support his ministry has given to the 3Rs program, so I'll refer it to him so he can answer the question over again.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

Mr Elston: I'm having a bit of trouble here. There seems to be some rise in energy as we approach debate time in the House.

There have been reports in the local press, notably the Toronto Star, that there is about to be an announcement by the government with respect to a major expenditure in areas of social assistance.

Mr Speaker, I would not stand and raise this issue with you except that, in this case, this release of information about increased expenditure comes on the heels of a demand to press forward to carry Bill 48 and other legislation which is designed to cut back in the expenditures made in this province. It looks like a supplementary on the budget, and I'm asking that the government House leader undertake that a statement will be made here in the Legislative Assembly first, because it affects our deliberations both on the passage of Bill 48 and also with respect to other expenditure control plans that have been forming part of the budget. It is, in my view, out of order to effect in any way increased expenditures in the budget without coming here first with a budgetary statement. I would ask that both compendia and other material be made available to us as legislators so that we finally make ourselves aware of what the real budgetary plan of the Minister of Finance is.

The Speaker: The member for Bruce will know that he does not have a point of order. However, it is something that he may wish to discuss with the government House leader and indeed with his colleague the House leader from the third party in the orderly conduct of the business of the House.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: During question period, I had posed my question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who referred it to the Minister of Environment and Energy. The Minister of Environment was just prepared to stand and answer when you interjected, and he wasn't able to respond. Why the question was referred from the minister responsible to the Minister of Energy in the first place I'm not sure; at any rate, he was just getting to the point of answering my question when you wouldn't allow him to do that. I wonder if you would rule at this point, in view that the Minister of Energy is prepared to answer the question, that he can now give me the answer to my question.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): First, to the member for Don Mills: I appreciate his point of order. Ministers should know that if they wish to refer a question, that's simply what they should do and not attempt to provide a partial answer. Under the circumstances, I think it would be appropriate for the Minister of Environment and Energy to give his reply. I would ask all ministers to please simply refer questions if indeed that is what they wish to do.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. While it is a bill under the responsibility of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the program is a Ministry of Environment and Energy program and the funding comes from this ministry.

The member should know, as my colleague indicated, that I have already stated in the House that new programs will receive 50% funding from the province for the municipality, which has always been there, that in the second year we will provide 40% funding and in subsequent years 30% funding, and we will maintain that funding from the Ministry of Environment and Energy.

Having said that, I recognize that the cost to municipalities is very high and, very briefly, there must be a greater share of the cost of the blue box recycling program by those companies, those in the private sector that produce products that are disposable, whether they're products or packages. We are currently involved with the industry in discussions on how we can ensure that it provides a greater share of the cost.

MOTIONS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I have two motions I'd like to deal with this afternoon. The first one I have to seek unanimous consent on. It's a motion dealing with notice of the House regarding private bills and hearings in the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

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

CONSIDERATION OF BILLS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that it's ordered that standing order 87 respecting notice of committee hearings be suspended for consideration of Bills Pr9, Pr23, Pr33, Pr42, Pr54, Pr55 and Pr80 by the standing committee on regulations and private bills on Wednesday 30 June 1993.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 19 and 20.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

1500

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to register my dissatisfaction with the Minister of Education's answer to my question today and would call for the late show tomorrow.

The Speaker: I trust that the member for York Mills will file the necessary document at the table.

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario: I have a petition addressed by a number of people from the area of Port Elgin, Ontario, asking that the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and in fact reciting several of the reasons that were used in the question by my colleague the member for St Catharines in a question to the minister today.

I have attached my signature to this petition, along with, just as a sample, Mary Pierson, Lillian Heard, Harry Schildroth, Kent Milroy and Lorna Caley, who are all residents of the Port Elgin area.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in 1923, seven Ontario bands signed the Williams Treaty, which guaranteed that native peoples would fish and hunt according to provincial and federal conservation laws, like everyone else; and

"Whereas the bands were paid the 1993 equivalent of $20 million; and

"Whereas that treaty was upheld by Ontario's highest court last year; and

"Whereas Bob Rae is not enforcing existing laws which prohibit native peoples from hunting and fishing out of season; and

"Whereas this will put at risk an already pressured part of Ontario's natural environment,

"We, the undersigned, adamantly demand that the government honour the principles of fish and wildlife conservation, to respect our native and non-native ancestors and to respect the Williams Treaty."

There are 230 names on this petition. They're from Windsor, Sarnia, Guelph, Kingston, North Bay, Kenora, Midhurst, Phelpston, Otterville, Barrie, Newmarket, Oshawa, Sharbot Lake, Perth and Waterloo, and I've affixed my name to it.

GAMBLING

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here, like many others, on casino gambling.

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from the introduction of video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

It has been signed by parishioners at St James the Apostle Church in Sharon and Christ Church in Holland Landing, and it has been forwarded to me by Rev Ruth Adams from St James the Apostle Church in Sharon. I have affixed my name.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Education proposes to substantially modify the provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled by their downsizing, closing parts of or restructuring the schools, resulting in significant hardship for students, families, employees and the local community for the purposes of saving money; and

"Whereas the Sir James Whitney Parents' Association believes that the quality of education delivered today within the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled provides the lowest total cost option available while allowing deaf students to wholly develop within their own culture and to receive the best education possible,

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

"(1) Maintain the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled until an acceptable model from all interested parties has been developed; and

"(2) Empower local boards of trustees, as set out in model 5, to manage their own budgets within ministry guidelines and funding."

This is signed by several hundred persons in the Newmarket-Aurora area and I have affixed my signature thereto.

COURT REPORTERS

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas open and public trials require an accurate record prepared by those trained for that purpose; and

"Whereas the proposed model of a clerk-monitor taping the proceedings, non-stop taping of each courtroom, even during recesses, and a typist transcribing proceedings which were not attended is inimical to the proper administration of justice in Ontario;

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

"That the Ontario Court of Justice maintain the use of court reporters to keep the record of all court proceedings."

It's signed by a number of individuals and I affix my name to it.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"As the proposal under the government's cost-cutting measures regarding health care in Ontario will have a devastating impact on the availability and quality of health care in Kent county,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that the government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to the rational reform of Ontario health care systems through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement."

These are approximately 4,000 signatures. These petitions were established in doctors' offices throughout Kent county and also in the emergency rooms of the hospitals, and I do forward these petitions.

GAMBLING

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition here signed by well over 100 people from the Port Hope area.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before,

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

GO BUS SERVICE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 22 signatures from my riding. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Ontario as follows to object to the recent cuts to the GO Transit bus service for Woodbridge, Kleinburg, Nobleton, Bolton, Palgrave and Highway 9:

"Whereas this will be a major inconvenience to non-drivers; and

"Whereas it will have a negative impact on the local economy; and

"Whereas the lack of transit services will increase traffic, thereby increasing air pollution levels, at a time when all levels of government are making efforts to reduce pollution and encourage public transportation systems; and

"Whereas the cuts leave no alternative means of commuting in and out of Toronto during peak hours; and

"Whereas the lack of GO buses will force passengers, at one of the worst economic times in Ontario history, to incur an extra expense in finding another form of transportation,"

The petition is that the government of Ontario overturn GO Transit's decision and restore GO Transit service to Bolton and Palgrave.

I have placed my signature on this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted with the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I'm very glad to affix my signature to this fine petition.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers,

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

The 42 people who signed this petition come from several places in our area, including Kingston, Glenburnie, Belleville, Shannonville, Bath and Harrowsmith.

BICYCLING SAFETY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I have a petition signed by some 700 citizens of Ottawa-Carleton on behalf of the Ontario Coalition for Better Cycling. These people oppose the province's plan to introduce legislation to mandate the wearing of bicycle helmets. The petition reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, support the voluntary use of helmets. We oppose the province's plan to introduce legislation to mandate the wearing of bicycle helmets."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

1510

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers,

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition.

"Whereas there is a shortage of affordable housing units in Ontario; and

"Whereas the shortage most affects individuals and groups facing discrimination, social and economic disadvantage, for example, racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants and refugees, first nations people, women, gay men, lesbians, seniors, youth, single parents and people with children, people with disabilities, psychiatric survivors and people on social assistance; and

"Whereas the Ontario Human Rights Code affirms that every person has the right to equal treatment in respect of occupancy of accommodation without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, handicap or receipt of social assistance; and

"That any policy or factor which results in the exclusion of these people comes under prohibited grounds of discrimination and is illegal;

"Whereas people cannot afford to buy houses and are often excluded from lower-density neighbourhoods which generally are well served by community and educational and recreational services; and

"Whereas many thousand of home owners in municipalities across Ontario have created additional units in their homes that have not created a change in quality of life in their neighbourhoods; and

"Whereas tenants in such illegal units are not guaranteed legal rights and protections the tenants in legal units have, therefore creating two classes of tenants; and

"Whereas zoning is only supposed to control land and in practice it has created members of disadvantaged groups living within many neighbourhoods; and

"Whereas the zoning practices are exclusionary and a violation of rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Code; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario has agreed to article XI of the International Covenant of Social, Economic and Cultural Rights in a treaty signed by Canada and 96 other nations, which recognizes that housing is a fundamental human right and an aspect which must not be discriminated against in housing of choice and location,

"Therefore, we petition the government of Ontario, in particular, the Premier, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Housing, the Minister of Citizenship responsible for the Human Rights Code, to immediately put an end to the widespread violation of human rights across the province by amending the Planning Act so as to require all municipalities to permit the creation of additional rental units to meet the health and safety standards in neighbourhoods zoned as single family."

It's been signed by many, many people all across the area and I affix my name to this.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Education proposes to substantially modify the provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled by either downsizing, closing parts of or restructuring the schools, resulting in significant hardship for students, families, employees and the local community for the purpose of saving money; and

"Whereas the Sir James Whitney Parents' Association believes that the quality education delivered today within the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled provides the lowest total cost option available while allowing deaf students to wholly develop within their own culture and to receive the best education possible,

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

"(1) Maintain the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled until an acceptable model from all interested parties has been developed; and

"(2) Empower local boards of trustees, as set out in model 5, to manage their own budgets within the ministry guidelines and funding."

I've signed the petition.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here sent to me June 1 of this year.

"To the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers the most cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law would result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers;

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

It's been signed by people like Donna Roy, Wayne DeJong, Edna Kane and many other people from as far away as Stouffville, Tillsonburg, Uxbridge and Gormley, and I've affixed my name to this as well.

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food has decided to close Centralia College of Agricultural Technology and the Veterinary Services Laboratory diagnostic laboratory at the college as of May 1, 1994;

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

"To reverse the decision to close CCAT and the VLS diagnostic lab located on Centralia's campus."

People from Dashwood, Goderich and also from Ms Coates's grade 1 class have all signed this particular petition. I have added my name to the petition and I support their concern about the closure of Centralia.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I beg leave to present the 19th report from the standing committee on government agencies and move adoption of its recommendations.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make any statement, Mrs Marland?

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I do not have any further statement or debate to make and I move adjournment of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Mrs Marland moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PAY EQUITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉQUITÉ SALARIALE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 102, An Act to amend the Pay Equity Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'équité salariale.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I believe the member for London South was the last person who addressed the House on that issue and we were at the question and comments period. Are there any questions or comments to the member for London South's presentation?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: How are there to be questions or comments made if the member is not here?

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Elston: Are you saying then that there can't be any questions or comments?

The Deputy Speaker: That's exactly what I'm saying. Are there any members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): We're debating now Bill 102, and this is the pay equity bill which the government has brought forward. One of the concerns I have about the way the government has presented this bill, and I've said this on other occasions, I've said this at committee, is that in fact the government is saying one thing and doing another. I had prepared extensive comments and I only have a half an hour to debate this, so what I would like to do with the time available is share with the House what the Ontario Nurses' Association has to say about Bill 102.

This just came across my desk today and I think it sums up very well the concerns and frustrations that I have, the concerns and frustrations that women across the province who are aware of what this government is attempting to do with Bill 102, the frustrations and concerns that they have, and I want to applaud the Ontario Nurses' Association as well as saying that I very much support their point of view.

This is what they have to say in their ONA News. That's their article and their newsletter that they send out to their members. I want to thank them for sending me their copy of the June 1993, volume 20, number 5.

1520

Their headline says it all. "Province Reneges on Pay Equity Promise. Amendments Erode Hard-Fought Gains, Says ONA." I quote:

"ONA is disappointed that proposed amendments regarding pay equity will effectively erode any possibility of ever achieving pay equity for its members under the legislation." The legislation that the Ontario Nurses' Association is referring to is Bill 102.

"The government's shocking proposal to postpone for another three years, until 1998, the deadline to achieve pay equity in the public sector is clearly unacceptable, says a January ONA submission to the standing committee on administration of justice concerning Bill 102, the Pay Equity Amendment Act."

I was a member of that committee and I, at that point in time, pointed out to the government that the Ontario Nurses' Association submission was a very clear and articulate evaluation and criticism that was very valid of the government's proposed Bill 102.

"In the submission, ONA reproaches the government for using the excuse of difficult economic times to justify removing established rights to retroactive pay to 1990, full pay equity to 1995 and obligations to maintain pay equity.

"Employers in the public sector were given five years to eliminate historic pay inequities, and now the government" -- the NDP government -- "is giving the public sector eight years and expecting working women to acquiesce.

"ONA says it wants the government to meet its original commitment to build upon the progress towards full pay equity made by the previous government.

"The failure to provide retroactive payments to 1990, and the additional one-year delay proposed for implementing pay equity using the proportional value and proxy methods means that, for ONA members, equitable pay by these routes will be unattainable." That's what this article says.

The Ontario Nurses' Association says that Bill 102 means, and let me quote again, "equitable pay by these routes," and those are proportional value and proxy comparisons under the NDP amendments, "will be unattainable" for the nurses of this province. Even if ONA were to find appropriate comparators, the government" -- the NDP government -- " is opening the door for limits on the obligation to maintain pay equity so that the wage gap" -- that historic wage gap -- "could be reinstituted." I believe that will be the result of the NDP legislation.

"By moving in the direction of Bill 102, this government has blatantly reneged on its promise to right historic wrongs in women's wages. These amendments do not merely delay pay equity, they begin to dismantle hard-fought gains."

I'll digress from the article for a minute, because one of the concerns I've had about the NDP's approach, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, is that it has said one thing about its support for pay equity and its determination to right historic wrongs and what Bill 102 actually does.

I'm going to continue with a quote from the Ontario Nurses' Association article of June 1993. Under the heading "Guiding Principles" they say:

"ONA strongly advises the government not to proceed with Bill 102 amendments that fail to measure up to the present standards:

"(1) The proportional value and proxy implementation process must be fully negotiable between the employer and the bargaining agent.

"(2) The pay equity adjustments determined by proportional value and proxy comparisons must be consistent with the act's original intent to take affirmative action to eliminate gender-based wage discrimination.

"(3) The first adjustments for the public sector must be made as of January 1, 1990, regardless of the methodology that is used.

"(4) Pay equity in the public sector, regardless of the methodology used, must be achieved by January 1, 1995.

"(5) Pay equity must be maintained.

"(6) Female job classes must be compared to male job classes on the basis of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions.

"(7) Gender-neutral comparison systems must be used.

"(8) Pay equity plans renegotiated on the basis of proportional value methodology, or because of changed circumstances, must not provide for lower adjustments than where otherwise achieved.

"(9) Access to proper hearings before the tribunal must always be available to parties to resolve disputes over interpretation of obligations under the act.

"(10) All disputes involving the Pay Equity Act must be resolved by the tribunal."

These 10 points are real concerns that the ONA has on behalf of not only its members but I believe all women who have had recourse under the pay equity legislation as it exists today and whose rights will be diminished under Bill 102.

The effects of Bill 102 the article goes on to debate and explain under the heading "Extending Deadlines."

"The proposed deadline extension for achieving pay equity in the public sector from 1995 to 1998 breaks the NDP government's pledge to working women. It also clearly goes against fundamental principles contained in the current law in which affirmative action is to be taken."

"Proportional Value Method" -- this is what ONA has to say about that -- "While ONA commends the government for retaining proportional value as an additional method of comparison, it is very troubled by a number of seemingly retrogressive features.

"ONA is extremely concerned that employers who should and could have completed pay equity using job-to-job will now have a further monetary incentive to postpone and avoid such comparisons. Public sector employers will be able to save three years of retroactive adjustment by finding a way around job-to-job comparisons and using proportional value effective January 1, 1993, rather than January 1, 1990.

"The government must clearly indicate to employers who have not yet posted job-to-job plans that they must still negotiate job-to-job pay equity in good faith, and comply with the time limits for adjustments, before switching to proportional value methods.

"ONA proposes that proportional value comply with the present effective date of January 1, 1990, and be achieved by January 1, 1995."

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think there should be some more people in here maybe to listen to this speaker. I don't think we have a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there a quorum?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1530

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is now present.

Mrs Caplan: As I continue, I will be quoting extensively from the ONA News of June 1993, and I'm pleased that we now have a quorum so that I can continue. I give another quote:

"Also, ONA does not support the government's intention to prescribe proportional value methods through regulation. Any methods that might be prescribed certainly must follow the fundamental principles in the current law. The parties must retain the flexibility to fashion appropriate methods to suit their unique circumstances.

"The proposed definition for when pay equity is achieved using proportional value should be amended to delete the phrase 'representative group of male job classes' and be replaced with 'male job class or male job classes.' One or more than one male job class may be used by the parties for purposes of proportional value comparisons.

"ONA is pleased employers must negotiate with the bargaining agent any proportional value pay equity plan that is prepared or amended. Also, adjustments must not be less than under job-to-job if employers redo pay equity using proportional value."

Regarding the proxy method, this is what the Ontario Nurses' Association has to say about the government's proposal:

"ONA rejects the government's amendments regarding proxy comparison methods. The proposed initiatives contravene the fundamental principle of comparing the compensation of female job classes to male job classes for pay equity purposes.

"Comparing female job classes to female job classes is unacceptable. ONA sees comparisons of female jobs to male jobs as essential in searching for pay equity. The parties must also retain full control over proxy comparison process.

"ONA reiterates that the parties identify the information required under the gender-neutral comparison system being used and request the information from proxy organizations.

"If a lack of comparator is revealed, another proxy organization would be selected from another schedule. A group of job classes should not be used if no comparator is found.

"The proxy organization must notify the parties of any wage increases for the proxy comparator for purposes of maintaining proxy pay equity. This approach is consistent with the fundamental principles in the law.

"ONA disagrees with the proposed delay of an extra year for the proxy method to be effective January 1, 1994. The employers in this sector should be treated the same as those using job-to-job compliance requirements.

"The proxy method must be effective as of January 1, 1990, and pay equity achieved by January 1, 1995.

"Postponing pay equity comparisons for the proxy method to 1994 (and for proportional value to 1993) likely means the wage gap has probably narrowed substantially between ONA members and their comparators, simply because of male wage freezes or other reductions since 1990.

"The result may well be that equivalent pay will have been reached by default, not by legislative principles."

Maintaining pay equity -- this is what the Ontario Nurses' Association has to say about the NDP government's proposals on maintaining pay equity:

"The proposal that limitations might be prescribed for the current obligations to maintain pay equity is insulting and detestable."

Let me repeat that quote, because what I find most frustrating is that people often say to me, "The NDP wouldn't do that," and yet Bill 102, as described by the Ontario Nurses' Association, is "insulting and detestable" when it comes to their policy of maintaining pay equity. Let me quote again exactly what they say. This is from the Ontario Nurses' Association June 1993 article:

"The proposal that limitations might be prescribed for the current obligations to maintain pay equity is insulting and detestable.

"ONA has been involved in extensive litigation before the tribunal on the pay equity maintenance issue (Glengarry and Lady Dunn hospitals), and these hospitals are now judicially reviewing the tribunal's decisions. ONA will not stand by while the government subverts any progress it has made.

"The requirement to maintain pay equity must be dealt with by the tribunal, which has been given the power to interpret the legislation as it stands."

Regarding other amendments in Bill 102, as proposed by the NDP government, the Ontario Nurses' Association says this:

"ONA supports the amendment that parties may settle matters in writing where the tribunal is required to hold a hearing. Any such settlements should not be above the current law, and parties must not be able to fashion settlements that contravene present obligations.

"The Ontario Nurses' Association does not support amendments that would allow the inclusion of interests other than the immediate parties before the tribunal, other than the pay equity office in its current capacity of monitoring progress towards pay equity plans."

I've heard submissions before the standing committee. I've spoken on this issue before the House. I've told members of this House before that I've had the honour and the privilege of serving the members of Oriole since 1985. I had the privilege of serving in government, and in fact I had the privilege of serving in the government that brought forward landmark pay equity legislation which was seen as a framework for establishing legislation that would right those historic wrongs of gender-based discrimination in the workforce.

I've been told by numerous private sector employers that the obligation of 1% per year, even in difficult economic times, was achievable by any good manager, that with both attrition rates as well as increases in productivity, the obligation to achieve pay equity at the rate of 1% of payroll until pay equity was achieved was manageable, was reasonable and was fiscally responsible.

I know how difficult these economic times are, and I know that there are many employers who have already implemented pay equity and done so very successfully with their employees. What this legislation does is reward those employers who did not act in a responsible way. It rewards those employers who did not move under their obligations of the legislation to achieve pay equity in a responsible fashion that the legislation had established in a reasoned and responsible way, and it sends out exactly the wrong signal.

While I support in principle the kinds of legislation which would end gender-based discrimination, I must say that I believe the Ontario Nurses' Association and others who have put forward thoughtful and reasoned arguments as to why Bill 102 is the wrong direction, and not only that, why they are so disappointed that it would be brought forward by an NDP government that, when they were in opposition, stated very clearly that they did not believe the legislation we brought forward, the Liberal government brought forward, was good enough, and that it did not achieve pay equity fast enough and that it was not the kind of legislation women of the province should feel achieved their aspirations for ending gender-based discrimination.

People of this province and the women of this province believed that, given the opportunity, the NDP would improve upon that Liberal legislation, and in fact what we know is that Bill 102 diminishes that legislation. We've heard it very clearly from the Ontario Nurses' Association, but we've also heard it from others, and let me tell you what some of the representations were that we heard at the standing committee that have convinced me that Bill 102 should not be supported and should not pass at this time.

The United Food and Commercial Workers said:

"The proxy method must allow for the comparison of female job class to male job class, and the adjustment should be the male job rate.... The proposed amendment" -- the NDP amendment -- "would allow a proxy organization to select a group of female job classes for comparison purposes. This process is highly subjective, unnecessarily complicated and would require extensive work by the proxy organization," which likely would just result in further delay.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Unfortunately, I don't believe there's a quorum in the House at this time.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I expected it from you.

The Deputy Speaker: Check for a quorum, please. The member for Downsview, please, quiet.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1540

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is now present. The member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: I was quoting the United Food and Commercial Workers Union of Ontario and what it had to say on behalf of the women in its organization who would benefit from pay equity. They said:

"UFCW Canada urges the Ontario government to keep its original promise that pay equity adjustments in the public sector be paid in full by 1995. While fully cognizant of the financial situation of the provincial government, we urge it to lead by example. In citing its deficit as a reason for delaying implementation of this aspect of the legislation, the government is sending out the wrong signal and undermining the importance of the legislation by allowing the injustice to continue."

There were many unions and others representing women. OPSEU, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, had this to say:

"We condemn the decision to add section 7.1 to this bill. The government is retreating from Bill 168, in which the implementation deadline for public sector wage adjustment was January 1, 1995. The current recession and lower revenues cannot be invoked as rationales for delaying pay equity adjustment.

"OPSEU has previously commended the Treasurer for his commitment to fight the recession and his uncompromisingly keeping people at work and building up equity. This appears to be a government that would not force disadvantaged groups to bear the brunt of an economic downturn. Pay equity and wage protection were not to be used and treated as luxuries."

OPSEU then says: "We urge the government to recognize the contribution its employees make to the public. Do not impose on our members and other women the harsh tradeoff found in section 7.1 of Bill 102."

While the government is attempting to negotiate with its employees and 950,000 employees in the broader public sector, surely, if it was serious about pay equity, it could have found a way of incorporating and negotiating those principles at the tables, especially with its own employees at OPSEU, who were so clear about their support for this important concept and legislation that was in place. Their condemnation of the NDP proposals, I think, is clear.

But probably the criticism that had the greatest impact on me personally, and I believe fundamentally the greatest impact on women of the province who heard the submission, was the submission from the Pay Equity Commission of Ontario, the commission that was established under the Liberal legislation to act as a watch and guard on the implementation of pay equity and to act as an advocate for women.

Let me tell you what the Pay Equity Commission had to say about the proposals under Bill 102 that the NDP government is attempting today to implement. What they say is, and this is regarding subsection 8(5), limitations regarding maintenance:

"If this section of the bill is passed" -- and I quote from the Pay Equity Commission itself -- "the gains made in addressing pay inequity could be undone; in a few years' time, the Legislature may need to reconsider another pay equity act in order to recoup the lost ground that this section has the capacity to bring about."

I quote again: "It is one thing to ask them (the women whom the act benefits) to stretch full achievement of their rights for a few years; it is quite another to ask them to give up a portion or all of what they have gained in the exercise of their rights."

I have reviewed very carefully Bill 102. I have expressed concerns at committee and in this House that what the NDP is doing is removing the protections of the existing pay equity legislation. As they're removing those rights and those obligations and those protections, what they are saying to women is: "We are expanding pay equity. We are making great gains in covering women who previously were uncovered. We have lived up to our commitments on pay equity." Nothing could be further from the truth.

We've heard from the Ontario Nurses' Association, which speaks for a profession that is female dominated and has been largely women over many, many years. We know what they are saying and what other unions that represent women and have been negotiating pay equity plans are saying. I find it interesting that the Ontario Nurses' Association had in fact negotiated an agreement with the Ontario Hospital Association on the issue of pay equity, and did so prior to this legislation coming into effect. I think the reason they did that was because they were very concerned that if they waited until this legislation was in effect it would have a negative impact at the bargaining table.

I hope the members of the government caucus will think very, very seriously about what they are doing as they pass Bill 102. They are establishing a precedent which retracts from the principles of pay equity, which retracts from the rights which have been given, which penalizes women, who have historically been discriminated against in the workplace simply because of their gender.

I know the communications plan of the government has said to their backbenchers, "This is the message we want you to deliver." But I would say to the members of the government caucus that if you simply spew the rhetoric which your government has suggested you say, then your constituents, and especially the women in your constituency, will know that you have been less than truthful as you tell them about Bill 102.

I will not be supporting Bill 102. I believe it is a piece of legislation that should not move forward. I say that with some regret as someone who was instrumental in the development of pay equity legislation. I say that as someone whose government was criticized by the NDP in opposition, criticized because we were moving forward in a way which the present government, the NDP, said was inadequate. I would say to the members of the NDP government that I think our pay equity legislation, while not perfect, will stand as a hallmark and a beacon across this country as an example of what should be left in place to achieve the end of gender discrimination in the workplace.

When people look at the amendments of the New Democratic Party, the New Democratic government, the government of Bob Rae, when they look at what you have done to a progressive and positive piece of legislation, they will say: "We don't believe that a New Democratic government would have done this. We are ashamed that they have broken their commitment and their word to women and have diminished an excellent piece of legislation and set a precedent which will set back the issue of equal pay for work of equal value for the women of Ontario for decades."

I will not be supporting Bill 102, and I hope I will be joined by men and women not only in the opposition but by the government caucus as well.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to make some comments about the member for Oriole's remarks on this bill. The major observation I have with respect to this bill is the whole issue of pay equity, and it has designed pay equity towards women.

What an ironic time we're in at this particular point in time, when we're having social contracts and employment equity and we're having fears of deficits and people being laid off. It is very strange, because this whole policy is going to cost a tremendous amount of money. It's going to cost a tremendous amount of money to the private sector; it's going to cost a tremendous amount of money to the public sector.

1550

No one is against pay equity. Absolutely no one is against the principle of pay equity.

Mrs Caplan: Except the Tories.

Mr Tilson: Well, there may be a few members of the government side, but I think in general even they are in favour of the principle of pay equity.

The question is, of course, what is it going to do at this particular point in time, when the Treasurer and the Premier in absolute desperation are coming forward with unbelievably high taxes, unbelievable policy in cutting back with respect to the social contract?

At this particular time, it's almost an ironic -- in fact, it's a sad twist of position to go through with this particular bill at this particular time. On the one hand, you're saying, "We're broke, we're dying." That's aside from the inequity, the issue between the private sector and the public sector. In the public sector, of course, the Treasurer is saying, "We're going to delay pay equity for a period of time," whereas in the private sector, "We're going to implement these policies now."

What a strange irony, when the whole principle of equity is fairness. It's not equity at all. It's unfairness, and that's what this bill is. It's unfair. When you look at the overall policy, if this government has an overall policy, of the plan of fairness towards women in this province, I would say at this particular point in time, with the job losses and the freezes, it's going to be unfair.

Mr Perruzza: I want to respond very briefly to the member for Oriole on her speech this afternoon.

But before I respond to her, I rather expected the remark that was made by the Conservative member, that, "If you can't afford it and if you can't afford to proceed with it, then this isn't something you should be doing." That's fair. That's a fair assessment, a fair comment to make if you really believe that. But I fundamentally believe that if you're doing work of similar value then you should be compensated on an equal basis.

This is where I can't understand what the member for Oriole was talking about. She spoke at length about how flawed Bill 102 is, the fact that Bill 102 isn't going far enough in redressing many of the inequities that exist out there; at the same time, she doesn't talk about some of the solutions.

We hear this day in and day out, primarily from the Liberals. At least the Conservatives are very clear and very direct: "You cut, you slash, you burn, and if that causes great pain out there, then so be it." That's their approach to it. But from the Liberals we hear a different kind of story: "The debt is too high. Reduce the debt. Don't touch the government payroll and reduce the government payroll. Don't do that." They say, "Keep that at the same level." They talk about specific programs. They say, "Spend more money on these programs." And when it comes to taxes, they were the tax kings of Ontario, but they say, "No new taxes; don't increase taxes."

Mr Speaker, that's a very, very confusing message indeed, so I would ask you to ask them to come clean with us on what exactly they mean on many of these programs.

Ms Poole: First of all, I'd like to commend the member for Oriole on a very articulate and well-presented speech today, in which she documented very clearly some very major flaws in Bill 102.

I know if the member for Oriole had had time, in addition to letting us know what the Food and Commercial Workers union had said, what the Ontario Nurses' Association had said and, as well, the Pay Equity Commission, she also would have given some quotes from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, because it also was very critical of major takeaways that this piece of legislation, Bill 102, did to the women of this province.

I'll quote from CUPE. They said:

"The bill also delivers major takeaways which were never part of the pay equity legislative agenda.

"We urge your committee to support the deletion of those parts of the bill which take away existing pay equity rights and weaken what we currently have in place.

"Section 2 of Bill 102 adds a section to the Pay Equity Act which represents a serious takeaway of pay equity rights which have been established under the current law."

That is the law that was brought in by the Liberal government in 1987. It was adjudged by many jurisdictions that it was the most progressive pay equity legislation in the world.

To continue with some of the comments from CUPE, it said:

"It is unfair and unjust for the government to now decide that it should have the right to delete its direct pay equity responsibilities. This represents a takeaway of existing rights....

"Bill 102 makes two references to putting limits on the maintenance of pay equity. This also represents a major takeaway of existing rights.... Section 6 of Bill 102 would allow cabinet to water down maintenance of pay equity. Subsections 22(1) and (2) allow this to be retroactive. This is a major takeaway of rights."

How can we support this legislation when it's a major takeaway of women's rights?

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I would remind the members opposite that the pay equity bill came through the Liberal government, it's true, but was on the accord as one of the requirements when we put the Liberals in power in 1985. I would just remind them of that.

I would also remind them, on comments on Bill 168, which has been mentioned today, that it is true that in Bill 168 the expiry date for the plan was January 1, 1995, and then after a year of continued negotiations and discussions on the whole definition of "proxy" and how the proxy method was going to work and also, in conjunction with that, finding after a year that we were in financial distress, Bill 102 did extend it to 1998. There's no question that's true and certainly unfortunate. However, in these hard times, we still think pay equity, for the member from the Conservative Party, is so important that we are continuing it.

I would say to the member for Oriole that Pay Equity Advocacy and Legal Services and the Equal Pay Coalition, especially the latter group, which has the broadest base of representation and supports the legislation -- both groups have written to either the Minister of Labour or the Premier demanding that this go through and urging that it be proclaimed by July 1, given the contents of the legislation.

I would also say that the ONA, which was quoted extensively by the member opposite, is the only group throughout the entire week of presentations we had that, when asked by the Liberals whether or not they should pass this legislation, said no. So they are making a decision that the 400,000 women in this province who are affected by Bill 102 would not get it.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Oriole has two minutes to make a response.

Mrs Caplan: I think one of the things that bothers a lot of people who watch this House is that often members stand in their place and are not only quite selective in what they have to say, but the problem with what the member for Sudbury has had to say -- I was a member of the committee. I heard very clearly what was said. I've placed on the record what I believe is extremely important, because what we heard from deputation after deputation before that committee was that this legislation is regressive, that it takes away rights from women, that the government has said it's going to do something which in fact this legislation does not do. For her to stand in her place and talk about how this legislation is some panacea for the women of the province of Ontario is dead wrong, and the women of this province resent that.

I would say further, in the last minute I have, that we know the Tories have opposed pay equity from the time it was brought forward in this House. I've listened to their speeches. We know where Mike Harris and the Tories stand on this. They believe that women should continue to endure gender-based discrimination. They are opposed to pay equity in principle. They voted against this bill in principle. We know where they stand.

This is now a debate about whether or not this legislation is going to do (1) what the NDP government said they were going to do and (2) what they say this bill is designed to do. It neither does what they said they were going to do, nor does it improve the position of women in this province when it comes to pay equity.

This bill is not deserving of going forward, and I'm pleased and proud to stand in my place today to quote those people who are familiar with this bill and to alert the women of this province that they have been once again betrayed by Bob Rae and his NDP party and his NDP government on the issue of equal pay for work of equal value for the women of this province. Bill 102 does not help women; it hurts women.

1600

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Tilson: I'd like to make a contribution to this debate with respect to the Pay Equity Amendment Act, 1993.

Mr Speaker, as you know, this bill replaced Bill 168, which received first reading on December 18, 1991. This bill introduces all of the same amendments as the previous bill, with a few additions and changes.

As I have indicated in some of the responses to other speakers on this whole topic, notwithstanding the comments that were just made by the member for Oriole, I don't believe anyone is opposed to pay equity. I really don't believe that, in principle, anyone is opposed to that. The question is, how are we going to implement it? Do we have a plan? Do we have a set of priorities? Obviously, I'm concerned when this bill is brought forward to be implemented at this particular time.

We do have the debate of Bill 48, which is the subject of the social contract. We've got everyone in the civil service all upset, notwithstanding the fact that the women in the civil service are upset with the extension of the time when they're going to get equity until 1998. Now they're getting even more upset with the whole issue of what this government is doing with respect to the social contract.

We have the topic of the inequities that exist with respect to women in the social contract, and there are several of them which I'd like to speak of in comparison to what Bill 102 is trying to do.

Bill 102 is attempting to create a form of equity for women in this province in the pay scale that they're receiving, yet the government seems to ignore the fact that the whole issue of extending pay equity to the public service has been extended until 1998. Some 420,000 women are now going to have to wait three years for pay equity. What a strange system we have when we're talking about equity, when we're talking about equality. It's as if some women are more equal than others. Some women have more rights than others. That shouldn't be. Everyone should be treated the same.

Even this New Democratic government, when it was in opposition -- I must confess, I don't respect a lot of their philosophies but I respect their statements, which I must say since they've come to government have been contradicted in many ways; not in all aspects, but in many aspects. It has given the people of this province, the supporters of the New Democratic Party, grave concern. Bill 102 is a prime example. Women are concerned about the inequities that are being created by Bill 102, by Bill 48 and other such pieces of legislation.

Obviously, the extension of the law was to thousands of women in the broader public sector who weren't already covered because they work in facilities, and that includes people in hospitals, day care centres. These women won't get full pay equity until 1998 instead of 1995 as was originally promised. As has been stated by speaker after speaker in this debate, the women in this sector feel insulted.

Why are we treating those women differently from other people, particularly when we look at the people in the private sector? For the people in the private sector, the implementation with respect to pay equity, the private sector companies are required to begin by making pay equity adjustments according to the following schedule: The first pay equity adjustment, January 1, 1991, is for 500 plus; January 2, 1992, 100 to 499; January 1, 1993, 50 to 99, and January 1, 1994, 10 to 49.

It is a strange way, particularly when the parliamentary assistant stands in this place saying: "Well, the government's in dire straits. We can't afford it. We can't afford to give pay equity to the women in the public sector, so we're going to delay it until 1998." If it's good enough for the private sector to have it now, why isn't it good enough for the people in the public sector to have it now? So that's one example of inequity that's being created by a bill entitled "pay equity."

The second example is the pieces of legislation that are coming out, whether it be employment equity or whether it be the social contract. There are inequities in these pieces of legislation.

For example, it's been made quite clear in the medical profession that there are more and more women who are wishing to become doctors, and there is a certain amount of prejudice towards the new doctors who are entering into the profession because they're trying to put a cap on the number of doctors who are entering the medical profession. Quite clearly, the medical profession and the people of this province are concerned.

There was an article that came out in the Globe and Mail of June 23 that really set forth many of the concerns of the medical profession, which ties up to the whole issue of inequity towards women. It talked about a brief that had been presented that talked about how more and more patients are demanding female physicians and the increase in the numbers of women doctors. In other words, in the last number of years there are more and more women who are entering the medical profession, who wish to become medical practitioners.

In quoting from this Globe and Mail article of June 23, which in turn is quoting this brief: "'Whereas women represented fewer than 1 in 10 first-year medical students in the late 1950s, this proportion has risen steadily to exceed 4 in 10, which is 45.4%, as of 1991-92,' said the brief. 'If controls on physicians tend to target on younger doctors, the proportion of female physicians will not reach a level high enough to meet the relatively new phenomenon of female patient demand.'"

So I don't really think that when the government says, "Oh, what a great idea; we're going to have pay equity to improve the plight of women," and yet it comes forward with contradictory legislation; contradictory legislation in the social contract that says that part-time workers -- the general principle is they may or may not be exempted under the subject of the social contract.

Generally speaking, there are more and more women who are part-time workers, who are workers in a job-sharing capacity in business today and throughout the working world. Many, many women work only several days a week and the rest of the time they spend at home with their children, or they do it to supplement their income.

It's difficult to understand that these people are going to be penalized under the social contract, because as I understand the social contract, what that means is that the principle of -- they will work out what someone who is working part-time would receive if that job was full-time. In many of those situations, women who are working under $30,000 would be extended beyond the $30,000 range, which therefore would create major problems with those people.

So I would hope the government, before proceeding with this piece of legislation, would look at the inequities that are being created in the public and the private sector as well as the inequities that are being created towards women in the social contract legislation.

There are inequities with respect to children's aid societies. There are inequities between public and private enterprise in all of those areas. Women in the public sector will face a delay on the implementation of pay equity. So you go throughout our entire society and we're finding inequities with respect to women.

There is the other issue that, whether it be universities or municipalities or other groups, they were promised certain amounts of funding for this government to bring forward pay equity, and that has not happened. So the question is, where are these transfer partners going to get their funds? They're going to have to cut from something else.

An interesting article -- and I'm sure this is just one of many that came out of a recent copy of the Toronto Star, I believe it was. I don't have the date of this, but it was several days ago, and it talked how Metro pays out for equity. I'd just like to quote the few opening paragraphs.

It says: "About 6,000 of Metro's 14,000 employees received cheques worth $27 million yesterday in a retroactive pay equity settlement that dates back to 1990.

"The settlement comes under a six-year-old provincial law that required employers to have pay equity plans in place by January 1, 1990."

Then it goes on to talk about the situation in Metro.

1610

All of this is admirable. There's no question that the salaries of women have been below the salaries of men for eons, and that has to change. The question is, what's the impact? What impact is that going to have on particularly the social contract discussions? We all know that the provincial government only has so much money to pay, because it's saying to its ministries: "We're going to have to cut back. We're going to have to cut back on programs, we're going to have to cut back on hiring, we're going to have to cut back on this." The same goes for the municipalities. So there are only so many dollars to go through the system, no matter what level of government or what level of transfer agency that you have. Where is the money going to come from? What jobs are going to be lost? What other effects are going develop as a result of pay equity?

I know the argument that comes forward, particularly from many of the women's groups in particular. They say, "If you don't do it now, when are you going to do it?" That's a very good question. There's no question it's a very good question, but these same women are going to end up losing jobs, the very same people who are receiving benefits by this pay equity legislation. Many of them will lose their jobs because there won't be the money available to pay them, whether it be in private enterprise or whether it be in the public sector. I really question whether or not the government has thought through this process at this particular point in time.

I attended a couple of the days of hearings with my friend from Wellington when we heard presentations made by different groups, and one of the topics that was raised was an article that came from the Toronto Star. I'd like to quote extensively from this because there were many questions that were asked from this article from Donna Laframboise, I think her name is, from a Toronto Star article of December 7, 1992.

There are many questions which this journalist asked and which I posed at the hearings, and yet we didn't get sufficient answers from the government or any of the people who were supporting this legislation.

The comments from this journalist were: "This year alone," which of course would be 1992, the year the article was written, "more than 500 jobs have disappeared from Ontario's economy each week," and I suspect that since that time even more jobs have been lost. "Because tax revenues have fallen short of predictions, our provincial deficit has continued to grow. Our hospitals are in debt and our universities are cutting back."

This was before the social contract, this is before that last dreadful budget was put forward by this Treasurer, this was before the announcement that the deficit in this province could increase to $17 billion. This was before all of that. So if we thought things were bad then, guess what they are now.

Carrying on with this article, the journalist said: "Many private companies are stretched to the breaking point, entrepreneurs are beginning to wonder whether they should continue pouring time and energy into businesses that aren't making money, and most large organizations declared a hiring freeze a few years ago."

That probably accurately describes the mood of private enterprise in this province. We're in difficult times. No matter which town or city or village that you go to in this province, this economy is terribly weak, for whatever reason. It's not all the reason of this government. It's the reason of the policies of all governments of the worldwide recession, and that's the fact of this economic climate.

The journalist continues by saying, "In such an economic climate, some difficult questions must be asked," and these are some of the questions that I put to the delegations and to the members of the government side of the committee to answer, none of which really received proper answers.

"For example, is it wise to enforce a pay equity timetable that would end up hurting some of the most vulnerable working people in the province? What should our government's first priority be: increasing the salaries of people who are lucky enough to have jobs or creating new jobs for those who are unemployed?"

That is a good question. We have a very high, increasing unemployment rate in this province. We know that businesses have so much money, which is declining, to pay their employees, and yet this, at this particular time, is going to mean that certain employees -- yes, the women -- are going to receive more funds as a result. But what will it do? This journalist is quite right. There's no question that it will not help the unemployment of this province.

"To be sure, it's difficult not to have sympathy with the hundreds of thousands of women who will now have to wait up to three more years for pay equity. But it's worth noting that it's against the law for an employer to reduce anyone else's salary in order to achieve pay equity within a particular establishment." This is another question. "Therefore, with limited dollars available, there's a good chance that organizations compelled to institute pay equity at this time will have to lay off some employees."

Is that a possibility? I guess we just have to follow common sense. We all know the businesses in our ridings. We all know the difficult times that they're going through. We all know what their budgets are and that the amounts of money that they're going to have to spend as a result of pay equity are going to tip the scales. What's that going to do? Men and women will be laid off. That's what it's going to do.

Continuing on with this article: "This is a disturbing prospect for at least three reasons. First, many of these laid-off workers would be forced to apply for unemployment insurance, a social program...under severe strain." I cannot believe that anyone in this House will not acknowledge the fact that because of pay equity at this particular time, at this particular time of the recession, jobs will be lost.

Why do I think that? Because the government thinks that. They've extended pay equity for the public sector until 1998. The parliamentary assistant just said a few moments ago in this House that because of the fiscal problems of this province, that extension is needed. We must wait until 1998. Yet it's okay to proceed with the private sector of this province when businesses are going broke and people are losing jobs. Hence, the social insurance problem, the unemployment insurance problem, is going to become even more under a greater strain.

Continuing on with the article: "Second, since those with the least seniority tend to be laid off first, there's a good chance that visible minorities would be overrepresented among the casualties." Isn't that a strange statement, which I believe is true, particularly when we're on the eve of debating employment equity, that dreaded quota bill?

The very people whom this government is trying to protect are going to be affected in a dastardly way by this bill. They are going to be the first who are going to be laid off, the visible minorities. "In other words," the article says, "in the name of enforcing pay equity, we might be undermining much of the progress that has recently been achieved through affirmative action programs."

This concise statement of the concerns of this bill is accurately put forward, I believe, by this journalist, and I'd recommend that all members of the House, particularly members of the government, read it before you vote on it because it does set forth concise reasons as to why this may not be, at this particular point in time, the right time to bring forward this legislation.

She goes on: "Third, young people, some of whom have large student loans looming over their future, would also be extremely vulnerable to layoffs. Since there are already grave concerns about the high level of unemployment among our youth and the despair this is engendering within the generation, do we really want to contribute further to this problem?"

Then she says, "There aren't any easy answers, of course." I sympathize with the government. I believe they're genuinely trying to solve an inequity problem, an inequity problem that's existed for years from all governments and all aspects of our society, going back for a considerable period of time. I believe that. However, I don't think that when you look at all of the effects that this bill's going to have, you should be bringing forth this bill at the very time you're bringing forth a social contract which is going to say, "Let's cut back on our expenditures. Let's cut back on a whole slew of things." Not only are we starting to spend more money than we can afford, but we're going broke over it, not only government but in private enterprise.

1620

"There aren't any easy answers, of course," the journalist says. "And, to be fair, women performing low-wage jobs such as child care -- which appear to have been historically undervalued precisely because they're done by women -- are entitled to ask how long they're expected to subsidize the rest of society."

That is a very true statement. Again, it gets back to my introductory comments on the inequities of pay equity, particularly in the child care sector, that we're going to have a group of women that is going to be treated, hopefully, fairly and another group that is not, and the child care workers, which services are generally completed by women, are being treated unfairly.

That's only a portion of this article that I would recommend people of this House address themselves to before they vote on this legislation.

The member for Wellington, who is in the House today, sat with me on the committee and played an active role in the committee and in the various debates at different stages of this bill, and he raised a number of questions which I would like to ask again.

I know he's asked it probably at least twice, maybe more, at different stages of these proceedings, but the member for Wellington tabled a motion to get additional information on the cumulative costs associated with the implementation of pay equity. Interestingly enough, and the member for Oriole should listen to this, that motion was defeated. The Liberals voted against that motion, which is very strange.

The motion stated eight points that were given by the member for Wellington, really eight questions. We wanted answers, the member for Wellington and our party wanted answers, to the following questions, and the motion stated:

"Would the Minister of Labour provide the committee members with the following information:

"First, the annual pay equity adjustment costs for the Ontario public service for the years 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993." To date we have no answer to that information.

Secondly, we wanted to know the projected annual pay equity adjustment costs for the Ontario public service for the years 1994 to 1998. The government has no idea.

Thirdly, the member for Wellington wanted to know the company name and the total amount paid for any consulting services that the government acquired to assist the development of pay equity plans for the Ontario public service. Well, if the government knows, it hasn't told us yet, and I doubt if it will.

Fourthly, the member for Wellington asked the question as to the annual pay equity adjustment costs for the broader public sector with a breakdown for school boards, hospitals, municipalities, colleges and universities for the years 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993. This information is most reasonable, particularly with the whole subject of the social contract and the demands of this NDP government for restraint.

Fifthly, he asked the exact dollar amounts transferred from the government to school boards, hospitals, municipalities and colleges and universities to assist the broader public sector with pay equity adjustments. We know that the universities and the colleges have said over and over, "We're not getting the funds that were promised. We're not getting the funds that were promised by this government to implement pay equity. They promised these moneys but they haven't given them to us, so it has to come from somewhere else," which means the quality of education in this province is going to be affected by the principles of pay equity.

Sixthly, the member for Wellington wanted to know the projected annual pay equity adjustment costs for the broader public sectors with a breakdown for school boards, hospitals, municipalities and colleges for the years 1994 to 1998.

Seventhly, he wanted the estimated pay equity adjustment costs for private sector employers with 500 or more employees for 1991, 1992 and 1993 and, finally, the member wished to know the estimated pay equity adjustment costs for private sector employees with 100 to 499 employees for 1992 and 1993.

There has been no information given by the Ministry of Labour to date and since the hearings and since this motion was given, which was voted against by the Liberal Party and the government. I think they are reasonable questions to ask. Why are we proceeding with this legislation when we don't know the answers to that information? Why? What have you got to hide?

The total cost of Bill 102: This was included in a 1992 budget. There was a commitment to spend $285 million in 1992-93 to implement pay equity in the broader public sector. Since Bill 102 postpones the introduction of the two methods of job comparison, the government has revised its estimate to $240 million. Yet, if you read the 1993 budget, do you know what it says? It says that equity funding will grow to $448 million. That's an increase of $208 million.

Interesting figures, particularly when you also look at the anticipated job losses that are being effected by the expenditure control program in all sectors, whether it be municipalities, health care -- I'd just like to run through some of those things -- if you realize the job losses that are going to be effected by the savings that are anticipated in this government's plans for the future at the same time as it's roaring through with pay equity.

Municipalities: The savings plan of $190 million, the anticipated job impact is 1,500 to 2,000 people. Health care including hospitals: The anticipated savings plan is $560 million; the anticipated job loss in that sector is 1,800 to 2,400 people. That's the anticipated job impact. OHIP, which includes physicians: The 1993-94 savings plan is $485 million. The social services -- with schools, the savings plan is $290 million. The anticipated job impact is 700 to 900. Colleges and universities: $85 million, 800 to 1,000, and so on.

The job losses that are being anticipated by the savings plan are rather astounding, yet we're proceeding with pay equity, which is going to affect probably more women than men. Some women will get their pay equity, but there are going to be an awful lot of women who, for some unjustifiable reason, are going to lose their jobs. It's rather astounding again that we're talking about the whole issue of equity, the whole issue of equality in this province with respect to women and how we're treating them.

Just to talk again about the promises that were overturned by the government towards some of the partners, particularly municipalities and universities, the president of the Council of Ontario Universities, Dr Peter George, said, as an example of broken promises:

"We were promised reimbursement for the cost of implementing provincial pay equity legislation. The money the Treasurer is now pledging is mere tokenism. It will not even partially meet the substantial costs of implementing the plan and adjusting employees' standards."

I have grave concerns as to the support of this legislation. I will not be supporting this legislation. I support the principle of pay equity, but I don't think you've thought it out. I don't think you've thought of all the various serious implications it's going to have to the women of this province, to the visible minorities you talk about in other pieces of legislation, to the public servants and to private enterprise. Why would you invest in this province when you add up all these pieces of legislation and the terrible effect they're having?

I would strongly recommend that the government members in particular take a second look at this legislation as to whether they will support it. Pay equity will cost the New Democratic government $240 million this year. By 1998 Ontario will be spending $1 billion a year in narrowing the wage gap between men and women.

1630

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'd like to compliment the member for Dufferin-Peel on his fine presentation this afternoon on Bill 102, the pay equity bill. Even though the member has asked the members opposite in the government to reconsider their position, I expect this bill will in fact be passed into law.

I want to put a couple of points on the record, even though I'm not going to speak in a full speech with respect to this bill at third reading. I already did at second reading.

No one is opposed in this House to equal pay for equal work or equal pay for work of equal value. That's a given. Everyone supports that principle.

The member for Dufferin-Peel talked about a motion that I put forward during the course of those committee hearings. We were trying to get a full accounting of what pay equity was costing and we were unable to get that full accounting. I have severe reservations about voting on a piece of legislation that will expand government spending to the degree that I don't fully comprehend or understand because that information is denied to me.

Secondly, you look at the interesting irony of this situation. The government's talking about a social contract, the need to roll back the overall compensation of the Ontario public service and the broader public sector, roll that total amount back about 5%, and at the same time we're looking at a bill that will increase compensation for some employees in the Ontario public service and broader public sector. It appears to be a curious juxtaposition of events, because on the one hand you may be increasing the pay packets of some, certain employees of the government, only to lay them off within a few months because you can't afford to pay the increase that you've just given them. So that's a concern.

Also, there's the issue of fairness. We've seen with this bill the government giving itself an additional extension to fully implement pay equity -- that's one of the main principles of the bill -- yet it has not given the same consideration to private businesses, many of which are in serious financial difficulty and of course facing exactly the same economic difficulties the government is facing. So that's still a very serious concern.

Ms Poole: I would like to follow up the member for Dufferin-Peel's comments on pay equity and the cost of pay equity.

One of the distressing things about this legislation was that the government could not give us estimates of what it would cost.

In fact, when we were in the standing committee on the administration of justice back in January, Mr Tilson had very specifically asked the deputy minister, "What would this legislation cost?"

This question had been asked a number of times and we were starting to get a little frustrated because we couldn't get an answer.

Mr Tilson specifically said, "Can you provide this committee with the cost to the government of pay equity, to implement pay equity form 1987 to now?"

The response from Mr Thomas went all over the map, but it really didn't tell us the bottom line of what it cost and specifically what it was going to cost in the future.

Mr Tilson said: "I'm going to ask the question again. I know it was asked, but it seems logical. You're getting us into something and you must have some idea of what it's going to cost the taxpayer of this province to implement these pieces of legislation."

Then Mr Tilson said, "What's it going to cost next year?" The answer from Mr Thomas was three words, "I don't know."

Now, we were at committee discussing legislation with potentially enormous cost ramifications, yet the ministry could not tell us. They could not give an estimate of what it was going to cost. The minister didn't know. The deputy minister didn't know. Quite frankly, that was rather distressing.

Even for those of us, as in the Liberal caucus, who support pay equity in principle, the bottom line is we wanted to know: Had the government thought this out, what it was going to cost, what we could afford and how it could be brought in? That was missing from this legislation.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): It was a pleasure listening to what Mr Tilson had to say when he was saying that he sympathizes with the government for having to rectify the mistakes of what other governments have done. Of course we have to rectify the mistakes; 42 years of Conservative rule and there was never a good time for pay equity. Why? We had boom time, we had downtime, but there was never a good time for pay equity at that time, not just because it wasn't a social issue at the time; it was because the commitment was not there.

People are asking, "What is the cost?" I say, "What is the cost going to be if we don't start to implement the program?" If the cost right now is going to be something, imagine what it will be in a few more years, or even in another 10 years when the other parties finally get around to saying, "Yes, it's time for pay equity."

If we put more money into the hands of working people, it stands to reason that with more income, these people will have a lot more money to spend, and when people spend money, obviously the economy continues to grow. When people start to buy goods, to buy products, that has it's spinoff in other jobs so the economy can begin to grow.

As far as the rhetoric coming from the other side is concerned, it's obvious they don't believe in pay equity. To stand up and say, "Everyone in this House agrees with pay equity," is just a joke. If you really, honestly and truly do believe in pay equity, then put your mouth where your feelings are. Start voting with what you're really saying. Don't try to hide the facts with some political rhetoric that, "Yes, we believe in it, but this is not the right plan, this is not the right time."

We've waited for so long for the right time, I don't think we can spend another five or six years of inactivity from the other side.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? If there are none, the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel has two minutes to make a response.

Mr Tilson: Some of the responses I won't even bother to comment on.

I honestly believe this government is trying to solve a problem. They talked about it in the past before they got into government. They did express a concern. We've all expressed a concern, notwithstanding particularly what the member for Guelph has said.

The fact of the matter is that this government has no idea what this plan's going to cost. It has no idea as to the effect it's going to have on both the men and women of this province. It has no idea as to the effect this bill is going to have on the general economy of this province. In short, it has no plan, hence the social contract. The social contract, Bill 48, is coming along and saying, "We've got to cut back."

I think the real issue this government has not addressed -- nor have a lot of governments, including Conservative governments of 10 years ago, and I can't answer for them. I'm simply saying that I'm a member of this Progressive Conservative opposition and I believe we can do the job better than you can.

I would only quote, in the few moments I've left -- it's a quote from the Peterborough Examiner of this past January that talks about it: "Pay equity, if not an anachronism, is an expensive, time-consuming and cumbersome answer to a problem of diminishing proportions. It is also a problem that the rule of equal pay for equal work began easing long ago."

The real problem, as has been pointed out by the Peterborough Examiner, is the value of rooting out pure prejudice and I don't believe this bill is solving that, particularly the problems that have been caused: The comparisons between the private and the public sectors; the problems that are being caused specifically in the issue of the social contract and the inequities being caused in the social contract.

I hope that before this vote is taken, this government would address that issue.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? If there's no further debate, does the honourable parliamentary assistant wish to conclude?

Ms Murdock: In conclusion, I'm not going to be very long. I just want to say I thank everyone in the House for their participation. It is a long time for this to be going on, so I'm very happy to say it is now concluded and third reading is complete. I am pleased that 400,000 women will have the legal right to pay equity once this bill is passed.

The Acting Speaker: Ms Murdock, on behalf of Mr Mackenzie, has moved third reading of Bill 102. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

1640

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

VEHICLE TRANSFER PACKAGE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES DOSSIERS DE TRANSFERT DE VÉHICULES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of the following bills:

Bill 32, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail

Bill 34, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and the Personal Property Security Act in respect of Vehicle Transfer Packages / Loi modifiant le Code de la route et la Loi sur les sûretés mobilières à l'égard des dossiers de transfert de véhicules.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): At the end of the debate, the member for Markham had the floor. As he is not here in the House, we will move to further debate.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I think I owe it to the public that's watching to explain a little bit about what the two bills before us are. We are jumping from pay equity to a very, very different subject, a subject that was introduced in this House precisely a year ago.

We're talking about Bill 32, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act, and Bill 34, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and the Personal Property Security Act in respect of Vehicle Transfer Packages. We're talking about these two bills because they're really related. Bill 34, changes to the vehicle transfer packages act, also requires changes to the Retail Sales Tax Act.

With regard to the changes to the Retail Sales Tax Act, it's the tax on used cars. Some of the people will remember that, especially before Christmas, there was a fair amount of concern and negative reaction out there in the public about this effort by the government to collect taxes from people who are normally at the lower end of the income scale.

The argument by the government was that people are understating the value of a used car when they come to the licence office and therefore are paying less retail sales tax than they really should. The government felt it wanted to be fair and wanted to make sure that everybody pays what they owe the government.

On principle, I guess it's difficult to argue with that. We are all getting government services and we all should pay our fair share; it's difficult to argue with that. However, when it comes to used cars, it's always a very big question: What is the car still worth? In the open market, I guess you can get lucky and get a good price, and sometimes you get a lemon and you pay a high price. It's somewhat difficult to establish what really is a reasonable price for a used car, and I think that's where the government ran into difficulties at first.

I made several statements in the House. For example, on November 18, 1992, and again on December 9, I took issue with the government with this new, essentially, tax collection measure on the sale of used cars. I said this measure really is especially hard on some of the most vulnerable members of society, those who don't have enough money to buy a new car but who can just afford to buy a used car, and usually a car that's been around for a while.

In fact, I got several letters. One of them -- I have this letter right here somewhere -- was from Mr Jim McCann in Classic Corners in eastern Ontario. He said: "This is another NDP 'ripoff' of the taxpayers and consumers, especially the poor who can only afford an old car if they are lucky. It should be obvious to anyone that cars, especially old cars, are not equal in value!! Is it not time to scrap these procedures without further delay?"

That was Mr McCann writing to me, and I think he wrote to some of the other members of the House as well. He was by no means the only one who contacted me, and I'm sure all members of the House received phone calls and letters from irate people; people, as I indicated, who are not well off. The letters and calls that I received were mostly from people in rental areas in my riding who were very upset when they went and wanted to register their used car and found out they had to pay retail sales tax on what's called the Red Book. It wasn't the purchase price or the sale price for the used car that was going to be the basis for the retail sales tax, but this Red Book, which is used in the used car industry to establish prices. I guess they usually go for the higher end.

Of course, they don't take into account at all the history of that specific car. The Red Book establishes general criteria as to how much a particular make is still worth in a particular year after so many years, but it doesn't take into account the specific history of that individual car that's being sold. So that's where people were really upset, that they were buying cars that in their opinion, and of course in the opinion of the seller, weren't at all worth any more what the Red Book said. They objected to having to pay the retail sales tax according to the Red Book price and not the actual sale price.

I should say, though, perhaps to the credit of the government, that it listened to some of the criticism, and that is perhaps evidence for the usefulness of not immediately passing legislation. As I just mentioned, this was first introduced last June, and now it's June 1993 and we're still discussing it. But in the meantime, the government did in fact have second thoughts about it. Where they at first said, "If you're dissatisfied with the retail sales tax you paid, and if you really feel that the Red Book price overvalued your car, okay, fine; pay the tax first, then have your car appraised, and if the appraisal comes in lower than what the Red Book is, then you'll get a rebate from the Ministry of Revenue."

Imagine that, how complicated that's going to be and how long that takes, knowing full well the ministry bureaucracy; how complicated are the wheels of government, how long it sometimes takes to get them moving.

1650

The government did in fact say: "Okay, that is too complicated. We will accept that if you go out there and you have your car appraised you can come in with that appraised value to the licence office and we will calculate the retail sales tax on the basis of that appraised value. You don't have to apply for a rebate; you can pay the retail sales tax up front on the appraised value."

The second change the government did make or is going to make to the bill -- these are amendments -- is that any transaction that is worth less than $1,000, the government will in fact accept the actual sale price for taxation purposes. As I indicated, prior to this proposed change in the legislation, to this amendment, the person was forced to pay the tax on the Red Book value of the vehicle, regardless of the actual value of the automobile. So if it's sold for less than $1,000, then the government will accept the sale price as the actual price to calculate the retail sales tax.

I welcome those two changes, frankly. It shows that a bit of a waiting period before legislation is passed can bring some improvements.

However, I take issue with the principle itself. Was there really such a serious problem with the collection of retail sales tax, and who are the people we're really squeezing the money out of? As I indicated, the people who are buying the used cars are usually at the lower end of the income spectrum. Do we really have to make every imaginable effort to get the last tax dollar out of this group?

I'm not that familiar with the used car sales business, but nobody ever made that issue to me or brought that issue to me as a major revenue problem. Apparently, the Minister of Finance or the minister of revenue was thinking that a lot of money was being lost that way.

If this were the only revenue increase that we have seen by this government, I could say: "Okay, fine. Let it go ahead." However, as my leader said today in question period, this is by no means the only fee hike or taxation increase. As we all know -- and probably those who don't know will soon realize and find out -- as of July 1, there are going to be a tremendous number of fee hikes and income tax hikes, and this issue of collecting the retail sales tax more aggressively on used cars is just a part of that additional revenue hike and revenue grab that is being put forward by the government.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister without Portfolio in Municipal Affairs): You should know all about that. You had 35 increases when you were in government.

Mr Daigeler: The former minister, the member for Oshawa, is saying we should know about it. "The Liberals should know about tax increases and fee increases." The member for Oshawa should just wait a minute because I'm going to come to that. I'm going to face that argument square on, and I'm not at all afraid to face that argument head on.

But let's just hear, first of all, what fee increases and what revenue hikes the NDP government is putting forward as of July 1.

For example, the cost of registering a snowmobile will increase by 20%. This is just in the area of transportation. Then, the cost of taking a road test will increase by almost 80%. The cost of an off-road vehicle permit will double to $10 from $5. The cost of a permit validation sticker for a moped will quadruple. The cost of obtaining a collision report from the Ministry of Transportation will jump 20%, and the Ministry of Transportation alone will expect an increase of about $42 million in non-tax revenue from all of these higher fees. That's just in the Ministry of Transportation.

There's the Attorney General. The Attorney General, for example, is increasing the provincial victim fine surcharge, which will net the government $3 million. The Attorney General also expects to raise $500,000 from the enhanced collection of money gained through the commission of a crime.

Then, of course, the consumer and corporate affairs ministry has also a whole range of fee increases, permit increases. There are more fees for land and water permits, and on and on it goes.

Hon Mr Pilkey: How about the Liberal record?

Mr Daigeler: But as the member for Oshawa said, how about the Liberal record? I'm quite pleased to speak to that because, yes, it is true. When I was the member for Nepean from 1987 to 1990, when people came and said, "Well, what about these tax increases and fee increases?" I always said, and I was not hesitant to defend that, "If you want the service, you have to pay for it."

Frankly, at that time, times were good. I remember on a daily basis, I received letters and phone calls -- and I'm sure the members still do that -- and representations and delegations from people who said, "We need," not just "want," "this and that increased service, this and that increased facility."

In my own riding, in my own area of Ottawa-Carleton, there was a daily list of people who came and said: "We want government to provide this, and we want government to provide better educational services. We want government to provide better protection for women against violence. We want a drug treatment centre for our young adolescents. We want a 911 service in Ottawa-Carleton."

I always said: "Fine, let us work together on this, but let us not put the burden for the payment of these services to future generations. So if we do want these services, if that's what the people out there want, let us pay for it." Therefore, I agreed with Treasurer Bob Nixon that, yes, we had to increase taxes and revenues, and frankly, it was possible in those days.

It was very difficult to say, "No, you cannot have the service," because frankly, every year the revenues were increasing. It's very difficult to say, "Well, if the money's actually coming into the provincial treasury" -- how can you say to the people out there who are desperate, for example, on waiting lists for health care -- I remember the NDP, even the Tories, who are these days yelling, "Oh, the Liberals spent too much money." They used to come in here, bring all the -- not quite half dead but the people who were suffering from illnesses, heart defects and heart problems. They brought them right in here in this Legislature. They used to criticize the member for Oriole, the Minister of Health, and they used to come in and say, "Why are you not providing the services that will help these people to get the proper treatment for their heart problems?" on an almost daily basis. I remember, I think it was in 1988, every question was directed towards that.

1700

Then we brought in measures that helped these people, but of course there's a cost associated with it. When the times are good, I think a reasonable government will take a reasonable position. It will say: "Yes, we do have the revenue. If we really want the service, then let us bring in additional tax revenue through fee increases, if we do not hurt the economy." That's the decision we took, and I'm not ashamed at all to defend this.

However, things have changed since then. You have to be responsive to the economic situation the way it is now. The economic situation is very, very different and now is not the time to take out additional revenues from the people of this province, because that will hurt the economy even further. However -- that's where I have a big argument with the Tories -- that has to include a reduction in the expectations that we have from government.

The Tories say, "Well, the Liberals expanded government." We didn't expand government, we expanded the services, that I admit, and in order to have the services, you have to have government. It's not the fault of the civil servants that the people want the services. You can't run the services without the civil servants, without the bureaucracy. I think it's a fallacy to say, "Oh, well, there's all kinds of duplication, there's all kinds of fat civil servants." That's not true.

I think, in all fairness to the civil servants, they are providing the work, they're providing the service that we collectively as a people have asked them to do. We have asked for services. If somebody wants the services, somebody has to provide the services, and you have a bureaucrat. So really, if you want to reduce government, and now I think is the time to reduce government, we also have to be prepared to reduce services.

Frankly, I have no qualms in saying that. I wrote that last year in my paper in Nepean. That's a reality of life that I'm not sure we have fully understood yet. We can't just say, "Cut back government," because this is linguistics. Government is there to provide services. If you say, "Cut back government," you mean, "Cut back services." That, in my opinion, the current government has not fully realized yet either.

In fact they're bringing in some services, as we saw on Friday with the Minister of Health making the announcement she is going to eliminate the private sector in home care providers. I think that's a very foolish initiative that is actually going to make it more expensive to provide the service that the people out there want.

The member for Oshawa said, "What about the Liberal record in terms of raising fees?" Yes, we raised fees, we raised taxes, because the service was required and the people wanted the service and we were able to pay for it. The revenue was there in those days and we were still able to balance the budget.

Today the situation is very different, and that's what the government has to realize. You cannot just come in with an ideology and stay a course that was valid perhaps three or four years ago. You have to adjust your economic policies in the same way you are adjusting your social policies. That's the main point I'm trying to get across to this government. You have to recognize the relationship between your fiscal policy and the economic realities as they are out there.

To come back to the bill before us -- I haven't spoken about that yet -- Bill 34 establishes a new package for used cars. Frankly, for the life of me, I can't figure out why the government is trying to do this, because really this to me seems like a useless service.

If this were something that the people asked for, perhaps I could understand it, but nobody ever contacted me or phoned me or I certainly haven't heard any of my colleagues requesting the government to provide a used-car vehicle package. You have to register now and you get a nice little certificate, I guess, with each car and you have to write in who owned the car. Frankly, I am just not sure at all what the usefulness of this package is.

Secondly, I think the administration of this package is going to be extremely complicated. I mean, look at the OHIP cards. We're now in this House hearing almost every day how many OHIP cards are issued in the wrong way and the problems with these cards. I'm sure many of the members know about the birth registrations, if they're at all active in their constituency and they have a constituency office.

A lot of my staff's work has to do with looking after birth certificates, because it takes a long time to get the birth certificates. Sometimes people lose them and just send it back in and then the name is spelled wrong, and it goes on and on and it takes a long time. I can just see how complex and complicated and how cumbersome this used-vehicle package is going to be.

Why this government would want to put in place what's really red tape, that I don't understand at all. I understand perhaps that they want to increase some money and they want to have some extra money. Okay, I can understand that. They're so desperate that they need all the revenues from wherever they can get them. But why they'd want to put in this package that will in fact require more administration, probably will require more civil servants as well -- I don't know for sure, but probably.

I mean, who is going to do all of this? What happens if you lose the package? I'm sure there are going to be lots of people who say: "Where did I put this package now? Where is it?" They're going to be totally disturbed and frustrated when they can't find the package and then they have to buy a new one, and I understand every time you buy this package it costs $20 -- now. I mean, I'm sure the fee is going to rise down the road, because fees never drop, they always increase.

So, to me, I do not understand why this measure is being brought in, other than frankly as a thinly disguised effort to raise new revenues, and to raise new revenues at a time, as I said, which can ill afford these kinds of measures that do not provide truly needed service.

If you could put forward an argument as to why we really need this, "This is really something that the people of Ontario have insisted and they've asked for and we, as a responsive government, okay, we want to respond to it," fine. But I tell you, I haven't had one person make such a request, in fact the opposite. As soon as the government announced this, I got phone calls from people saying: "Why in the world are you coming up with this now? Why are you punishing us even more by trying to squeeze the last dollar out of us in terms of retail sales tax on used cars?"

As I indicated, I do support, if the people are asking for the service, then yes, we, as responsible politicians, have to take a very serious look at whether we can provide the service, but we must be honest about it. There's a cost associated with it, and we cannot hide that cost either. That was the position that I took when we were on the government side and I've always defended that.

However, when we no longer can afford the cost of the service, then we also have to say that, and we have to be up front about it and we have to tell the people that while we would like to provide the service, we can't afford it. That's the reality of life and I think that's the frankness and the honesty the public expects of us. With this particular measure that is in front of us, I cannot see why we even need this service and therefore even less am I prepared to support the cost that's associated with this measure.

1710

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for Nepean for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I would like to comment on some of the remarks of the member for Nepean, although I won't really comment on the wonderful job that the Liberal government did that led up to where we are now, and the wonderful start on this province going into debt.

I will say it is a strange situation that just after we have seen the largest budget that this province or probably this country has ever seen, now we're debating two bills and we're debating these two bills together, although the member for Nepean spent most of his time on Bill 34, two bills that arose out of last year's budget, two bills that were introduced on June 1, 1992. It is a very strange procedure, particularly when all of this has been going on and we haven't even voted on these bills.

I will say that I believe this government simply says, "Oh, well, this is a very minor administrative matter; there's really not too much that we need to do; we'll probably have to hire a few more civil servants to administer this bill," but when you start thinking about it, the real bureaucracy of this whole process is on the purchaser and the vendor in private sales, and the problems these people are going to have to go through to simply buy and sell used vehicles.

The question I have for the New Democratic Party, through the member for Nepean, is, who buys used cars? It certainly isn't the rich. It's the working people of this province, the people who can't afford the large, expensive cars that are coming out today. That is the major concern that I think we on this side of the House, and I would hope you on the government side of the House, would have with respect to this bill, that it's directed towards the poor, that it's directed towards the people of this province who can't afford the more expensive vehicles that are being made today. So keep in mind when you're voting on this piece of legislation that that's what you're proposing, a tax on the poor.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): The member for Nepean, I think, does want to support this bill but has shown a little reluctance. He asked for some justifications for the nature of the bill. Let me say that I think there are several reasons for this bill.

First of all, in terms of Bill 32, the question is an issue of fairness in our tax system. There are many people who are paying their full, fair share of sales tax on the sales of used cars; there are many other people who aren't. If we're going to ensure that the people have faith in our system and in our tax system, we need to ensure that people understand that everyone is playing by the same rules and the implementation of Bill 32 helps to ensure and put more faith back into the system to ensure that there's fairness.

With respect to Bill 34 and the vehicle information package, the member again does not see any justification for this package. Let me remind the member that in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, during 1991 and 1992, the consumer complaints -- the two main areas happened to deal with vehicle repairs and vehicle purchases of new and used cars. Part of what this vehicle information package will do is that it will protect consumers because they will be able to find out the full information about the history of the vehicle that they are buying.

I think that many working people out there who don't always otherwise have the resources to advocate for themselves or go through a Small Claims Court process, or any of the other processes to seek retribution if they happen to be taken advantage of, will welcome this as a way of ensuring that they can have strong consumer protection and know that what they're paying for in a used vehicle and what they're getting is actually the case. I think consumer protection and fairness in terms of how we have a sales tax system are two very strong reasons for supporting this piece of legislation, and I think over time the people in the province of Ontario will see them as good reasons as well.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'd like to take a few moments, first to congratulate the member for Nepean on an excellent speech, discussing two very important areas. I am going to be looking very shortly to participating fully in the debate.

I think we have to recognize that the tax which is included in this piece of legislation directs itself to people who purchase used cares. We know, especially during this recession, that this affects an awful lot of people. We know that it will affect an awful lot of young people, students who are purchasing used cars.

I heard the member just recently, from the government side, say it was important to legislate this change in tax to make sure that people paid their fair share. What that member is saying is that some people have not paid. When you ask the government, "What are the statistics? What are the facts upon which you base the assertion that people in this province, on the purchase of used cars, have not been paying their fair share?" it doesn't have an answer. I think it's very important that we recognize that what the government has done is not only bang another tax on people who are less able to afford it, but also to indicate that they have not been paying their fair share. I think that is to be very critical, and rightly so, of the government.

The last point I want to make is that the general public was not aware of this new tax. There was no statement. There was no mention of this tax. People found out about this tax when they went to a licensing bureau. That to me is consistent with this government only being able to act in a state of chaos.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Addressing this particular issue is of interest to me, because whatever government introduced it, and I understand that it's in place, this government is in fact broadening the brush or broadening the parameters of this tax.

I don't understand why a used car should be subject to tax, period. It seems to me that a car that is taxed as a new car should pay a provincial sales tax and the GST. Once that car's been sold once, the money's been recouped by the government. They've had their fair share. You've gotten your revenues from the sale of that car. Subsequently, that car could be sold three or four or five or six times in its life. Every time, the government jumps in and hits every purchaser additionally for that car, when originally the tax was paid.

The defenders are standing over there saying, "We've got to introduce this because it's fair for everybody, because people are ripping off the system." That's where they come at this argument completely from the wrong side. The tax was paid on the new vehicle properly and up front. I ask this government, I ask anyone who is selling a car, why then would they be subject to continual taxation on a car that could produce $10, $50, $1,000 in revenue for the government?

If you're trying to tell me that this is defending the rights of the citizens and defending the rights of people who buy cars, I don't buy that. This is just another process for you to prop up your revenues at the expense of the consumer. You're not creating any extra revenue out there and no extra work, no extra money for the private sector. All you're doing is generating more money for your coffers on something that's already been taxed to death when it rolled off the assembly line. Don't give me that defence. It's a revenue grab. Admit it.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Nepean has up to two minutes for his reply.

1720

Mr Daigeler: Let me first of all say welcome back to the member for Oxford, who is back from his honeymoon, I understand. I hope he will read the Hansard in which I congratulated him last week. The House was unanimous in extending our best wishes to you and your bride on your new state of life. So much for the compliments; now back to real life.

The member for Oxford said that with this vehicle package you will now know about the history of the vehicle. I'm not sure whether it's parliamentary to say that is misleading, and I certainly don't want to imply a deliberate misleading here, but if the public expects the full history of the vehicle, that is simply not correct. It will simply, as far as I know, give the registration of the previous owners. In terms of the history, whether that car was used as a taxi or whatever, there's no general history of that vehicle mentioned in that package at all. If anybody out there thinks this new package is going to tell them precisely what the technical history is of that car, he or she is sadly mistaken. It's simply who the previous owners were.

With regard to the member for Etobicoke West, I guess the member here is in a conflict of interest, because I understand that he stands in the best Frank Miller tradition where he's trying to sell cars to even members of the Legislature, so perhaps he has an interest in terms of the tax revenue that is being brought in every time a car is sold. Frankly, on principle I guess he's got an argument, but as I said before, as Liberals we are pragmatic --

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: I would caution the member for Nepean. This is a general application to a general tax bill. Any specific gain to me personally, calling for a conflict, is thoroughly and totally out of line and inappropriate for this Legislature.

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): Oh, brother. After all the things you've said about people, I can't believe you're getting up on this point.

Mr Stockwell: The ex-member for Perth is now questioning my motives again.

Mrs Haslam: I am not the ex-member. Point of order, Mr Speaker. Want to play point of privilege? I am not an ex-member.

The Speaker: I realize that the member for Perth is still alive and well and is in fact in the chamber. Perhaps the member for Etobicoke West could complete his point of privilege quickly.

Mr Stockwell: I withdraw. She's not the ex-member. She's the ex-minister from Perth. I apologize.

All I'm suggesting is that, by general application, this is a tax bill throughout the province. There's no pecuniary interest to me specifically on whether this carries or doesn't carry, and I suggest that the conflict statement is unfair and should be withdrawn.

The Speaker: I understand the member's point of privilege. He in fact does not have one, but the member for Nepean may wish to add something to the record.

Mr Daigeler: I certainly wasn't in any way, shape or form trying to imply that the member was having a pecuniary interest in this matter. I simply thought it was of great interest that we had previous Conservative members who were very much involved in the car industry, in particular Frank Miller. In that regard, I think the member is in an honourable tradition and I wish him well in his efforts.

The Speaker: Is there further debate?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The obvious conclusion that anybody reading this bill would come to is that this is a significant tax grab. It goes in the same category as such tax grabs as the registration fee which companies were forced to pay for reregistration of their companies.

Let's just look at that one for the moment. Last year the government sent out to all companies that had valid registrations of their companies within this province a form with very ill-defined threats as to what would happen if they were not filled in and returned with $50 per company. That $50 is a significant burden for people who may have two, three, four, five or six companies. I know the NDP will say, "Well, they're fat capitalists," but there are many reasons that companies have to order their affairs as separate companies. Sometimes there might be slightly different shareholdings, and some of those companies might be currently inactive. Obviously, the objective should be --

Interjection: Talk quietly.

Mr Turnbull: Yes, I do notice. I certainly should speak quietly because we don't want to wake up Mrs Mathyssen from her slumbers.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You know as well as I know, as well as he knows, that you can't refer to members in this place by their name. He should withdraw that and he should apologize and shouldn't be permitted to do it. You know that, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The member for Downsview has a point of order. We refer to members by the name of their constituency.

Mr Turnbull: Indeed, Mr Speaker. I would certainly, in the tradition of this House, like to say "wake up the member for Middlesex from her sleep." I'm pleased my friend across the floor pointed that out.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I happen to have the flu. I am doing my duty and I resent the underhanded way --

Mr Turnbull: In the tax grab they made with the registration of companies last year, I've had so many people contacting me and telling me about the significant burden that puts on their companies. Surely, we're in a situation where we should have a government that is encouraging entrepreneurial effort today, not trying to kill it. That was a tax grab last year which has already gone through.

Here we have another measure from last year's budget; not this year's budget but last year's budget. It demonstrates very well how incapable this government is of ordering its own affairs. On the budget we have just had, we've had two rounds of rotation of debate on it, so my party has had two people up speaking on this year's budget.

The fact is, there are only two fixed items which are considered to be confidence votes in this Legislature. One of them is the throne speech, the other is the budget speech. All other motions of non-confidence are at the option of the government, I regret to say.

So we have a situation where we have had not sufficient debate of the budget and we've certainly not had a vote on the budget. I would suggest, Mr Speaker, and I would ask you, as a matter for you to consider, whether my rights as a member have been violated due to the fact that I haven't had an opportunity to vote legitimately on an aspect which is considered a matter of non-confidence in the government

We're dealing with this item from last year's fiscal matters which is also a significant tax grab. We have at the present moment a system in this province of voluntary registration of automobiles, so the system being proposed is in fact in existence and there is nothing which stops the purchaser of a vehicle from obliging a vendor to provide documentation. But what the government is doing is saying: "No, a voluntary system is not sufficient. We insist on making it mandatory and gathering this fee."

I think we're getting into a very difficult situation when the government recognizes that the protection of people it claims to be putting forward in this bill is adequate yet it is forcing mandatory legislation. Why? Quite simply, because they have such a hole in their budget. Their deficit alone is significantly in excess of $10 billion this year. How do I arrive at that? We have $9 billion-plus which is admitted in the budget, and then if you read the little asterisks, you find they've hidden $805 million that they've taken off book into the capital corporations, which is still debt this government owes; in addition to that, the $600 million they're going to oblige school boards to borrow and that the government will then give them the money to repay, mainly because the government is running out of its ability to borrow money so they're moving this off to the school boards.

This tax grab is in the best traditions of the Liberal government that went before it, where anything that moves will be taxed until it moves no longer. Anyone who would suggest that the debates in this House are edifying on this matter for anybody who may watch would be absolutely misguided, because the fact is that we get members from all sides getting up and talking about the problems with the previous government. It goes in rotation and each government does this.

Surely we have to get to the point where we talk about balancing our budget, moving forward and not burdening the future generations. The way to do that is not by these penny ante grabs at tax, and this is a tax. It will be called a fee, but nevertheless we know this is in fact a tax, just like the tax which went along with the reregistration of companies that I spoke about before, and I may say that the re-registration of companies was absolutely unnecessary because all of the information the government was requiring was already in the files of the government. So why were they going out? They wanted the tax. They wanted money.

1730

I see my friend across the floor laughing his head off. Tell me this isn't true. We have such a sense of how humorous this is when we talk about tax grabs. "Oh, tell me it isn't so." We know the tax grabs that we've seen this year of $2 billion are going to further depress the economy, which will make people be more inclined to buy second-hand cars. The fact is --

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): What about the big tax grab the Tories brought in before when they got into office?

Mr Turnbull: I hear across the floor the member for Cochrane North saying, "What about the tax grab the Tories brought in?" It's interesting that last year the federal Tories reduced the tax burden and this same government not only offset that tax decrease in the tax base but they overshot it.

I see we've got them a little bit stirred up. But read the information. Find out if that is not true. It's amazing that we have members here who refuse the facts, refuse to acknowledge that the Tories federally reduced the income tax levels last year and this government increased them.

Let's turn to this particular package. We are supposed to be protecting the consumers in this. The existence of this package as a voluntary program shows that we have this protection, but perhaps we haven't got sufficient protection, because the interesting thing is that this package the government is bringing in is severely flawed.

Let us talk about the US experience. In the US they have a system of title, a title document which goes along with each vehicle. That title document is lodged with the owner of any debts which are owed, so that if somebody goes to the bank and borrows money to finance a vehicle, the title document will be lodged with the bank until such time as the debt is paid off. If somebody is leasing an automobile, the leasing company keeps on holding the title document.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Which state?

Mr Turnbull: I hear across the floor a question, "Which state?" Frankly, across the whole of the United States. It exists in the whole of the United States. No vehicle can be sold in the US unless that title document is made available to the buyer. What has happened here is this title document in the US is stamped with a large stamp to indicate that the vehicle has been totalled, if there has been a major accident. So anybody who is rebuilding a vehicle based upon the scrap cannot get away with selling it in the US to an unsuspecting buyer unless they admit that the vehicle has been severely damaged. But what has been created here is a market of rebuilt US wrecks that are brought into Canada and those wrecked vehicles are sold here because we don't have a title document which indicates that it has been wrecked.

So where is the consumer protection? Quite frankly, this government isn't particularly interested in consumer protection. What they are interested in is the tax grab.

I think if we were to seriously want to move forward with title protection, you would find that my party would probably be fairly supportive of this government, but instead it hasn't done this. There are, however, some people who are quite pleased with this legislation. The licence issuers who have been so badly affected by this government will at least get a little extra business out of it, so there is some light at the end of the tunnel.

Also, I have been told by new automobile dealers that they feel that this legislation will be quite good for them. The reason for that is because they believe that they will, in essence, corner the market on resale of vehicles because it will become so cumbersome for private vendors that they will be disinclined to go through all of this rigmarole and pay taxes, pay the fee, when these very same people have paid significant taxes buying the car new. Here we've got the situation that they've paid massive taxes on purchasing the car, a car which hopefully has been manufactured in Canada -- particularly hopefully it's been manufactured in Ontario -- but what we want to do is we want to --

Mr Huget: What kind of car do you drive?

Mr Turnbull: There's a question from across the floor: What car do I drive? I drive a car which is made in Nova Scotia, sir.

These cars have had heavy taxes paid on them, and --

Mr Perruzza: You don't like Ontario-made cars?

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Turnbull: -- having paid these taxes, the purchaser of that car is going to be gouged again for another fee.

What about the purchaser of this vehicle having to pay? Let's look at the people who are in fact buying these older cars. They are typically the working poor, the very people we've always heard this government saying they wanted to protect. Well, we dispelled that myth a long time ago, because this is a government that isn't interested in maintaining jobs in this province. They've brought in such bills as Bill 40, which has driven jobs out of the province, and they have brought in constant attacks on the private system.

All we have to look at is the example last Friday of the attack on the private health care providers. That's a very interesting story. Nobody has ever suggested that the non-profit health care providers were disallowed from competing in this province, but this government says: "Oh, well, that's nasty. The taxpayers are paying a profit to somebody. Isn't that awful? Isn't that just dreadful?"

Whoever said that those organizations that are non-profit, which presumably, according to the government's credo, can provide services for less money because they don't have to make a profit -- whoever saw them competing and taking jobs away from the private sector? Not too many people, because the fact is, the private sector works a lot better than the non-profit sector, by and large, with some significant examples of very good non-profit organizations. I'm very proud to support a lot of these good non-profit organizations.

But this government is making an attack directly on the for-profit sector because they hate anybody who is successful, anybody who can make money and create jobs in this province. That ultimately is going to be the saviour of this province and it's going to be the saviour of this country. If we want to enjoy a standard of living at the level that we had when the Tories were around, you are simply going to have to encourage the private sector.

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: Now, the amazing thing is, for the people who are watching this program and can't hear all of the catcalls, the groans and moans about the standard of living when the Tories were in power, but I would ask everybody to go back and think back to the standard of living that we had, and there's no doubt about it, you enjoyed a much better standard of living than anybody's enjoying under your administration. You are grinding this province into the ground.

The fact is that all of the other provinces of Canada are looking at Ontario with disbelief as to how you are driving the private sector out, and with it, you're practically having to switch off the lights in this province. We will never, ever be able to get rid of this debt that you have run up in many, many years. It's going to mean that several governments are going to struggle through all kinds of measures, but those measures will all be titled "Bill to Fix the Mess that the NDP Made in This Province." Have no doubts about that.

1740

The constituents of York Mills tell me constantly, "Why on earth don't you get rid of these people?" I have told them that there are only two confidence votes, and those are the throne speech and the budget speech. The government isn't even prepared to bring the budget speech for further debate and vote, because I would like to see how your pals in the unions will think about your voting for these tax grabs and the legislation you're bringing against your own workers.

Consumers are hurt by this government and they're further hurt by all of the legislation this government brings in. We have a government which is tax-hungry. The reason for that is because in their own mind they believe they have a revenue problem. We don't have a revenue problem. Last year we had the second-highest revenues in history. Let's just think about that: The second-highest revenues that this province has ever had in history were last year's take by the provincial government. But we have a massively growing deficit, and the reason for that is the spending by this government.

The knee-jerk reaction is to say, "But we've got all of these unemployed and we've had to increase welfare." The increase in welfare is not the reason this government has the problems. It's the spending on other programs such as non-profit housing, which the Provincial Auditor has criticized. This government absolutely stands up and defends and refuses to accept that it has any problems. That is the reason there is a spending problem. You cannot balance a budget when you have a government out of control, drunk with its expenditures. They refuse to come to the basic question of, why not control health card fraud?

Interjection: Oh, yes.

Mr Turnbull: There's a groan across the floor, "Oh, yes." How do you have health card fraud? You have people who are claiming to have two hysterectomies on their card. The amazing thing with this tax grab bill is that the working poor who are buying an old car are having to pay for the fact that this government -- and the previous government -- does not insist that when the seniors get their health card, they have to remit the old health card they have.

There's a physician who told me that it's possible, once a senior gets a health card, that the old health card can be trotted off down to Buffalo and sold for $3,000.

Interjection: How much?

Mr Turnbull: For $3,000 per card. That's where you're losing the revenue and that is where it's costing this province millions and millions and millions. If you were to control those problems --

Interjection.

Mr Turnbull: I see you don't like the truth. You don't like the fact that there's health card fraud that you are not prepared to address. If you would control that, you wouldn't have to gouge the working poor with this tax grab to transfer vehicles. Anybody who needs the protection of knowing whether there's any liens on the vehicle could simply insist that the vendor provide that documentation.

It would seem reasonable that the purchaser should bear the cost of that transfer simply because the person who bought the car originally, when it was new, has already spent the taxes. That's the bottom line. We've already paid taxes. We pay rather high taxes on cars in this country, and this government wants to encourage people flipping the car over time and again. Why? Because they get tax revenue every single time it is sold. It's not right.

With that, I will say that I will not be voting with the government on this legislation. I would suggest that the very best thing they could do would be to get their house in order. First of all, we should be debating this year's budget, not budget measures from last year, because they're so incompetent they cannot order their affairs. We should have a vote on the budget, which is a confidence vote. Then I would hope that we would move to a general election and then we would see what the people of this province think about all of these tax measures you're involved with.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for York Mills for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Mr Perruzza: I sat here and I listened closely to some of the things that the member for York Mills had to say. I can't help but think how he gives the big-C "Conservative" word a whole new meaning. I could go into a broad definition, but I guess there's only one word that comes to mind, and that's "absurd," because a lot of the things he had to say were just simply absurd.

He talked about tax grabs, and then when he referred to the Conservative federal government's taxing program, he applauded them, and he said last year they gave everybody a tax break. Well, the year before, they introduced the GST. How much does that net? I don't know, $28 billion or $30 billion, $34 billion, $35 billion? Nobody really quite knows because they've never really come clean on exactly how much money that tax generates.

But in the midst of all that, in the midst of introducing the GST, in the midst of generating additional revenues of, let's say, $30 billion across the board, they gave Canadians a tax break. Well, I'll also say to the member that they cut UI fees, they reallocated the baby bonus, along with a number of other things, and then he has the nerve to stand in his place and say Conservatives deal diligently and responsibly with these kinds of matters.

I say to him that he had better take a very close, long, hard look at what the Mulroney government and what Conservative governments have done in this country. They've raised the debt, they've raised the deficit and they've raised taxes to unprecedented levels. But the saddest thing of all is what they've done to unemployment and the way they've increased unemployment across this country.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Perruzza: You should be ashamed of that, sir.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I listened with great attention to the member's speech, and there were some areas he covered better than other areas. Certainly, if any one of us will recall carefully the telephone calls that were coming to our constituency offices, one of the things that people were calling about had to be this particular change in legislation, which is very bothersome to people.

It's extremely bureaucratic. It tends to penalize students, who have to buy lower-cost cars, and people who don't have high incomes. It has caused a good deal of problems for people who fix up old cars and try to get them back into good condition and put them back on the road and people who do it for a hobby. This has been an initiative, quite obviously a tax grab, designed to prevent what the government perceived to be people who are evading the appropriate tax, and it just means that more and more people may be without transportation in the province.

But there are some things the member didn't mention, and I heard a response come up about the federal government and so on. It's always interesting to see that the Premier is available at all times when there's an opportunity to talk about something that has nothing to do with the province of Ontario but is a chance to take a shot at somebody else.

I know the member probably made reference to this in his speech today, but there he is, large as life, condemning the senators for being into the trough, and everybody agrees with that, but what's that got to do with Bob Rae and Queen's Park? Then, of course, he's condemning the federal government for the makeup of the cabinet, when, if you look at what the Prime Minister has to work with over there, you'll know why we have a cabinet of the kind that we have federally.

So it's two chances for the Premier. There are the news media lined up to scrum. You don't see him running away from the scrum in this case. He's large as life when it has something to do with somebody else and not to do with his own record in this province.

1750

Mr Tilson: I'd like to congratulate the member for York Mills on the thoughts and contributions he has made with this particular bill. I can understand the rationale as to why this government introduced and is proceeding with this bill.

The first, of course, is that there were too many used-car buyers who did cheat on the tax collector. They filed misleading receipts and they were paying less tax than they should have. I believe that's been going on. The second, of course, is that there were some used-car dealers who were selling their motor vehicles privately. These of course were the curbsiders, which is why this legislation is called the curbsider legislation, and these people were conspiring with buyers to avoid the sales tax so that a motor vehicle could be sold more cheaply off the lot than on. So I understand why the legislation, the principles behind it.

But on the other hand, there doesn't seem to be any relief to the poor, to the middle-income bracket, the people who are buying these motor vehicles. There are many of you in this House who represent people in auto constituencies, and yet where is the relief to those people, who are having grave concerns?

The other issue is, are taxes ever going to go down, let alone be helped? Is a government such as yours continually going to be finding ways such as this to wedge the knife in a little harder to the poor and to the middle-income individuals?

I would say that with this particular legislation, as has been pointed out by the member for York Mills, they are not.

The member for York Mills commented on some procedures that are being followed in the American jurisdictions and I think that's a process that should be looked at by this government and hopefully will be before this legislation is passed.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'd like to partake in this two-minute exercise by indicating that there are some real problems to the legislation that the government has introduced, apart from the very obvious problem which they just do not seem to recognize, that being that it affects those who can least afford it. There's no question that when one deals with an increased taxation, as this bill does, on used cars, it will have no other impact than to hurt those who primarily purchase used cars, and that will be people such as students, people who may be out of work, people who can't afford new cars. This legislation and the way it has been worded does and has no other effect than hurt those people by increasing the tax that those people will pay on used cars.

Now, the other point that I make is that the government was just so faulty in how it conveyed this new tax to the general public. I say "faulty" in that they didn't inform the general public that they were changing the tax structure when people purchase used cars. I know that in my area, Mississauga North, and I have a file of many letters, people were not informed of the change in taxes until they went to their local licensing office. I think that apart from their criticism and concern about the increased taxation itself, there is another criticism, and that is that the government just doesn't know how to inform the general public as to what its policies will be, and that has hurt a great many people, not only in my riding but across this province.

The Speaker: The honourable member for York Mills has up to two minutes for his reply.

Mr Turnbull: Starting with the member for Downsview: He talks about the changes in the tax structure that the federal government brought in last year. I would invite him, any time that he wants to debate this in detail with me, to come to my office, and I will show him in detail the numbers as to where the federal government reduced the personal income tax last year for all Canadians and where this government immediately moved to mop up that decrease and in fact overshot. So the increase in taxes that this government brought in last year was greater than the reduction that the federal government made.

I would also point out to him that for the poor people who are trying to get a home for the first time, the cost of increasing the tax, of putting tax on sand and gravel, has been estimated by the Toronto Home Builders' Association as $500 per house as a minimum. That is what this government is doing to undermine the economy of this province and also the poor people who are trying to get a start, and particularly the people who are wanting to get their first house.

I was particularly struck by the validity of my friend the member for St Catharines speaking about that this Premier we have of this province who's unwilling to attend a conference to discuss the pressing matters of the G-7 but is willing to go out at any opportunity and dump on the federal government. Instead of working with it to solving the fiscal problems we have in this province, all they can think about is trying to move the blame to somebody else. When will this government finally come to terms with the blame that it deserves? They will never accept the fact that they can ever be guilty of anything. I would suggest to them very simply to look in the mirror, read their speeches and understand the legislation that their government is bringing down.

The Speaker: Is there further debate? I recognize the honourable member for Mississauga North.

Mr Offer: I'm pleased to join in the debate on these particular pieces of legislation.

I want to indicate at the outset that I've been involved in this legislation almost from the day it was introduced. My involvement was as a result of constituent concerns, reaction to the legislation, and this came to me through people in my riding.

I remember the day very well. In my riding of Mississauga North there are a number of licensing offices, but there is one in Streetsville, the Streetsville licensing office. An individual had gone to that licensing office after having purchased a vehicle and was told that in order to complete the transfer of ownership, he would have to pay X amount of dollars in tax.

I happened to have been at the office at that time, as coincidence would have it, and I remember the individual saying, how can he be expected to pay tax on a vehicle that was actually more than what he had paid for the vehicle itself? I asked him some questions about that, as well as the people in the office, and they had indicated that as a result of a new change in government policy, there had been a change in the taxation structure on the purchase of a new car. This individual was unaware of the change in taxation, I must say I was unaware of the change, and I brought this forward in terms of some newsletters to my constituents and they responded to me.

Having said that as a preamble to my discussion, the area they were primarily concerned with was in Bill 32, section 5, and that section provides, and I read from the explanatory notes of the bill: "that a tax on the transfer of a used motor vehicle is based on the higher of its purchase price or the average wholesale price as determined by the minister. The tax is payable to the vehicle licence issuer at the time that the ownership is transferred."

Mr Speaker, I see that you are looking at me and that time has expired in terms of it, and I would ask for adjournment of the debate at this time.

The Speaker: It's not necessary to move adjournment. The clock will stop and indeed we will have an opportunity to hear your remarks when next this legislation comes before the House.

Before adjourning, does the chief government whip have the business statement?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Fred Wilson (Chief Government Whip): Mr Speaker, yes: committee of the whole on Bill 48, the Social Contract Act.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It now being past six of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 1800.

June 28, 1993

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COMMUNITY SPORTS PROGRAMS

EDUCATION FINANCING

CHILD WITNESS PROGRAM

MULTICULTURALISM

CANADA DAY

BILL BERG

SOCIAL CONTRACT

ONTARIO ECONOMY

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

CHILD WITNESS PROGRAM

ORAL QUESTIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

TAX INCREASES

FIRST MINISTERS' MEETING

VICTIMS OF CRIME

LONG-TERM CARE

SOCIAL CONTRACT

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

RACE RELATIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

VICTIMS OF CRIME

GAMBLING

WASTE MANAGEMENT

WASTE MANAGEMENT

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILLS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

GAMBLING

SPECIAL EDUCATION

COURT REPORTERS

HEALTH CARE

GAMBLING

GO BUS SERVICE

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

BICYCLING SAFETY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HUMAN RIGHTS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PAY EQUITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉQUITÉ SALARIALE

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL VEHICLE TRANSFER PACKAGE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES DOSSIERS DE TRANSFERT DE VÉHICULES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

VEHICLE TRANSFER PACKAGE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES DOSSIERS DE TRANSFERT DE VÉHICULES